Belmore Park proposals - residents say "no"

A packed a meeting held last night at Thorpe St Andrew to discuss proposals for the development of the woods off Woodside Road, Plumstead Road and Salhouse Road saw residents overwhelmingly against the plans.

There was also dissatisfaction with Broadland District Council for the way in which they had invited growth in this area.

Refreshingly the trust that owns the woods were honest about the fact that they want to make a profit whilst claiming to also want to safeguard the woods for the future. The point was also made that if the public are against the proposals then they will not go ahead.

However, there will be a final presentation evening in Norwich on Tuesday for the Charrette and if you are unable to attend you can email them with comments and feedback :

Meanwhile keep up to date with this and other proposals in this area by visiting our website :


  1. The Council must be very stupid or very pigheaded. They pretend that everyone except a minority of elderly zealots are in agreement with their plans.
    They ignore all contrary views; not only those attending meetings in the area but the steady stream of letters to the EDP and Evening News.
    In truth they do not care and they show no signs of paying any attention to their residents.
    At least we will get the chance to chuck them out next May.

  2. Thank you for inviting us to attend the meeting last night. We really hope that as many of the people who came are able to take part in, or just observe, the Charrette as it progresses over the next few days.

    We just wanted to comment on one of the statements within this blog posting. Clearly no development will go ahead unless local people, including those needing housing, support it. Several development options will be explored during the Charrette, and any option selected by the Trust will be subject to the planning process and only able to proceed if approved by the Planning Committee, which represents the best interests of the public. However, note that through the Charrette process, we have aimed to generate plans which will act in the interest of the public by sensitively locating new houses, whilst preserving a large portion of the woodlands, including much of the space currently enjoyed by local residents.

    We hope to see any and all interested residents this week at the Charrette. More information, and a blog providing information on the design proposals generated daily, can be found at .

  3. In response may I say:
    There is no evidence that the Planning Committee at Broadland District Council represents the best interests of the Community. They are driven by the principles laid down by the Planning Officers and a presumption of development set by government.
    You use the usual developers words like sensitively locate when you mean create an exclusive enclave in the woods. In the process destroying trees and introducing intrusive urbanisation including street lights, roads and cars.
    Why do you not take your american ideas back to where they came from.
    We will be there next Tuesday.

  4. Everyone is being told to reduce their carbon footprint to stop global warming.
    Third world countries that need development to drag them out of poverty are expected to retain their rainforests for the benefit of all the world even though developed countries have done most of the damage to the environment so far.
    Experts have told us that planting more trees will help to reduce global warming as they absorb CO2 and store it as carbon while at the same time give us back oxygen so we can breathe.
    But here we have these developers wanting to cut down trees and do the exact opposite just so they can make a profit.
    These selfish people who don't care what they destroy as long as they make lots of money simply don't deserve to live on this planet
    and if we allow them to continue they will destroy it and future generations will pay dearly.

  5. The public can have no trust in the planning authorities as recent history has shown.
    What small amounts of woodland that exist in this country, and particularly in East Anglia, are vital in order to retain decent air quality.
    The people living in Norwich benefit greatly from Mousehold Heath for air quality as well as for enjoyment and relaxation. If this was to be destroyed and built upon then Norwich would face the same pollution problems that plague Los Angeles and Mexico City because Norwich lies low in a dip.
    If any trees and woodland are destroyed nearby in Thorpe it would have a similar affect by reducing the air quality in Norwich and the surrounding areas.
    All these proposed houses are not needed and most of them will be for migrants.
    And what of the so-called 5,000 houses at Rackheath masquerading as an "Ecotown" and the other tens of thousands of houses that Broadland Council wants to build in the North East Development Triangle?
    This area will be awash with far too many houses which will cause property prices to fall in this area, maybe plunging some into negative equity. We will have all these additional people chasing after what jobs there are and end up with mass unemployent.
    Let there be no doubt that it's all about making lots of money by the landowners and developers and by the Council who would like to get their hands on more revenue from rates.
    All pure greed at the ultimate cost of the local residents.

  6. Broadland Resident10 July 2010 at 14:31

    What about all the new houses still empty as they cannot be sold ! Sadly this new development is as usual all about profit and not the needs of the Broadland community. Obviously no one cared about the carbon footprint of flying the consultant all the way from Boston.

  7. Despite being a tree warden for TSA, after much thought I decided not to contribute to the Charrette process, because I don't want to give it any validity whatsoever.

  8. IF it was affordable housing and IF it was a brownfield site and IF it was not in the north east triangle and IF it didn't destroy woodland and IF the affordable houses were built in sensible numbers in the villages and towns where they are needed,then SNUB and other similar bodies would not have to be a pain in BDC's backside.! IF only.!