Category: Environment

  • Emma Corlett – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Emma Corlett – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Emma Corlett, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Group on Norfolk County Council, on 1 January 2023.


    (i) Are the Labour group on Norfolk County Council opposing the project primarily on the cost or environmental grounds?

    Our initial opposition and manifesto position was on environmental grounds and in favour of investing in public transport infrastructure. Over the past eighteen months concerns about the rocketing cost have given an additional dimension to our steadfast opposition to the proposed road.

    (ii) Is the suggested need for the road simply a legacy of an inadequate public transport system in the county?

    In part, but also a failure of a vision by the council as strategic transport authority that genuinely addresses the climate crisis, tackles social inequality (see car ownership stats below for 2011 census – 2021 not yet available but we anticipate being worse due to austerity of past twelve years). It is also ideologically driven in that the ruling Tory administration have a very outdated view of “growth” and are not focussed on sustainable and inclusive growth. They love leaving a “legacy” and like 1970s style legacy infrastructure projects such as this road.

    Households with no car (2011 census)

    Norwich 33%

    Great Yarmouth 28%

    King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 17%

    North Norfolk 17%

    Broadland 12%

    South Norfolk 12%

    (iii) Do you agree with the council’s suggestion that the road is essential for economic growth or do you feel that there are alternatives?

    No, we do not agree the road is essential for economic growth. There are greater priorities in the County that would bring sustainable growth such as in integrated and affordable public transport system to get people around the county not just for work and education but for leisure and social life. People will spend money in the local economy if they can access it easily and cheaply. It would also boost sustainable tourism. Our vision for ‘growth’ is based on the principles of the Green New Deal (eg, Pettifor’s Case for A Green New Deal – the Ecologist – Ann Pettifor) rather than the outdated vision of growth that we are being presented with. Norfolk is well placed to develop the renewable energy sector. We face a social care crisis and investment in the social care skills and workforce would pay dividends with the challenge of a rapidly aging population.

     

  • ISSUE OF THE WEEK 1 : Balancing Economic Growth with Protecting the Environment – the Norwich Western Link Road

    ISSUE OF THE WEEK 1 : Balancing Economic Growth with Protecting the Environment – the Norwich Western Link Road

    The planned road from Broadland Northway roundabout (Norfolk County Council)

    This is the first in our ‘issue of the week’ series which are designed to collect information and resources together about specific matters of political debate. Although we are publishing a number of documents every week for each new issue, we will also continually add new resources to these pages to make them as comprehensive as possible. We also hope that students will find the topics useful as a starting point for research on matters of political interest.

    For this week’s ‘issue’, we’re looking at how politicians can balance economic growth whilst also protecting the environment, especially on matters of infrastructure projects. One of these current debates is in Norfolk, East Anglia, with the planned Norwich Western Link. We have interviews with Martin Wilby, a Conservative councillor and the Cabinet Member for Highways, Infrastructure and Transport at Norfolk County Council, and also the campaign group established to oppose the road, Stop the Wensum Link. Listed below, we also have additional interviews we have conducted, as well as collecting together past statement and policy positions from charities, pressure groups and individuals.

    The council are supporting the road (the route of which is visible in the council’s own video above) as they argue that it completes the ring of roads (the Southern Bypass which opened in 1992 and the Norwich Northern Distributor Route – which is formally known as the Broadland Northway – which opened in April 2018) around Norwich and will improve transport links in the county. Although Norfolk County Council are the main movers of the project, it is also supported by the majority of other councils in Norfolk, although Norwich City Council oppose the road as it promoted car dependency in the area. The road construction is supported by numerous organisations including Norfolk Fire Service and also the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital who believe on balance that it would be beneficial because of reduced ambulance conveyancing times, as well as Norfolk Chambers of Commerce who say it will meet “our growth ambitions”. Norfolk Constabulary stated that they supported the road as “it would be useful to have the Western Link Road completed which would save officers time when they are on an emergency call rather than go partially around the route and then have to traverse through the city roads”.

    However, the reason this section of road was not constructed along with the Broadland Northway was explained by the council stating in their executive summary in 2008:

    “[The public consultation led to] strong environmental concerns being expressed about the impact of a new road across the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to which the County Council responded by carrying out further assessment beyond a Stage 2 level to ascertain whether the impact on the SAC could be mitigated. The conclusion was that it could not be demonstrated that the new road would not affect the integrity of the SAC. Alongside this, traffic modelling indicated that a road starting at the A1067 in the west rather than the A47 gave significant benefits and delivered most of the objectives of the NDR scheme and these were key factors in the decision to choose the preferred route as now proposed.”

    These environmental concerns are based around the land which would need to be crossed which is the rare chalk stream habitat of the Wensum Valley. The council’s proposals include a bridge across the River Wensum itself, but opponents question whether this would significantly damage not just the natural environment, but also be damaging visually and cause noise issues during both the construction of the road and then from traffic using it. Stop the Wensum Link point to the environmental mitigation measures on the Norwich Broadland Northway and say that these “had failed” with the council’s own inspection report showing issues.

    The council are arguing that after reviewing transport usage that this section should now be built. After some initial research and site investigations, there were four suggested routes for the new road which went to a wider consultation and review, with the council preferring route C. Although this consultation is now closed, details of all of the routes are still visible at https://nwloptions.commonplace.is/. The council have organised a number of events explaining the need for the road and they also published the results of the 2018 public consultation exercise.

