Please note that the total time allotted for this item is 30 minutes – as set out in the Constitution, Chapter 2, paragraph 3.7(d)
The following item of Opposition Business has been received, proposed by Cllr G Mancini Boyle, seconded by Cllr T FitzPatrick:
Opposition Business Motion – Norwich Western Link
‘North
Norfolk District Council pledges its full support
for the construction of the Norwich Western Link dual
carriageway which will deliver the following benefits for
North Norfolk:
• Reduce ambulance response times for the whole of North Norfolk.
• Boost North Norfolk's economy and support its businesses.
• Enable speedier access from North Norfolk to the A11 by reducing through traffic around Norwich.
• Lead to a reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
• Improve road safety and take traffic off unsuitable roads.
This Council therefore resolves to request the Leader
of North Norfolk District Council to write to the
Leader of Norfolk County Council reaffirming its fullest support
for the Norwich Western Link.’
Minutes:
The following item of Opposition Business had been proposed by Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, seconded by Cllr T FitzPatrick:
The Chairman, Cllr J Punchard, proposed that a recorded vote was taken. Cllr T FitzPatrick seconded this
Norwich Western Link
‘North Norfolk District Council pledges its full support for the construction of the Norwich Western Link dual carriageway which will deliver the following benefits for North Norfolk:
• Reduce ambulance response times for the whole of North Norfolk.
• Boost North Norfolk's economy and support its businesses.
• Enable speedier access from North Norfolk to the A11 by reducing through traffic around Norwich.
• Lead to a reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
• Improve road safety and take traffic off unsuitable roads.
This Council therefore resolves to request the Leader of North Norfolk District Council to write to the Leader of Norfolk County Council reaffirming its fullest support for the Norwich Western Link.’
Cllr Mancini-Boyle introduced the motion by saying that although the Western Link was not in North Norfolk, residents, businesses and tourists across the District would benefit from its completion. He referenced access to the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital (NNUH). Many residents had to drive through small rural villages to get there and this meant that ambulances and lorries also had to drive these routes which were often unsafe and lengthy. Access to the A11 was also challenging. Heavy traffic in small villages meant that vehicle emissions were high and potentially harmful to residents, including children and the elderly.
Cllr Mancini-Boyle said that more consultation would come forward regarding the final route once the Secretary of State had made the decision on the funding. He added that members of South Norfolk and Broadland District Councils had already voted in support of the Western Link and he urged members to put politics aside and support the motion – for the whole of Norfolk.
Cllr T FitzPatrick seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
The Chairman opened the debate:
Cllr S Penfold said that his main concern was that the motion sought commitment from members to support the construction of the Western Link dual carriageway. He said that it was not an ‘in principle’ pledge but a full commitment and it was too early for this. At the current time, Norfolk County Council (NCC) did not know the construction costs for the project and had not set out a timetable for the works. In February 2022, NCC had issued a news release focussing on the design of the western link but not the costs. It had stated that more information on the route, costs and timetable would be provided in June 2022. Cllr Penfold said that it was clear that the County Council did not yet know how much the project would cost and how long it would take to construct. Questions should therefore be raised about its viability. It wasn’t clear whether the County Council could afford the 15% of costs that it had agreed to – which were originally £185m and would undoubtedly be much higher now. He concluded by saying that the motion was set against a backdrop of escalating financial woes at the County Council, a lack of commitment from the Government on funding and soaring material and supply costs. He felt it was therefore naïve and premature and it would be irresponsible for a District Council to pledge commitment to County Council project, when they did not know the costs or timetable for construction.
The Leader, Cllr T Adams, said that he did not feel that this was a matter for the District Council to provide a steer on. He said that he did not feel that construction of the link would solve the issues faced by the Ambulance Service. He agreed with Cllr Penfold that escalating costs were a concern and many people were questioning its deliverability.
Cllr E Spagnola said that it was unfair to put the Ambulance Service in the spotlight and suggest that waiting times could be solved by constructing the Western Link. There was a much wider issue regarding investment and a focus on handing over patients at the hospital.
Cllr A Fitch-Tillett said she supported the construction of the road and the points raised in the written motion. However, she too felt that it was premature. She referred to the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) which had not been delivered on budget. She said that she didn’t feel she could support the motion until it had been fully costed, funding was allocated and it was clear when it would be delivered.
