Stephen Heard, left, and Stewart Lindsay of SNUB talking with Brian Mahoney, whose father Lt Col James Mahoney was second in command of the wartime USAF base in Rackheath, now at the centre of Norwich's 'growth triangle'. Photo: Bill Smith
Norwich housing debate focused on Rackheath ‘growth triangle’
By CHRIS HILL, Rural affairs correspondent
Friday, November 18, 2011
2:32 PM
An unprecedented period of growth lies ahead for Norwich, with 37,000 new homes planned in and around the city by 2026. In the second part of a week-long series, we look at the proposals for the north-eastern ‘growth triangle’.
Amid all the ambitious growth plans for Norwich, one particular area has become the focus for the largest house-building targets – and the most vocal public outcry.
Of the 37,000 new homes proposed by the Greater Norwich Development Partnership’s (GNDP) joint core strategy (JCS), 10,000 have been allocated within the “growth triangle” to the north-east of the city.
The area runs along the fringes of Old Catton, Sprowston and Thorpe St Andrew and extends outwards to envelop the village of Rackheath.
It incorporates the government-backed “Eco Community” proposals, promising a low-carbon settlement of 4,000 homes.
And in the triangle’s western corner, Beyond Green has consulted the public on a similarly eco-conscious scheme, with a planning application for 3,300 homes due to be submitted in the spring.
The growth triangle would push Norwich’s urban boundary outwards into green fields and farmland – to the outrage of many living in those areas.
Campaign group Stop Norwich Urbanisation (SNUB) has delivered a petition to parliament containing 3,500 signatures opposing the plans, and has also launched a legal bid to overturn the whole strategy.
SNUB chairman Stephen Heard said the concerns ranged from the loss of agricultural land to a lack of local jobs through the “flawed” consultation which his group is contesting in the courts.
Council officials pointed out that the JCS had been subjected to lengthy public scrutiny, and was deemed sound by a government inspector before its adoption.
Mr Heard said: “We have been called a pressure group, but that’s not what we are. We are a community campaign group. We are actually living the ideals of the Big Society and localism in representing what the residents want.
“We have been really disappointed with the sheer arrogance of local and national politicians not listening to what the people want.
“We are very clear about the fact that we recognise the need for houses. We are all parents and grandparents and we support a dispersed development to house the younger generations. We have always said this is not the place to build a concrete jungle with no soul and no infrastructure. It is much better to build in communities who can support these new houses, and may well need them.
“Part of this development here is to bring jobs into the area, but most of the job opportunities are nowhere near here. You’ve got millions of pounds of investment going into Lotus and the Norwich Research Park, but there is nothing about new job opportunities here.”
A GNDP spokesman said: “The strategy was drawn up over a period of four years, including a number of public and stakeholder consultations, culminating in a public examination where a planning inspector found it to be fit for purpose.”
The Beyond Green project promises a “walkable environment” including shopping precincts, a central square, commercial areas, green open spaces and allotments – all linked by eco-friendly public transport and cycleways.
Jonathan Smales, chairman of the Beyond Green group, said greenfield developments should not automatically be written off as destructive.
“The population of the UK is growing rapidly and we are very sympathetic to the notion that the priority must be to build on brownfield sites. But the idea that a boundary of a town or city should never change is a weird notion.
“We would be fossilising the boundaries of all places if we never had any greenfield development.
“In certain situations where you can mend an urban edge and put systems in place which are intrinsically sustainable, then it is not only defensible, it can be a very good thing.
“I am not for a second decrying the environmental campaigns but neither would I want to be in a camp that says we should never build on greenfield land under any circumstances. You cannot tar every project with the same brush.”
Mr Smales said the development would increase public access to open spaces including Beeston Park and Red Hall Farm, as well as providing more trees and natural habitat within the planned open spaces.
Promoters of the neighbouring Rackheath Eco-Community have reassured supporters that the pioneering green scheme is still in progress, despite the challenging economic climate.
Negotiations are continuing between Broadland Council and Barratts Strategic to promote the 926-acre site for 4,000 homes, on-site energy production and public transport systems.
Other development plans in the north-east of Norwich include the Rackheath Exemplar project – Broadland District Council’s partnership with Barratt Homes to build 200 energy-efficient homes – and a plan to build 1,233 houses, recreation areas and a primary school off Blue Boar Lane in Sprowston.
Other News Articles
- “It frightened the life out of me” Norwich pensioner tells of terrifying knife attack
- Tributes to campaigner and Norwich City Powerchair FC stalwart Ben Parkin
- Update: Power set to be restored to homes in Thorpe St Andrew by 8.30pm
- Police appeal for help to find missing Norwich woman
- Joint Core Strategy hearing could hold the key to Norwich’s growth ambitions
- Three arrests after brawl at Sikh temple in Norwich
- Dog owner’s gratitude after lost dog walks from Sprowston to Acle
- Picture update: Overstrand man jailed for one of largest hauls of indecent child images in Norfolk. Offences committed in North Walsham area
- Peregrine falcon chicks nesting at Norwich Cathedral begin to explore their new world
- Police launch probe after motorist tweets she knocked cyclist off bike in Norwich
ADVERTISEMENT
16 comments
Why so many proposed new homes? Who will be able to afford them, how will the capital be raised for developers to build them. Our poor infrastructure cannot supply hospital beds,doctors surgeries, schools(even though education is a joke). Want to experience third world roads? come to Old Catton, however our kerbs are up with the best in the land. Let me be clear about this (goodness how I detest that phrase) Until our once great country is rid of the political pygmies who seem to rule our lives and common sense prevails we are lost.
