What Barratt think of Rackheath

In answer to the Inspector's question " what are the unique circumstances about Rackheath(compared with the other major growth locations) that would enable the development to viably support the full provision of affordable housing, code 6 standards, provision for rail or tramtrain infrastructure, 40% green infrastructure and proportionate contributions to BRT, schools and all other necessary social and physical infrastructure?" Barratt's full response may be viewed here but the following is just an excerpt and explains how they view Rackheath and what they could 'do' to it:

As noted at the Examination, surveys have demonstrated that the site has few environmental constraints (see also Rackheath Eco-Community Concept Statement). Following its use as an airfield in World War II, the site has been used for large-scale agriculture. There is no significant visual interest and the heritage potential of the site is low. There is no risk of flooding. Overall the site may be described as poor in terms of biodiversity, and provides the opportunity to establish a variety of enhanced habitats across and around the development, restoring the function of the landscape as a link between the Norwich-fringe parklands
to the south and the Broads landscape to the north. This can make a key contribution to the green infrastructure strategy for the area. Other major growth locations are known to be constrained by, for example woodland and features of heritage or ecological interest.

So that has dismissed Rackheath in one paragraph!


  1. It is an interesting and upbeat statement as you would expect from a developer. They have however, omitted those issues for which they have (a) no solution or (b) chosen to ignore.
    You can see that it relies on Government funding for its viability. It is not justifiable otherwise.
    The trouble is that once it is built, it cannot be unbuilt; it will be there for ever as a testimony to another failure in the planning process.

  2. I think the major flaw is that it starts from the premise that growth of these dimensions in one concentrated location is desirable. It suits the developers of course because of its convenience as a greenfield site and simple land ownership.
    They do not say so but for the first time it has been admitted that this development will NOT be 3400 houses or even 4150 but will be over 5000. It will be created as an urban environment utilising high density techniques in a rural setting.
    The provision of the infrastructure once so important has now been relegated to an inconsequential status now that it is so uncertain.
    Now they are arguing that there can still be development without it.

  3. Never mind what Barratt think about Rackheath it is more important what Rackheath thinks about Barratt.
    The full response tagged above shows that the eco development is not viable without a huge injection of Government money.
    DCLG may have had a change of political bosses but the civil servants have not changed and are still pushing the flawed eco town model.
    Why do you think that the GNDP is so cocky about no Plan B? They do not care about local opinion, it does not matter to them nor to a national house builder, as long as the new government is behind them.

  4. Rackheath Resident2 December 2010 at 12:15

    How dare Barratt make such comments about our village, but then all they are interested in is making their Millions and to hell with the local community. Have they never considered the other areas liable to flood because of the Rackheath surface water drainage.

  5. Can anyone tell me when Broadland Council are going to return the £10.3 million given to them under false pretences by the previous government, as this money is now needed urgently for the VITAL SERVICES.