The Greater Norwich Development Partnership intend to change the status of the NE Norwich Growth Triangle from a 'strategic location' to a 'strategic allocation'. Just what does this mean? In the Statement of Focussed Changes document they certainly don't go to much trouble to explain exactly why they want to do this and what the implications of this change might be:
"The reclassification of the Old Catton, Sprowston, Rackheath, Thorpe St Andrew
Growth Triangle as a “strategic allocation” rather than a “strategic location”. This
would mean that future work could be progressed through a Supplementary
Planning Document (SPD) instead of an Area Action Plan (AAP). This is supported
by a new concept statement to be included as an appendix to the Strategy. This will
provide a firmer basis to move forward with more detailed planning policies."
The reason they want to make this change is that it will enable them to make any change they want to the growth triangle plans over the next twenty years or so without further public consultation. That is what a Supplementary Planning Document would allow them to do and that is why they want it - they will have total control of a very large area of Norfolk for a long period of time. Simple.
You have the opportunity to comment on the GNDP proposals up until the 30th August - visit the page on their website entitled Statement of Focussed Changes to find out how to make your representation. It is cumbersome and cleverly designed to force you into giving only the answers they want. You will have to write separately if you wish to complain about the Supplementary Planning Document proposals and at the same time it might be worth questioning why this consultation is taking place in August. Most of the Parish Council will not be meeting and many people will be away on holiday thereby reducing the opportunities for response dramatically.
Please send your letters to:
Greater Norwich Development PartnershipPO Box 3466NorwichNR7 7NX
Thanks - I have gone to the GNDR site, and have begun commenting, I am using the option of commenting on each paragraph because I am anyway interested in reading all the Documents carefully.
ReplyDeleteI have skim-read all three, and my initial comment is as follows (and it may turn out to be appropriate to say the same about every para of every Document!):
"It will not be possible any longer to provide any housing that will be "affordable" at any price, due to A) the local, national and global economy being in crisis for the foreseeable future and B) the carbon dioxide and other pollution targets already set by the UK Government and the EU. Housing is no longer affordable whether you are the Builder, the Investor, the Buyer, or the Vendor of an overpriced house. It is especially no longer affordable to the environment - the cost to clean air, plentiful water, wild flora and fauna, is far too great."
Under proposal for corrections, I have put:
"Withdraw entire Document, with apologies, stating that it has been realised that in order to comply with EU and UK law on carbon emissions alone, let alone the Wildlife and Habitat Statutes and Conventions of the EC and the UK, no further LARGE SCALE construction or infrastructure activity can be undertaken for the foreseeable future - or until such time as population and resources in Great Britain return to a sustainable level."
I have ticked the option to explain myself in person, if required, at a hearing, you have to give a reason for wanting this and I have said:
"In a sense, the future of this country is on trial and 'in the dock' as Defendant against a powerful and persuasive Claimant - it is always best for any Defendants to appear in person."
Having seen your superb photos of the site of the Rackheath Proposal, I wish I had added, that looking at global wheat supplies and prices now and for the future, we had better keep all our wheatfields and all other farmland too!
I think there is a very good point here, that came to me as I read through the above notes.
ReplyDeleteThe number of houses being proposed for the GNDP area are not the number of houses required for occupation but merely the number of houses you need to build in order to create the Councils declared number of affordable houses. Not what you would call a sound basis for development.
The creation of a Strategic Planning Area in the Growth Triangle is one of the proposals in the Consultation Document. It seems like a change in semantics when you read it but it is not.
ReplyDeleteWhat the GNDP or more particularly Broadland District Council want to do is to take this area out of the normal planning routine and give a status where the 'Strategic Interest' becomes paramount.
Once this is given the whole area is in their hands. They can choose what to do, including, changing the plans, amending the present outline and even doing something which would otherwise be unacceptable. There is nothing that can be done about it as there will be only minimal local involvement and no meaningful consultation.
You will be giving them this power for the whole area and for the whole of period of the plan.
THAT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA given that Councils record on development.