Skip to main content

Let's get Norwich's boundaries right

2008 is the year that will decide the dimensions of the new Norwich unitary authority decided. The area currently proposed for the greater Norwich unitary authority is FAR TOO LARGE. ...Norwich Green Party wants the full Norwich urban area to be included in the new Norwich unitary authority. It is is a nonsense for places like Sprowston and Hellesdon to be 'outside Norwich', when they are plainly part of Norwich -- it makes proper planning in andof the city impossible. ...But we will _oppose_ the move to a unitary authority, in the final analysis, if the Boundary Commission decides to include swathes of rural Norfolk including villages or even possibly surrounding market towns in the area of 'Norwich'. (See "Greens launch 'middle way' campaign on boundaries of unitary Norwich", at

http://www.norwichgreenparty.org/default.aspx?url=http://www.norwichgreenparty.org/archive_news.html

for details).

Comments

John said…
"It is is a nonsense for places like Sprowston and Hellesdon to be 'outside Norwich', when they are plainly part of Norwich -- it makes proper planning in and of the city impossible."

The problem from the perspective of someone who lives in Sprowston is that it is not obvious that our community should be run by Norwich councillors, disregarding what we want.

The vast majority of people living here think that the status quo works best. Sprowston parish, Broadland district and Norfolk County councils ensure that decisions are made at the appropriate level by people who represent us. It is subsidiarity in action.

We don't have any Green party councillors representing Sprowston (around 15,000 people) so why should those in Norwich be able to dictate what happens here?

The process to impose a unitary authority on suburban Broadland has been entirely undemocratic so far.

It may be obvious to you that Norwich can run Sprowston better the people who live here, but a convincing case has not been made yet.
4 January 2008 at 22:50
Rupert said…
Sproston is in reality part of the urban area of Norwich. It is that simple. How can we (for instance) do urban planning or plan bus routes, when chunks of the city are excluded from the city limits?
6 January 2008 at 19:43
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

Post a Comment
Read more

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...
2 comments
Read more