UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Southern England

  • Steff Aquarone – 2025 Early Day Motion on Sheringham Bus Station Controversy

    Steff Aquarone – 2025 Early Day Motion on Sheringham Bus Station Controversy

    The statement made by Steff Aquarone, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 3 December 2025.

    That this House notes with grave concern the plans of Norfolk County Council to demolish Sheringham’s historic bus shelter; recognises that the shelter is of Streamline Moderne art-deco design, dating from the 1950s; further notes that it contains a treasured poppy mural painted by a local artist which recognises the historic Midland and Great Northern Railway; is concerned that residents do not feel properly consulted or heard by the County Council; praises and expresses solidarity with the local people who have protested outside and occupied the bus shelter; calls on the County Council to suspend their plans to allow for further constructive discussion with the community; and agrees that Sheringham is a town which is not to be messed with.

  • Charles Sanders – 2025 Statement in Support of Bus Station Changes in Sheringham

    Charles Sanders – 2025 Statement in Support of Bus Station Changes in Sheringham

    The statement made by Charles Sanders, representing Sanders Coaches, on 7 May 2025.

    Dear All

    I have read with interest the comments on the proposed revised station approach layout to improve the movement and especially the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians. I would like to add that this is a County Council scheme using ring fenced money for the provision of improved public transport facilities for our County. This money cannot be spent elsewhere and is not our town council’s project. We as the local operator were consulted on the scheme and I am happy to share with you all the issues we raised which are as follows:

    1. Coming from the Cromer Road roundabout to enter Station Approach when traffic is waiting to exit Station approach buses cannot access the turn into Station Approach without impinging on the pavement therefore Buses have to wait and this can cause a block to traffic flow. Members of the public exiting the car park tend to stand on the corner waiting to cross, creating a further hazard for our drivers to be particularly aware of.
    2. The Bus Shelter is sited too close to the kerb edge given the number of passengers that regularly wait for the buses, this causes buses to often have to stop short of the actual stop point as the crowd is so close to the road edge it would be dangerous for the driver to try to drive past them.
    3. People heading for the North Norfolk Railway or the public toilets have to regularly edge through the bus passenger queue to reach their intended destination.
    4. The growth in passenger numbers over the last few years has been huge. In the period from April 1st 2022 to March 31st 2023 the number of passengers boarding and alighting in Station approach was 286,958, in the last 12 months from April 1st 2024 to March 31st 2025 it was just over 400,000. If numbers continue to grow as more and more people seek to use green sustainable public tarnsport the current issues can only continue to get worse.
    5. There is also going to be an improvement to the waiting pavement space at the West End of Station Approach Bus Stop near to the putting green, again an area no longer large enough to cope with the demand placed upon it at busy times.
    6. Whilst change is not always easy to accept, or easy to fully understand, I hope that the above information will help people to understand why this improvement is being considered, and that ultimately everyone is on the same side here, and just looking to do the right thing to help Sheringham be a vibrant and forward looking town dealing with its current success as a destination, and allowing for even more potential growth in the future.
  • Sheringham Town Council – 2025 Statement on Bus Shelter Controversy

    Sheringham Town Council – 2025 Statement on Bus Shelter Controversy

    The statement made by Sheringham Town Council on 3 December 2025.

    Sheringham Town Council recognises the strong feelings surrounding the changes taking place around Otterndorf Green and specifically the bus shelter. We understand how important this area is to residents, both in terms of heritage and as a gateway to our town, and we are grateful to everyone who has shared their views.

    We acknowledge that some individuals feel that Norfolk County Council’s public consultation process did not meet their expectations, and we recognise this as an important lesson learned.

    The consultation process, which was publicly advertised online, in the EDP, on town noticeboards, and in the Sheringham Independent distributed to all households, generated substantial resident engagement. Feedback was provided through sessions at the North Norfolk Railway, the Community Centre, and directly to Norfolk County Council. This input significantly influenced the design and resulted in meaningful revisions.