    The council argue that there are economic benefits to the road, stating that the environmental issues can be mitigated. Others argue that the environmental impact is too damaging and the CPRE produced a report with evidence that road projects simply generate more traffic. The Government believe that new infrastructure is necessary for the economy, with the Western Link road being listed in the Government’s September 2022 Growth Plan. Other pressure groups, such as the Campaign for Better Transport, have argued that sustainable transport can reduce the need for new roads and have published a research paper entitled Roads and the Environment. The new road is opposed by environmental groups including Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth, the Woodland Trust, Norfolk Rivers Trust and the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists’ Society.

    Opponents of the scheme also argue that roads are only necessary because there are a lack of alternative public transport options, with some suggesting that despite environmental concerns the Government is too ready to provide financing for new road projects. The council have also had to amend their preferred route slightly due to the presence of bats in the area, which are a protected species. There is also the challenge of providing access to the road for pedestrians and cyclists, with Norwich Cycling Campaign stating their opposition to the current proposals as they don’t include cycle lanes which the group says is necessary to keep cyclists safe. Other public transport organisations such as First Eastern Counties Buses said that they supported the road because they believed that it would “reduce congestion” in the area. A representative from KonectBus also stated that they supported the Western Link, but wanted the road “to be built as close to the Longwater junction as possible” in their public consultation submission.

    Part of the land that would be crossed by the road (copyright UKPOL)

    The current cost of the 3.9 mile long road is estimated to be around £251 million, an increase on the previous estimate of £198 million, although opponents of the project have suggested that the final total might be closer to £300 million. The project requires the financial backing of the Department for Transport, who would provide 85% of the total funding. The Government is also committed to continuing a road building programme, but have stated that they are focused on the Strategic Road Network being net zero. However, there is still a significant cost to the council and Stop the Wensum Link note on their web-site:

    “Norfolk County Council already have a deficit of £39M, forcing them to hike council tax 3% this year. With construction costs spiralling, high inflation and stagnating wages, throwing more money at building this road makes no sense. Increasing costs and an already debt laden council threatens vital services and risks further tax rises.”

    Although the Government’s growth plan of September 2022 mentioned the road, this was under Liz Truss’s brief premiership and no guarantees have been given to the council on whether funding will still be made available. Liz Truss had been in support of the road before becoming Prime Minister and as she was a Norfolk MP, it had seemed very likely that her government would have backed the plans. With Rishi Sunak now Prime Minister, a final decision on the funding is expected to be made in 2023 with the Government needing to balance the economic argument alongside a growing demand for action to be taken to protect the environment and there is also the backdrop of potential national spending cuts being needed to balance the books.

    If the funding is made available, the current timetable for the road construction is:

    Mid-2022 – Pre-planning application public consultation
    Spring 2023 – Submit planning application
    Late 2023 – Public inquiry (if required)
    Mid-2024 – Full Business Case submitted to the Department for Transport
    Late 2024 – Start of construction
    Late 2026 – Norwich Western Link open for use

    This road is an example of the challenges which local Government have in trying to balance economic growth and the environment. It also shows the cost of embarking on these projects and the substantial amount of work that has to take place to get them to a stage where funding can be secured. For those opposing schemes such as this, there are financial challenges as councils have funding to help them make a business case for a new road, whereas campaigning organisations often have to fund raise to secure their monies. They also often have to be creative in how they can get publicity for their work, with the Stop the Wensum Link group holding numerous events and having a strong social media presence.

    Whether or not the road is built, this is likely to be an important case that is watched by other councils and governmental bodies to see how the environmental impact is dealt with. It also shows how much work local councillors have to put in to these projects, often facing opposition to their plans and needing to constantly respond to that. But, on the flip side, it also shows how much work and energy that volunteer campaigners put in towards monitoring projects and putting together arguments to help protect the environment. These are complex arguments and why it is perhaps important for individuals to become engaged in politics to fight for their beliefs to ensure that the best decisions are made.

    For readers, we have listed a wide variety of resources below which may help those who are undecided on whether they support this road project and ones like it. We will continue to add to this list and continue to secure more interviews as the project continues.


    KEY INTERVIEWS

    Martin Wilby

    Stop the Wensum Link

    INTERVIEWS, RESOURCES AND COMMENTS

    Emma Corlett, Deputy Leader Labour Group of Norfolk County Council

    Ben Price, Leader of Green Party Group of Norfolk Council Council

    Chloe Smith, Conservative MP for Norwich North

    Chloe Smith – 2019 Letter to Norfolk County Council on Norwich Western Link

    Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South

    George Freeman, Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk

    Jerome Mayhew, Conservative MP for Broadland

    Natalie Bennett, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (former Leader of the Green Party)

    Nova Fairbank, Norfolk Chambers of Commerce

    Norfolk County Council – Key Benefits of the Road

    Norfolk County Council – 2016 Technical Report for the Road

    Norfolk County Council – 2021 Outline Business Case for the Road

    Norfolk County Council – 2022 Addendum to Business Case

    10 Myths About the Western Link – Stop the Wensum Link

    CPRE Letter to Norfolk County Council Opposing Road

    Report to Breckland District Council’s Cabinet

    Bat Conservation Trust’s Position Statement

    First Eastern Counties Buses Letter of Support for the Project


    PRESS RELEASES

    [The county council also have their own extensive timeline of documents at https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/major-projects-and-improvement-plans/norwich/norwich-western-link/timeline]

    Amended route options approved as Norwich Western Link shortlist – 09/11/2018 [Norfolk County Council]

    Road Link Across Wensum Valley Would Cause Irreversible Harm – 15/01/2019 [Norwich Green Party]

    Western Link for NDR options are unacceptable, says NWT – 11/01/2019 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    Grave concerns as Norwich Western Link route approved – 16/07/2019 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    Preferred route for Norwich Western Link agreed by councillors – 25/07/2019 [Norfolk County Council]

