This week has seen two major decisions made; one locally and the other nationally.  It would be nice to think that they were joined up decisions but I fear not as the following demonstrates.

The government announced a new enterprise zone in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft that will transform the area and provide thousands of new jobs in the area.  The New Anglia local enterprise partnership (LEP) aims to create up to 2,000 jobs and 80 businesses by 2015 and 13,500 jobs and 200 businesses over the 25-year lifetime of the zone. West Norfolk will also benefit from a similar LEP in Greater Cambridgeshire and greater Peterborough. 

This is great news for local employment prospects, however the local decision made by Broadland District Council means that the prospect of 35,000 new houses called for in the Joint Core strategy and the NDR move a step forward as the planning committee approved the plans for the new Broadland Gate business park and the revision to the Postwick Hub.

So here we have it with thousands of jobs being created in the east coast belt area and thousands of houses mile away in and around Norwich!  The NDR will join up the houses to allow all of the newcomers to trundle down the A47 onto the Acle straight to get to their new jobs!  Not very sustainable or eco friendly.

As we have said on numerous occasions the dispersal of new houses to sites adjacent to the new job creations is the best option and not forcing thousands of people to commute to their jobs using cars, as the public transport links will take them into the city.  Of course they could travel by train from Salhouse to Norwich and then out again to Lowestoft, which will take at least 90 minutes, and with the increase in rail fares cost an arm and a leg.

Talk about joined up decision making NOT!


  1. Strange isn't it that the proposed 'zones' in and around Lowestoft and Yarmouth as well as the 'white elephant cranes and thier respective emplyment 'zones' as well as the proposed Salhouse 'Hub' as well as the majority of all these ludicrous proposals have ALL been 'triumphed' by one of the leading 'lights' of the police authority board that the EDP so 'strongly support, he that hath re-designated the Acle straight as a 'trans-continental highway'?....surely, one man's continuous 'cock-ups' should noy be allowed to carry-on? well! Mr.Isles, isn't it time you had the guts to give-up these embarrassing,'fool-hardy', costly foo-pahs? old Rackheath fresident.

  2. When the LEP forecasts that they hope to create 13,500 jobs over the next 25 years in the Yarmouth and Lowestoft area then this proves that Broadland District Council are living in "Cloud Cucko0 Land" with their ridiculous ideas of creating 33,000 jobs in the Norwich area over the next 15 years.
    Yarmouth has the new outer harbour and both Yarmouth and Lowestoft are placed to cash in on the offshore energy business wheras Norwich will not.
    The number of houses that BDC talk about (35,000)are equally absurd. Houses will be needed in Yarmouth and Lowestoft, not in Norwich.
    BDC are so out of touch with the reality of the current situation in this country and I wonder if they will ever see sense.

  3. I wish you would stop talking down the Norwich economy. Apart from the recession, which affects everywhere, Norwich has been doing rather well in the last few years. Until 2007 many thousands of jobs had been created and skilled labour shortages were a concern to many businesses. Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft have "won" their enterprise zones as a last desperate measure to turn round ailing economies that didnt boom even prior to the recession.

  4. If you are going to have rant (Anon 21:57) at least could it be an informed one using correct facts. You state 'the number of houses that BDC talk about (35,000)...'. The figure you quote is the GNDP figure for 3 councils of which 13094 are for Broadland. Debate can only be helpful if based on facts. If not, it is misinformation and clouds the issue.

  5. I can assure you my anonymous friend that nobody is trying to talk-down any local economy but we, that live in a 'real' world know that what makes Norfolk 'special'( wether you choose to believe it or not ) is that due to the 'Norfolk-dumpling' pigeon holing that the 'gnomes' of Westminster put us in,it means that not only are we the 'last-post' to reveive any major funding but when it finally does come to fruition, the projects it was earmarked for have long since goine down the 'plughole'!.....look at the Yarmouth Crane saga to name but one, the millions of pounds squandered on this 'white elephant' which could have been put to use in some real essential works. we lived in a relatively peaceful,unspoilt exsistance but the developer greed is raising it's ugly head at the moment, it won't be long before 'good' really does prevail and we get rid of these 'clowns'. old Rackheath Resident.