    As a result of this community feedback and partnership discussions, the plans were updated to include:

    • Increased green space and coordinated landscaping with Sheringham in Bloom and an overall design that better reflected the local vernacular
    • A shelter design drawing on Victorian and local railway architecture; requiring bespoke metalwork and that will include artwork contributions from Sheringham schoolchildren with support from our community artist Colin Seal.

    These changes were made in good faith, working collaboratively with Norfolk County Council engineers and project managers and other stakeholders.

    It is also important to recognise the limitations of the existing shelter:
    • Its position on a narrow pavement at a busy pedestrian point has long caused concern to the local bus operator.
    • The current layout often forces waiting passengers and passing pedestrians close to the road, creating uncomfortable and potentially unsafe conditions, particularly during busy periods or for those with mobility needs or pushchairs.

    The new Travel Hub layout is designed to address these long-standing challenges.

    Key benefits include:
    • a wider, safer and more accessible waiting area
    • improved pedestrian flow to remove the pinch-point
    • a shelter offering better visibility, more natural light and reduced crowding
    • facilities that support more reliable and efficient bus operations, as highlighted by the local bus operator

    Evidence from similar schemes elsewhere shows that improved facilities encourage more people to use buses. Sheringham Town Council believe that supporting increased use of local bus services is a positive step to:
    • promote sustainable transport
    • help reduce congestion
    • strengthen the long-term viability of the public transport services residents rely on

    Throughout this process, Sheringham Town Council has worked constructively with all authorities and local organisations to ensure that Sheringham’s heritage, safety and public realm were properly considered.
    While the Town Council is not the decision-making authority for highway schemes, we have consistently sought improvements that we believe reflect the values and priorities of our community.

    We remain committed to listening to residents, passing on concerns through the appropriate channels, and supporting the best long-term outcome for Sheringham’s public spaces and transport infrastructure.

    We would like to thank residents who have provided their feedback on this scheme. Sheringham Town Council would be pleased to engage in constructive dialogue both on this and other issues as they present themselves in the community.

    Sheringham Town Council

  • Huw Merriman – 2023 Speech on Luton Flightpaths

    Huw Merriman – 2023 Speech on Luton Flightpaths

    The speech made by Huw Merriman, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing this debate on London Luton airport flightpaths. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for their contributions.

    I want to open by acknowledging the effects that aviation noise can have on the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities in the vicinity of airports and underneath flightpaths. It is important to take into consideration the impact of airspace changes. I understand the experiences my hon. Friend describes of his constituents following the implementation of airspace deployment 6, known as AD6. In 2017, the Government provided new air navigation guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is now embedded within the authority’s CAP1616 airspace change process. AD6 is following that process.

    The guidance requires sponsors of airspace change to undertake air pollution and noise impact assessments of their proposals, and to actively engage and consult with key stakeholders, including communities, on those proposals. The objective of AD6 is to segregate the arriving air traffic at Luton and Stansted airports. It has important safety and efficiency benefits, as my hon. Friend recognised.

    AD6 was subject to public consultation between October 2020 and February 2021. In the light of the feedback received, the sponsors made some changes to the proposals. These included slightly shifting the location of the proposed new airborne holding stack, as well as increasing the minimum height in the stack by 1,000 feet. As my hon. Friend noted, AD6 is now the subject of a post-implementation review by the CAA, which seeks to determine whether the actual outcome of the airspace change is consistent with what was expected.

    Mr Djanogly

    The Minister mentions that after the initial consultation the height of the stack was increased. What we have been discussing is what happens after the airplanes come out of the stack. What no one realises and what was not in the consultation—a lot of clever people have been looking at the consultation, which is, frankly, unintelligible—is that the planes very quickly come out of the stack and descend. Why can the planes not stay at stack level until a much later time and then come down, thus not disturbing as many rural people?

    Huw Merriman

    I am about to refer to the airspace modernisation changes, which touch on the impact of lower and deeper climbs. If that does not address my hon. Friend’s point, I will happily meet him and take other points he may feel need to be made. There are wider airspace modernisation changes that also impact on this field, but I am happy to meet him if he does not feel reassured by what I say.

