We are often asked what the alternatives to the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) are.
Our first belief is that the number of planned houses needs re-addressing and we are of the belief, based on evidence from Shelter and CPRE, that the number of houses needed over the next 15 to 20 years is a lot less than what is being called for in the JCS.
Our second belief is that the alternatives to the JCS have not been fully explored and in particular the “dispersal option”. What does this actually mean?
Well, we have seen the Bishop of Norwich call for a similar strategy when it comes to providing new and affordable housing. He has asked that the church play an active role in securing sites in existing communities for affordable houses in order to protect the rural way of life and to keep generations of family’s together rather then forcing them to split up and migrate to large anonymous housing estates as called for by the JCS. That is one view of dispersal that we have been advocating for the last 4 years.
Another view has been expressed by George Freeman the MP for Mid Norfolk who in a lead article in the EDP this week has called for a sensible approach to developing Norfolk under the banner of “Keep Norfolk Norfolk”. In this article he states the following:
This is another view of dispersal that fits entirely with our campaign and the views of over 3,000 people and compliments the Shop Here campaign run by the EDP that calls for the local economy to be supported.
Indeed even Broadland District Council are advocating a dispersal of some of the necessary new houses as follows:
Acle up to 150 homes;
Blofield up to 120 homes;
Brundall up to 150 homes;
Coltishall & Horstead up to 150 homes;
Drayton up to 150 homes;
Hellesdon up to 160 homes on the hospital site and 1,000 homes on the golf course;
Wroxham up to 300 homes.
A total of 2780 homes dispersed around the district using existing infrastructure although it is interesting that the density of houses planned for the hospital and golf site in Hellesdon is nowhere near as high as what is planned for the North East Growth triangle in the JCS. We wonder why?
“By 2015 we expect to have around 80 businesses in the EZ, of which 60 will be as a result of expansion and 20 inward investors. Longer term we expect the Zone to be home to 150 - 200 businesses, each taking an average plot size of about 0.5ha. We forecast 9,000 new jobs in the EZ by 2025 (1,380 by 2015) and a further 4,500 (690) indirect job.”
Why would the houses to support these new jobs be located miles away with the only way of commuting via the single carriageway Acle Straight or by train from Salhouse into Norwich and then out again to the coastal zone!
Further support has been provided for new jobs in other parts of the county at Hethel Engineering Centre, John Innes Research Centre, N&N Hospital and the UEA to name a few. There is however no evidence at all for the thousands of jobs needed to support the 10,000 new homes planned for the North East Growth Triangle.
So there we have it. Several views of the dispersal option by independent organisations that fully justify the stance that SNUB have been stating for nearly 4 years now.
There are some however who are using the possibility of a dispersal option to scare local residents into thinking that they will have to support lots of new houses in small villages that do not want or need this level of development.Residents of Salhouse for example are being told, without any justification or evidence that we have seen, that if the JCS were not to go ahead they would see 200 new homes built in the village! This is clearly nonsense particularly as the Parish Council has volunteered to be a pathfinder in the new Neighbourhood Plans and the setting up of a Neighbourhood Development Order that the PC will be able to approve. If they believe that they do not need 200 new houses then they simply do not approve the Order and even if they were to approve something that the local residents did not like then they would be able to reject it at the referendum stage.
Strange isn't it! that thousands of members of our local communities have lodged their oppositions to huge over-developements proposed by carpet-baggers and rougue planners, these oppositions being based on logical views expressed by respected experts in this field ( the late Ian Corsie; County Chief planner, Sir Norman Foster and names above to mention a few )and also based on good old 'common sense',this also led to a few of these local people to even dare to challenge these 'impositions' being forced on to us by voicing local concearns through a community group called SNUB. SNUB will always endeavour to represent the views of local people based upon expert opinions and yet, there are individuals both paid and un-paid by the local authorities, which are hell-bent on promoting and scaremongering the local community into believing that acceptance of these impositions is the only way forward.I, like most people,prefer to rely on expert opinions rather than 'spin' or hear-say.Old Rackheath Resident.