    Cabinet asked to agree council’s approach to appoint Norwich Western Link contractor – 24/01/2020 [Norfolk County Council]

    NDR Western Link – Net Gain is not enough – 03/02/2020 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    NWT reaction to conditional support for Western Link road – 18/05/2020 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    NDR Western Link – Norfolk Wildlife Trust will object – 02/09/2020 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    Western Link threatens probable largest barbastelle bat colony in UK – 01/12/2020 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    Norwich Western Link contractor announced – 25/06/2021 [Norfolk County Council]

    Ferrovial Construction Awarded Norwich Western Link Project – 25/06/2021 [Ferrovial Construction]

    The Wensum Link – What About Cycling? -22 August 2021 [Norwich Cycling Campaign]

    Maternity colony for rare bats continues to be under threat from proposed road route – 06/12/2021 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    National Highways announce new environmental sustainability division as it targets net zero – 07/01/2022 [National Highways]

    Campaigners from Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex have signed a joint statement calling for greener priorities in Transport East’s 30-year plan -31/01/2022 [Stop the Wensum Link]

    Western Link’s design refined following bat surveys – 25/02/2022 [Norfolk County Council]

    Norwich Western Link remains catastrophic for wildlife despite route changes – 04/07/2022 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    The Western Link: What would happen to our wildlife? – 08/08/2022 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    Our Open Letter, in objection to the Norwich Western Link – 17/08/2022 [Norfolk Wildlife Trust]

    Western link still represents value for money, despite cost increase – 24/06/2022 [Norfolk County Council]


    EXTERNAL LINKS

    Stop the Wensum Link

    Norfolk County Council – Western Link Road

    Norfolk Wildlife Trust – Western Link Road

    Wensum Woodlanders

    Buglife – Western Link Road

    Norwich Western Link – Campaign Web-Site Opposing the Road

    Big Issue Article – Wales has stopped building new roads. Will other countries go down the same route?

    Imperial College Business School Report – Are new roads worth the money?

    Guardian News Article – Norfolk road report rewritten to remove warning of risk to bats

    The wood and the road: my battle to save an irreplaceable ecosystem

    Andrew Boswell’s Crowd Justice Campaign to Stop Road Building

    Greenpeace – Building New Roads Creates More Traffic

  • Stop the Wensum Link Group – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Stop the Wensum Link Group – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Stop the Wensum Link Group published on 1 January 2023.


    (i) The county council has modelled numerous routes for the Norwich Western Link (NWL). Do any of them have your support, or is there any new road development or improvement that you would support?

    We would support single-carriageway improvements to B1535 and its junctions with A1067 and A47, in conjunction with other non-new-road initiatives e.g public transport and restriction of traffic through villagesMost of such a road improvement was proposed and agreed amongst local villages in 2008, but a much lower-cost scheme was put in place instead. 

    (ii) The NWL has the support of numerous public bodies, including emergency services, the majority of councils and many business groups. Are they mistaken in that support?

    Unfortunately, they are.  

    We have never seen an analysis by any emergency service to show how many emergency journeys would be shortened by the building of the proposed road, and by how many minutes. We suspect the difference is negligible; after all, the blue light allows high speed on existing roads.  Ambulance response times currently are much more affected by the availability of vehicles than how fast a route is.

    Councils and business groups always see new roads as reducing travel times, making industry and commerce more efficient.  This is probably true to a certain extent, but its effect is exaggerated.  The Norwich Distributor Road, for instance, predicted commercial gain, but this has not yet been assessed; the ‘one year after’ report declined to do an analysis, and promised to do one after 5 years (2023). We need to see and evaluate that report before giving credence to the idea that an NWL would improve commerce. 

    Any improvement in commerce has to be weighed against the major harm such a road would do, and its escalating financial cost. 

    (iii) The Norwich Northern Distributor Road (or Broadland Northway) was finished in 2018 and nearly completed a circle around Norwich with the exception of the proposed NWL. Isn’t there an inevitable number of car journeys which would be more efficiently completed along one joined-up road rather than having to cut through villages? Do you feel that evidence has been produced by the council to quantify that number of journeys?   

    Certainly, many car journeys may be more efficiently completed on the proposed new road, depending on exactly is meant by ‘efficiently’.  Much better fuel and emissions efficiency would be achieved by encouraging travellers to use a good public transport system, instead of their cars. 

    Council predictions show much of the 15,000 journeys per day across the valley would transfer to the NWL. We believe this is hugely exaggerated, and that many journeys will still be pressed through villages and suburbs. Especially closer to Norwich where the time saving of driving out to the NWL will be negligible at best. Council traffic counts have shown how many vehicles travel through the villages, but not their origins and destinations. So NCC do not have full information to base their decision on. Such information could inform the creation of the most efficient bus routes. 

    (iv) The county council has said that there would be no public transport along the route of the road as there would be limited demand. Do you consider that this excludes those who can’t afford a car?

    Yes, clearly it does.  Those members of society are excluded now, as there is no public transport across the valley.  We cannot agree that there would be limited demand for good, well-planned  joined up, frequent and affordable public transport.  Figures show a minimum of 15,000 journeys each way (mostly cars) within the valley sector. A proportion of these could be shifted to public transport. But this needs to be a comprehensive system, not a couple of infrequent bus routes. This could be instated at low capital cost without building the proposed new road.

    (v) The county council claims that the majority of the public support the construction of the road. Is this a legacy of a failure of public transport policy in Norfolk over recent decades?

