Challenging the Joint Core Strategy

On Wednesday (June 1st) Norwich City Council's Cabinet will meet to discuss the legal challenge to the adoption of Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk. The report to the Cabinet on this matter is available here.

In essence it outlines the details of the legal challenge and seeks to gain acceptance of the delegation of authority to the Director Development and Regeneration to authorise costs and instructions.

The paper also outlines some of the implications of the claim:

"There are some very significant implications to the Council both of the appeal being made and in the event of it being successful. In summary the significant implications of it being made are the impacts on development management, the impacts on forward planning work (including the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy) and the financial implications of fighting the claim. Implications of the claim being upheld are very significant indeed but cannot be realistically considered at this stage until further evidence in relation to the claim is submitted."

This has been picked up by a small article on page 9 of the Eastern Daily Press today with the headline: "Legal fight poses huge risks to new homes plan". The local media seem to pick and choose their preferred fights -  with the BBC recently highlighting Caroline Spelman's intervention in the King's Lynn incinerator debacle after local MPs spoke to her about the huge level of opposition. The EDP's coverage of this fight and the Great Yarmouth outer harbour intrigue being quite extensive but somehow the building of a town "the size of Thetford" on farmland to the North East of Norwich does not appear to exercise them in the same way.

More homes are indeed needed in and around Norwich but the option chosen is the wrong one. To look at it again in the light of a different economy and changing world with proper consultation might not be such a bad thing.


  1. Salhouse resident1 June 2011 at 21:32

    So, two weeks are over for snub to provide more info .... Wel .."

  2. Can SNUB tell us how much it will cost us to look at it all again? I have been told that it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to produce a local plan - if all three councils have to do it agian it might cost over £1 million. This is a bill that will be paid by taxpayers. As no doubt SNUB already put up an excellent case at the public examination, is it not very likely that all the additional expense will come up with the same answer? Or were the Inspectots so very wrong?

  3. Inspectors can be wrong. See the Newmarket case for one example.

    Do you think ordinary people should accept whatever their illustrious leaders tell them is good for them? I'm sure a lot of money has been spent by NCC and other publicly funded bodies on the Kings Lynn incinerator scheme - and it will cost yet more if a complete rethink is required. Should people agree to wrong decisions to save the councils money?

  4. Rackheatrh Resident15 July 2011 at 17:12

    Is Anonymous really saying that we should sit back and allow the Developers to destroy our part of Broadland just to make their fat profits. I see that Norwich has just found more Brownfield sites to take over 1000 houses. Better to build on these first rather than destroy vital food producing land. Anybody heard of Global Warming ?