Object

Representation ID: 24423

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Cawdron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The plan is short of information as to the effect on transport anticipated from the correlation for housing and employment sites.
Paragraph 294 of Reg.19 reports the conclusion of the Employment Town Centre and Retail study (GVA 2017) and the Avison Young 2020 addendum in that "although Greater Norwich has enough employment land overall, most of this is out-of-centre and is neither the preferred locution for some growth sectors nor the most sustainable place for high intensity employment/ office growth".
The paragraph adds that "there is a risk that this may lead to new such development going to less sustainable locations with serious impacts on the vitality of the city centre and undermining policies to encourage modal shift. Therefore, it is essential that this plan ensures that high density employment uses are concentrated in highly accessible locations in particular the city centre, and that loss of existing floorspace in the city centre is resisted''. [Emphasis added]
This reality is not adequately addressed in the plan with the majority of employment locations at the cardinal points on the edges of the urban fringe and 13% only in the city centre, which will not resolve this risk or reduce reliance on the car for commuting.
Policy 4 in the draft Reg. 19 v 1.7 notes that "Transport improvements will support and embrace new technologies and develop the role of Norwich as the regional capital, support strategic growth in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor, improve access to market towns and rural areas and promote sustainable and active transport".
The statement is made that it will be achieved by Implementation of the Transport for Norwich Strategy including:
• significant improvements to the bus, cycling and walking networks to promote modal shift;
• developing the role of the park and ride system;
• changing attitudes to travel;
• delivery of the Norwich Western Link road
There is little substance in how these will be achieved.
The specific inclusion of the Norwich Western Link as part of the GNLP is unjustified as this new road does not have planning consent and is environmentally and ecologically damaging, with no effective mitigation being possible. There appears to be an implication that planning consent is a given.
Norwich Western Link and Legal Compliance
Reg. 19 paragraph 138 simply notes the NWL as one of the road schemes which will enhance transport in Greater Norwich. The support of this project by GNDP Board is confirmed by the statement in its 2020 Greater Norwich Infrastructure Plan which confirms "The Greater Norwich authorities are promoting the construction of a new highway link ('Norwich Western link'), which will link the Broadland Northway with the A47 to the west of Norwich" (paragraph 3.9). [Emphasis added]
The NWL is included in the Norfolk Infrastructure Delivery Plan (NIDP) 2017 - 2027 (latest update 20 19) which is promoted by Norfolk County Council and all the local authorities of the county as partners.
The NIDP states that all projects included are judged on three criteria
• Delivering significant housing and jobs growth[Emphasis added]
• Identified in ex isting plans/programmes
• Have a committed route to delivery
The GNLP does not contain any reference to the NWL delivering any of the housing or jobs, unlike the existing JCS, which made the Broadland Growth Triangle dependent on the NDR.
98. At the Planning Inquiry for the NOR a link across the Wensum Valley was specifically and deliberately excluded.
The employment sites at Policy 3 in the 2014 adopted JCS (within the Norwich Policy Area, Thorpe St Andrew, Longwater, Norwich Research Park, Norwich Airport, Rackheath, Hethel and Wymondham will be the focus of further jobs growth) are basically as those now being promoted by the GNLP.
The only apparent change is the addition of the Food Hub at Easton, for which a Local Development Order (LDO) was granted in 2016. To date there is a single occupant, Condimentum, which is a mustard milling and mint producing facility. The LOO planning decision does not reference the need or the NWL and currently only 40% of the allowable floorspace is permitted until a direct access to the A47 is provided.
Norfolk County Council has published its Norfolk Transport Plan 4 draft on its website in which an explanation is made to justify the NWL as one of the priorities "to tackle infrastructure deficit". The priorities include the Norwich Western Link, A 140 Long Stratton Bypass, A IO West Winch Housing Access Road, full dualling of the A47 and improvements to the major rail I inks to London and Cambridge.
Policy 14 outlining plans for access to and around Norwich include the introductory paragraph "NCC want to encourage the use of more sustainable forms of transport, such as public transport, cycling and walking, while also improving the capacity of the road network, in particular through the completion of the Norwich Western Link." There is no explanation as to how the NWL will encourage more sustainable forms of transport.
At Reg. 19 paragraph 240 the GNDP attempts to distance itself from the HRA obligations in connection with the NWL by stating that the scheme is identified as one of Norfolk County Council priorities and in paragraph 245 that the GNLP authorities will only give it support "provided that their promoters and the relevant competent authority are able to demonstrate that they would not conflict with other policies of the plan and where there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of sites protected under the Habitats Regulations Directive."
The inclusion of paragraph 245 was added to the Reg. 19 document in response to the HRA Report that the NWL and other projects are outside the control of the GNDP.
The text in GNDP Response to draft HRA (Dec 2020) recommendations for Reg. 19 GNLP is "Although the principle of the recommendation is agreed with, the suggested text is not al/ necessary to provide adequate clarification as the issue of the Norwich Western link is already explained in the Plan (see para. 240). Therefore, a change has been made to the supporting text, based on the latter part of the suggested text, adding a new paragraph (245)."
This raises fundamental questions of responsibility under the Habitats Regulations in preparation of strategic plans. The GNDP appear to accept that the GNLP falls under the Habitats Regulations in that it has commissioned an overarching HRA.
The critical question is whether the author of the GN LP takes responsibility for all aspects of the plan including projects which are under the control of one of the partnering members of the GNDP.
To a greater or lesser extent all the projects, i.e. development of the individual sites, are in the control of one or other of the partnering members and it is assumed that each LPA will ensure that the developers provide sufficient information to enable the authority to make an appropriate assessment for HRA if required.
The situation concerning the NWL differs in that the County Council are both the Planning Authority and Promoter/Developer for the road. As a relevant competent authority it should be making appropriate assessments both for any plans it prepares as well as specific planning applications for projects it has to determine.
In fact NCC has already carried out an appropriate assessment on the NWL in 2005 and restated this again in 20 16 as justification to the Planning Inspectorate as to why the NDR could not cross the Wensum Valley.
That assessment by the then Head of Law had a four point conclusion (see NCC/EX/65 on the Norfolk County Council website for Broadland Northway) that:
• The available evidence suggests strongly that a new or widened carriageway crossing (the SAC) will have that (significant) effect.
• Although a full and detailed assessment to the level required for an Appropriate Assessment had not been undertaken, the evidence currently available to the County Council suggests that a new or widened carriageway would adversely affect the integrity of the SAC.
• Three potential other solutions were noted, two of which were offered to the Committee for consideration namely, (a) a scheme (in effect the purple/brown route), which utilises the existing single carriageway crossing and (b) a partial route without the brown or purple route.
• Leading Counsel has advised that although there is clearly an economic and social justification for the scheme, only relatively little weight would be attached to the need to relieve congestion in the Norwich area.
This conclusion would suggest that there was an absence of reasons to justify overriding the negative impacts at that time and the GNLP does not offer any new evidence to counter this extant legal opinion.
Regulation 7c of the Habitats Regulations notes that a competent authority includes "any person exercising any function mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b)", which includes public bodies of any description. In the case of the GNLP, the GNDP is acting on behalf of all five partners and assumes the responsibility for the Habitats Regulations in the whole plan.
For this reason it is unacceptable to knowingly include a project subject to a current HRA negative finding and relying on one of the partners proving at some date in the future that this will be overturned.
Minutes of the GNDP Board meeting of 30 September 2020 also record that "Conflicting legal advice had been received regarding the inclusion or not of the Western link in the Plan".