    That is certainly a major component.  Public transport throughout the country is poor, not only in Norfolk, despite government statements of the need for ‘modal shift’.  This has led the public to lose trust in public transport outside the very big cities.  Norfolk, in particular, has reneged on its promise to introduce ‘bus rapid transit’ services, which was an agreed action when the NDR was approved. Cost, reliability, frequency, speed, and lack of useful routes has meant that much of the public prefer to rely on their own transport, with resulting increasing congestion and harm to the environment.  The attitude of Norfolk CC has been that ‘this is a car county’. Many people do love their cars, but if public transport were good, more people would not need to meet the costs of running one. 

    (vi) The cost of the road is estimated to be over £250 million with the majority paid for by national Government (if agreement is reached), but much to be funded by Norfolk County Council (perhaps around £50 million). Would it better for the county to use that money to fund the public transport network? Do you have any view on how the money could be spent instead?

    Most certainly.  With regard to the NWL area, subsidised bus routes could be introduced from, say, Dereham to the Airport area, Aylsham to Wymondham, Fakenham through Hellesdon and Costessey to the Hospital; a consolidation of bus routes on the A47.  These are just a few examples.  Bus routes need to be informed by detailed origin and destination analysis, with continual review when in operation.  We have noted much support for the improvement of bus services when have raised this at events. It is worth bearing in mind that the result of the most recent general questionnaire on transport in Norfolk (before the NDR was built, in 2005) the MOST popular policy was ‘improve public transport’. Yet NCC then made building the NDR their top priority. 

    (vii) You have raised concerns about numerous aspects of the environmental damage, including removing ancient woodland, destroying the habitat of bats and impacting on the River Wensum. How much of this can the council mitigate if the road is constructed?

    Very little.  No mitigating measures can compensate for the loss of an ancient woodland, or an important hedge. They take centuries to develop, and the wildlife cannot wait for newly panted saplings to grow into old trees. Unfortunately, many councillors and others seem to think that all wildlife can learn to live anywhere, and will easily move and adapt to change, as do wood pigeons, blackbirds and rats. This is not the case. If we carry on disturbing their habitats, the more specialist animals will not survive, and we risk ending up with an environment with reduced variety.  

    No doubt care can be taken in construction of the viaduct to reduce possible contamination of the river (which is an SAC), but this depends on maintenance of filters.  With the death of so many trees on the NDR, NCC have shown themselves incapable of handling such necessary maintenance.  

    (viii) Would you consider this sort of project as being something that might have been acceptable twenty years ago, before there was more prominence placed on environmental issues?

    For those of us who care deeply about the protection of the natural world, its landscapes, and about the well-being of us all, whether living in town or country, these projects have never been acceptable.  The M25 was built around 40 years ago, with huge destruction and at huge cost, and now it is regularly congested and there are calls for its expansion.  Building large roads cures nothing long-term; we are a finite country (and planet), and we need to be enacting policies which let us live well without destroying our own habitat.

  • Martin Wilby – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Martin Wilby – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Martin Wilby published on 1 January 2023.


    ROUTE QUESTIONS

    (i) The county council undertook work on several routes early on during this process, coded Option A, Option B (East and West), Option C and Option D (East and East). The preferred route is Option C, but would it be too late in the process for the council to switch to, for example, Option A? Would it rather switch than lose the project entirely? Some campaigners have suggested that the improvement of existing roads would be possible, is that still an option?

    The proposed route for the Norwich Western Link was selected as the best overall solution for the road having considered a number of factors, such as transport benefits, environmental effects, value for money and impacts on local communities. 

    We wanted, and continue to want, to strike the right balance in providing infrastructure that provides great benefits to residents, businesses and visitors in Norfolk which effectively tackles the transport issues that exist to the west of Norwich but also limits impacts on the local area. 

    The process we need to follow for a major infrastructure project of this kind means there is still some way to go before we can be certain that the project will be delivered; reaching milestones such as receiving a funding commitment from central government and receiving planning approval will be crucial. We are focused on achieving these milestones and we have no plans to change the route. If that position were to change in the future, we would need to consider the reasons for that change in any decision-making on how to proceed.

    (ii) When the preparatory work was done by the council to choose a preferred route, there was preference given to Option C because of the limited presence of bats compared to other routes. It has transpired that there are bats on this route and amendments have been needed. Would this have impacted on the council’s decision earlier on if this information had been known? Is it normal for mistakes of this sort to be made on projects of this scale and funding?

    As referred to above, the proposed route for the Norwich Western Link was chosen based on a number of factors, which included information gathered about the presence of bats in the area to the west of Norwich. It is not therefore true to say that decision-making about the route selection was based, or would ever be based, on one element but rather by taking all the relevant elements into account.

    Before the decision on the preferred route was reached, a great deal of work had been carried out. Objectives for the project were established with input from local communities and a long list of options was developed. These were reduced to a shortlist of options based on how effective the options were at meeting the project objectives, and a public consultation on this shortlist was conducted as well as other assessment work including a range of surveys in the area. Bat surveys were among the surveys conducted before the preferred route was agreed.

    Surveys over a number of years had identified the presence of bats in the area to the west of Norwich, including around the proposed route for the Norwich Western Link, and mitigation measures including green bridges and planting were developed to take account of this. Our 2021 surveys identified a roost used by a maternity colony of barbastelle bats in an area of woodland close to part of the route. We therefore needed to develop our design to minimise our impact on these woodlands.

    It is entirely normal on an infrastructure project for further surveys to be carried out at the point at which a single, preferred route has been agreed and for the design of the route to be developed as further detail is known. And continuing to develop the design of the road and its associated measures in response to evidence until the planning application is submitted is a normal and expected part of the process. 

    (iii) The route has the support of most councils in the county, business groups and also the emergency services. Do you believe that some opponents of the new road have underestimated how much support the project has in many areas?