  6. We should remember that LEP's have been tried before... and they were abandoned. These Enterprise Zones have a number of weaknesses, including:
    • Most of the jobs created in Enterprise Zones are displaced from other areas.
    Evidence from previous Enterprise Zones suggest that up to 80% of the jobs they
    create are taken from other places;
    • Enterprise Zones do very little to promote lasting economic prosperity. Most
    Enterprise Zones create a short-term boom, followed by a long-term reversal back
    into depression; and
    • Enterprise Zones are hugely expensive. Evidence from the 1980s suggests that
    Enterprise Zones cost at least £23,000 per new job they create.
    The main advantage of Enterprise Zones is that they stimulate rapid investment from
    businesses in the short term, and create a burst of momentum that normally lasts up to three
    years. The relaxation of planning regulations offered by Enterprise Zones is also much more
    cost effective than tax breaks.

  7. Anon 13.48. Since the figure of 35,000 houses is quoted in the JCS and Broadland is so happy to embrce it then it is quite correct to quote that figure.
    Even if you want to use your figure of 13,094 jobs it still looks absurdly optimistic given that Yarmouth and Lowestoft LEP forecasts 13,000 over a 25 year period as opposed to a 15 year period stated by the GNDP. The fact that BDC are being so precise down to the last 94 jobs shows that they have just done a paperwork calculation using the past growth figures leading up to 2008. Either that or it's just a wild guess and by adding the 94 it makes it look precise and more convincing.
    Those boom years have gone, hopefully forever, because boom is always followed by "BUST" and that' what we are experiencing right now and it will continue for several more years.
    Only small sustainable growth can be sustained because the economy simply runs out of steam.

  8. Anon 09:53. We are talking at cross purposes here. You quoted 35000 houses for Broadland and I corrected you to 13094 HOUSES for Broadland. Now you are saying that I am using a figure of 13094 for JOBS. If you read my blog of 13:48 I do not even refer to jobs. It is little wonder that people are confused when facts are misrepresented simply to make a case.

  9. Anon 0905. As you said, you did not refer to jobs whereas I did for a simple reason.
    I was making the point that the minimum number of jobs would at least need to match the 13,094 houses. In fact it is widely recognised that it requires on average more than one wage earner to buy a house and in many cases have two wages in order to get a mortgage and then make repayments.
    Who else would live in all these new additional houses then, the unemployed or those on benefits, retired people or those who desire a second home in Norfolk?
    This is not misrepresentation, it is facing up to the hard facts.
    The GNDP and Broadland don't wish to tell the public the full facts or the adverse affects all this overdevelopment will have on this region. The GNDP and Broadland just give us their same old spin "Homes, Jobs and Prosperity"

  10. Anon 1942 Are you saying that the unemployed, people on benefits and retired people dont deserve a home? And do you have some magic way of preventing people owning second homes in Broadland?

    But anyway, assuming that 13,000 jobs is a reasonable figure, why do you think they wont happen over the next 15 years or so? GY and L need enterprise zones because they need special help (assuming EZs actually work). Norwich area has a good, and in the long term, growing economy. Just in Broadland there must be several thousand jobs at the Broadland Business park

    Of course it could be that all the doom-mongers are right and the economy has gone down the pan for good - in which case there is no need to worry because all these planned houses wont be built! And of course our kids will have no jobs and nowhere decent to live.

