Application Form Redacted

Object

Representation ID: 65

Received: 16/06/2024

Respondent: 99

Just a few reasons for my objection to this project.

The environmental impact of this project is not acceptable, in both construction and in future use. The rare habitats and species need to be protected. We need a fundamental change of attitude towards the treatment of the land away from resource only. This project is very unlikely to receive a licence from Natural England so please can the money (£60m) be put towards feeding our population, providing dentists, improving the hospitals, providing better public transport, funding SEN places in schools etc.. How many homes could be fitted with solar panels, heat pumps and insulation to reduce people’s heating costs?

Norfolk does not need an extension to the NDR, which has caused countless accidents, putting more pressure on our emergency services.

We need to be moving towards reducing emissions to help reduce the effects of climate change. Building a huge road will only increase the traffic through this part of Norfolk, increasing pollution. The damage to our countryside will be devastating. It sets a terrible example to residents and businesses that environmental concern has to come below increasing house building, increasing warehouse building and increasing profits. All the while we see rising flood waters and unpredictable weather pushing up food prices.

It’s very simply the wrong thing to do.

Object

Representation ID: 66

Received: 16/06/2024

Respondent: 100

Norfolk doesn't need more roads. New roads inevitably generate more traffic - there is plenty of evidence of this. There will be a massive environmental impact - and once that has happened, no one can undo it. There are no great benefits to be had from this road ; and in addition to the huge environmental cost, there is a huge cost in £££. Spend the money where we need it please -: Healthcare for example.

Object

Representation ID: 68

Received: 16/06/2024

Respondent: 101

Please do not build yet another new road in Norfolk and destroy acres of irreplaceable countryside and the wildlife that lives in it and passes through it and relies on it as part of a linked mosaic of habitats. Mitigation of planting new trees is a joke, where do the wildlife go while they are waiting the decades for these new trees to grow to maturity, they die out!! Including the rare Barberstelle bats super colony. Bat highways can only work when there is a wider undisturbed habitat, which of course if that were there you wouldn’t need a bat highway. The gain of a tiny number of minutes saved on some people’s journeys is not enough to sacrifice our landscape and wildlife for present, and more importantly future generations. If this road is built the wildlife that is lost will be gone forever. This road isn’t needed it is a monstrous waste of money, there are so many more vital things that Norfolk can be spending it on; social services, children, mental health and elderly being major examples. Many HGVs will still use local roads anyway because their destinations are within the Valley, and as there is no junction on the NWL within the valley. Locals will still need to use shortcuts from their homes to even get to the new road. PLEASE DON’T DESTROY AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR BEAUTIFUL UNIQUE COUNTY for approximately 3.5 minutes.

Support

Representation ID: 69

Received: 16/06/2024

Respondent: 104

Myself & my husband fully support the building of the remaining part of the NDR link road, during the winter months driving through Ringland is not only dangerous but time consuming during the summer is not much better we really need the link road built to support easier access to the A47

Comment

Representation ID: 70

Received: 16/06/2024

Respondent: 105

If this goes ahead, active travel must be catered for. It looks like providing a bridge lower down for walking and cycling across the river via the service road would be best option. There should have been provision of this from the start. Very poor excuse to NOT provide this from the start. A road should be for all users, not just cars. The difference providing for this is minimal. If this is not included then what a waste.

Object

Representation ID: 71

Received: 17/06/2024

Respondent: 106

There are numerous reasons why this link should not be built. Firstly, the cost: Norfolk taxpayers will need to contribute at least £60 million to this scheme, likely more since such projects often exceed their budgets. Additionally, the environmental damage to the Wensum Valley is significant. Although the project is promoted as a way to reduce rat running, it will actually increase traffic from Wymondham through Barnham Broom. The alternative proposed is to sever our village’s connection to Wymondham entirely. The journey time savings are insufficient to justify this expenditure. This is a terrible scheme that should never have reached this stage in the planning process. The proposed mitigation would close the road through Carleton Forehoe, forcing locals traveling to Wymondham to take a longer route, which will not reduce traffic through Bell Road. Furthermore, a proposed housing development on Bell Road will divert traffic past the school to use Spur Road, increasing the risk of accidents.

Support

Representation ID: 72

Received: 12/06/2024

Respondent: 107

I Fully support this application. Bats are a very versatile mammal (Redacted) has said so on his recent television programme so I am confident this road will not have any impact upon their nest site. I have never seen any dead bats on any road when driving or cycling which again confirms roads have no impact upon them as a species. The report by the NE also confirms that roads have no impact upon bats, see page 21 of the report.