ReplyDeletePresumably, SNUB wrote this post before seeing the damaging criticism that CPRE has made against the new DRAFT National Planning Policy Framework now in consultation for the Government. Sadly,the Framework severely undermines the Localism Bill, proposes the removal of exception sites for affordable homes around villages and weakens the case that communities will have a say in development in the future.It also proposes an increase in the requirement for a 5yr supply of development land by introducing a 20% buffer.
ReplyDeleteI think it's called Divide and Rule! An old, old tactic, and a very successful one.
ReplyDeleteIn the lead up to the Civil War, the Diggers and Levellers hoped to restore some sanity and balance to England. They failed, Cromwell turned out to be worse than Charles I, and a chastened monarchy returned to the throne to be overtaken in the greed stakes by Parliament.
My point is, there is a limit to what humans can do, so we should just do our best and not fret too much about our lack of power. In the end, the best anyone can say is "I tried". The CPRE can certainly say this with pride, so can SNUB, as well as a lot of nameless individuals
If there is to be an enterprise zone that truly creates jobs, then surely the jobs should go to local unemployed people – no new homes needed. Unless the jobs are for the 224,000 extra people THEY wish to foist upon us (destroying all that Norfolk stands for).
ReplyDeleteThis is the future they have planned for us in Norfolk:
ReplyDeleteRef: http://www.keystonetrust.org.uk/common/pdfs/thetfordprofile.pdf
Executive Summary
Thetford is in many ways different from other parts of Norfolk. Significantly
enlarged by migration from London, the local population increased fourfold
between 1958 and 1980. This has now created a mixed identity which is quite
different from its surrounding areas of Breckland. Situated some 30 miles
from Cambridge and Norwich, it is said that Thetford is “an island of
deprivation” which stands out starkly in its rural Norfolk setting. Its population
is big enough to display some features associated with urban disadvantage
but it is not big enough to have the knowledge, experience or critical mass to
solve its own problems. It depends on collaboration with a host of different
partners to provide a sufficient range of opportunities to meet the needs of its
population.
Instead of is “an island of deprivation”, they are intent on creating a sea of deprivation.
I do not have the answer but I do know we must resist their plans for us at every stage.
......And that's just the mixture of concise, correct information that this web-site is here to 'air'....then, let the populas decide....oh! hang on, they already have and rejected them, it's just that a bunch of non-elected idiots are trying to TELL US what to do in order to vye for funding/ grants etc.talk about 'jobs for the boys' and 'pension protections'.....they will all be drawing indexed 'linked' when we are all 'grubbing-around' looking for somebody to empty our bins or 'man' our surgeries....now! there's a thought!...old Rackheath Resident.
ReplyDeleteWe have suffered the effects of un-controlled immigration and over 800,000 Bureaucrat Non-jobs all to buy votes and now we in Norfolk have to house them. Can we please provide jobs and homes for Norfolk youngsters first.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we have to let the greed of the National Developers supported by Councillors who will not represent our wishes and Planning Officers who no doubt will move on to better jobs in another County once they have destroyed our lovely Broadland.
ReplyDeleteIt has been shown on here previously that the Shelter figures support the level of growth in the Strategy. So dispersal would have to find ways to provide for the same number of houses. It would be much better for Rackheath though as the pain would be spread around and people wouldnt be forced onto busses! There are plenty of barely used lanes and minor roads to enable people to drive to work and shops etc. Savings on busses could be spent on the NDR which would still be needed.
ReplyDeleteThe Government have got rid of regional planning so there is no way of redistributing growth to other areas - so there is now mechanism for moving growth to Yarmouth and Lowestoft is there? And anyway the sites that are now enterprise zones were already employment sites so the jobs they will provide are already balanced against the areas' housing targets arent they? The EZs are just a way of heling them happen arnet they? Or have I misunderstood?
ReplyDeletePresumably the persons proposing the building of housing on the Hellesdon Hosptial site and the Golf Course don't sit in the queues of traffic along Drayton Road every morning and evening which will only get worse with additional traffic trying to get into/out of the new estates, coupled with the usual bottlenecks at Middletons Lane, Asda, Hellesdon Industrial Estate and Boundary/Sweetbriar junction. And as for the proposed fast lane bus route from Drayton, I can't see where that would fit in without destroying hedgerows and uprooting all the new roadside lights that have just been put in, as well as having to negotiate the same bottlenecks as car users.
ReplyDelete