    I am pleased to report to the House that the CAA’s review of AD6 allows two opportunities for any concerns to be raised by those who consider they are being affected by the airspace change we are discussing. The first is by contacting London Luton airport before it concludes its impact data collection. Secondly, those impacted can focus on the requirement of the sponsor to publish on the CAA’s airspace change portal its detailed assessment of how any impacts compare with what was set out in the airspace change proposal and accompanying options appraisal on which stakeholders were consulted. Once that assessment has been published, there will be a 28-day window during which anyone may provide feedback about whether the impacts of airspace change have been as they anticipated.

    That feedback can be submitted directly to the Civil Aviation Authority via its airspace change portal, which gives local residents the direct channel for complaints post implementation that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire asked for in his third point. When completing the review, the CAA will take account both of the sponsor’s assessment and of the feedback that the CAA has received on it. The CAA’s own assessment will include an analysis of the actual flight track data to determine whether aircraft are flying the AD6 airspace design as expected.

    I also note my hon. Friend’s fourth and final point: namely, his desire for the data to be available to communities. I agree that that would be helpful. As part of their post-implementation review submission to the Civil Aviation Authority, the sponsors must—I underline “must”—provide air traffic dispersion graphics, including both lateral and vertical actual flight track information. Before the completion of the review, residents will therefore get a chance to see the air traffic dispersion picture.

    The Civil Aviation Authority will use all relevant evidence to determine whether AD6 has met its objectives and can be considered approved, or whether it must be amended or withdrawn; I hear the points that hon. Friends have made in that regard. I remind the House that the Government are not involved in the review process, which is entirely a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority.

    Richard Fuller

    I concur with the Minister’s point about the independence of the review. In my earlier intervention I raised a deeper point about airport expansion and the effect that it can have on surrounding communities. Such expansion makes no provision for financial consideration or remuneration for the communities affected. That is a particular issue in the context of Luton airport, because the property owner is Luton Borough Council, which directly financially benefits from expansion and is also the planning authority for the expansion. Will the Minister—as the last aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), suggested when he was taking legislation through the House—look at whether the law can be changed so that communities such as those in Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire, which are affected by airport expansion, can somehow be compensated when airport expansion changes are made?

    Huw Merriman

    I thank my hon. Friend for that point; he has made interesting points as the debate has evolved. I have some knowledge of the issue, in the sense that my constituency is relatively near Gatwick, although not in its flightpaths. It is fair to say that Gatwick provides a lot of economic regeneration for my constituency, but I also know that those who are closer to the airport are affected by airspace noise. It is also fair to say that Manchester Airports Group, which is involved in local authority remuneration, is in a similar situation to Luton airport with respect to what my hon. Friend has described. Yes, of course we can look at sharing the costs, but I also ask that we consider the wider economic benefits for those outside the airport perimeter. However, I obviously recognise that as noise encroaches, it becomes a pollution to them; I will touch on that point further. I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes and am willing to look again at his ask.

    I want to focus, albeit not in order, on the four points that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made. His second point was a request to ensure that the post-implementation review period is extended to September 2023. I can give him that assurance. Following the request made to the CAA, it intends to extend the data collection period until September 2023. I ask him to accept that response, and I thank him very much for his suggestion. I hope that extending the consultation period will allow more transparency.

    My hon. Friend’s first point—as I say, I am going in no particular order—raised the question of background or ambient noise. In 2018 the Department for Transport commissioned the CAA’s environmental research and consultancy department to examine the impact of aircraft noise in areas with different background or ambient noise. The study, which was published in 2019, found no significant association between annoyance and background or ambient noise when other factors were taken into account. That does not mean that the concerns that have been raised tonight should be dismissed. My hon. Friend has informed the House of some upsetting cases of constituents being affected by aviation noise. It can have a demonstrable impact on a person’s health and wellbeing, but that varies from individual to individual and is not attributed only to the noise itself.