Object

Representation ID: 73

Received: 14/06/2024

Respondent: 108

I object to the Norwich Western Link because of the destruction of the habitat. I also think that the money should be spent on Public Transport and safe cycle routes, to encourage people NOT to use their cars.

Object

Representation ID: 74

Received: 13/06/2024

Respondent: 109

I wish to object to the proposed planning application on a number of grounds, social, economic and environmental.
It's seems local government is not able to admit to its own environmental oversights, endorsed by their own party policy and has been [Redacted] in public statements regarding costs and environmental legislation that advises against this project.
The negative impact of proposed development cannot be mitigated against. The numbers do not add up. It is embarrassing to witness the council continuing to break the bank for the very communities it should serve to protect.

Support

Representation ID: 75

Received: 15/06/2024

Respondent: 76

1 support the western link

Support

Representation ID: 76

Received: 14/06/2024

Respondent: 110

I am a resident of Taverham and I am emailing in support of the completion of the NWR. I am aware of the objections from organisations such as Natural England and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust regarding the environmental impact of the NWR but I think that they are ignoring the environmental benefits of the link road. They are disregarding the needs of the residents of Costessey, Drayton, Taverham and Ringland. They are disregarding the savings businesses would make by having quicker and cheaper access between north and south Norwich.
Their concerns are the loss of ancient woodland and the effects of a link road on the habitat of the barbastelle bats. The percentage of ancient woodland locally that would be lost by this project is minimal. There is plenty of ancient woodland nearby in Horsford, Hevingham, Taverham, Ringland, Drayton, Felthorpe, and Costessey.
The habitat of the bats is already compromised because of the heavy traffic crossing this area through Costessey, Ringland, Drayton and Taverham. The traffic is here now. The River Wensum flooded up to a foot deep for 3 weeks in January and 3 weeks in February this year at Ringland, Taverham and Costessey. Heavy traffic was driving through the river polluting the river, debris fell off cars and several were stuck in the river for days. The heavy traffic is adversely affecting all of the wildlife in the area.
The NDR had several very costly ‘bat bridges’ installed and conservation experts say they don’t work. In over 50 years of driving I have never hit a bat or heard of anyone else hitting a bat. They don’t appear to fly in straight lines so why would a straight bridge work?
There is a colony of bats near the southern bypass at Whitlingham. They were there before the southern bypass was built and they have continued to live there ever since its construction.
The bats will be affected by the heavy traffic in this area regardless of whether or not the WLR is built.
The WLR will greatly reduce carbon emissions. It will provide a 4 mile link road between north and south Norwich which will enable the traffic to cross at 60mph (HGV, vans) to 70mph (cars) which will take approx 7 mins.
At present, HGVs have to use the ring road taking approx 40 to 50 mins travelling in congested traffic at about 20mph and cars crossing through Costessey, Taverham, Ringland and Drayton take 15 to 20 mins travelling at about 20mph. When this route is closed the cars have to follow the same route as HGVs. This route was closed for 3 weeks in January and February due to flooding and all of May due to road works in Costessey and Taverham. Traffic was also delayed in March and April due to the road works in Costessey. It is only the 14th June and it has been closed for 3 days already and is still closed so all traffic has to divert most of the time.
The extra time taken to cross this route is even more detrimental to ambulance emergencies and response times trying to access the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
There are plans to build over 2500 more homes in Taverham so this will bring more traffic to the area. More housing is being constructed at many other sites along the NDR. The existing roads are totally unsuitable for the heavy traffic crossing this area. There are single track roads across 5 vulnerable bridges over 2 rivers, through narrow streets in Costessey, Drayton and Taverham threatening the health and safety of the children attending the 7 schools.
The WLR should have been completed when the NDR was built. The area from Ringland towards the city to Hellesdon is a natural floodplain and the WLR would restore this area to a quiet rural environment that the residents and wildlife would benefit from. The additional heavy traffic is very stressful for all of them. The impact on residents in The Street and West End in Costessey is particularly awful. The Street is single track with no pavement.
The WLR will provide a purpose built elevated road over the Rivers Wensum and Tud. This will provide a quick route for ambulances, much shorter route for HGVs and traffic and negate any problems when the Rivers Wensum and Tud are flooding. Provision can be made for preventing traffic pollution entering the rivers and protection for the wildlife.
The area by the southern bypass at Whitlingham has been developed so that the wildlife and visitors can enjoy the area together. This is very beneficial to mental and physical health and children benefit from seeing the varied wildlife in the area. It would be great if the same access could be made for the public in Ringland off the WLR.
Natural England and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust should be looking at ways of incorporating access to the countryside for visitors near the WLR and looking at the benefits of reduced carbon emissions and a cleaner environment. The heavy traffic is here now and is disrupting the lives of the residents, wildlife and rivers and there is no management of the pollution and damage. They are ignoring the environmental benefits the WLR will bring to this area so they do not have a balanced argument.

