Question 23: Do you support, object or have any comments relating to approach to transport?

Not enough consideration has been made to the impact on carbon targets of increasing road traffic by further road developments. More emphasis needs to be placed on alternative means of transport or at the very least ways of carbon offsetting. For instance including a rewilding project on the vast amount of surrounding agricultural land. A more cohesive plan for sustainable development is sadly lacking.

The economic and social benefits of the planned East-West rail link deserve greater recognition and advancement in this plan. The connection to Oxford and beyond has potential to reduce road traffic in both directions as would greater commuter use of the line from Cambridge/Thetford to Norwich.
An ambitious plan for a bus to rail interchange south-west of Norwich would facilitate and promote those benefits. The local transport plan for a rapid bus to train connection at Wymondham station is too limited. Far better to envisage interchange at Thickthorn or perhaps Ketteringham. Convenient bus services to NNUH etc. then become practical.

The innovative plan to establish two additional railway stations at Rackheath and at Dussindale would allow many more journeys to work, to education and for leisure to be made by rail. A worthwhile contribution would be made towards reduced congestion and pollution.

I can support the ideas concerning transport in the growth corridor, but I hope there can also be support outside the growth area. Specifically I hope the GNLP will look favourably at the Aylsham in the Future proposals from the Cittaslow group, which examine the potential for improving parking and the road network in Aylsham in far more depth than a recent local authority study. The ideas within this look to the likely look of transport in the next twenty years rather than minor adjustments.

The NDR & Proposed Westrn Link
The road wasn't necessary to ease traffic congestion and in fact it will add to the congestion. There are several less intrusive alternatives to easing any congestion of this area of Norwich. It has taken up much needed green land which is used for growing food and for recreational purposes. Other transport issues require greater priority including the poorly maintained state of the current road network and the poor bus & local railway system. £60 million pound overspends and green space destructions are not sustainable.

NDR Broadland Northway & the &60 million overspend plus the proposed Norwich Western Link already in this plan will have an adverse financial & environmental impact
The further hard coring over of open and green field land and the allied housing and business developments will increase the adverse impact on the environment. The effects of over development e.g. erratic weather patterns, fire storms and flooding, strain on services of all kinds including water. Flora & fauna will suffer & people will not be able to enjoy the mental and physical benefits of being in the open air and countryside.

Aylsham sits adjacent to the A140 trunk road has the benefit of good bus services to Norwich. These bus services are used extensively, both by residents of the town and residents from the settlements to the north of the town. The limited town centre car parking is now used by commuters accessing the bus services which pass through the town centre. Consideration should be given to developing a strategic bus corridor on the A140 with a park-and-ride provision on the periphery of Aylsham with direct access to the A140.

We need the maximum concentration on public transport and cycling/walking. We need to actively encourage people to minimise the use of cars.

I support the shift away from cars.
This is incompatible with building the Norwich Western Link and A47 dualling. The phenomenon of induced traffic when building new road infrastructure is well known.
These projects are very expensive and money could be much better spent on upgrading single carriageways across the valley and providing public transport and cycle infrastructure.
Promised mass transit on the NDR should also be provided before building new roads is considered.

Transport strategy as stated seems very dated. I would suggest to completely revise strategy. Road building will not help meet biodiversity and climate change targets, and I don’t feel that these are being taken seriously at all. The Western Link road is a terrible waste of money and should be scrapped as an idea. The NDR had a huge biodiversity effect and yet NCC claim otherwise. I have no confidence in their ability to deliver climate promises at all. Spend the 300 million on public transport- that would be forward thinking and sensible.

I care for our wildlife, please would you take my views into consideration, i would like to say, No to the Western Link, No to dualling the A47 and No to ever building on Greenfield sites.
In the face of the climate crisis, these plans are suicidal.
Humans are not the only species that should be taken into account in planning documents. Our survival depends on healthy ecosystems, not construction.

Please see attached

Please find my submission on the "Stage C Regulation 18 Draft Strategy and Site Allocations" consultation. This document comprise part of the Norwich Green Party submission, and submitted early as I am going away. I understand other sections of the Norwich Green Party submissions will follow later.

The transport policy’s stated aims include limiting the need to travel and encouraging modal shift. However, as with the JCS, these aims are comprehensively undermined by the actual infrastructure projects proposed, including the Western Link road, which will be catastrophic for carbon emissions, communities and wildlife (as well as offering an appalling return on investment in terms of economic benefits) and should be scrapped. While the introductory ‘blurb’ to the policy talks about promoting sustainable and active transport and a shift towards non-car modes, the listed projects include road widening, a bypass, the Western Link, and support for the airport. These schemes will undermine the stated aims, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
It would be good to see a policy on modal shift for last-mile deliveries, e.g by supporting one or more depots on the edge of Norwich from which deliveries can be made by cargo bike.
Paragraph 209 suggests an alarming misunderstanding of the UK’s net zero emissions target. The target is not for “zero carbon development by 2050” - which suggests it would only apply to new projects – but net zero emissions overall by 2050 from all UK domestic activity. That means “zero carbon development” needs to start now, not in 2049 – but instead, Norfolk is continuing with a 20th-century approach to infrastructure, with major road schemes that will lock us into high levels of emissions for years to come.
Paragraph 213 states that private car use is “particularly important to the rural economy”. That is currently true under a business-as-usual scenario; but this is a long-term plan and should reflect the fact that business as usual is not going to continue. Greater Norwich has an opportunity to plan for modal shift, less need to travel, and more genuinely local access to jobs and services – which the plan claims are among its aims. What purpose does it then serve to reiterate support up to 2038 for a damaging and outdated transport mode, instead of thinking creatively about how to actually make modal shift and local jobs a reality?
The efforts to improve cycle infrastructure in Norwich are very welcome and I hope to see these continue.

