CPRE managed to work out the numbers too


The adopted Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, South Norfolk and Norwich poses a major threat to the local countryside and its existing settlements.  This new planning framework proposes a rapid expansion of the urban area into the rural area, with the majority of all new development on greenfield land.  By 2026, Norwich will expand to the size of Nottingham with a planned inward migration of 50,000 extra people into the districts surrounding the city.  All those things that locals and visitors cherish about Norfolk will suffer a serious negative impact.  Tranquillity will reduce; light and noise pollution will increase; agricultural land will be lost; and the rural character of market towns and villages will be changed forever…unless we act now.

What does it mean for me?
Norwich area
32,000 new houses
·        Currently there are just over 61,000 houses in the Norwich City Council area, so adding a further 32,000 houses in the next 15 years would be a huge expansion
·        A large new town is planned to be built at Rackheath - between Norwich and the Broads National Park
·        10,000 new homes are planned in total in the NE area, equivalent to the current population of Thetford
·        Hethersett and Wymondham will have to accommodate 3,200 extra houses
·        Long Stratton will double its population to become a town the size of Diss
·        Traffic congestion will increase dramatically – 37,000 new homes means 42,180 extra cars and vans on local roads  (Dept. of Transport statistics - 1.14 cars/vans per household)
North East of Norwich
10,000 new houses
2,200 new houses
Long Stratton
1,800 new houses
1,000 new houses
What can you do?

ü  Use your vote wisely in the local elections on May 5th.  Ask your district and parish council candidates if  they would campaign for a reduction in housing numbers if elected.  Don’t let them argue that there is nothing they can do - the plans will be reviewed and the localism agenda should give them more power
ü   Write to your MP expressing your concern over the Joint Core Strategy for Greater Norwich
ü   Put up the poster overleaf to let your candidates know that their community cares about its future
ü   Join CPRE and help us continue to fight for the Norfolk countryside and its people


  1. A few questions:

    Who are the whingers that keep posting comments decrying Snub and its use of statistics? The number of these negative comments creates an impression that there are many of them, but as most are 'anonymous', and very similar in tone, I suspect many originate from the same few sources. Do any of them feel like identifying themselves?

    Who, in their right mind, could possibly want the level of development envisaged by the GNDP? I find it hard to believe that anyone living in or near Norwich and who intends to stay here for the rest of their lives, could possibly regard such massive overdevelopment. The only people with any 'reason' to support the growth plans are those with some kind of vested interest, eg: developers and others who think they stand a chance of profiting from it, landowners who stand to make instant fortunes when they sell their £7000 per acre fields for £200000 an acre for development, and councillors and council officers who support the plans for political reasons (and possibly stand to make personal gains in some cases).

    If any of you antis don't fit into any of the above categories, will you please enlighten us as to why you support the forced-growth agenda?

  2. At the risk of repeating ourselves...........!! Apart from this being a obvious advertising shot for CPRE, this is out of date - elections were 2 weks ago! We voted and nothing happened and nothing changed! We have written to the MP and where is he? Join CPRE? Well that will cost £31.00 and so far they have not been too successful in this campaign.

    It looks as if we are running out of ideas when we have to post this sort of outdated information.

  3. Andy Radcliff (Rackheath)20 May 2011 at 22:07

    This does seem to be a post that is very outdated. In a time when i had support for Snub.. Buts does Snub really think Delelopers will build houses for people that do not exist ?
    Just step back and have a look at the developments. The Developers are not going to build houses if there are no people to put in them, As Snub has said in their campaign .. i dont think theres going to be enough imigrants and Ex Convicts to fill these houses.

  4. I cant quite see how the developers are going to make huge profits unless there are people who want to buy the houses. If these people want to buy and there are not enough built then they will try to buy existing houses that are for sale. Basic laws of supply and demand mean that this will put up prices even further out of reach of local people.

    Trying to argue that a) this is all about profit; and b) there is no need for so many houses seems to be contradictory.

    I for one want to make sure that my kids and my friends and relations kids can buy a home to live in.

  5. Whinger here! I am not sure that CPRE have worked out the numbers. Certainly if you stop to think it is not exaclty as CPRE makes it appear.
    The numbers are not comparing like with like. They compare the number of existing houses in Norwich City Council area with the growth over a much wider area. Even what we think of as Norwich is much bigger than the City Council.
    The numbers of cars does not lead automatically to congestion as our Green friends will tell us, car ownership in Germany is higher than here but use is lower.

    But what really confuses me is that SNUB support the dispaersal of growth in SOuth Norfolk - this leaflet clearly doesnt.

  6. Greetings whingers! Thanks for these comments - I think I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from now. The point you seem to miss is that, along with the 37000 new houses, the JCS envisages the 'creation' of tens of thousands of 'new jobs'. Now, houses and jobs sound like good things, and this is how they've tried to sell their scheme to the public. But what it really means is turning vast areas into retail/business/industrial parks/estates, and simultaneously turning other vast areas into housing estates in order to house the people who'll work in them.