Support

Representation ID: 77

Received: 15/06/2024

Respondent: 111

Norwich Western Link Road - In support
I’d like to voice my support for the Western Link Road for fear that a vocal minority will scupper the plans of one of the few positive infrastructure projects planned for Norwich and the surrounding area.
As someone who lived north of the city for almost [Redacted], I know the area and the routes very well. For many years I’ve had to deal with the congestion through ringland/Taverham or diverting through Costessey or Western Longville down roads which are far too small for modern cars, let alone goods vehicles and agricultural vehicles. This issue is exacerbated after adverse weather and often the roads become impassable due to flooding.
The west of Norwich feels isolated from the north as a resident, I can only assume it feels the same for businesses and business owners.
When compared to the north of the city, economic activity seems particularly slow around Easton and surrounding areas and the link road would no doubt boost the economy around Easton.
As there become more cars on the road, the infrastructure in the city of Norwich becomes more public-transport focussed and anti-motorist, there needs to be an alternative option for travelling around the city. The NDR link road is a great solution.
I understand the concerns some opposition have but on balance, I think the positives significantly outweigh the negatives and therefore hope the project gets the approval the city of Norwich needs

Object

Representation ID: 78

Received: 17/06/2024

Respondent: 112

AGAINST
However, I can see the need for compromise.
The current route is truly unviable. Consider the poor state of our own roads and Ringland Bridge out of commission for a month - and now Taverham Road! Potholes are making routes in and out of the villages unviable and dangerous. NC simply must put funds into their repair before even considering planning permission.
Also, it is very worrying indeed in terms of the issue of trust. The NDR is one of the most dangerous roads in the county (FOI). Your plans for the new link do not give any confidence whatever that it will any safer No need to detail here, just look at the lack of lights etc. on ‘bridge’.
Why did you not have a PLAN B? I think you’d better get one quickly. In fact, the least worst option in terms of bats and humans would have been Route B. There is a crossing already at Attlebridge (the clue is in the name) and no bats. The route would be no nearer to WL than Route C is to Ringland.

Comment

Representation ID: 79

Received: 16/06/2024

Respondent: 114

I would like to see a cycling option along the route of the proposed NWL Road, either alongside the main road, or utilising the accompanying Access Road.

Object

Representation ID: 80

Received: 17/06/2024

Respondent: 113

I wish to protest as strongly as possible on your proposal to build this environmentally destructive road . I don't believe It will stop rat running and just create a new inner zone North of the city which will encourage ribbon development including shops Fuel stations and housing estates for sale . This is not progress it is orthodox thinking designed to ramp up short term economic growth at any price. We should be developing good public transport but your plans will simply see more and more people in cars.
The carbon footprint building the road will be massive and its use even greater.
The Wensum valley has one of the most important chalk stream habitats in Europe which will be damaged & the road will also spell the destruction of rare bat colonies No consideration has been given to this valuable ecosystem and the people who live nearby. Mitigation of natural destruction has not been successful by the County Council or its contractors as can be seen in the pathetic stands of dead saplings on the existing bypass. This type of approach will never be able to replace a habit of ancient trees established woodlands and river banks . The solution to congestion is not more roads which has been proved to generate more cars but but to develop public & other alternative transport.
(Redacted) We should be working to conserve & improve Norfolk's biodiversity not further destroy it. Lastly if some link is so desirable there is an existing road a little to the west, the B1535 which could be updated, would be far less destructive & controversial & built at a fraction of the cost I suspect.

Support

Representation ID: 81

Received: 17/06/2024

Respondent: 115

It is imperative that the Western Link is completed. Costessey, Ringland, Taverham and Weston Longville cannot cope with the volume of traffic, the roads are often barely wide enough for two cars to pass, let alone larger vehicles. The recent flooding has worsened these road conditions with potholes hidden under puddles.

Vehicles heading from the west to the north of the county should have a carriageway that is well constructed to deal with the current traffic volumes and avoid our villages. This in turn would alleviate pressure on the A47 Southern bypass. Especially, as we are all well aware, that the moment there is as much as a broken down car on that route the entire road network in the area is pretty much gridlocked in no time. An alternative, suitable route to re-join the A47 at Postwick rather than pushing more traffic back into the City makes way more sense.