Report this comment
Moaning Lisa
Saturday, November 19, 2011
it would be easier to contact Lord Lucan than get a email reply from my parish council.
Report this comment
bookworm
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
I enjoy all of billythebookies comments and usually agree with him. i suppose his comment has been removed?
Report this comment
bookworm
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The urbanisation of agricultural land outside the boundary's of Norwich is a typical example of the dictatorship policies adopted by today's political leaders. Broadland District Council will be ignoring the wishes of parish councils around the north east of Norwich, thousands of their residents and council tax payers if these vast building programs go ahead.
Report this comment
Admetus
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Too many coming in, not enough native births, old people not kicking the bucket and just losing their marbles.............• Norfolk’s total population change over the 25 years to 2033 would be made up of approximately 221,700 gain from net in-migration and around 2,800 loss from natural change (more deaths than births) • Around 124,000 of the net migration gain would be from England and around 100,000 from outside the UK
Report this comment
nrg
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Those old enough to remember the "Dan Brown" affair in the north east many years ago will see many similarities in Broadland District Council's dealing with potential developers. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in some meetings. We can only hope the same fate will befall those who persist in over-riding the wishes of the electorate for their own time in the spotlight.
Report this comment
Jas44
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
"37,000 is the 'right; figure"...may well be the figure put forward by Mr.Proctor as he was indeed one of the original Broadland Planning Team ( Portfolio Holder) which actually proposed Our Broadland as a 'Growth Point'? and has put us all in this catastrophic proposal!....critically, 37,000 houses is not the CORRECT number of houses NEEDED to sustain this region's growth for the next 15-20 years.Mr.Proctor is looking at figures which he and his fellow planners ( being members of various planning quangos..EERA,EEDA,GNDP etc.) have proposed and subsequently passed,behind 'closed-doors,' without prior consultation or consent from with either members of the public or their fellow councilors.They then defend these numbers with 'Disney-land' Job figures they say will be generated with this growth?...Most Norfolk people say phewy to this facade!.This has led community based organiseations such as Stop norwich urbaniseation and NNTAG to commit personal monies to a legal challenge to refute these over-inflated housing figures and defend our Broad-lands, similar to what our forefathers did in 1939.
Report this comment
kingsize
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Anyone who works,or even worse,lives at the eastern end of Norwich will know that the Whitlingham sewage works is struggling to cope already if the stench omitted is anything to go by.So how on earth is it expected to cope with the effluent from all these thousands of extra homes planned for Norwich.It's not CO2 people need to worry about,more like methane.
Report this comment
Norfolk'sbest
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Billy the Bookie is a typical Leeds fan. I bet he's got a picture of Enoch Powell on his mantelpiece.
Report this comment
thanuttfarm
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Joe Rome, My requirements are already satisfied (thanks for your concern) but I am not selfish enough to believe that once I have what I need that I should stand in the way of other people having a roof over their head .
Report this comment
Abraham
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Billy The Bookie. Where is your proof? Also is it okay for British people to emigrate to spain and become immigrants there but for no one to emigrate to the UK? It seems not in my backyard but someone else`s is okay.
Report this comment
PDH
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I think development guidelines mean that at least 25% of these new homes should be affordable. Thats 1000 new properties at an affordable rent. Often developers build the affordable element on other sites so we could see building on brown field sites in the city. I believe we should grasp this opportunity with both hands and negotiate the best deal for Norwich and area.
Report this comment
oldowl
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Abraham. Just what would satisfy your requirements? New homes for Sale? Tell us your price!..... New homes to Rent? Tell us your price!..... Don't forget to take into account--Council Tax-Heating - Water Charges - Insurance - Food and Drink - Household Goods etc.etc. None of which come FREE.
Report this comment
Joe Rome
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
With at least £11,000 wiped off the value homes in the last 4 years and the certainty that house prices will continue to fall, coupled with an very uncertain long term economic outlook and the likelihood of a second dip just arriving, who in their right mind is going to buy these properties ? but more to the point what developers would be foolish enough to build them ? I suspect no one in any serious amount for a long, long time.
Report this comment
Joe Mullets Uncle
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Just because you cant see people sleeping on the streets doesnt mean there is no demand.
Report this comment
Abraham
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I constantly hear that these homes are desperately needed and apart from seeing some statistics, and lets be fair you can make stats sat what you want, I see absolutely no evidence of the requirements. Yes I agree a lot of social housing is required but the amount of them included in these plans is miniscule and likely to negotiated down even further. I mean if these houses are so badly needed then why are their so many properties on the market, some with vacant possession which people are finding almost impossible to sell ? That said the plans are badly floored in the extreme as without a full NDR they will bring absolute chaos to what is already an inadequate road system added to that just where are they going to get the water from, surely not the Wensum as it is fast declining now through too much water abstraction.
Report this comment
John L Norton
Tuesday, November 15, 2011