    However, my hon. Friend also recognised some of the benefits that aviation brings, and I hope he will not mind my joining him in recognising them as well. London Luton Airport makes a positive contribution to the local and national economy. It indirectly employs more than 9,400 staff, and is a key economic driver for the region. I welcome its continued recovery following the impacts of the covid-19 pandemic. We therefore need to strike a fair balance between the negative impacts of aviation on the local environment and communities and the positive economic benefits that flights bring. That is the challenge for aviation noise policy. The Government are committed to reducing the negative impacts of aviation where possible, and that includes noise. We will be considering what changes may be needed to aviation noise policy in due course, and we will set out our next steps later this year. I look forward to working with all my hon. Friends in that regard.

    Mr Djanogly

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Huw Merriman

    If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will indeed give way.

    Mr Djanogly

    I thank my hon. Friend, who is being very generous.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Order. I should point out that the debate must end promptly at 10.38 pm.

    Mr Djanogly

    If the noise policy changes are made, as my hon. Friend says they will be, will they be retrospective?

    Huw Merriman

    I do not wish to make policy on the hoof from the Dispatch Box, but I am willing to meet all three of my hon. Friends to discuss the point from which this should apply. Perhaps we can have that discussion, and I will accept any feedback that they wish to give me.

    In the time that I have left—less than one minute—let me reiterate that the Government are committed to reducing the negative impacts of aviation where possible. We also recognise that we live in a fully interconnected, global world, and that the aviation sector is of material value to the UK economy. Airspace modernisation will help the delivery of quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire not only for securing the debate, but—along with my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly)—moving this matter further forward. Let me also put on the record how well they represent their constituents on this issue.

  • Anthony Browne – 2023 Speech on Luton Flightpaths

    Anthony Browne – 2023 Speech on Luton Flightpaths

    The speech made by Anthony Browne, the Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    I am glad that we are saving the best until last. I am also grateful for the opportunity to discuss changes to flightpaths into Luton airport or, to use the technical name, the Swanwick airspace improvement programme—airspace deployment 6.

    There are good arguments in favour of changing flightpaths in some way and I welcome the overarching ambition of the programme. Prior to the implementation of the new flightpaths last February, Luton and Stansted airports shared the same holding stacks for arrivals. For the UK’s fifth and third largest airports, that was a problem, because delays at one airport could lead to delays at the other. Separate arrival routes, combined with a dedicated holding stack for each airport, will be less prone to delays and will be safer, especially in the light of potential expansion at both airports, but the implementation of those changes is a major cause of local concern.

    Behind the rather bland, technical-sounding name—airspace deployment 6—is a tale of deep distress for local residents in my constituency and neighbouring ones. South Cambridgeshire is quintessential English countryside, scattered with tranquil villages where many residents have lived their entire lives. Others moved there precisely because they wanted the peace and quiet. They wanted to escape the hustle and bustle of urban life.

    All that changed in February, when the area became the new home of Luton airport’s holding stack. These once serene villages now have their tranquillity shattered by the roar of jet engines flying overhead. Rather than the soporific sounds of songbirds, residents are awoken by the sound of air brakes screeching overhead as aeroplanes prepare to land. Unsurprisingly, I and fellow MPs have received a huge number of anguished complaints from our constituents about this. They have told me about the distressing impact it has had on their mental and physical wellbeing. A few accounts particularly stick in mind.

    Gareth Squance is a former Metropolitan police officer, who sought solace in the village of Gamlingay in my constituency. During his time in the Met, he was intentionally run over and left for dead while promoting safe cycle week. That incident left him suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, for which noise is the primary trigger. Immersing himself in nature and recording the ambient noises provided a coping mechanism, but now the new plane noise forces him to leave the house with noise-cancelling headphones to avoid triggering a state of panic.

    Suzie Smith is the third generation of her family to farm in the area. The aeroplane noise is keeping her up at night, which is affecting her ability to perform her duties around the farm in the early hours of the morning. She does not know what to do. This is the area she grew up in and loves, but the plane noise is making farm life unbearable. It has driven her to make countless complaints, which have only received generic, automated responses from Luton airport.

    Maddy McKenzie suffers from complex health issues and struggles immensely with hypersensitivity. She finds the plane noise a relentless torment, and she is powerless to escape it. The noise is taking a toll on her physical and mental health. If she could move, she would, but instead she is trapped by the endless plane noise when all she wanted was a quiet life.