Comment

Representation ID: 82

Received: 17/06/2024

Respondent: 116

My family and I (5 members) are active cyclists. Please can you ensure that the new road includes a grade-separated ycle track parallel to it.

Comment

Representation ID: 83

Received: 17/06/2024

Respondent: 117

There is no cycle lane /active transport provision unlike other parts of the NDR. There is no proper mitigation for habitat loss.

Comment

Representation ID: 84

Received: 18/06/2024

Respondent: 118

I have been made aware of a proposal to stop-up Blackbreck lane (for motorised users) as part of the Norwich Western Link project.
I have been using this road for over 10 years on my motorcycle for both recreational riding and some longer journeys.
I believe that this road should be retained as a through-route with motorcycle access.
This road will become more important in the future for the vulnerable motorcycle user as it will segregate this traffic from the Major NWL classified road. In addition, it provides a valuable resource for outdoor recreation and wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 85

Received: 18/06/2024

Respondent: 119

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed closure of the byway referenced as FUL/2024/0022 known as Blackbreck Lane.
This byway has been a vital route for many years, providing essential access for many users, pedestrian, horse, motorcycle and cars, including vulnerable individuals who rely on this path for safe travel. I personally have used this lane regularly [Redacted]. Closing this byway would significantly impact these users, restricting their mobility and access to essential outdoor spaces.
Moreover, this route is a valuable resource for outdoor recreation and wellbeing. It offers an essential escape into nature, promoting physical and mental health for all who use it.
I urge you to reconsider the closure and propose a bridge or tunnel with vehicular access for this important byway for the benefit of all users.

Support

Representation ID: 86

Received: 18/06/2024

Respondent: 120

In favour of this much needed project. Predominantly to help redirect traffic to more suitable road infrastructure, free up congestion and prevent rat running in the north west area of Norwich. With these current issues only likely to worsen over time, this project should be given the go ahead if it meets the high bar on environmental impact.

Support

Representation ID: 87

Received: 18/06/2024

Respondent: 121

I and many other local people SUPPORT this application.
The traffic through Weston Longville is already intolerable and the rat running will only get even worse once the A47 dualling is finished and the proposed 1,500+ houses are built opposite Taverham garden centre.
Norwich needs a full circular dual carriageway and this is the final missing link that must be completed to benefit the future of Norwich and Norfolk for generations to come.
It is long over due so we hope they can just get on and build it soon.

Support

Representation ID: 88

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: 122

I fully support this. It should’ve been built years ago. Original plans were before Thorpe Marriott was even built and wouldn’t have been anywhere near as far out.
Taverham and Costessey are rat runs and Hellesdon is not a lot better. More building planned for Taverham as well. Get one road closed and everywhere comes to a standstill in the north of Norwich. Get a decent distributor road and a lot of that traffic won’t need to come into the city. Need to join the main roads around Norfolk to help business as well. May impact some wildlife, but the continual pollution from cars idling in traffic can’t do them any favours either. Get it done before costs spiral again!

Object

Representation ID: 89

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: 123

The Norwich Western Link road that NCC is planning to build across the Wensum Valley will devastate a highly protected area for nature. There are 60+ endangered species living there. The cost is could end up being £400 million +. Norfolk will have to pay a min of £60 million at a time when they are looking for cuts of £44 million to basic services.
The road will create massive amounts of CO2 in the construction, encourage more car use, and lead to more climate change.
The link road is wholly unsuitable and will result in irreversible damage to a to the delicate ecosystem. There has been considerable coverage of the decline of the countryside in this country, and the massive decline of native species and biodiversity. The road will further deplete the natural environment of this country when the council say they want to conserve it. The Wensum valley has one of the most important chalk stream habitats in Europe which will be damaged & the road will also spell the destruction of rare bat colonies There seems to be total disregard for all these issues and our commitment to net zero. The mitigation proposed will not work as had been seen elsewhere. We should be developing good public & alternative forms of transport but your plans will simply see more and more people in cars.
If a link is do vital then there are alternative routes such as the B1535, a little to the west, which could be updated, would be far less destructive & controversial & built at a fraction of the cost I suspect. Please reject the proposed route in favour of nature, the county and the people, and another, less damaging route be found.

