One from the archive: An aerial view showing houses and development in Dussindale, on the outskirts of Norwich.
‘It means all they will be building is another Dussindale’ - fears grow that tens of millions of pounds may fail to materialise for roads, schools and services in and around Norwich
Richard Wheeler
Friday, March 8, 2013
5:49 PM
Fears are growing that tens of millions of pounds for roads and schools in Greater Norwich might not materialise after a new levy on developers was recommended to be slashed.
Norwich, Broadland and South Norfolk councils hoped a new charge on all house building and some business and leisure facilities could raise between £221m to £270m over the next 15 to 20 years.
This would contribute towards infrastructure improvements needed to cope with extra people, traffic and demand on services expected in, around and near Norwich. The councils’ aim is to allow 37,000 new properties to be built by 2026.
It is estimated Greater Norwich will require £385m to contribute towards projects including the Long Stratton bypass, Norwich’s northern bypass (NDR), sports pitches and recycling services.
But the three councils are said to have posed a “significant threat” to the potential of housing development in the area by setting the charge, known as the community infrastructure levy (CIL), too high.
The Planning Inspectorate has now recommended the levy on new houses built in or near the city (zone A) is reduced by 35pc, while the CIL contributions for those in rural areas (zone B) drops by 50pc.
If the councils agree to these recommendations and lower the charges then they will have to use other funding sources and charges on developers to raise money.
Officials say they have not yet produced projections on how the planning inspectorate’s recommendations will affect the amount of money that could be available for infrastructure projects. Each council will discuss the issue.
John Fuller, South Norfolk Council leader, said they will have to “do some arithmetic” and weigh up whether to accept the recommendations compared to the charges they currently have for developers.
Mr Fuller said: “It’s a marginal decision and potentially an extra burden for the taxpayers of tens of millions of pounds, which is not good really.
“We are successfully negotiating section 106 agreements, which give an adequate return and yet still provide infrastructure that supports growth, houses, roads, hospitals, sports facilities etc.”
Stephen Heard, chairman of Stop Norwich Urbanisation (Snub), said: “The lower CIL makes it more viable for developers to make some profit to sell these houses but it means all they will be building is another Dussindale.
“We were always told that wouldn’t be the case and that there would be green centres and infrastructure.”
Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk work collectively with Norfolk County Council as the Greater Norwich Partnership (GNDP).
And Brenda Arthur, city council leader and GNDP chairman, said the lower CIL recommendations were disappointing, but it is up to individual councils to decide what to do.
She said: “Although the lower level of residential CIL may help kick-start housing growth in the greater Norwich area it does raise issues about how the supporting infrastructure will be delivered.”
Property consultants and developers have welcomed the reduced rates.
Keith Holland, of the Planning Inspectorate who examined the GNDP’s CIL proposals, reported: “The evidence shows that the rates proposed by the residential development are too high and would pose a significant threat to the viability of housing development in the area.”
Other News Articles
- Gardener is hoping for U-turn by Norwich City Council over threat to remove pots on health and safety grounds
- Photo gallery: Joy as new Norfolk IVF clinic is officially opened
- Photo gallery: King Kong kicks off outdoor art trail celebrations in Norwich
- Norfolk is... wonderful beaches which have a special place in our hearts
- Updated: Business as usual despite fire at Pinocchio’s restaurant in Norwich
- Norwich Lord Mayor helps give boost to domestic violence victims in Norfolk
- Norwich company’s first feature film gets premiere
- Mustard video and poll: Your favourite Blue Peter presenter
- Updated: Road reopens following two-vehicle crash in Sprowston
- Update with full story: Great Yarmouth was the birthplace of Crimestoppers
ADVERTISEMENT
17 comments
A Land Value Tax could help solve this puzzle in 2 ways,to stop developers sitting on ever-rising landbanks and then by contributing more once the development takes place.Section 106 has proved very valuable to communities in the past but if it is watered down or scrapped this could be an alternative.It is certainly worth considering.
Report this comment
Peter Watson
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Who will be buying this housing in Norfolk? The market seems at a standstill in comparison with the west of the region, and even there, in the Cambridge commuter hotspots, many new builds are standing unsold.Or they are being sold to buy to let owners. Or they are let direct to tenants by the builders.And that is putting off potential buyers who don't want to buy a new house in amongst those let to any rag tag or bobtail. I am not familiar with Dussindale, but if the new estates I have seen are anything to go by, with plots trimmed to the barest minimum, houses right on the roadside, three storey terraces crammed together blocking light, shared garaging leading to potential disputes,inadequate parking and poorly served by any services at all -then someone is either drawing up terrible planning guidelines or allowing developers to build expensive slums.