    I have heard myriad similar tales from my constituents. Many residents are suffering sleepless nights as they are awoken every time a plane goes overhead, which can be up to every two minutes in busy periods. Other residents say they feel like prisoners in their homes, unable to use the gardens that were once their pride and joy, but are now echo chambers for the all-consuming plane noise. It has led some to conclude that enough is enough. After decades of living in these villages, the noise pollution has forced them to move. These people are valued members of their local community, and they are being forced out. Some people feel those that can move are the lucky ones. Others must accept their lot for a range of reasons from financial to health-related concerns. They are demoralised and cannot see any way out of this predicament.

    The strength of emotion and the explosion of local outrage have led to a number of new campaign groups determined to end the noise. There are three groups I am aware of that are working tirelessly for a better solution: Reject Luton Airport Stacking, or RELAS; Community Alternatives to Luton’s Flight Path, or CALF; and Against Luton Airport Stack, or ALAS—my favourite acronym. We must ensure that their grievances are given a fair hearing, and that is the point of this Adjournment debate tonight.

    I acknowledge that this is only one side of the coin. Air travel plays a vital role in our increasingly globalised world. Just recently, I was speaking about the business opportunities that new routes from Stansted to other life science hubs such as Boston and San Francisco could bring to Cambridgeshire and to the country as a whole. Like many others, I enjoy the opportunity to go on holiday, often travelling by plane. We must accept that some people will be affected by noise pollution from planes. Often people are aware of the impact and make calculated decisions about where they are going to live based on their tolerance levels. For example, many Londoners can cope with plane noise every day, and it blends into the cacophony of other city noises.

    Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Anthony Browne

    I am very happy to give way to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.

    Mr Djanogly

    I congratulate my hon. Friend and Cambridgeshire neighbour on securing this debate, which is very important to many of those in both our constituencies, especially in the villages surrounding St Neots, and in my case in Great Gransden and Abbotsley in particular. My hon. Friend is making a very good case on noise levels, with which I totally agree—namely, that acceptable ambient noise levels are based on levels in urban areas, and are therefore inherently prejudicial to rural people. Does he not agree that this should be changed?

    Anthony Browne

    I thank my hon. Friend for that insightful intervention and I fully agree; I was going to make exactly the same point, but he beat me to it.

    The people who chose to live in South Cambridgeshire did so because of the quiet rural life. They moved there for this reason and chose to bring their children up there for this reason. Very few, if any, ever foresaw the radical change that flightpaths could have on the area. It must have been quite a shock to hear that first plane soar noisily overhead.

    Of course, there was a consultation beforehand, conducted by Luton airport and NATS. That consultation lasted five months and received over 2,000 responses. However, it took place in unusual circumstances, due to the ravages of covid. Engagement was virtual rather than the usual town hall meetings, and many people seemed unaware that the consultation was going on.

    Since society has rebounded to some sense of normality, it is easy to forget the extraordinary times that prevailed during the pandemic. Air travel was down 90% on its pre-covid peak at certain points and people’s concern over flightpaths were crowded out by their more immediate health concerns about the pandemic. It is not for me to judge the adequacy of the consultation, although others may have their views, but I can say that I am disappointed that, as a key stakeholder, South Cambridgeshire District Council was not engaged more during the process. For many residents, the idea of planes above 5,000 feet sounded quite abstract and distant and of little consequence to their daily lives, but in reality they can often see the logos on each plane as it flies past, and the disruptive noise has permeated their daily lives.

    Mr Djanogly

    My hon. Friend is very kind to allow me to intervene again. He makes an important point, and this unintelligible consultation has worked only to the benefit of those in the flying industry who understood it. When we secured an increase of height for flying above the stack over my constituency, from 8,000 to 9,000 feet, there was no intimation at that point that planes would fly so low coming out of that stack and so quickly, to the prejudice of our constituents. Does he agree that the consultation should be rerun and the whole system should be revised?

    Anthony Browne

    The idea of rerunning the consultation is very interesting; I had not thought of it but will do so, as it sounds like a good idea.