CPRE Norfolk supports the provision of new railway stations at Rackheath and especially Dussindale as outlined in paragraph 206.

We note the contradiction in the Transport for Norwich Strategy as reflected in Policy 4 – Strategic Infrastructure, when it aims ‘to promote modal shift’ by having ‘significant improvements to the bus, cycling and walking network’ on the one hand, but promotes ‘delivery of the Norwich Western Link road’ on the other. CPRE Norfolk fully supports the former set of aims while opposing the latter.

CPRE Norfolk supports ‘protection of the function of strategic transport routes (corridors of movement)’, and as part of this strongly suggests that no industrial development should be permitted on unallocated sites along such corridors of movement.

The desire to support ‘the growth and regional significance of Norwich Airport for both leisure and business travel to destinations across the UK and beyond’ surely contradicts the aspirations for addressing climate change stated within Section 4 of the draft GNLP?

Public transport provision needs to be improved and made affordable, not only between main towns and key service centres, but to and from smaller settlements. This is essential even without any further growth of these settlements, as many areas of rural Norfolk have become public transport deserts.

COMMENT - Response to Greater Norwich Local Plan consultation:

Norfolk is a rural area, and tourism is an important business. It is the unspoilt rural nature and the preponderance of wildlife, and, to a certain extent the remoteness that makes it so attractive to many. Increased housing and roads will detract from that, and make life less tolerable for residents.
The incredibly-long documents submitted as part of this local plan (which very few people will ever read) include a statement of intent to improve public transport and promote cycling and walking. How can new roads be part of this plan? Yet the Norwich Western Link and the Long Stratton by-pass both figure in the plan. These expensive schemes should not be included, as some sensible revamping of junctions, and introduction of good public transport will ease congestion and make these new roads unnecessary, as well as improving connectivity for those many people who are unable to drive or do not own a car.
Similarly, the huge increase in housing build will only detract from the general ambience of Norfolk, including Norwich, as an historic city. It is time that local authorities encouraged the government to introduce schemes to make better use of existing housing stock, flats over shops, large houses used only by one or two people; and of course, to reduce immigration and the birth rate. It is local authorities who are landed with the responsibility of catering for this increase in population, and the problems it causes

Public transport provision needs to be improved and made affordable, not only between main towns and key service centres, but to and from smaller settlements. This is essential even without any further growth of these settlements, as many areas of rural Norfolk have become public transport deserts.

The need for the Norwich Western Link Road remains unproven, the option selected may well not help Taverham, Easton or Costessey, (particularly with their huge housing targets to add to Longwater Lane junction and other transportation issues).
Growth of Norwich Airport for both leisure and business travel is not compatible with Carbon targets and potentially the Paris Agreement.
The impacts of the A47 road improvements on the environment have been played down, particularly the junctions proposed in the Tud Valley section, which will affect and harm the fragile environments there, particularly during construction and then long after.

"As a rule developers are asked to pay for a new schools" From my experience the council do not appear to enforce building of these schools at a realistic time to support the new homeowners and hence existing schools struggle to cope and children have to be transported elsewhere. I confirm that is currently the situation where we now live. Local Transport facilities do not appear to be working in Wymondham why is there a major issue with parking associated with police headquarters , this is all a lack of adequate fore-thought and planning

Future housing developments should be concentrated in sites close to a railway station to reduce the number of car journeys to employment centres.

The Saving Swainsthorpe Campaign fully supports investment to improve railway infrastructure (para. 206). There appears to be confusion within a number of proposals such as the expansion of Norwich Airport versus commitment to lowering carbon emissions. Public transport, particularly for rural areas would contribute significantly to the quality of life within these village, this becomes more urgent with the proposed expansion of houses proposed in the plan. The protection of 'corridors of movement' should restrict additional development, particularly employment / industrial development.

Lanpro support the delivery of transport improvements and particularly improvements to facilitate public transport, walking and cycling in a timely manner. This is essential to support delivery of proposed housing and employment growth. Delivery of necessary infrastructure to support significant dispersal of housing growth to small rural village clusters will, however, be difficult and expensive. Small schemes may have limited ability to fund or provide both on and off-site transport improvements through land provision and developer contributions. Therefore, significant dispersal of housing growth to small rural clusters should not form part of the growth strategy (see our response to Q.13).

