NORWICH GREEN PARTY NEWS RELEASE:
THURSDAY 17TH APRIL 2008: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
GREENS CHALLENGE LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Green Party calls for plans for Norwich's expansion into the countryside to be radically scaled-back
Green Councillors in Norwich have challenged the Government's plans to build 33,000 new homes in and around the city by 2021. With an estimated infrastructure funding gap of around £400million, the Green Party is calling on Norwich City Council to tell the Government that the housing targets cannot be met.
An estimated £650million of infrastructure funding will be needed to support the proposed level of housing development growth and the target is
unlikely to be met. Developers would be asked to contribute between £25,000 and £27,000 per house built, which would only generate £165 million. This has
created a funding gap of at least £380 million, and possibly as much as £485 million. It seems increasingly unlikely that the Government will supply the rest of the money, as an initial bid from the local councils for £90million only attracted a £12million Government contribution.
Green Councillors in Norwich have challenged the Government's plans to build 33,000 new homes in and around the city by 2021. With an estimated infrastructure funding gap of around £400million, the Green Party is calling on Norwich City Council to tell the Government that the housing targets cannot be met.
An estimated £650million of infrastructure funding will be needed to support the proposed level of housing development growth and the target is
unlikely to be met. Developers would be asked to contribute between £25,000 and £27,000 per house built, which would only generate £165 million. This has
created a funding gap of at least £380 million, and possibly as much as £485 million. It seems increasingly unlikely that the Government will supply the rest of the money, as an initial bid from the local councils for £90million only attracted a £12million Government contribution.
Cllr. Rupert Read, Euro-election lead candidate for Eastern Region Green Party, said "This funding shortfall is extremely disturbing. Who will foot the bill? The Green Party will categorically oppose any effort to foist this bill onto Council-Tax-payers."
City Council Leader Steve Morphew also recently admitted that much of the development would be on greenfield sites if the housing targets are to be met.
Funding gap makes Norwich 'growth' targets unachievable
Cllr. Adrian Ramsay, Co-ordinator of the Green Party Group on Norwich City Council said: "Greenfield sites outside of the city and open spaces within the city could be affected by the Government's plans for major housing development. This is very worrying. I don't think the plans for this level of housing growth are desirable but the recent news on infrastucture funding suggests that they are not achieveable either.
"Huge amounts of Council officer time are going into the so-called 'growth agenda'. This is a waste of resources. It is time for the City Council to stand up to the Government over these over-the-top housing targets and for the City Council to instead concentrate on securing much smaller-scale housing development that is affordable and of a high environmental standard - and not on greenfield sites or sites that are important for wildlife."
Cllr. Ramsay concluded: "Given the funding shortfall, the Green Party says that the best solution is simply that these development plans should be cancelled, or at least radically scaled-back, now. We are the only party going into this local election with such a clear position, willing to stand up to the Government. Labour and LibDem Councillors have increasingly encouraged the massive housing growth targets. It is time for the Council to challenge them - and only Green Councillors will do that."
Contact:
Councillor Adrian Ramsay, Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Norwich South
07940 930465
Councillor Adrian Ramsay, Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Norwich South
07940 930465
Councillor Rupert Read, Norfolk Green Party Press Officer
ENDS
Comments