    It is clear from what my hon. Friend says and the correspondence from my constituents that the impact and disturbance has been much greater than people were led to believe when the consultation was taking place—they thought it would be very mild. I would argue that this was inevitable, given the current guidelines provided to NATS and Luton airport for the creation of the new flightpath. The guidance states that noise pollution below 51 decibels will not unduly impact the quality of life of those affected. As my hon. Friend said, for urban areas near airports that is perfectly reasonable as the aeroplane noise blends into the other staple sounds of city life. For instance, a street with traffic can consistently be around the 70-decibel level, so 51 decibels would not add much—the planes are only an additional, minor irritant. The same cannot be said for rural areas, however. In South Cambridgeshire the ambient noise levels are far lower, as I am sure they are in my hon. Friend’s constituency: during the day it is around 31 decibels and at night around 18—really very quiet. This means that aeroplane noise has a far greater impact. For context, if we are within 10 metres of a heavy goods vehicle passing, the noise is roughly 48 decibels. For someone living in a local village, such as Dry Drayton in my constituency, planes coming into land at 11 pm are very disruptive; it is the equivalent of many HGVs in quick succession passing close by their house.

    That brings me to my first ask of the Minister—who I am glad is here tonight; thank you—which is to revise the guidance to reflect the differing ambient noise levels of urban and rural areas, the point my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made so eloquently a minute or so ago. What is important is not the absolute noise of an aircraft, but its relative noise compared to the normal ambient noise of an area. Therefore, there should be a separate noise limit, lower than 51 decibels, for rural areas. That will encourage the design of flightpaths around areas where they will cause relatively less nuisance and distress due to the high levels of existing ambient noise, such as over cities. This should be reviewed with the upmost urgency and considered as part of the post-implementation review for the new Luton flightpaths —or part of a rerun consultation, as my hon. Friend suggests.

    NATS and Luton airport are doing a post-implementation review of the flightpath changes. I welcomed an initial extension of this review to June 2023, as a result of concerns that flight volumes were still recovering from the pandemic levels, but I do not think that goes far enough. If the consultation is not redone as a whole, as my hon. Friend suggests, will the Minister ask the Civil Aviation Authority to extend the review by a further three months to September 2023? I wrote a letter to the authority on the matter on 2 December, but I am advised that it is still under consideration. Extending the review for three months to September would allow it to encompass the peak season of travel in July and August at normal operating levels. It is important that we understand the impact of the noise of the holiday season on constituents.

    I also want to take the opportunity to raise my concern about the review process. It alarms me that it is the responsibility of NATS and Luton airport to report back to the Civil Aviation Authority on the success or otherwise of their flightpaths. There is no direct recourse for residents to lodge their complaints to the Civil Aviation Authority. That is tantamount to NATS and Luton airport marking their own homework. There is a real risk that the assessment is neither objective, nor seen to be by residents. That leads me to my third ask of the Minister.

    Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) rose—

    Anthony Browne

    I am happy to give way.

    Richard Fuller

    I am on tenterhooks to hear what my hon. Friend will say. I thank him for calling this important debate. That my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), a neighbouring constituency, is also in his place shows its importance to our constituents. In my case, its importance is to those constituents from Potton through Sutton and down the eastern part of my constituency. To his point about rerunning the consultation and NATS and Luton airport marking their own homework, does he not agree that the change was made because Luton airport wants to expand—it is not about managing existing levels of air traffic but to facilitate a substantial 50% or 60% increase in flightpaths—and that that is another good reason for him to pursue the course that he suggested?

    Anthony Browne

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes the very important point, which I touched on briefly, that this is about expansion of the airport. That makes it even more important to get it right now, because whatever the noise levels are now, they will get far worse as traffic at Luton expands.

    I will take my hon. Friend off his tenterhook—I was about to make my third ask of the Minister. Can the CAP1616 process for changing airspace be reviewed for this and future consultations to ensure that there is a more independent analysis once new flightpaths are implemented and that NATS and airports do not mark their own homework?

