In an article in the Evening News this weekend Steve Morphew, Leader of Norwich City Council described the proposed Norwich Northern Distributor Road as a 'development scheme' stating that "if money is found then we need to ensure that we can take advantage of that so work can start. We see it as development scheme to open up land to enable the creation of jobs, homes and prosperity".
Mr Morphew was defending the council's plans to spend £1.2 million preparing the way for the road despite the fact that funding is still not certain with 21 other projects also be considered by the government and massive cuts in services as well as council redundancies are in the pipeline for local people. (Apparently they have reduced the amount of money that had previously considered spending!) £1.2 million pounds........
As part of the infamous GNDP, the council and their colleagues at the other councils have discussed their plans in private deciding themselves that they will destroy the countryside surrounding Norwich and spoil the charm of Norwich itself to fulfill their own aspirations for growth in this region. Money, as they say, is the root of all evil and it certainly has the power to destroy when put in the hands of the wrong people who think here is nothing wrong with making decisions behind closed doors which will affect the lives of thousands of people.
It seems that most of the population are living is blissful ignorance of what these people have planned for Norfolk - most people think it has all gone away. Let us hope that they are right and the Inspector takes notice of the comments on the changes to the Joint Core Strategy that are currently open to consultation. The local elections in May might well change a few things too!
The newspaper article also referred to so called Community Infrastructure Levy as the way in which the Councils will fund it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a charge which will be payable to the Council for every private building constructed. Their submission to the Planning Inspectors proposed £10,000 and £15,000 as the possible alternatives.
Under the present (Section 106)system; which averages about £7,000 per dwelling, councils negotiate with developers to contribute towards facilities associated with their development.
This new charge is disbursed entirely at the Councils discretion, which is why it can be spent on the NDR or maybe even an incinerator.
I am furious that our local authority is being so irresponsible. This is our money that they are gambling with. Vital public services are being cut left right and centre but still they plough on regardless. It is a scandal and a disgrace.....
ReplyDeleteHow come the EDP gives a massive daily coverage to an Incinerator in West Norfolk and yet ignores the much larger damage to Norfolk by the GNDP NE Triangle plans. Something seems odd.
ReplyDeleteTalking about saving money, how can the tinpot Council at Broadland afford to send Susan Flack all over the world. What have these "Jollies" done for the Broadland residents. Equally why did they give everyone £1 for completing their latest questionnaire ?
ReplyDeleteInstead of cutting the jobs at the sharp end, why not cut the Councillors allowances and those of the top Executives.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to issues raised by Broadsman:One of our officers has traveled abroad on more than one ooccasion as you suggest. You also ask how the Council can afford it. The expenses for the foreign trips have been met through various means including sponsorship. The most recent in 2010 was wholly paid for by the host organisation. If you require a full breakdown of travel costs over the years please contact us and we will be pleased to supply it, as we have a number of times through FOI requests. With regard to your second point I should perhaps make clear that the Council did not give a £1 to everyone who completed a questionnaire, but for every returned questionnaire we donated £1 to parish funds. a total of £183 was committed in this way. We thought it appropriate that there should be a small incentive for residents to take part and by donating to parish funds in this way local people will benefit from the time people took to cpomplete the surveys, it was also way of saying thank you for the time and trouble taken.
ReplyDeleteWhichever way Angie Doy like to SPIN the issue, it still remains that most of this was funded by the Taxpayer. What benefit to we get at Broadland from Officers from a tiny District Council enjoying trips around the World.
ReplyDeleteEasy for Councillor Morphew to support the NDR as he does not live in the Broadland Villages to be destroyed. Typical of a all politicans, "pull up the ladder Jack I'm alright.
ReplyDeleteI note Angie Doy's reply. Despite the "Spin" most of this is taxpayers money. Can she explain in these difficult times why a Broadland Officer needs to travel around the World to help the residents. I would have thought we have much more important work for her here in Broadland. Still jollies are nice especially when you get them free.
ReplyDeleteI see from the EDP that Broadland Council states that 10.1% of the population in Broadland are for the Exemplar urban sprawl at Rackheath. I do not recall our village at Buxton being consulted. How can they make these statements ?
ReplyDeleteBroadslover will have read in the EDP on Feb 4th a report that claimed:"Just 183 forms were returned,however, representing just 10pc of the Broadland population." It was a reporting error, a reporter had attended the Place Shaping Committee. We asked the paper to print a correction, which the EDP did the next day Saturday 5th Feb page 33. The population of Broadland is circa 120,000 people. As the earlier report had correctly said 10.1% of people who returned a questionnaire were in favour of the scheme and the number of questionnaires returned equates approximately to 10% of the population of Rackheath.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Angie Doy's posting of 10th Feb,if I understand the figures correctly,the population of Broadland is circa 120,000. So,then 183 returns equates to 0.01525% of the Broadland population. Of this 0.01525% only TEN PERCENT were in favour of the scheme. Ten percent of 183 is roughly 18.!! Hardly a go ahead mandate is it? You will be aware already that there is long standing opposition,from some 3200 petition signatories and various councils and councillors to these plans and the minute numbers of supporters who filled in their forms would appear to be totally outnumbered by these opponents. The council might like to reflect on these figures.
ReplyDeleteThe correction was nicely tucked away on page 33 where noone would notice it and still does not make it clear just how miniscule the support for the Ticky Tacky fake eco town proposed for Rackheath is.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see Angie Doy admitted the Jollies around the world. Can she please explain why these trips are needed to administer this tiny District Council and what benefit we receive as taxpayers from this expense ?
ReplyDeleteAngi Doy said:
ReplyDelete"The expenses for the foreign trips have been met through various means including sponsorship. The most recent in 2010 was wholly paid for by the host organisation."
So NOT "taxpayers' money". Do any of you SNUBbites actually bother to read anything that doesn't confirm your ill-informed prejudices?