Why Colitishall was dumped

In January 2010 the Planning advisory Service published a document called “Show me the evidence: how planners are developing and justifying climate change policies in core strategies”. Within the document you will find the following claim:

" The Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP) is the body through which Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council, South Norfolk Council, Norfolk County Council and the Broads Authority are working together to manage delivery on the Government's housing and job growth targets.
They recognise that growth needs to take place in a sustainable way that minimises the possible impact on climate change. 

This is why GNDP called on the government to rethink its plans for an eco-town on the former RAF base at Coltishall, a site whose poor transport connections would have led to increased car use and carbon emissions. Instead, GNDP proposed an alternative development at Rackheath in Broadland to the north east of Norwich. Not only could this development be built to zero carbon eco-town standards, it is better prepared to shoulder new infrastructure and the local landowners are ready for development.

Most importantly, the plans are already going through a comprehensive, rigorous and democratic planning process via the LDF so local people will be fully involved along the way. The Rackheath development is the only eco-town site under consideration to have been awarded an A grade for sustainability by government."

Hmm, just how democratic was the move by the unelected GNDP to ask the government to rethink its plans for Coltishall? We were told that the developer of the planned eco-town at Coltishall has withdrawn but now it appears that the GNDP were instrumental in Coltishall being dropped. The fact that Coltishall airbase was in North Norfolk might have had a bearing on things as the GNDP would have had no influence over its development and it appears that they lobbied the government to change the location to one which was within its own boundaries. We also note from a recent article that the EDP had an FoI request about the sale of RAF Coltishall refused by the Ministry of Justice. Once again it appears that things are not quite as transparent as we have been led to believe.


  1. Yet after all that the GNDP Quango are proposing to build a so called "Exemplar" urban housing estate on Grade Two agricultural land at Rackheath. How do the Developers get away with it ?

  2. Rackheath was also the only eco-town in the Governments plans for Norfolk until August 2008. That was until the GNDP or more precisely Broadland District Council proposed that it should be built in Rackheath on the false prospectus that it was a disused airfield and met all the requirements in the PPS. Which was not true then and is still not true now. That includes the zero carbon claim and the infrastructure provision.
    In truth the Labour Government wanted an eco town after Gordon Brown had put it forward as his big idea on becoming PM and this Tory council intend to deliver it for him.

  3. ....whatever the price.

  4. August 2008 - that means it was not part of the consultation process until after the consultations were over. The final Rule 25 version amd out in February 2009 and that curiously drew no responses from the affected Parish Councils.
    I wonder why that was? A town the size of Aylsham the largest in Broadland and nobody queries it.

  5. That must mean that it it was not part of all that publicity that Councils sent out whilst they were preparing the Joint Core Strategy. So how do they claim that people were consulted?