    There is strong support for the project, not least from those people who are living in communities to the west of Norwich which are badly affected by traffic congestion on unsuitable local roads and in residential areas. And with planned growth in and around Norwich, existing traffic congestion to the west of Norwich is expected to significantly worsen without the Norwich Western Link. I don’t know if anyone has underestimated the support that exists for the project, I can’t think of anything that would lead me to think that.

    ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS

    (iv) Assuming that the council’s preferred route receives approval and funding, is it confident that it has done all that it can to minimise the negative environmental impact? Are there things that the council would like to do, but can’t justify the cost of doing?

    Cost and value for money are of course important considerations across all aspects of this project, as they should be when national and local public investment is involved. But there are also other important considerations and these include our environmental responsibilities on a project like this.

    We’re continuing to take an evidence-based approach to the project and to receive expert advice and follow relevant guidance. If we receive planning approval this means we would have satisfied the planning authority and environmental statutory bodies that our proposals are acceptable to them, which is of course a crucial aim.


    TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS

    (v) The council has suggested that the road has significant public support. Is this a failure of the wider public transportation policy over recent decades, both within and without the control of Norfolk County Council? Is a new road primarily necessary as there are poor public transportation options, particularly when crossing Norfolk rather than on arterial routes?

    There are a number of reasons why people might support the creation of the Norwich Western Link: businesses may welcome more efficient journeys for the transportation of goods, enabling them to increase productivity and profitability; local residents may be looking forward to quieter, safer local roads and better air quality close to their homes; and emergency services and the people who rely on them are likely to be relieved that many journeys to the west of Norwich will be shortened, including for ambulances to and from the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.

    It’s also important to remember that public transport requires good infrastructure just like any other mode of travel. Bus operators need to be able to run quick, reliable services to attract and retain passengers and make routes commercially viable, and getting stuck in queuing and slow moving traffic significantly hinders this.

    We want to support people to shift their journeys from using a car to more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport where appropriate. This will generally be more achievable over relatively short distances and in and between larger centres of population, or where there is a concentration of public amenities or employment. 

    We have been investing in improvements to facilities for public transport users and walkers and cyclists for several years now, particularly in our towns and larger villages and in and around Norwich through our multi-million Transport for Norwich project (www.norfolk.gov.uk/tfn). We have, among other things, improved pedestrian and cycle access to railway stations in Norwich and Great Yarmouth, there have been upgrades to bus facilities in Norwich, Thetford, North Walsham and Cringleford, and we’ve created an off-road pedestrian and cycle path linking Norwich to the fast-growing populations in Hethersett and Wymondham, and extended our very popular Beryl bike/e-bike/e-scooter hire scheme from Norwich into those areas.

    So my view is that there isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ approach to transport and we need to continue to invest in a wide range of transport infrastructure in Norfolk to support all kinds of journeys.

    (vi) The council has suggested that it is unlikely that there will be public transport provided along the route of the road itself. Does this further exclude those who can’t afford cars, don’t want cars or are trying to avoid acquiring a car? Does more road building make it harder to ever increase public transport usage?

    As stated above, reducing congestion on the existing road network as well as creating a more resilient road network that is able to cope with planned growth will bring benefits to all road users, including bus companies and passengers. So making sure we have good infrastructure is important to everyone who travels in Norfolk.

    I would also add that the possibility of a new bus service being established to connect communities to the west of Norwich directly to employment hubs and services, such as the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, once the Norwich Western Link is in place is being discussed with bus operators. By taking traffic off the existing road network, the Norwich Western Link would make such a service more viable. 

    We are also planning to support people to walk and cycle more by improving the Public Rights of Way network in the vicinity of the Norwich Western Link route as well as putting in measures to make walking and cycling more attractive across a wider area.

    (vii) Is the council comfortable with the level of money that has already gone into the project? What are the latest figures for the total cost of the project?

    The latest cost of the project is £251 million as set out in the July 2022 Cabinet report, of which we anticipate 85% would be funded by central government.

    Cost is of course an important factor when managing a project of this nature but so is value for money, and the Norwich Western Link is considered ‘high’ value for money according to Department for Transport criteria. Providing and improving infrastructure is an investment in the future of an area that will provide benefits for many years to come and enable it to grow successfully. So this is how I see the Norwich Western Link – an investment in Norfolk’s future.

    (viii) The council is relying on the support of national Government financing to fund the majority of the project. Is a problem the council faces that it is easier to get funding for road projects in Norfolk than perhaps subsidised bus routes or new light rail/rail routes?

    I wouldn’t say funding for road projects is easier but rather there are different processes, partners and mechanisms involved with the different types of projects and services you mention. 

    Infrastructure improvements to the council’s highway network – whether that’s projects aimed at supporting all road users or more specific interventions like creating bus lanes or cycle paths – are by and large funded by a one-off investment that we will deliver, and the infrastructure will then be added to the network for which we are responsible. Our £32 million Transforming Cities Fund project in Norwich is wholly funded by the Department for Transport and is currently delivering a range of improvements aimed at investing in clean and shared transport, creating a healthy environment, increasing social mobility and boosting productivity through enhanced access to employment and learning.

    Network Rail are responsible for the country’s rail network, so while we can make the case for investment, any new or improved rail infrastructure in Norfolk would generally be delivered and owned by them. That said, we are currently working to develop a proposal for a new rail station at Broadland Business Park to the east of Norwich, which would be on an existing rail line adjacent to the business park.

