Norwich
Northern Distributor Road 20th September 2013
Department
of Environment, Transport and Development
Norfolk
County Council
County
Hall
Martineau
Lane
Norwich
NR1
2DH
Dear
ETD,
Public
Consultation July – September 2013 – NDR
NSIP Pre-application
Please
find below the Consultation Response from Norwich
Green Party.
Author
This
Norwich Green Party submission is authored by Norfolk County Councillor Andrew
Boswell. I make this statement as local
politician elected in 2005 to represent residents in the Norwich Nelson
division, an area to the West of the City Centre. The Green Party holds 19 council seats [15
City Council, 4 County Council] within the Norwich urban area and is the main
opposition group on the City Council.
Norwich Green Party has a written constitution and over 1100 active
members and supporters within the City and outlying areas of Norfolk.
Prior
to being elected to Norfolk County Council, I pursued a career in scientific
research and computing support for scientific research. My doctorate was in protein molecular
structure and dynamics (Oxford, 1981). I worked for 10 years (1984-1994) in the
design of the Very Large Scale Integrated (VLSI) circuits that have made the
current digital revolution possible, and from 1995-2006 I managed the High
Performance Computing (HPC) Research infrastructure at the University of East
Anglia (UEA, Norwich) and worked with scientific research groups across the
campus including those modelling the global climate system.
Endorsement
The
submission is endorsed by Councillor Richard Bearman, Leader of the Green Party
group on Norfolk County Council, and Councillor Claire Stephenson, Leader of
the Green Party group on Norwich City Council.
1
Illegitimate consultation
1
The consultation is illegitimate and fundamentally
flawed.
2
The public has been unreasonably asked to respond to a
consultation on a scheme whose legal basis and rationale have both changed
halfway through. The situation is so
complex that we have provided a timeline table below to summarise the four
different rationales and consultation phases.
1.1
The public have faced four rationales and consultation phases
3
The consultation documents, originally published on
June 24th, proposed the NDR to be an NSIP under legislation which
was removed from the Statute by a new statutory instrument went onto the
Statute book on July 25th. This
ended the legitimacy of the original consultation.
4
Crucially, any member of the public responding during
the period July 8
th-July 25
th would have done so on an
NDR that was justified
[1] by
its “
primary purpose [of the NDR] is thus
to improve accessibility to, from and within the northern and eastern parts of
the greater Norwich urban area and the towns and villages to the north of the
city.”
CONSULTATION TIMELINE
|
|
|
Consultation area
|
Areas with attributable impact
of the Scheme requiring consultation
|
|
June 24th
|
SOCC published
|
North Norwich and a ring of
villages beyond
|
Norwich City centre, south
Norwich and South Norfolk part of the Norwich Policy Area
|
|
July 8th- July 24th
|
Consultation starts under 'old'
PA2008
|
unchanged
|
ditto
|
|
July 25th- Aug 9th
|
INTERREGNUM period. The legal basis for NSIP designation
removed by statutory instrument in Parliament.
|
unchanged
|
ditto
|
|
August 10th - August 19th
|
Made NSIP by SoS under S35
Planning Act 2008 BUT Public not informed
|
unchanged
|
East Norfolk including whole of
Norwich Policy Area, the A47 corridor and Great Yarmouth
|
|
August 19th- Sept 16th
|
No updates to consultation
documents despite change of legal basis
|
unchanged
|
East Norfolk including whole of
Norwich Policy Area, the A47 corridor and Great Yarmouth
|
|
Sept 16th – Sept 20th
|
A feasibility study into
extending the NDR agreed. This changes
the policy position of Norfolk County Council as to the extent of the Scheme.
|
unchanged
|
Above plus SSSI and SAC
sites in Wensum Valley to West of Norwich.
|
KEY
|
|
Original legal basis
|
|
|
Omission of large part of
Norwich Policy Area from consultation
|
|
|
No legal basis
|
|
|
Omission of large part of East
Norfolk and Great Yarmouth from consultation
|
|
|
Changed legal basis
|
|
|
Omission of SSSI and SAC sites
in Wensum Valley to West of Norwich from consultation
|
5
Between July 25th and August 19th,
any member of the public would have been responding to an NDR, proposed as an
NSIP, but without any published legal basis as an NSIP.
6
From August 19th, when a new NSIP status, on
an entirely different legal basis, was publically announced for the NDR, any
member of the public would have been responding to a different rationale for
the NDR – that it would connect Norwich
Airport with the A47 TEN-T and Great Yarmouth Enterprise Zone. These and other new rationales were given in the Secretary of State’s S35
Direction.
