Jonathan Smales, left, executive chairman of Beyond Green, and Neil Murphy, director of planning, at Beeston Hall Park which will be a country park in part of their planned 3,520 houses development in North Sprowston and Old Catton (NS&OC). Picture: Denise Bradley

How farmland is proposed to be transformed into a Norwich community - new documents reveal in-depth plans for 3,520 houses

Richard Wheeler Friday, November 2, 2012
7:28 AM

Documents disclosing how 207 hectares of farmland north of Norwich could be transformed into a new community have emerged.

Developer Beyond Green, which is representing five landowners, aims to build 3,520 houses near Sprowston and Old Catton in the next 15 to 20 years, which they claim will create 1,000 jobs.

Thousands of pages of plans on the North Sprowston and Old Catton project have been submitted to Broadland District Council and are now finally available for the public to view in full.

The new documents reveal: • Ponds designed for the new Beeston Park could pose a safety threat to planes using Norwich International Airport;

• It will cost £225,000 a year to get bus services up and running, with Beyond Green pumping money into the service to encourage people into the habit of using the bus.

• The development is expected to house around 7,500 people;

• Residents could be able to pick fruit and nuts from trees in woodland and in the streets;

• A centre for “food and rural activity” is planned, as part of Beyond Green’s aims to create a hub for sustainable food and farming;

• Ambitions to “dramatically” reduce household waste and a desire to increase composting.

The planned development, which will make up a third of the houses planned for land in the north east growth triangle, near Norwich, until 2026, has so far received a mixed response from people living nearby.

For more on the proposals, see today’s papers.

30 comments

Not another Murphy! - Hope this one isn't synonymous with bad ideas and money making ventures.

Report this comment

whimsie73

Thursday, November 8, 2012
Anybody spotted the fact that the Council cant work out even the most simple maths. They say 1000 jobs will be created. Now I take issue with that figure in any event because that is only the building work which is self limiting and comes to an end when the houses are built. But even if 1000 jobs are created, they say that 7500 people will be living in these house. So there are 6500 people with no jobs. Given that the County Council alone have made over 1500 people redundant, coupled with that 6500 equals at least 8000 people looking for jobs in Norwich. Since we are more likely to be taken over by Martians than to create even a fraction of those jobs what on earth are these dipsticks thinking of? And there is no point telling me that there are people waiting to move into houses. That's social housing which this isn't and I can tell you without the shadow of a doubt that the unemployed wont get mortgages for private housing. I have never heard of anything so stupid. No wonder all these Councils are up to their monobrows in debt. They couldn't organise their way out of a wet paper bag.

Report this comment

alecto

Thursday, November 8, 2012
Would someone explain the economic sense to the County of Norfolk, in removing the use of this farmland, and for NCC to spend £millions of taxpayers money buying the former Coltishall site a few miles north, and further £millions, many of which they have wittheld full public knowledge of, turning it into farmland? The only thing economical here, as always, is truth and transparency.

Report this comment

Honest John

Monday, November 5, 2012
Lets dig up a few golf courses, football and rugby pitches to ensure our local food supplies are maintained if this development goes through.

Report this comment

jennifer jane

Saturday, November 3, 2012
Interesting reading back through these 25 or so posts that no-one has objected to the number of houses, simply their location, and the fact that they are planned for farmland, productive farmland at that. I remain convinced that the brownfield sites of Norwich and nearby to Norwich would easily accept this number of houses. As they would also be dispersed around the city and nearby villages, then they would share the existing infrastructure as well. This is not well thought out. As I said before, any company with the word "green" in its name should be treated with the highest degree of suspicion.

Report this comment

windup

Saturday, November 3, 2012
Before we build on any more greenfield sites, we should complete the redevelopment of the Riverside Quarter (below King Street) and the Hall Road industrial estate (ex-Bally Shoe factory etc) - and encourage the redevelopment of numerous other brownfield sites around the city.

Report this comment

Huw Sayer

Friday, November 2, 2012
Erstwhile. You may well be a nice chap, or chapess, but if you think that a tram system, anywhere, and please not within a 100 mile radius of here, is a good idea, I suggest you sit down and have a nice wee rest. Whilst doing so you can Google Edinburgh Trams and see just how quickly the average Council Idiot can use up more money than you ever thought possible, then deliver HALF of the original for TWICE the original budget. So, please, forget trams, ideally buses too, but that's another matter.

Report this comment

windup

Friday, November 2, 2012
I agree, retaining the land in something more closely alinged to a natural state would be far more preferable. However, if the development does go through, why not use it as an opportunity to introduce a new tram system to Norwich instead of a bus. The city needs better public transportation and a tram system with its first line running northsouth from the newly developed area to the city center would be an excellent opportunity to plant the seed for building of a wider system in the future.

Report this comment

Erstwhile

Friday, November 2, 2012
I agree, retaining the land in something more closely alinged to a natural state would be far more preferable. However, if the development does go through, why not use it as an opportunity to introduce a new tram system to Norwich instead of a bus. The city needs better public transportation and a tram system with its first line running northsouth from the newly developed area to the city center would be an excellent opportunity to plant the seed for building of a wider system in the future.

Report this comment

Erstwhile

Friday, November 2, 2012
I agree, retaining the land in something more closely alinged to a natural state would be far more preferable. However, if the development does go through, why not use it as an opportunity to introduce a new tram system to Norwich instead of a bus. The city needs better public transportation and a tram system with its first line running northsouth from the newly developed area to the city center would be an excellent opportunity to plant the seed for building of a wider system in the future.