    Subsidised bus routes are a recurring rather than a one-off cost to a council, so this is funded by revenue rather than capital spending. We do subsidise some bus services in Norfolk and we’ve recently secured £50 million of funding – £31 million of capital funding and £19 million of revenue funding – from the Department for Transport for our Bus Service Improvement Plan, which will deliver measures to support and expand bus services across the county over the next three years.

    QUESTIONS ABOUT POLITICS AND BEING A COUNCILLOR

    (i) Projects such as road building are controversial because of the balance of ensuring the local economy thrives whilst limiting the damage to the environment. As a councillor and portfolio holder, have you found the debate on the road’s construction generally positive and engaged? Or can being a councillor sometimes feel a little thankless?

    The vast majority of the people I encounter in my role as a county councillor and cabinet member are very polite, friendly and respectful and I get a lot of satisfaction from holding a position which gives me the opportunity to help Norfolk and its residents. People will always have different views about how this should be achieved and of course it isn’t possible to please everyone, but I’ll just keep trying to do the best job I can.

    (ii) Would you like councils to have more power and influence over public transport to help deliver an integrated transport policy?

    The county council certainly supports the principle of devolving powers to local government so that local decision makers have more control over how money is spent in their area, as the recent County Deal announcement has demonstrated. I think we at the county council, the Department for Transport, public transport companies and other partners are all committed to making sure we have good public transport services that are viable options for many journeys people want and need to make.

    (iii) Is standing for election in local politics something that you would recommend those interested in the environment to get involved with?

    I think the most important quality in any elected representative is the desire to represent a community and an aptitude for public service. For me, it’s less about what I’m interested in and more about what the people I’m representing want and need. That’s obviously not always easy and, as I said above, it’s impossible to please everyone when people have different and sometimes competing priorities, and – being realistic – there’s a finite amount of time and money. But I’ll keep trying my best and that’s all I can do.

  • David Linden – 2022 Speech on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    David Linden – 2022 Speech on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    The speech made by David Linden, the SNP spokesperson on the Environment, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. Whether it is local schools such as St Paul’s Primary School in Shettleston having a focus on biodiversity in the school garden or global summits such as COP15, we all have our part to play. So we on these Benches welcome any progress made at COP15.

    Scotland’s new biodiversity strategy includes the COP15 target of halting biodiversity loss by 2030 and goes further, with a target of restoring biodiversity by 2045. So will the British Government likewise produce a new biodiversity strategy, one that matches both the COP15 and Scottish targets? Ministers in Holyrood have recognised that the climate and biodiversity crises are inextricably linked, and that one cannot be tackled while the other is ignored. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and agree that decisions to increase fossil fuel production and use will only accelerate biodiversity loss?

    The Scottish Government led the UK in recognising the biodiversity crisis and have now led the UK in establishing a dedicated £65 million nature restoration fund. Will the British Government follow that example and create a dedicated biodiversity restoration fund for England? Finally, concerns have been raised about the sidelining of African states at the very end of the COP15 process, and the overruling of their calls for dedicated funding to support biodiversity efforts. Does the Secretary of State share our deep concern at global south nations being ignored? Does she agree that those who face the brunt of the climate and biodiversity crises must be heard in global climate negotiations?

    Dr Coffey

    I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Minister, Lorna Slater, was out in Montreal as well, and it is really important that the UK works together to improve nature. I give credit to Scotland in that regard.

    However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we already have established funding, with the nature for climate fund, and through the blue planet fund we have already undertaken a number of investments that will improve nature, not only in this country, but around the world. I am particularly thinking of Commonwealth countries, but this also applies to overseas territories and the south, to which he refers. That is why the importance of the £30 billion funding that will go in was discussed back and forth, and the UK was very happy to make sure that it got delivered. We recognise the need to ensure significant investment all around the world and that value is attributed to nature as much as it is to climate, if not even more so. Candidly, we can do as much as we like on tackling climate change, but if we do not preserve and restore nature, it will effectively be for nought. That is why we have put so much work into doing this. It is why, at COP27 in Egypt, our Prime Minister set out the importance of restoring nature, saying that it was critical in terms of tackling climate change. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of our environmental land management scheme. We have started the first phase of the sustainable farming incentive, and we will be announcing more early in the new year as we make the transition from the traditional European funding, which is effectively area-based—on how much land people owned—to farmers being paid for certain goods in order to improve the environment and reduce carbon emissions.

  • Matt Hancock – 2022 Comments on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    Matt Hancock – 2022 Comments on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    The comments made by Matt Hancock, the Independent MP for West Suffolk, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)

    Will the Secretary of State say a few words about the need not only to stop the diminution across the world of biodiversity, but, ultimately, to get to a place where the expansion of nature can once again happen? That is a long way off. But is it not true that UK Government leadership on this issue has just delivered a major landmark step forward and we should all, across this House, be proud of the effort the team has put in, in order to make as much progress as this? In the international arena it is hard to get big agreements, and the Secretary of State has just got one.

    Dr Coffey

    I thank my right hon. Friend for that. We both represent the magnificent county of Suffolk, which is why we are trying to make sure we continue that improvement of nature. I believe he is a champion for dormice and I am a champion for bitterns, and we have seen improvements in the habitats for both animals. On a long-term situation such as the environment, it is crucial that the House comes together to recognise the importance of what has been achieved and give credit, particularly to our civil servants, for that achievement. We also need to recognise the challenges ahead for Governments, local councils and industry, and for individual choices that people make, in what we are trying to do to not only protect, but enhance, restore and improve the environment, which we enjoy.

  • Alex Sobel – 2022 Speech on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    Alex Sobel – 2022 Speech on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    The speech made by Alex Sobel, the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The agreement signed in Montreal this morning to protect 30% of the planet for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems is welcome news. That we are to protect a minimum of 30% of land and 30% of our seas is a benchmark we must adhere to, to avoid ecosystem collapse.