Support

Representation ID: 90

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: 124

This is so very long overdue, especially for the small villages affected by the sheer volume of traffic using small roads to cut through from the A47 to the A1067. Lyng is a small village of 800 residents, but we regularly have over 800 vehicles travelling through each morning and evening, many of them heavy goods vehicles as well as commuter traffic. The roads leading to the village are not wide enough for two heavy goods vehicle's to pass each other, difficult with one heavy goods vehicle and a car! I have read arguments against the project such as protecting bats, well what about protecting our children that have to cross our single road to get to school? About improving pubic transport - why should the money be given to private companies to run buses which cannot traverse our lanes and don't run on time? What happens when that money runs out? Those companies will remove that access. Ruining the Wensum Valley and the river? There is a viaduct to cross the valley so it will have little affect. The money is fully funded by the government, if we do not use it it will go elsewhere. What provided more pollution> A 5 mile snarl up on the 47 or a free running link road? It is the only way to relieve the congestion, pollution and risk to life from those villages currently blighted. GET THIS ROAD BUILT!!!!

Object

Representation ID: 91

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: 125

This road needs to be stopped. I understand the desire to reduce traffic and rat-running etc. However, in a climate emergency we cannot have any new roads. The CO2 emissions are unjustifiable and we should instead use the money to invest in public transportation, discouraging the use of cars.
This road is estimated at £212 million so far and will no doubt go beyond that, all whilst Norfolk County Council are cutting funding to essential services. It is absolutely abhorrent.
This road will destroy countless habitats, particularly harming the barbestelle bats. The wensum valley is at risk, with its precious chalk streams. No lives deserve to be lost for the reduction of traffic.
To go ahead with this road goes against Natural England who refused to give planning permission for it.
I beg you to think beyond convenience, beyond your own lives, beyond the instant gratification of an easier commute. Instead, think of the planet, think of the barbestelles, and think of where that money could be better placed to invest in our future for the collective good.
A new road on a dead planet counts for nothing.

Object

Representation ID: 92

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: 126

This expensive and unnecessary road will cause irreparable damage to an important wildlife habitat and will not solve any problems. Any reduction in congestion and improved journey times will be short lived as more vehicles on the road create more congestion. We need to invest in improved public transport and sustainable solutions that reduce traffic and carbon emissions. This is a dangerous, unsustainable and reckless scheme in the face of the growing threat of global warming.

Support

Representation ID: 93

Received: 20/06/2024

Respondent: 127

This road needs to be built. It will reduce rat running and pollution. The damage to nature has been grossly over exaggerated by a vocal minority lobby.

Object

Representation ID: 94

Received: 20/06/2024

Respondent: 128

Please accept this email as an individual objection to the Norwich Western Link Road planning consultation, reference FUL/2024/0022 .
I am extremely concerned about the effects the planned Norwich Western Link would have on wildlife and habitats on the proposed road route and the surrounding area if this project is allowed to go ahead. I agree with local experts that these road plans pose a serious risk to rare and legally protected wildlife and that the predicted benefits are far outweighed by the national importance of the area for wildlife.
I am concerned for the continual reduction and elimination of our wildlife for the mere convenience of human life that is socially constructed to be more important than anything else. We destroy our eco-system, and if we keep making these decisions to destroy habitats which can wipe out rare species, this is only going to continue until we have no diversity left, and eventually nothing left at all. Everything is decided on with a 'short term' mentality, when what we really need to be focusing on is the 'long term'. we should be working with our wildlife, moving with nature, not against it.
We are in a biodiversity and climate crisis and consenting this proposal would be a serious blow to national nature and climate recovery. Nature really needs our help and must be put at the heart of important decision-making to secure a prosperous future for us all.

Object

Representation ID: 95

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: 129

Please accept this email as an individual objection to the Norwich Western Link Road planning consultation, reference FUL/2024/0022 .

I am extremely concerned about the effects the planned Norwich Western Link would have on wildlife and habitats on the proposed road route and the surrounding area if this project is allowed to go ahead. I agree with local experts that these road plans pose a serious risk to rare and legally protected wildlife and that the predicted benefits are far outweighed by the national importance of the area for wildlife.

Independent specialist advice has conclusively determined that this road project would cause irreparable damage to wildlife and biodiversity. Ignoring this advice undermines the rules-based planning process that is the legal foundation for how the environment is managed. Going ahead with this scheme in the face of such advice would be a travesty.

We are in a biodiversity and climate crisis and consenting this proposal would be a serious blow to national nature and climate recovery. Nature really needs our help and must be put at the heart of important decision-making to secure a prosperous future for us all.