Community Right to Build

A recent Communities and Local Government press release says:

The 'Community Right to Build' will allow local people and communities across England to decide where to create new homes, shops business and facilities where they want them and where they are needed, not where local councils and central government think they should be and free from unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy.



  2. has anyone actually actually provided a detailed alternative to the GNDP proposals? Its easy to say no to building new homes in one location or another, but without providing an alternative, then perhaps there is only one answer

  3. There is an alternative. The alternative is a change of attitude on the part of our 'leaders' - currently, they are obsessed with 'growth' - this means economic growth, which would be created / stimulated by a massive development programme. Their premise is, essentailly, to promote the maximum amount of new development they think they can achieve. The NDR is and always has been a crucial element in this - the NDR isn't primarily intended to solve Norwich's traffic problem - that's the excuse. The NDR's purpose is to open up the land between it and the fringe of Norwich for massive development.

    The alternative is to simply come up with an honest assessment of genuine local housing need and plan for that in as sensitive a way as possible. The true number of houses needed for genuine local need would be vastly lower than the numbers they are planning for, and could be built without major upheaval.

    The problem is, that isn't what the GNDP want. And they don't care about what the people of the areas affected think.

  4. so there we have it. If the only alternative is to suggest we need fewer houses for local need then the GNDP has got it right. Look at the housing studies which show that the housing we need to meet our future needs is not far short of the numbers the GNDP is planning for. Do we really want to cheat our children out of ahome of their own in the future?

  5. Richard Williams4 August 2010 at 08:30

    Anonymous asked whether anyone has provided detailed alternatives to the GNDP proposals. Maybe not but neither have the GNDP. Their JCS never even considered alternatives.
    Firstly, you need to establish a sensible basis for growth. The GNDP plans are predicated on top down everybody take the pain of our failure, assumptions of the Labour Government. The alternative is not to suggest we need fewer houses for local people at all but over 50% of the growth being proposed is not for local people. Therefore the argument of the leader of Broadland DC that we are cheating our children out of homes of their own is a nonsense.

    Secondly, rural communities are dying due to the urbanisation policies of local government.
    We should build houses where people want them in Norfolk and sustain the rural communities without creating a new migration into some ' architect designed ' utopian urban sprawl. This has been a major cause of the national psychosis we see in large cities. We know it is a poor solution just looking at the 50's and 90's city estates. The Councils just cant see it, their eye is firmly set on financial gain.
    Dispersing the housing requires an ingenuity beyond the whit of our present breed of local politicians, it is more complicated and they are not up to it..... and yes it might cost more but that cost can be spread both geographically and through time.

  6. oh dear, hasn't any of the anti-growth lobby looked at the evidence and considered all that has been going on over the past 3 years. The arguments against continue to miss the facts. I remember the early GNDP consultation that suggested 11 alternatives and the public gave their response prefering locations in the south west and north east - have I got it wrong, or isn't that what the GNDP is proposing? I also see that the rural communities are going to get some housing as well, only the hamlets appear to be being spared.

  7. Richard Williams6 August 2010 at 11:47

    Who is the anti growth lobby referred to? Not SNUB, theirs is a different vision. You recognise a failed argument when the rhetoric becomes abusive and parodies the opposition.
    Do we want 36,740 extra houses (JCS) and maybe as many as 42,000 , if you accept the latest pronouncements about the growth triangle. Roughly translated that would be around 100,000 additional people in and around Norwich in 15 years. That is what the GNDP is proposing. Over half of it squeezed into a small triangle at as much as 40 houses per hectare.
    You would be right if you say that SNUB believe that sort of development is wholly excessive, undesirable and would irrevocably change the character of Norwich.
    You would be right to say they oppose it but organic growth, based on proven need in local communities with dispersal a key element is not only the SNUB aspiration but it is reflected in the approach of the new Government.
    Which is what this thread is all about.

  8. its clear to me that you haven't read the material - all these houses you keep referring to, almost half have already been built, so stop the scaremongering. There is no squeezing involved as I see it, even I can work out that 10,000 houses at the density you are talking about wont even take up half the triangle, and I'm no mathematician. With many sites around Norwich proposed for new development, that suggests dispersal to me, so what is all the fuss about.

  9. Richard Williams8 August 2010 at 17:54

    It is not scare mongering, it is the JCS and I don't see how you claim that half of them have already been built. The JCS only starts counting in 2008/9 so maybe you haven't understood the material. There are 10,000 - 15,000 houses in the Growth Triangle, so according to you 5,000 to 7,500 houses have already been built. That is plainly nonsense.
    If you had been to the recent Broadland District Council Meeting, you would also know that the density which they are using is up to 40/hectare though the proportion of truly eco-houses is tiny. It is clear and has been stated publicly by Kirby and Proctor that they do not favour a dispersal option.
    So see it any way you like, your version just doesn't stack up.

  10. Hey Richard
    You missed a bit...
    That is only until 2026 don't forget. There is a new scoping out to 2031 and that envisages another tranche of housing which is between 43,380 and 52,000 new dwellings between 2011 and 2031.
    Its clear to me that Anonymous hasn't read all the material.

  11. Richard Williams9 August 2010 at 08:41

    I do not accept that Anonymous is right but if half the houses have already been built (say 15,000) then these figures make it up to over 60,000 by 2031.
    Nearly double what they have admitted in their Joint Core Strategy.
    Worse still, Broadland have claimed that these numbers do not need to be reduced because their assessments are still in line with the previous EERA figures.
    Now THAT is frightening.