  11. Anon 22.59.
    Broadland and GNDP hasn't said all these extra houses are intended for the unemployed, jobless, retired or for second homes.
    They have spun their tale of jobs and prosperity and all that spin is woven with the number of house.
    If they said from the start that all this has development is to provide houses for migration and second homes etc. then there would be more public anger than there is now against all this unnecessary development. Local people chose to live here because they value the countryside and like it the way it is, not to sit by and see it destroyed by building masses of houses on it and turning everywhere into a concrete jungle.
    No question of being a doom monger, it's more of being realistic and using common sense, 13,000 jobs is not a reasonable figure, it's an absurd guess, way too optimistic considering the deep national and world recession we are in and will be for several years.
    In any case more growth around Norwich would be a disaster, particularly if it is not manufacturing and was just retail outlets and warehouses full of cheap Chinease goods or service industry.
    The city itself is full to saturation with shops and nightclubs that only drag more people in from elsewhere and clog the roads and streets.
    If you care about your kids then you should oppose all development because what they will need most in the years ahead is food when the world shortage occurs. Food and will become a critcal issue and that is currently is being grown on the farmland that the developers would gladly cover over with concrete.

  12. Scrivener is right to be sceptical about LEPs. But supposing he is wrong, and 13,000 long-term jobs are indeed created:

    There are about 17,600 JSA claimants in Norfolk. We should assume that all would be willing to travel across Norfolk to a proper full-time job, or rent accommodation near the job - however, taking out 3,000 JSAs from West Norfolk and 2,000 from North Norfolk leaves us with 12,600 JSAs in Broadland, Breckland, Norwich, Great Yarmouth, and South Norfolk. All new jobs must go to them - if they need to retrain they must do so at work and the employer must put up with this. The selection process will have to be suspended and Job Centres will have to simply assign JSA claimants to the most suitable job available, and tell the employer they can save themselves time and money by just taking what they are given. Some if not all will be relieved not to be inundated with thousands of applications.

    There are very few homeless people in Norfolk, so all the JSA people are in some sort of accommodation and when they get one of these new jobs they will be able to either continue paying their existing mortgage, or pay their own rent somewhere, or stay with their parents (plus B&B during the week?) and save up. They won't be able to get a new mortgage unless there is one SECURE wage of £30,000+ or two SECURE wages of £15,000+ - so the new houses proposed will not be affordable to most, even when the houses or flats are in the designated "affordable" section of a housing project. How many jobs are secure now anyway?

    In short, new houses have no connection with new jobs unless the new jobs are for people who are entering Norfolk with monies to pay for housing earned in wealthier parts of the country. If the new jobs are for Norfolk people, new housing is not needed and is in any case unaffordable. So the new housing is NOT for local people. Neither are the jobs. Which we already knew, from Norfolk Council’s own statistics.

    During the recent riots we saw the result of failing to ensure all existing and future local jobseekers can find secure work. Already in Norfolk we have pockets of disaffected young people with no future. I am not excusing rioting, but why create conditions where boys (and girls) can see from the age of about 10 that they are never going to get a job because they are never going to get 10 A stars at GCSE. Anyway, now even those with degrees are finding it hard to get a proper job, so they are getting bad-tempered too because they had certain expectations created in them about what a degree will do for you.

  13. Define "local". Define "Norfolk people". How many people opposing new housing were born in the parish, or the district, or the county. The nature of modern life (for the last 40 years at least) is that people move around. We expect that in a democrattic liberal society, and we need it in a modern capitalist society. The food production scare is largely that - a scare - the amount of land that will be taken up by development is a tiny proportion of undeveloped land (perhaps 1 or 2 %)and, generally it is not the best value for agriculture or nature consevation. I am afraid all the green-wash wont wash - much of the opposition is classic nimbyism. I have mine, you cant have yours.

  14. Oh no, not the classic old 'nimbyism' chestnut again! That is a weak and over-used criticism bandied about by supporters of development in the countryside. The fact is that many of us choose to live in the countryside rather than live in towns and cities and vice versa. To quote 'anonymous' above: "We expect that in a democratic liberal society".

    Living in the countryside does not always mean having fantastic views of rolling countryside - indeed many of us back on to other houses and have no 'views' at all. That is not what it is all about believe it or not.

    However, what the planners and developers are actually saying to us now is "you can't have yours" (to quote anonymous again) any more because WE have decided to push out the boundaries of Norwich and will make certain rural communities part of an urban sprawl instead - like it or not.

    The much discussed dispersal option would enable rural communities to accommodate necessary growth in a sustainable way whilst maintaining the essence of those villages and market towns and keeping them alive.

