Possible changes and comments please...

So it has come to this - we are being asked to comment on mere semantics and diagrams! It seemed during the Examination in Public that the Inspector was actually asking for consultation but it has turned out to be another 'box ticking' exercise - yes, the GNDP have 'advertised' changes on their website and it today's EDP and interested parties are invited to comment on the following (and more) if they so wish:

Change FC2 and FC3 by replacing paras 5.28, 5.28A, 5.28B, 5.28C and 5.29 as follows:
5.28 No change
5.28A It is difficult to estimate needs for affordable homes over the long term to 2026. However, based on the most recent assessment of housing need in the three Districts, there could be a requirement for there is a need in the plan area as a whole for about 11,860 dwellings over the period 2008 to 2026 affordable homes with approximately 60% of these being social rented and 40% intermediate tenures from 2008 to 2026. This is derived from the annual net requirement for new affordable homes extrapolated over the plan period and the backlog existing at the time of the housing needs assessment, with allowance made for the affordable housing provided up to the base date of this strategy. This represents just over 33% of the total housing requirement set out in the table above. However, because of the expectation in Government guidance that current backlogs will be addressed early, the policy aim is to ‘frontload’ provision as much as possible, since the short term need for affordable housing is estimated to amount to 43% of overall provision. Regular monitoring of evolving need and provision will indicate whether or not this position has changed and may lead to a review of the policy.

5.28B [text moved from previous 5.28B and amended] The assessment of housing need also indicates that the current split of affordable tenures to meet need in the short term, taking into account the current backlog, is approximately 85% social rented/15% intermediate tenures, with the greatest need for social rented accommodation related to the Norwich urban area. Any need to adjust this short term target to realign it with currently-estimated longer-term needs, will be considered as part of the monitoring and possible review process referred to above. The overall target, policy target and balance of tenures will be kept under review in the light of updated information on housing need.

The Inspectors are not considering a further hearing day so this is the last opportunity for local people to have their say. Most missed the opportunity when the first round of consultations took place and most will miss this one too. There is too much paperwork to plough through and much of it is written in a way that is unintelligible to the average member of the public. It will be left once more to a handful of dedicated people and a few developers (who would actually prefer to build on different tracts of farmland to those set out in the Joint Core Strategy) to make comments. Everyone knows that the majority of local people are opposed to the massive development proposed in the Joint Core Strategy but there is a bigger machine out there which will continue to ignore this fact in order to fulfill the aspirations of a few determined people.


  1. Sadly the changes proposed by the unelected Quango GNDP are just to help their developer friends. There is no end to their arrogance.

  2. I think you will find that this time the changes proposed are those of the Inspector not the GNDP.

  3. Anonymous number two is right - these are the Inspector's changes, not GNDP's. It is good that so many people are standing up against the GNDP's & BDC's development aspirations, but it is very important that everyone gets their facts right, rather than simply reacting automatically against anything that comes from the 'authorities'.

    I was told, with absolute certainty, about a month ago that the Rackheath eco-town idea had been scrapped. I queried this information directly with my source but he was adamant. Naturally I checked it out, and found it to be false. The person who told me this with such confidence was the chairman of a parish council near to those that would be directly affected by the 'eco-town'.

    I am not sure where he got his information (mis-information) from. This shows, however, that the rumour-mill can consume and regurgitate rubbish readily consumed and regurgitated by the public. I wonder how many other people were told the same 'news' by this person, believed it, and decided there was no need to be involved in the snub campaign any more?

    Whether the rumours and half baked ideas seem good or bad it makes no difference. Only facts count, and anything that strays from factuality will lead us all astray.

  4. Apologies if anyone misread this post and thought we were referring to changes suggested by the Greater Norwich Development Partnership. We were referring to the possible changes detailed in the Inspectors' note available on the GNDP's website.