7
Further, following a motion passed at Norfolk County
Council on September 16th to carry out a feasibility study into
extending the NDR westwards across SSSI and SAC sites in the Wensum valley, any
reasonable member of the public would have additional reasons for responding to
the consultation.
8
In summary, there are four possible rationales and phases within the consultation
period, during which a member of the public might have responded. During each phase, any member of the public
would have been replying to a different
consultation. Therefore, there have
actually been four consultations.
9
This is, first, very confusing to the public, and,
second, means that the consultation cannot be evaluated by Norfolk County
Council in any rational and consistent way. It is unacceptable on both counts.
1.2
The consultation area has been wrong on all four consultations
10
The main consultation area has been limited to North
Norwich and a ring of villages beyond. This
is incorrect when Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) justifies the NDR
as removing through traffic from Norwich city centre and delivering the Norwich
Area Transportation Strategy (NATS) which covers the entire Norwich Policy Area.
11
Even under the first consultation rationale, the
consultation area should have included all of Norwich including Norwich City
centre and south Norwich, and the South Norfolk part of the Norwich Policy Area.
12
I represent the Norwich Green Party who hold all City
Council seats in 5 wards in a band of across Norwich, from west to east: Wensum,
Nelson, Town Close, Mancroft and Thorpe Hamlet.
All the residents in these wards have been excluded from the consultation
area, despite their wards being in area that will be affected by the NDR, and
having consistently voted for Councillors opposed to the NDR. I object strongly, on behalf of the 19 Green
Party council seats based in these wards, that our constituents have been
disenfranchised.
13
As additional rationales have been added, as above, the
consultation area should have been much larger.
This is shown on the table above.
By Sept 20th and the fourth
consultation rationale, the area should have included the whole of East Norfolk
including whole of Norwich Policy Area, the A47 corridor and Great Yarmouth,
and also villages to the West of Norwich relating any new route over the Wensum
valley.
1.3
Lack of democratic process in consultation preparation
14
Norfolk County Council consulted Norwich CC on the
draft Statement of Community involvement.
However, Norwich City councillors were not consulted themselves as part
of this. Instead the officers submitted
a response themselves.
15
Had the 15 Green Party councillors been consulted, or
even notified that the draft consultation document existed, we would
have highlighted the need for the extension of the limited consultation are to
include the city centre and south Norwich, and South Norfolk part of the
Norwich Policy Area.
16
Once again, in Norfolk, councillors have been by-passed
by officers in a matter which is of considerable concern to them. A complaint was made to the relevant Norwich
City Council officer in retrospect, but this has not resulted in Norwich
councillors being properly involved.
17
Further, discussion at Norwich City Council has been
limited to comments on the consultation from the Cabinet. The
consultation has not been tabled for Full City Council, thereby denying a
significant number of Norwich City councillors the chance to debate the issue
and to reflect the views of their residents. This is further disenfranchisement of
residents in the Wensum, Nelson, Town Close, Mancroft and Thorpe Hamlet, and
other City wards such as Eaton and Lakenham.
1.4
The consultation is not compliant with the Aarhus
Convention
18
Citizens over wide area of Norfolk have been denied
their rights to access to information and to participation in decision making
under the UN Aarhus Convention (see extracts below) to which the UK Government
is a signatory.
19
The Aarhus
Convention, signed by the UK Government establishes a legal requirement for
public participation in decisions (Articles 6 - 8) affecting the environment
and quality of life. The Convention states that in drafting rules and
regulations governments shall strive to ‘promote effective public participation
at the appropriate stage, and while options are still open’.
20 As
shown on the above timeline, the third
[August 19th - Sept 16th] and fourth [Sept 16th - Sept 20th ] phases
of this consultation introduced additional rationales and scope. Yet no further documentation was made
available to the public. For example, a
25 page document “Norwich Northern Distributor Road – an infrastructure project
of national significance” was sent to Government on July 25th by
Norfolk County Council. This introduced
significant new rationales related to the Scheme. None of this information has been made
available to the Public as part of the consultation.
21
AARHUS CONVENTION extracts:
Article 7 extract:
“Each Party shall make appropriate practical
and/or other provision for the public to participate during the preparation of
plans and programmes relating to the environment, within a transparent and fair
framework, having provided the necessary information to the public”.
Article 8 extract:
“Each Party shall strive to promote
effective public participation at an appropriate stage, and while options are
still open, during the preparation by public authorities of executive
regulations and other generally applicable legally binding rules that may have
a significant effect on the environment.”