Public transport provision needs to be improved and made affordable, not only between main towns and key service centres, but to and from smaller settlements, particularly if the “village cluster” concept is to remain. This is essential even without any further growth of these settlements, as many areas of rural Norfolk have become public transport deserts.

Glavenhill Ltd support the delivery of transport improvements (particularly those that facilitate public transport, walking and cycling) in a timely manner. This is essential to support delivery of proposed housing and employment growth. Delivery of necessary infrastructure to support significant dispersal of housing growth to small rural village clusters will, however, be difficult and expensive. Small schemes may have limited ability to fund or provide both on and off-site transport improvements through land provision and developer contributions. Therefore, significant dispersal of housing growth to small rural clusters should not form part of the growth strategy (see our response to Q.13).

Please see attached for consultation response from Hempnall Parish Council.

Please see also the Hempnall Parish Council Position Statement on sites in Hempnall proposed by landowners for inclusion in the GNLP - included with this submission. This Position Statement, which deals directly with the detail of what Hempnall Parish Council wants for Hempnall, should be considered alongside our consultation response which makes a number of more general comments about the Draft GNLP.

There is insufficient detail as to HOW transport provision will be improved for the outer reaches of the GNLP area. The focus is too heavily on Norwich and Major road networks (A roads). There is no commitment to improvement within Hingham which is situated on the B1108 which is subject to ever increasing traffic numbers and carries traffic from the large areas of development in and around Watton/Carbrooke (Breckland).
The policy document notes that Hingham has "good transport links". This is not an accurate description. The Joint Core Strategy 6.53 describes Hingham as having a “limited bus service”, since the JCS was adopted there has been a reduction in bus services and threats of loss of the already severely limited direct bus service to Dereham .
In the context of the climate emergency where we need to encourage everyone to be less reliant on cars and to use public transport as much as possible, this strategy document, taking us up to 2038, is very much lacking in ambition and concrete provisions of improvement to transport links. Currently buses are available to Wymondham, Watton and Norwich every 30 minutes and buses to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital and Research Park once an hour, also buses stop at around 7pm.

In terms of employment the document states Hingham is "well located to benefit from additional employment opportunities in the Cambridge Norwich Tech Corridor" - this does not seem an accurate description in the context of reliance on public transport when there is one bus an hour to the Research Park and a bus to the Hethel Innovation Centre (a 20 minute drive) would take 2 hours via Norwich. In addition, no consideration has been made to account for the fact that Hingham is on the very edge of South Norfolk bordering with Breckland and that people could quite conceivably want to travel to Attleborough or Dereham for work, local amenities or leisure and there are either limited or no public transport links directly available to these places at all (a bus to Attleborough would take over an hour verses a 10 minute drive by car, and to Dereham a 40 minute bus ride is only available twice a week, otherwise an hour and a half bus journey versus a 20 minute drive).
In terms of leisure a night bus service, enabling people to return from the city after going to the theatre or seeing a band would also be very welcome. For a strategy that claims to aspire towards a "radical shift away from the private car" current plans seem woefully inadequate.
There is no mention in Policy 4 of road infrastructure improvements to support additional traffic through the rural communities forced to accept more housing development, and no commitment to ensuring that infrastructure will be enhanced to try to ensure greater adherence to speed limits.
There are long held concerns over the safety of the B1108 Fairland crossroads – More housing development in Hingham and the surrounding areas will only increase the vehicle numbers using this already dangerous crossroad. Hingham Town Council have applied for (and have been successful) NCC Parish Partnership bid for a feasibility study into the Fairland/B1108 junction safety improvements. In order to support further development of Hingham, if it is proved to be feasible to improve this junction, a firm commitment needs to be made from the Highways authority to undertake the work.

We support the approach to transport.
The proposed new settlement Honingham Thorpe is well related to the strategic road network, in particular it would support the planned improvements to the A47. Highways England are currently consulting on their plans for dualling the A47 between Easton and North Tuddenham, at present it is their intention to provide a grade separated junction directly to the north of the site to serve the Food Enterprise Park and surrounding villages. Clarion and Brown & Co. have engaged with Highways England throughout and will make suitable representations to their consultation. The proposed delivery of these improvements corresponds with the proposed timetable of the Greater Norwich Local Plan.
The creation of a new settlement would facilitate a modal shift from car reliance to walking and cycling through the creation of truly walkable neighbourhoods, with all essential social infrastructure within the village centre and a wide range of employment opportunities across the settlement. Honingham Thorpe is predicated upon a comprehensive multi-functional green infrastructure network, creating attractive green routes which are accessible to all and encourage walking.
It is the intention of Clarion to secure an electric bus service for the village, to facilitate access to Norwich and the retail and leisure opportunities on offer there. Additionally, the site is well related to Easton, where it is proposed to provide a Rapid Bus Transit route to the city centre as part of the Transforming Cities programme. Should this proceed then it is proposed to link with this network and enhance it where possible.

Please see attached for full submission

Please see attached for full submission

Please see attached for full submission

Please see attached for full submission