Some more figures to ponder

Broadland District Council have always made a large play on the number of applicants on the Broadland Housing Register and ex leader, Simon Woodbridge, constantly quoted figures of more than 13,000 to back up the council's assertion that the region needs a large amount of new housing. Their own figures show the true extent of housing need:

"There are currently 13,200 applicants on the Broadland Housing Register and of these 3,321 are Broadland ‘primary’ applicants, who would generally have been assessed to have a higher priority on the housing register. The trend over the past 4 quarters has been a small fall in the total number of Broadland primary applicants from 3,560 in quarter 4 of 2009/10 to 3,321 in quarter 4 of 2010/11. It is unclear why the numbers are falling or if the trend will continue, but anecdotal evidence suggests it may be attributed to some people becoming more realistic in their expectations of the Council as a means of securing accommodation." 

Each household on the register will have been allocated a band 'relative to their housing need' and the table below reveals the extent of housing need over the last two quarters:

Number of active applicants by band 

Designated Band

Low  need

We are not saying that a need does not exist but looked at in tandem with the figures we posted recently from Shelter it seems that BDC have been rather over-egging demand and calling it need.

It is also interesting to note from the same document that their whole housing strategy comes up for public consultation in the near future:

"The current Greater Norwich Housing Strategy 2008 to 2011 was developed in partnership with Norwich and South Norfolk Councils. That strategy has come to an end and the Broadland Housing Deliver Plan for 2008 to 2011 has been signed off by the Housing Management Board. Work has now begun on a new three year Broadland Housing Strategy following a decision within the GNHP to produce separate district based strategies. A draft of the Broadland Housing Strategy will come to Cabinet shortly for approval to go out to public consultation. The Strategy is an articulation of the strategic priorities for housing in Broadland for 2011 to 2014 and will include an action plan detailing how service improvements will be achieved."


  1. Salhouse resident1 June 2011 at 21:30

    Sounds like snub can run the Broadland housing register beter than Broadland.. Step up snub... And show us that you can do !

  2. Not one of these proposed “homes” will be a Council House. The supposed “social housing” will be run by the same Housing Associations that are hawking their muttons around the money markets to borrow £20 Bn (yes billion) , it appears there is good money to be made from others sorrow.
    I ask where all the money they have had in rent has gone?
    The reality is these “homes” are for the 224,000 people they (in connivance with the last Government) intend flooding into Norfolk (their figures, see link below).

  3. Absolutely. We all have our houses. Stuff those in need.

  4. I thought that it had been demonstrated that you have completely mis-interpreted the Shelter figures? Dont they actually support the Joint Core Strategy target for 37,000 houses? I suppose people only believe what they want to believe.

  5. To anon. 23:07 - I don't think anybody's saying or thinking in these terms at all. Those in need should be provided for. The argument isn't about selfish residents against the homeless, as you and others like you seem to want to paint it. It is about people who have very legitimate concerns about absurdly inflated housing numbers being manipulated on spurious grounds of fulfilling 'need', when the real need is for a few thousand decent houses for those without anywhere secure or decent to live. Building 37000+ houses so that a fraction can be classified as 'affordable' is a ridiculous way of solving the housing need problem, in its own right. When taken together with the side-effects, ie: huge areas of countryside destroyed, massively increased traffic throughout the whole area, including Norwich, overstretched public services (which are being cut back, not scaled-up), drains on water resources, loss of land of high food production potential and the general unacceptability of what is no more than speculative urban sprawl, I fail to see how anyone (other than those with vested interests) can aim such ignorant criticisms at snub.

    Same applies to anon. of 23:16 (same person?). It is you, not snub, who is interpreting the figures to suit your prejudiced views.

  6. Anonymous 23:46 here.

    Yes I have a vested interest. I want my kids and my friends and relations kids to have somewhere to live of their own and good jobs to go to. I dont want them to have to move away. I dont want them to have to move miles away and have long commutes. Rackheath area would be very convenient - I guess that is why you chose to buy there. SNUB keep criticising the housing numbers but actually have no alternative to propose - just that it is too much - so how much too much?

    The figures were looked at at the public inquiry and the Inspectors agreed they were right. Before that they were agreed by the local councils - who we elect to make the difficult decisions. They are based on evidence that I have found and you can find on the GNDP's website. Of course no one wants them next door, but sorry, someone has to have them somewhere.

  7. edith crowther2 June 2011 at 13:54

    According to NCC, the Housing Register contains 3 types of people:
    1. People who are homeless.
    2. People who are not currently in a council or housing association home but want to move into one.
    3. People wanting to move from one council or housing association home to another.

    Not quite sure what “Primary Broadland Applicants” means, but I presume it means Applicants who live in Broadland. There are 3,300 odd of these – but how many are in private housing, and how many are already in Council/HA homes and want to swap?

    Anyway, when the people in category 2 are housed, their current private sector homes will be empty. Category 3 may be short of larger homes – but the average number of children per family in Britain is 1.5, and many more people are single or a childless couple these days.

    Only category 1 doesn’t have anywhere to live at all. The number hovers at around 50 at most times in most Norfolk district councils – partly because the councils move very swiftly to help homeless people, thank God.

    Also, according to the Empty Homes Agency, in 2010 Broadland had 1,300 empty homes, 460 of which were Council/HA. These are likely to be fairly accurate figures, provided by Councils via the Council Tax data. Given that some of these homes need repairs or renovations, or are unsuitable because they are for certain categories like the elderly or the disabled, Broadland still has a lot of public sector empty homes to house the homeless plus some of the waiting list.

    As for the private sector homes, many will be waiting to be sold no doubt, the rest can be commandeered by the Council after six months (though Councils usually give it longer than six months).

