September 16 2014 Latest news:
Friday, December 14, 2012
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.
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.”