    I was glad to be part of the UK’s delegation to COP15. The Secretary of State used her spot on the global stage to announce the UK’s environmental targets—the ones where she missed her own legally binding deadline in October. I note that the Secretary of State did not announce the delayed targets to the House first in the proper way, and I think that speaks volumes. We are still to have an oral statement on those targets.

    It is astonishing then, that after all the warm words, the Government’s own targets do not include a 30% goal for protecting nature. The Secretary of State compared nature with Cinderella. If that is the case, the right hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) must be the cruel stepsisters who have neglected her during their time in charge.

    The Government also failed to include overall measures for water quality and protected sites in their targets. The reality of the Secretary of State’s watered-down targets means that our country and our communities will face even more toxic air and more sewage dumping for longer. A cynic’s view might be that the Government are happy to commit to non-legally binding targets in Montreal, while shirking any real responsibility at home. Ambitious environmental leadership means, at the very least, ensuring clean air, clean water and access to nature. It does not matter how the Government try to dress it up, their targets do not go anywhere near far enough and it is our communities that will suffer as a result.

    Rivers in England are used as open sewers. Not one is in a healthy condition, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. With no overall water quality targets, the Conservatives can continue to allow raw sewage to flow into our natural environment hundreds of thousands of times a year. How does that fit with our Montreal commitments? Only Labour has a proper plan to clean up our waterways. We will introduce mandatory monitoring with automatic fines, hold water bosses personally accountable for sewage pollution and give regulators the power to properly enforce the rules.

    One in five people in the UK live with a respiratory condition, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which are worsened by breathing toxic air. We know that is especially dangerous for children and vulnerable adults, and I am extremely concerned by the unambitious targets for air quality set out by the Government. Labour is committed to tackling this health crisis once and for all with a clean air Act, including the right to breathe clean air, monitoring and tough new duties on Ministers to make sure that World Health Organisation clean air guidelines are kept.

    Of the 20 UN biodiversity targets agreed to in 2010, the UK has missed 17. When it comes to the environment, the Government constantly make the wrong choices, delay vital action and duck the urgent challenges. Failure to deliver on environmental targets at home show that their promises at COP15 mean very little. The Secretary of State’s colleague at COP, Lord Goldsmith, described the UK as one of the “most nature-depleted countries” on the planet. The Environment Act 2021 target on species abundance, which the Government were forced to concede by Opposition amendments, promises only to “halt” the decline in species by 2030. How does that now sit with our Montreal commitments? It is clear from the Secretary of State’s watered-down environmental targets that this Conservative Government have given up on governing.

    Dr Coffey

    I have never heard such rubbish from the Opposition. I am really quite sad about that. For a start, let us just get it clear: it was good that the hon. Member went to Montreal, but he was not a member of the UK Government’s delegation. I am glad that he went anyway, as did other Members. At the first opportunity after getting clearance for the targets, I did inform Parliament, and a written ministerial statement was laid in the Lords on Friday before I made a short announcement when I was in Montreal.

    I am very clear that this agreement would genuinely not have been as strong had it had not been for the efforts of the UK Government. Even this morning, in the dark hours in Montreal, the text was reopened at our insistence to make sure that the depletion of nature was included in the text of what was agreed. At the same time, we have been working tirelessly, day in, day out, during this negotiation to make sure that we secured finances, because I am conscious that many nature-rich countries around the world need that financial support to make sure that nature is restored.

    In terms of what we are planning to do here in the UK, frankly, nature has been depleted ever since the industrial revolution. That has recently been more recognised, and that is why it was this Government who put in place the Environment Act 2021. By the way, that builds on a number of environment Acts that previous Conservative Administrations have put in place, recognising the importance of legislation, but also delivery.

    The hon. Gentleman refers to the air quality target. The only reason why we have kept what we consulted on—10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM2.5 by 2040—is because the Labour Mayor in London is failing to deliver it. I am absolutely confident that in the rest of the country it can be delivered by 2030, but that is why we will continue to try to make sure that air quality is a priority for Mayors and councils right around the country.

    As for moving forward, almost every statutory instrument has now been laid today. There was a slight delay on one of them, but I expect those SIs to be considered by both Houses of Parliament next month. They will come into law. Meanwhile, we continue to work on our environmental improvement plan and making sure that the environment will be a better place than it was when we inherited it.

  • Therese Coffey – 2022 Statement on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    Therese Coffey – 2022 Statement on the Convention on Biodiversity COP15

    The statement made by Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the outcomes of COP15 on the convention on biodiversity, which was held in Montreal and from which I have just returned.

    For too long, nature has been overlooked as the Cinderella of the story, but flora and fauna are important in and of themselves. Nature is both the essential foundation and a powerful engine of our economy, and helping nature to recover is one of the most cost-effective ways of tackling so many challenges, including the causes and impacts of climate change, thirst, hunger and ill health. and of bolstering peace and prosperity.

    Early this morning, the world came together to secure the strong, ambitious global framework we need to catalyse a decade of environmental action. The framework is on the scale of the Paris agreement, as required, and puts nature firmly on the map. The agreement includes global targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030, and to see natural systems restored, species populations recovering and extinctions halted. It includes reporting and review mechanisms that will hold us all to account for making timely progress on bringing our promises to life, and commitments on digital sequence information to make sure communities in nature-rich countries feel the benefit of sharing the solutions that we know their flora and fauna can provide.