    Richard Fuller

    The other aspect of marking their own homework, which the Minister should be aware of from the debate, is that the land on which Luton airport is based is owned by Luton Borough Council, and that council gets to decide on planning issues to do with the expansion of Luton airport. By my reckoning, the council gets £20 million a year into its coffers at the moment—that will probably double—and not a penny of that money gets shared with constituents in Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire or Bedfordshire whose lives are impacted in the ways that my hon. Friend has suggested. Is it not incumbent on the Minister to look for legislation to say that if an airport is to be expanded, there needs to be a greater sharing of the benefits and that, basically, Luton needs to pay up for the rest of us who are affected and not put all its money in the council’s own pockets?

    Anthony Browne

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising that powerful point. I had not been aware of those financial implications.

    My fourth and final ask for the Minister, in addition to those from my hon. Friends, is to join me in calling for greater transparency from National Air Traffic Services and Luton airport. The final decision on flightpaths has the potential to significantly impact many people’s lives for the foreseeable future, so it is vital that we gather all the data necessary to make a comprehensive and informed decision.

    In October, I convened a meeting with National Air Traffic Services, Luton airport, the Civil Aviation Authority, campaign groups and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. In the meeting, National Air Traffic Services said that it was happy to share its automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast and radar data with the campaign groups, but it has subsequently made excuses that it would be too time consuming for its staff to do so. It would be an act of good faith if it shared that data, which would help bring much-needed transparency to what is actually happening. If National Air Traffic Services is confident that the terms of the consultation are being adhered to, it should be happy to share that information.

    I ask the Minister to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that the most appropriate decision on Luton flightpaths is reached, and no stone unturned in ensuring that residents can have confidence in the whole process. The current settlement is causing distress to a large number of people across a large part of the country. While I accept that there must be winners and losers from a change in flightpaths over inhabited areas, I find it difficult to accept that stacking planes over a once-quiet rural area is the right solution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to working with him on this matter.

  • Peter Aldous – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Lowestoft Becoming an Investment Zone

    Peter Aldous – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Lowestoft Becoming an Investment Zone

    The parliamentary question asked by Peter Aldous, the Conservative MP for Waveney, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

    The all-party parliamentary group for the east of England has carried out a review of levelling up in the region. It has found that although a good start has been made, there are five of the White Paper missions in whose delivery there is low confidence, four in which there is medium confidence and only three in which confidence is high. I would be most grateful if the Minister provided a full written response to the report, but in the first instance will she seek to make Lowestoft’s enterprise zone an investment zone? That would underpin and support levelling up.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)

    Pitch for Lowestoft heard loud and clear! The Chancellor announced at the time of the autumn statement that the existing investment zones programme would be refocused to

    “catalyse a limited number of the highest potential knowledge-intensive growth clusters”.

    Our Department will work closely with key partners on how best to identify and support those clusters. My officials have read the APPG’s report; we will respond in full in due course.

  • Ben Price – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Ben Price – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Ben Price, the Leader of the Green Party group at Norfolk County Council, on 2 January 2023.

    (i) Do you agree with the council’s suggestion that the road is essential for economic growth or do you feel that there are alternatives? What would the Green Party’s solution be to improving transport links in the county and also ensuring that there is economic growth?

    The Green party does not agree with the idea that building this road will create the sustainable economic growth that Norfolk is crying out for. We need to transition our local economy to create the jobs and industry of tomorrow. Norfolk can be a world leader in renewable energy and clean hydrogen production, and the eco house building and retrofitting industries, if only there was the vision and strength of character in council leaders and local MP’s to seize the opportunity.

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

    Norfolk has been largely ignored by Westminster. Having Conservative MPs dominate the region clearly hasn’t helped change that approach. The underfunding and systematic dismantling of a national public transport system by central government is felt more acutely here in this large rural county, than most other places across England. All the scientific research is pointing towards a change in how people live and work. How we travel, and why we travel is changing. The rate of change has only increased since the Covid pandemic. Most countries that are currently experiencing economic growth understand that you need to build and maintain a good, cheap and reliable public transport system, that integrates rail, bus and bike seamlessly. Public transport underpins sustainable economic growth and transition. The Western Link is an expensive and highly damaging folly. It’s yesterday’s solution, and will not solve the issues of tomorrow.