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Now let's see, who is likely to have to pick up the shortfall for the cost of the extra public services and infrastructure requirements. I know, it's you Norfolk taxpayers. LOL
Report this comment
Mr Cameron Isaliar
Friday, March 8, 2013
Why not have an early night for a change Norton...instead of being up into the early hours posting away under half a dozen different names on this forum ? Give yourself a break .
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Friday, March 8, 2013
just to clear a few points . With all housing developments must come with a percentage opf social housing . This is a condition building contracters have to obey . We are talking fairness here . There is 5.2 million on the social housing list now thanks to the last labour goverment . Many of the properties built will be unaffordable to local people and why should local people have big housing developments built in their back yard which young and old from norfolk cannot afford. Why dont all social housing councils show the data on who they are housing and where they come from . How fair is that . At the moment many are refusing to give this data
Report this comment
milecross
Friday, March 8, 2013
No money for roads, schools, and the rest will mean more profits for developers, so everyone's a winner? Do all you worried xenophobes know that migration has run amok and expulsions dwindled under the coalition government. So much for all the tough talk on immigration!
Report this comment
Police Commissioner ???
Friday, March 8, 2013
Not where it matters, Canuk. Masonic Lodge.
Report this comment
Mad Brewer
Friday, March 8, 2013
Why not use a sliding scale, if the planners believe the tariff is too high?? There are ways and means to get round any problem, but basically works like PAYE the more you earn the more you pay... the more you build the more you pay. One house is not going to make much difference, a 100 and you start to need the extra services, a 1000 and you need the services for a village, 10,000 you need service for a large townsmall city so the builder pays for the services needed for that project. Seems the fairest way to me, but of course that would not make political sense would it???
Report this comment
canuk
Friday, March 8, 2013
Just the thought of another Dussindale is enough to lose the will to live. I like Eastern Europeans. They tend not to be obese, they work and they speak decent English. Unlike many of our natives. God only ever promised us mortality.
Report this comment
Mad Brewer
Friday, March 8, 2013
So the GNDP has failed to make this CIL stick and now wants to prepare us for higher taxes to pay for their pipe dreams. The Planning Inspectorate seems to be of the mistaken assumption that if we allow house builders to profit not five times, but six times the value of the houses they built, that they will start building, just like that. Banks are not lending to mortgage companies and builders alike, so this story is just to soften us up preparing us for some more fleecing. Fact is that these houses are unsustainable and unless Osborne is getting to grips with the tax avoiders and banks in his budget, these councils can whistle Dixie.
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Friday, March 8, 2013
** ".... I don`t wish to be pedantic but current data shows that migrants occupy one tenth of social housing stock..." ** . So...90 per cent of those who live in social housing are UK born. Which is what i said. So I'm correct then.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Friday, March 8, 2013
@ LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE I don`t wish to be pedantic but current data shows that migrants occupy one tenth of social housing stock which is significantly different from your figure that 10% of the population, who are migrants, are living in social housing.
Report this comment
BG
Friday, March 8, 2013
Its no surprise really that we have a shortage of housing when you examine the data released this week that shows we have historic highs in the proportion of the population of people who live alone and in the number of families headed by a single parent. Throw into the mix the recent influx of immigrants and the significant increase in the numbers of large families, particularly in the Asian communities, demand for homes is always going to out strip supply. Family life has changed so radically in this country which we as a country have failed to react to. Its only going to get worse unless we as taxpayers are going to bit the bullet and support the government in investing in major house building projects the length and breath of the country. Anyone willing to pay even more in tax?
Report this comment
BG
Friday, March 8, 2013
I am fed up with nrg's attempts at blaming foreigners for everything. His or her constant negative stereotyping of people from Eastern Europe amounts to trolling at best, and could be construed as hate speech. Either way, it clearly breaches this website's terms and conditions for contributors.
Report this comment
gilded beams
Friday, March 8, 2013
...." exposed the fact that up to 50 per cent of social housing is going to people from outside the uk"... 90 per cent of those who live in social housing are UK born.And what is proposed is not social housing. And " milecross " is John Norton again , as is " nrg ". Time you did something about this abuse Archant.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Friday, March 8, 2013
we all know this is not housing for local people, Even frank field exposed the fact that up to 50 per cent of social housing is going to people from outside the uk. Norwich is just becoming an overspill for greaterlondon with no benefit for local people. We dont need this housing . Any new housing should come with a guaratee that it is affordable and all for local people who badly need more housing with rising waiting lists
Report this comment
milecross
Friday, March 8, 2013
"...most of these homes will be filled by very poor Balkan families looking for a life of luxury...". Racist scaremongering rubbish , time John Norton's idiot child was banned and he got off his backside and found a proper hobby instead.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Friday, March 8, 2013