    Behind the scenes, over many months, we have been working with Ecuador, Gabon and the Maldives to develop the credible 10-point plan for financing biodiversity during this decade that played a critical role in getting the agreement over the line, by giving nature-rich countries confidence in our collective willingness and ability to secure the investment needed to protect the natural wonders on which their people and, in many cases, the whole world depends. On the back of those efforts, public, private and philanthropic donors committed billions of dollars to new investment in nature.

    The agreement includes commitments to create a new international fund for nature, to increase investment in nature from all sources to $30 billion a year by 2030, and to accelerate the vital shifts that are already under way to make sure our economies underpin our survival and our success. I thank our team of Ministers and pay tribute to all our UK civil servants from across Government and our world-leading scientists from a range of British institutions, including Kew Gardens and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

    We have been on this journey since the CBD COP14 in Egypt in 2018, which I attended. In meetings with delegations from around the world, time and again, we heard praise for how the UK’s world-class negotiators helped to broker this agreement. We know from our experience here in the UK that, when we set ambitious targets, we see an acceleration in action to meet them across Government, sectors and communities, which is why we have worked so hard to secure these global targets.

    Just before I set off for Canada, I announced that we have taken the next steps towards leaving the environment in a better state than we found it, by putting a set of new stretching domestic targets into UK law under the Environment Act 2021 on air, water and waste, as well as nature, land and sea, to improve the state of the environment in our country. These targets will be challenging to meet, but they are achievable. The global coalitions of ambition that we have been leading, co-leading and supporting will now shift towards supporting the implementation of the new international nature agreement.

    The UK is committed to playing our part now and in the months and years ahead. Although no country can solve this alone, if we work together to make this a decade of action, we not only stand to avoid the worst impacts but, by securing the abundance, diversity and connectivity of life on Earth, we stand to build a better future for every generation to come.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Therese Coffey – 2022 Statement on Environment Act 2021 – Final Environmental Targets

    Therese Coffey – 2022 Statement on Environment Act 2021 – Final Environmental Targets

    The statement made by Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    I am repeating the statement made by my noble Friend the Minister for Biosecurity, Marine and Rural Affairs, Lord Benyon, on Friday 16 December.

    Final Environmental Targets under the Environment Act 2021

    This Government are committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it. Following our consultation earlier in the year, we are confirming an ambitious suite of targets to deliver on that commitment.

    These targets will tackle some of the biggest pressures facing our environment. They will ensure progress on clean air, clean and plentiful water, less waste and more sustainable use of our resources, a step change in tree planting, a better marine environment, and a more diverse, resilient natural environment.

    The 13 targets that will be laid through statutory instruments are as follows:

    Biodiversity on land

    To halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.

    To ensure that species abundance in 2042 is greater than in 2022, and at least 10% greater than 2030.

    Improve the red list index for England for species extinction risk by 2042, compared to 2022 levels.

    To restore or create in excess of 500,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitat outside protected sites by 2042, compared to 2022 levels.

    Biodiversity in the sea

    70% of the designated features in the marine protected area network to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition.

    Water quality and availability

    Abandoned metal mines target: halve the length of rivers polluted by harmful metals from abandoned mines by 2038, against a baseline of around 1,500 km.

    Agriculture target: reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture into the water environment by at least 40% by 2038, compared to a 2018 baseline.

    Wastewater target: reduce phosphorus loadings from treated wastewater by 80% by 2038 against a 2020 baseline.

    Water demand target: reduce the use of public water supply in England per head of population by 20% from the 2019-20 baseline reporting year figures, by 2037-38.

    Woodland cover

    Increase total tree and woodland cover from 14.5% of land area now to 16.5% by 2050.

    Resource efficiency and waste reduction

    Reduce residual waste—excluding major mineral wastes—kilograms per capita by 50% by 2042 from 2019 levels.

    Air quality

    An annual mean concentration target for PM2.5 levels in England to be 10 µg m-3 or below by 2040.

    A population exposure reduction target for a reduction in PM2.5 population exposure of 35% compared to 2018 to be achieved by 2040.

    The suite of targets that we consulted on was the result of significant scientific evidence collection and development over preceding years that included input from evidence partners and independent experts, supported by over 800 pages of published evidence. We have full confidence in the final suite of targets, which represents the robust analysis already undertaken.

    These targets are stretching and will be challenging for us to meet, whether that is through Government, through business or indeed at home in our individual lives through choices we make. In turn this will support action to tackle climate change, restore our natural capital and protect our much-loved landscapes and green spaces.

    We will set out more details about our plans to deliver them in our environmental improvement plan: our manifesto for the environment for the next five years. We will publish this by 31 January, as required by law.

    The Government response to the consultation will be published on www.gov.uk.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the End of COP27

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the End of COP27

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 20 November 2022.

    COP27 marks a small step towards climate justice but much more is needed for the planet.

    We have treated some of the symptoms but not cured the patient from its fever.

    I am pleased that COP27 has opened a new chapter on financing loss and damage, and laid the foundations for a new method for solidarity between those in need and those in a position to help. We are rebuilding trust. This is crucial moving forward because there can be no lasting action against climate change without climate justice. The European Union is already the world’s leading contributor of international climate finance, and I am satisfied that we confirmed our commitment to support the most vulnerable on our planet through a first contribution on loss and damage.

    COP27 has kept alive the goal of 1.5C. Unfortunately however, it has not delivered on a commitment by the world’s major emitters to phase down fossil fuels, nor new commitments on climate mitigation. But the EU will stay the course, notably through the European Green Deal and REPowerEU, because it is essential to keep the ambition of the Paris Agreement within reach.

    I extend my heartfelt thanks to the EU’s negotiating team in Sharm El Sheikh for their determination and hard work throughout the conference.