    If you believe that relentless economic growth is what makes the world go round, as opposed to bringing it to a grinding halt, you'll still think this is all just great. But if you value the things that make Norwich and Norfolk pleasant places, and regard woods, wildlife, green spaces and open countryside as of intrinsic value rather than wasted space that can be put to more profitable use, you might think again.

    The whole JCS is about artificially contrived growth - both creating the demand and supplying it, NOT meeting genuine local needs. Nobody stands to gain anything except those with vested interests. The rest of us stand to lose a great deal.

  7. Bob Kett is obviously not keen on his leader's recent invitation to 'Join the Debate'. He asks 'Who are the whingers that keep posting comments decrying Snub and its use of statistics?' I suppose that engaging in a debate which is not along the party lines of SNUB makes a blogger a 'whinger'. More likely it is because the 'whingers' are not toeing the party line.

    Debating the numbers, does not make someone support the 'forced growth agenda' but it makes them a realist. Statistics are a dangerous weapon. It would be so nice for SNUB if they were not challenged on the information they have been giving out but life is not like that and as they say 'if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen'

    Supporters have a right to hear all the sides to this debate, there is a lot at stake and a lot that has not been revealed. So, sorry Mr Kett, trying to kid everyone that those who join a debate are all idiots is not helpful. There are many more out there that think about these things other than yourself.

    Of course we do not want all that development out there but as yet I for one am not convinced that reducing the numbers will happen and even then, I think they might not go down to the numbers that we would want. At that point you have to come clean and tell people what will happen if they are NOT built in the NE triangle and who else is going to find them on their doorstep. I suspect that the Localism Bill will then be used by everyone to protect their villages. Have SNUB contacted the Parish Councils of all of the Broadland villages that might be affected and if so, will they publish the results?

  8. If you look on Wikepedia you will find a population figure for the Nottingham urban area of 666,000. Nottingham City council is about 250,000 or twice as big as Norwich City. I dont think Norwich is going to be that big! Exageration and half truths dont help the argument.

  9. Andy Radcliff (Rackheath)21 May 2011 at 19:00

    Hi Bob, im sorry to be a whinger on here and dont support the party line.
    With two groups taking legal action against the JCS, it looks like things are moving again.

  10. To Andy Radcliff --I knew that SNUB are taking legal action against the JCS,but who else is doing so.?

  11. Andy Radcliff ( Rackheath)22 May 2011 at 21:40

    Surely CPRE are also taking action ? if not .. WHY NOT !!! ???

  12. edith_crowther@yahoo.co.uk23 May 2011 at 12:09

    Luckily it is obvious from the number of "Like" hits for each article, that SNUB has a lot of support. This article has 115 Likes, for example - that is a lot, given that most people probably don't even notice the button. I didn't until recently.

    People who clash with individuals or companies wanting to make a fast buck can attract some vicious attempts to slap them down. I have been watching Wind Farm Wars on BBC2 with total fascination. The locals are mostly anti the proposed Wind Farm, but one farmer hopes to sell some of his land to the wind farm company and has become a wee bit scary, to be honest. As for the people working for the huge international Renewable Energy Systems, they are a mild version of Arnie in Terminator. They are literally hell bent on their project - although if you look at the company website, it has vast projects all over the world and could well afford to write off the one in Devon.

    It is funny how the great UN laws on the environment from the 1990s, now trickling down into planning matters, echo the "country bumpkins" on the council in Devon - but good laws always back ancient wisdom because custom is the basis of good law. I know wind farms are supposed to be "green" but they aren't at all. The only truly "green" option is to produce less and consume less. Not start a whole new range to be mass produced and mass marketed.

    By the way - on the topic of housing numbers, each house contains 2-3 people on average, that is why if Norwich goes from 61,000 houses to 93,000 houses, it could become a city of 250,000 people or more.

  13. Andy Radcliff (Rackheath)23 May 2011 at 18:01

    Your Statement " Luckily it is obvious from the number of "Like" hits for each article, that SNUB has a lot of support."

    is this a joke ?
    Please press Re-Fresh and hey !!! Vote Again.
    VOID !

  14. It would be useful to be able to put this into some sort of perspective. The JCS says 7,000 houses in the so called growth triangle in the 18 years 2008-2026. In a previous 15-20 year period in Broadland we had Dussingdale, and Thorpe Marriot and 100s of new houses on the edge of Sprowston and Old Catton. So does anyone know how different the current plans are?

  15. Dussindale is about 2000 houses, Thorpe Marriott is about 2500. The number of new houses in the period you refer to in Sprowston and Old Catton was under 500 in total. So we're looking at double that number, concentrated into the growth area triangle, bearing in mind that the JCS envisages the number to increase from 7000 in 2026 to 10000 some time after.

    Thorpe Marriott destroyed large areas of high quality permanent grassland habitat, miles of old hedges and many hedgerow oaks.

    I really don't think snub have got things out of perspective, but I suspect some of the more recent commenters on this blog have, the other way round.