Cllr C Cushing said that this was about a vision for Norfolk that was sustainable and relied on people walking and cycling everywhere. This worked well in city centres but was not practical for a rural area like North Norfolk. People relied on their cars to get around and without the Western Link, traffic would continue to increase and impact on small villages. That was why so many residents in the surrounding areas were supportive of the road being built. He said that similar motions had been supported by the Liberal Democrat councillors unanimously at both South Norfolk and Broadland District Councils. He explained that residents from the west of the District wanting to access the NNUH, had to travel via Lenwade which was a winding, treacherous route. Cllr Cushing then said that he believed the Western Link would provide a strong boost for businesses by improving connectivity and he urged members to support the motion.
Cllr V FitzPatrick said that the construction of the road was of huge public benefit. He gave the example of an ambulance journey to the hospital and said that dangerously ill patients were much safer being transported on a fast dual carriageway rather than winding, lengthy back roads. He added that for most residents, the journey to Norwich was impossible by bus and the majority of people ended up using the ‘rat runs’ which then impacted on the quality of life of the people living adjacent to them. He encouraged members to support the motion.
Cllr N Lloyd said that he believed the motion to be premature and poorly written. The route was not yet finalised and the funding not secured. He said that there was no data regarding emissions in the motion and he felt this was necessary for members to support. He said that regarding ambulances, he would also like to see some data on this. As far as he was aware the main issue was around transferring patients from the ambulance into the hospital rather than the journey time. He concluded by saying if the funding and route were confirmed then he may support it but it should be acknowledged that the County Council did not have a good track record of listening to the District Council and he remained sceptical that it would make any difference.
Cllr A Brown said that in his view, an indication of support at this stage would send a signal to the Leader of the County Council to sign a ‘blank cheque’. Instead, he would support sending a letter suggesting that the County Council revisits their decision not to declare a climate emergency.
Cllr G Hayman proposed that the question be now put. Cllr T FitzPatrick seconded the proposal, subject to him having a right of reply if it was passed. When put to the vote, the proposal was not supported by 11 votes in favour and 19 votes against.
Cllr L Shires said that she wanted to send a clear message of support to the paramedic and hospital teams who regularly raised concerns about the difficulties they were facing regarding response times. She said it was unfair to suggest that a pledge to build a 3 mile stretch of road would resolve these issues. The latest data that she had seen included an ambulance response time of 21 hours and 57 minutes – and this stretch of road would not address that. The problem was a matter of a severely underfunded system.
Cllr P Grove-Jones said that roads in a rural area were slow. There was a sequential increase in traffic as new roads opened. She gave the example of the M25 which was now gridlocked most of the time, despite being built as a relief road.
Cllr J Punchard said that he was supportive in principle as it made sense to complete the route by constructing the last three miles. However, like other members, he questioned how much it would change ambulance response times. Regarding emissions, he said that he hoped that it would not be like the NDR, which had a lot of roundabouts, which required drivers to stop frequently. He concluded by saying that it needed more detail before he would support the motion.
Cllr T FitzPatrick then spoke as seconder of the motion. He said that in his view, the main point was not about ambulance response times but about getting to the hospital in a car, which this road would help. He went on to say that in his role as a County Councillor he had supported the construction of the Northern Broadway which had been built under the ‘Rainbow Alliance’ at the County Council. He felt it had been too important an issue to play party politics with and this was a similar matter. Regarding the reduction of emission, the Western Link would take cars out of the city centre, reducing pollution. Ultimately, however, it would be electric cars using the roads so this issue would be addressed. He went onto say that the existing Broadland Northway brought substantial benefits to Cromer but not to the west part of the District. Finishing this link would stop rat running, support existing jobs by improving transport links and for emergency services every minute was critical. It was time to see some benefits being brought to the western side of the District. He asked members not to play politics with this. The funding would be dealt with by the County Council, support was just sought from the District Council to demonstrate recognition of the benefits it would bring to residents.
Cllr G Mancini-Boyle then spoke as the proposer of the motion. He said that he would listen to the concerns that had been raised regarding costs and the route. He said that he was confident it would be built at some point. He said that Councils were happy to approve large housing developments but did not seem open to backing the infrastructure to support these. He concluded by urging all members to support the motion.
A recorded vote was taken. 10 members voted in favour, 20 against and 3 abstained. The motion was therefore not supported.