"Members of the affected communities (those living within the Norwich urban area close to its edge, residents of Thorpe End and Rackheath, and those living in villages that would become much closer to the urban edge such as Great Plumstead, Little Plumstead, Salhouse, Wroxham and Spixworth) clearly express considerable strength of feeling against this large urban extension. …..the very large scale of the proposed change to this area would clearly have enormous effects on its character and the lives of those living in and around it. It will therefore be vital to achieve successful public engagement in the detailed planning of this long-term development through the AAP and ensure that the effects of the growth area are contained to the maximum possible extent and prevented from leading to any further intrusion into more tranquil areas of countryside closer to the Broads."
At last acknowledgment for the people most affected by GNDP's proposals
For those of you who haven't yet seen the Inspectors' final report on the Joint Core Strategy it can be viewed here . There are still changes which the Inspectors want to be made and at 122 pages it is no mean read. We shall be giving our verdict on the whole report over the coming week, however, there were certain comments that we wish to highlight today:
At last there is some acknowledgment of the impact that the proposed development will have on the communities around this so called N E Norwich growth area. It is therefore not surprising that SNUB has such massive support from local people and we have no doubts that this support will grow once the effects of the Inspectors' report finally sink in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is a bit late for this kind of information to be acknowledged. It is certainly what people throughout the Growth Triangle have been saying for the past eighteen months.
ReplyDeleteThe issues are not just about Planning.
Assimilating nearly 100,000 new residents into the Norwich go to work area in 15 years will change our city for ever. It is nearly a 40% increase and represents a huge inward migration,
Looking at the tables annexed to the report there is a clear identification of the lack of consideration of this issue.
Our Councillors have chosen to ignore these wider social and implementation costs. They will just keep putting up the Council Tax.
Where does that ridiculous figure come from? It is just scaremongering.
ReplyDeleteIt comes from information provided by CPRE and is now reinforced by the report from the Planning Inspectors.
ReplyDeleteThe 37500 houses which were required was based on 40% affordable housing. I see from the recent posts here that this will increase by 8000 if the percentage is only 33%. That makes 45500 houses which is described as the minimum. It is described as a minimum because many sites will still not be viable at 33% and the influx of new residents will include families with higher than average numbers.
It is easy to see this population increase falling within the range of 90000 to 105000 people.
I expect the figure comes from multiplying 37000 houses by the likely average number of residents per house. 90-100000 people seems a reasonable estimate. It is certainly scary, but it isn't scaremongering.
ReplyDelete