  15. Dispersal would only be attractive if there was a lot less growth overall. The much vaunted South Norfolk option still has 1,000 house here and 2,000 houses there. I dont think there would be many Broadland villages that would welcome even 200!

    No development in the countryside? But what was much of Sprowston, Thorpe St Andrew even the Heartsease, not too many years ago. Rackheath hardly existed 60 years ago and even much of Salhouse only dates from the last 60 years. Cities grow, especially successful ones. There are jobs in Thorpe, and in Sprowston and in Rackheath, and of course the rest of Norwich. These days no one wants development in their own backyard - but if these views held sway there would never be any progress. I think we should be putting our efforts into making sure what development does happen is the best we can make it and stop having sterile arguments about exactly how much is needed. As others have rightly said, if it is not needed it wont get built because it cant be sold.

  16. It appears that Anonymous 0024 (nickname 'Sleepless in Salhouse') now wishes to stop this sterile argument. The latest post above regards house building as progress and suggests that local communities are able to influence the plans of developers and Councils. Where is the evidence to justify that? The Government have already stated that the default position will be approval.

    Only by challenging the basic tenets and the imposition of these undesirable and seriously flawed plans will anything change.

  17. "No development in the countryside?" asks Anonymous 00:24. But no-one has been suggesting that no development should take place - once again he/she is trotting out the same arguments suggesting that this is all opponents are worried about.

    He/she also trots out another weak argument by drawing attention to development that has already taken place as if this makes the argument for further growth justifiable. Decisions made in the past are just that and many large scale developments throughout the country have since proved to have been ill-advised.

    Anonymous also draws attention to our "modern capitalist society" and perhaps hits the nail on the head there - it's all about profit as I believe has been mentioned before!!

  18. Hey....Hal and his buddies are very quiet at the moment??????old Rackheath resident.

  19. Sorry but the main page of this blog includes: "VOTE OUT THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTENT ON DESTROYING OUR COUNTRYSIDE" . Anon 2041 complained about "supporters of development in the countryside". One of the continuing themes is not developing countryside, or farmland. I was trying to point out that all existing houses are on land that was once countryside - and a lot of it was still countryside only a little while ago. And of course all those houses built on countryside have people living in them - where would they live if the houses hadnt been built?
    And yes there is profit involved - all businesses try to make a profit and when they do it pays peoples wages and pensions. What is so wrong with profit when it comes to housebuilders?

    Jason points out that the government are changing the planning system to make it even easier to get planning permission, so be careful what you wish for because it could all get a whole lot worse.

  20. Nothing living grows permanently. It grows for a while, then reaches maturity, stays that way for a time, then starts to die or at least go into a state of suspended animation. The same is true of human societies, which are living things composed of living beings (believe it or not). If they don't age gracefully and then die or at least go to sleep for centuries, they die anyway but not gracefully.

    We are all doing our best these days to cope with what has been decades of Overgrowth which needs to be cut back or at least not added to by further mistakes. People do try not to complain, but it is difficult to keep quiet in the face of obvious insanity - and the primary meaning of "insane" is simply "unable to grasp reality". This does not sound too awful - but when you are faced with the actions of people unable to grasp reality, you realise that this is a bad problem which will ruin the calm lives and peaceful old age of more realistic types if it is allowed free rein.

    If we just stick to the national economy as an example of lives being ruined by a failure to grasp reality, we can all see that I am not exaggerating the threat posed by people who might receive some sympathy because they are mentally disabled. But compassion fatigue sets in sooner or later, as they keep repeating mistake after mistake after mistake.

    I thought everyone knew that the outgoing government left a note for the new Chancellor, saying simply "There is no money". Why then are some people acting as though there is? There might have been money to build Sprowston, Thorpe, Rackheath and much else 60 years ago (though I doubt it, I bet it was borrowed). But there certainly isn't now.

  21. Anon 19.40 is absolutely right and we must all come to terms with the fact that growth cannot continue indefinitely. Latest news confirms that the world is not coming out of recession as many countries just like ourselves have huge crippling debts.