    (iii) Do you think a tipping point has been reached where the building of new roads is difficult to justify given the push for Government to take increasingly environmentally conscious decisions?

    Looking at the scientific evidence, the tipping point was some years ago. The UK Government is only now slowly catching up. Under the new carbon neutrality commitments, road building is absolutely prohibitive. We need to reduce the damage to the natural environment. You can’t just plant trees to excuse large carbon generating projects. Going forward with projects like The Western Link, with the knowledge of the damage it will cause, and understanding the commitments we have made to reducing carbon, can only be described as ecocide. These types of projects need to be challenged in court, and there is no way that they can be reasonably justified. History will judge the actions of today.

  • First Bus Eastern Countries – 2019 Letter of Support for the Norwich Western Link

    First Bus Eastern Countries – 2019 Letter of Support for the Norwich Western Link

    The letter sent by First Bus in Norfolk to Norfolk County Council on 17 May 2019.

    Dear Sirs,

    RE: Proposed Norwich Western Link

    As the main public transport provider in Norwich, we are acutely aware of the impact that traffic congestion has on our services and the lives of our passengers. With the planned introduction of thousands of new homes, not only in the Greater Norwich area, but specifically to the west of the city, this congestion is only going to get worse.

    A good public transport system is a key part of any thriving city and this is almost impossible to deliver if buses are stuck in traffic queues along with general traffic.

    The Broadland Northway has already delivered viable alternative routes for general traffic to traverse the city, instead of going directly through the centre and we have as a result, seen a reduction in congestion on some corridors.

    There is however, still a significant amount of traffic that uses Dereham Road, the outer ring road and many of the rural roads through Costessey, Drayton and Taverham along with its surrounding areas to travel between the A47 and the A1067 and beyond, to link with the Broadland Northway.

    The proposal to build a western link that would remove the need to either use key arterial routes in the city, or rat run through rural roads, therefore reducing congestion, is one that First East Counties would entirely support.

    Managing Director

    First Eastern Counties Buses.

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

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

    The letter sent on behalf of Chloe Smith, the Conservative MP for Norwich North, to Norfolk County Council on 24 May 2019.

    I am writing to you to reiterate Chloe’s strong support for the bid being made by Norfolk County Council and others for funding for the Norwich Northern Distributor Road Western Link “the Western Link”.

    Chloe has been a longstanding supporter of both Northern Broadway and the Western Link, having been the subject of one of her very first interventions in Parliament. It has long been her contention the road is necessary for future development, for jobs, for growing our economy – and to reduce the environmental impact of traffic queueing in and around Norwich. Chloe is pleased to have led lobbying for funding in the past and to have been a part of the campaign that successfully welcomed the NDR opening last year and I am pleased to confirm her strong, ongoing support for the Western Link.

    As you aware, the NDR has made travel in and around Norwich much easier but ends on a small A-class road leaving Norwich heading towards Fakenham (and A1067) and inevitably leads to problems with congestion. The Western Link will allow a complete circuit of dual carriageways to the north and south of the city, making journeys through the historic, and crowded, city centre unnecessary and will make a significant contribution to the flow of traffic, congestion and air quality in Norwich. It will also support the significant housing growth that is already planned and improve the strategic connectivity of the national road network.

    We look forward to continuing to work with you, the rest of the council and others to make the Western Link a reality.

    With best wishes,

    On behalf of Chloe Smith.

  • Nova Fairbank – 2022 Comments on the Norwich Western Link

    Nova Fairbank – 2022 Comments on the Norwich Western Link

    The comments made by Nova Fairbank from Norfolk Chambers of Commerce.

    The Norwich Western Link will facilitate easier access to both Norwich airport and Great Yarmouth port. It will further help to improve journeys into and around the west of the city, support potential housing and jobs growth; provide the infrastructure to manage the additional traffic this will create, and improve quality of life for people living in the area.

    This final piece of the puzzle will ensure that Norfolk has infrastructure that will meet our growth ambitions. It will create stronger and more effective links to the Midlands and the North and will help Norfolk businesses to thrive and deliver greater economic growth and jobs.