Report this comment

Erstwhile

Friday, November 2, 2012
I agree, retaining the land in something more closely alinged to a natural state would be far more preferable. However, if the development does go through, why not use it as an opportunity to introduce a new tram system to Norwich instead of a bus. The city needs better public transportation and a tram system with its first line running northsouth from the newly developed area to the city center would be an excellent opportunity to plant the seed for building of a wider system in the future.

Report this comment

Erstwhile

Friday, November 2, 2012
Beyond Green is representig 5 Landowners. These landowners are obviously fed up with farming, want out, and are prepared to sell to the highest bidder. No concern whatsoever for what they leave behind for future generations. There is another alternative. What about leaving the land that they are no longer interested in working to Mother Nature. That will please 99% of the present residents of Catton, Sprowston, and Spixworth and 100% of the Wild Life.

Report this comment

Joe Rome

Friday, November 2, 2012
we signed "Stop the redevelopment of 3500 properties in Sprowston by Beyondgreen"

Report this comment

Joe Mullets Uncle

Friday, November 2, 2012
Shouldn't have any problems getting through planning as the whole issue has been contrived by Broadland DC and the other associated councils within the Joint Core strategy. You only have to mention the word 'Green' or 'Eco' some fools are taken in straight away, INGO.

Report this comment

Joe Mullets Uncle

Friday, November 2, 2012
It could just be Chicago!

Report this comment

Stew Pydsodd

Friday, November 2, 2012
when the whole of norfolk is a housing estate and the whole of our food is imported from abroad leaving us vunerable to overseas powers i am sure beyond the green will be having a great time in monaco or else where leaving the people of norfolk in squalor...

Report this comment

norfolk bird

Friday, November 2, 2012
Why would a single brownfield site have to fit 3500 houses, do they all need to be together? N Walsham, for example has the ex food site by the railway station, another just off the bypass, the Freuhalf site and several others. None individually would have enough room for 3500 houses but a lot could be built on all 3. When these, and all of the many brownfield sites in Norwich have been built on then, if there is still a need for yet more, can plans such as this be considered. I have also asked, many times, where do the jobs come from, where is the infrastructure, and, especially, where does the water come from, we may be awash with it now, this wasn't the case in March?

Report this comment

windup

Friday, November 2, 2012
The proposed N.D.R which someone mentioned is as everybody knows a road that does not link up with the southern bypass,on its western side so its counter-productive and will produce massive traffic problems once it links up with the inadequate exisiting road network. i feel its being proposed as foundations to much bigger developments in the future .

Report this comment

wickobi

Friday, November 2, 2012
Name the brownfield site that would accommodate such a development of 3500 houses? As yet I have not seen the full plan, but I'm looking forward to our authorities adopting and agreeing a more sustainable development. Whether this is a genuine green development is to be seen.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Friday, November 2, 2012
The idiocy and contempt of a local authority to build another huge housing estate on green field land is both alarming and destructive, firstly there is no infrastructure to support such a large development for example lack of shops, amenities and inadequate road network. In addition to this LEGOLAND development its precariously close to the AIRPORT which the local authority want to expand, surley safety is a priority. I suggest the country side should be left alone and the developers look elsewhere. NORWICH is being ruined by unimaginative ugly estates without any thought to the environment. To describe them as someone pointed out ,there only fields is both ignorant and uneducated.

Report this comment

wickobi

Friday, November 2, 2012
Ingo...Wrong,,,, again If every brownfield site in Norfolk suitable for housing was already used up, then, even I, would agree with you. I am pro solar farms, extremely anti wind turbines. I am also ANTI solar farms on agricultural land. Agricultural land should be used for food production, neither solar farms nor housing. it is equally stupid to put either housing or solar farms on productive agricultural land.

Report this comment

windup

Friday, November 2, 2012
ingo: find a BROWNfield site and develop it along the lines proposed!

Report this comment

martin wallis

Friday, November 2, 2012
So, if 95% of 'residents'? ( where?) do not need any housing for their youngsters, then these houses, a third of them affordable, so they say, will not be needed and stay empty? These slurs on green housing are childish and uneducated.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Friday, November 2, 2012
Be Fair together! Whats the point of the NDR if building is not going to be allowed to fill the fields?

Report this comment

Stew Pydsodd

Friday, November 2, 2012
Albert: much as it pains me to say this, I agree with you wholeheartedly! This development must be strangled at birth. I was just saying: 95% is not good enough - see the incinerator proposal!

Report this comment

martin wallis

Friday, November 2, 2012
FARMLAND says it all, !

Report this comment

Albert Cooper

Friday, November 2, 2012
• A centre for “food and rural activity” is planned, as part of Beyond Green’s aims to create a hub for sustainable food and farming; I think they'll find its already there, its called farmland! Anything with the word "Green" or "Euro" as part of its name should be treated with the greatest of suspicion. "• Residents could be able to pick fruit and nuts from trees in woodland and in the streets;" The ratio of low cost housing means there won't be any trees in the streets, nut or otherwise!!

Report this comment

windup

Friday, November 2, 2012
Another con by developers to gain planning permission and make a fortune.No regard for the local community.

Report this comment

Sherbert

Friday, November 2, 2012
this will be the same old story . Local people will not gain from this new housing . Instead they will lose out on the social housing section and only others from outside norwich will be able to afford the high prices of the new housing

Report this comment

milecross

Friday, November 2, 2012
Mixed response? As someone who lives in the area it has been anything but mixed. I would say a good 95% of the residents are definitely against.

Report this comment

Joe Mullets Uncle

Friday, November 2, 2012

How farmland is proposed to be transformed into a Norwich community - new documents reveal in-depth plans for 3,520 houses

Other News Articles