    So there are already 1,300 minus 460 private empty homes, plus all the ones for sale which are not empty and which appear at very reasonable prices on page after page of the Friday EDP, often in the centre of Norwich and much cheaper and much better quality than any newbuilds. Problem is, Developers can't make profits out of those can they? Why don’t people worried about housing for their children look at what is actually for sale at the moment, and its price? Or can’t they read?

    Plus, you can’t get away from the fact that the population of Norfolk is falling due to many more deaths than births (it’s called “natural change”, and is badly needed in this grossly overpopulated country). So every single new house without exception is for incomers, not for locals, and will profit Developers and Councils (more Council Tax). As Chief Sitting Bull did warn the settlers in North America “You can’t eat money”. They paid no attention – but he was right.

  8. Interesting isn't it that the housing figure which is quoted by SNUB is 37,000 and this is a figure distributed over 3 Councils and yet, do we see any other major anti development campaign groups from Norwich or South Norfolk rising up and joining up with SNUB? Have we seen any public affirmations from residents, en masse, from these 2 other Council areas supporting the stand SNUB are taking against the numbers? The answer seems to be No and that says a lot.

    SNUB states its opposition on the back of some 3000 names, most of whom were probably obtained during the fight against the Norfolk Hub. The Norfolk Hub has never been part of the JCS and therefore it would be interesting to know how many of those people who signed up would continue to do so now particularly if they live in villages which might attract larger numbers of houses because of SNUB's actions.

    SNUB has taken this action using those 3000 as their support base, not a 'massive' figure given the total population of the GNDP area (372,500) which could now be significantly affected by the writ and its consequences. SNUB supporters (EDP Letters Wed 1 Jun) state they are happy to pay a rise in Council tax for the legal costs; nice for those who can afford it, own their own house in a pleasant area and feel free to impose on others less fortunate. The fact is that SNUB also openly refers to protecting 'our part of Broadland'. When will those residents in Norwich and South Norfolk, as well as in other parts of Broadland, wake up to the fact that SNUB are simply seeking to dump their allocation onto them? Amazing what potential havoc a small vocal group can cause over an area which covers nearly a third of Norfolk, simply to protect their own back yard.

    Now they are asking for donations. Nowhere is their financial strategy transparent. Who are SNUB, only the 'Chairman's' name appears, the so called invisible 'core group' members choose not to reveal themselves on their web site. Is there a Treasurer and how will the money be spent and would we ever get to see a balance sheet? Until there are answers to all these questions my wallet remains firmly shut.

  9. So sorry to dissapoint you Bill ( i doubt that is your real name anyway) but my name is Stewart Lindsay, Back lane rackheath, 07801 200328)...and i am a 'core' member of SNUB and I ( along with the other members of SNUB, who give up hundreds of hours of our time for our cause ) are VERY transparent. Please feel to contact me with a view to a face to face chat where we can discuss 'openly' where any contributions from the public go to ( and i can promise you that every penny is logged, banked and the treasureres accounts are 100%) and we are all keen to see IF you take-up the invite and will inform the BLOG if you do! ( or don't as I suspect the case may be!) and until then, we who are fully transparent , will go about the business of representing the majority of local village folk as were last fact, although we got 3200 petition signatures that you keep harping- on about....we as a voluntary community group ( and not a political or 'pressure' group ) may have only managed to knock-on 3212 it seems pretty conclusive to us...stewart Lindsay ( SNUB and proud to represent my village).

  10. Andy Radcliffe (Rackheath)3 June 2011 at 19:45

    Well what can I say to the replies on this, snub is a band of few people who want to give Broadland council a bashing, reading all the topics on here it's plain to see ! There's only one snub person posting replies ! I really thought snub represented Salhouse and Rackheath, but it's a personal campaign it's so obvious. I'm sorry snub, where are your supporters ?

  11. Well, Mr.Radcliffe ( and as if I suspect like Mr.Forbes above, this is also a nom de plume ) as mentioned before in a Blog comment to which I very rarely enter into, my offer above to Mr.Forbes is directed to you also...i can offer no more to persons who would 'hide' behind false names and will listen intently for the phone call where I would be delighted to discuss matters further with you.....Stewart lindsay ( an actual Rackheath resident).

  12. Thank you 'Stewart Lindsey' for your response. I am sorry you do not like my birth name and there is not a lot I can do about that except to query a somewhat paranoid reaction on your part. Check me on the electoral role if it will make you any happier.

    Aggression, suspicion and a defensive attitude to my questions do not improve the situation. SNUB has taken out a writ which affects 372,500 people and that demands a professional and ethical approach. I simply asked who was in the 'core group', thought to be about 10 members, who was the treasurer and where was the financial transparency. This is the least that a group asking for considerable numbers of donations could be expected to provide. Currently, SNUB is NOT 'fully transparent' in these matters, as you claim. While a 1-1 meeting with you would be useful for me, it would not be useful to all the other supporters and potential donors out there. Your hostile response and SNUB's apparent reluctance to disclose this information does the group no credit.

    If SNUB has a problem with declaring their main members on the web site, how they will handle finances and publicly disclose them, then say so. Do not attack someone who asks simple ethical questions. It does not put you in a good light.

    PS I am not the one who keeps 'harping' on about the 3200; it is SNUB which consistently use that figure to justify its actions.

  13. Anonymous of 19.35 and 22.03, is that your real name?...... I find it extraordinary that on a blog where much is made of people's decisions to remain anonymous Stewart Lindsay, 'core' member of Snub, chooses to post under this tag! Although he may have identified himself on this occasion how many times has he chosen not to? Surely all members of Snub should put their name to their comments, or are they just trying to make it look like there are more 'supporters' posting on this blog than is actually the case?

  14. Edward Poynter5 June 2011 at 20:55

    Fair comment Mr A N Onymous...