1.5
The consultation should be re-run
22 Given all of the above, the consultation
should be re-run on a clear basis with consistent rationale for the Scheme.
2
Funding
23
Norwich City Council Leader and counterparts in South
Norfolk and Broadland, and under the auspices of the Greater Norwich
Development Partnership (GNDP) have committed to giving £40-60 million towards
a three-quarter NDR costing at least £144 million.
24
If the road, following feasibility study, is extended
across the Wensum valley via a hugely costly viaduct scheme this could add the
order of another £100m at least. We are
sceptical of claims that this could be funded by ‘shadow tolling’. Whilst such claims may be made to promote the
public perception of the fiscal viability of embarking on such an extension,
there is no evidence base that that a successful case could be made for shadow
tolling.
2.1
Infrastructure planning by the GNDP Councils is in a
state of flux
25
Inspector Keith Holland’s, BA (HONS) DIPTP MRTPI ARICS,
examination into the Draft Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedules for
Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk recommendation a substantial downwards
revision of the CIL Levy rate.
26
New infrastructure funding plans are being developed
due to CIL shortfall, but there is no clear information at this stage to guide
priorities and inform stakeholders.
27
Further uncertainty has been added by the September 19th
announcement of the disbandment of the Grater Norwich Development Partnership
and its replacement with a Greater Norwich Growth Board.
2.2
Integrated transport schemes are being delayed
28
Analysis of the JCS Infrastructure Framework (JCSIF)
and the GNDP Local Investment Plan and Programme (LIPP)
[3]
shows that Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) projects in the Norwich NE Quadrant which
are a key part of the NATS proposals for promoting sustainable transport and
reducing congestion in Norwich have already have delays or cost increases,
these are:
·
A 5 – 10 year delay on the Airport BRT [T12]
·
A shorter delay on the Salhouse Road BRT [T11]
·
A shorter delay on the Broadland Business Park
(BBP) – Salhouse Road development link [T15]
29
The existing delays and additional risks to these projects
compromise the NATS proposals, and the deliverability and soundness of
sustainable transport objectives of the JCS.
30
Further in recent years the County Council itself has,
year-on-year, diverted funds away from Integrated Transport to other road costs.
31
It is simply not true that the NDR scheme will help these
sustainable transport developments. It
will in fact, due to its huge costs, divert funds away, and Norwich will see
the vision of a decent public transport system fade away.
2.3
Badly needed, community infrastructure projects are
compromised across the Norwich Policy Area
32
The fiscal drain, upwards of £50m from the NDR, will
leave insufficient money to pay for the £500m minimum needed in the
wider Norwich area to provide infrastructure for water, sewage treatment,
public transport, health centres, schools, community facilities and green
spaces alongside new homes in JCS.
33
These is also a rapidly escalating financial impact on
other stakeholders such as the NHS. For
example, the cost of hospital bed provision across the JCS area has rocketed
from £28m in the JCS to £72.6m in the LIPP over the entire JCS timescale.
3
Climate Change
34
Our fundamental position on climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions is that a transport scheme like the Norwich Northern
Distributor Road scheme needs to be assessed against a national legislative and
regulatory framework that includes the Climate Change Act 2008 and the National
Planning Policy Framework (2011). When
this is done properly, the Scheme will not be deemed to be suitable for
development due to the additional carbon footprint that it creates.
35
Appendix A gives a brief overview of the issue of
climate change, the global situation, the science and as it relates to policy.
3.1
The role of the scheme in the national legislative framework
on Climate Change
36
Any scheme may be a carbon generator or a carbon sink:
that is, it adds to carbon emissions or reduces carbon emissions. The difficulty is in establishing to what
extent it does so, and this is the role of assessment.
37
Our position is:
“Any scheme that generates carbon emissions
makes an incremental change to the overall UK Carbon Budget, and the levels of
future global carbon emissions, accumulated in the atmosphere, in the wrong direction. This is counter to the socio-economic
responsibilities to reduce carbon that are inherent in current national and
local policy, and may make it harder for the Country to deliver that policy. “
38
Any such scheme should be seen within a legislative
hierarchy as shown below from the international, national Climate Change Act to
scheme level:
|
International
negotiations (UNFCCC etc)
|
|
|
|
Legal requirement
|
National Carbon
Budget
Legally binding targets set at this level
in 5 year Carbon Budget periods
|
|
Sector
|
Transport
|
Energy Supply
|
Other sectors
|
Other sectors
|
|
Sector level
Responsibility
|
National Projection
|
National Projection
|
|
|
|
Responsibility
|
Regional
contribution
|
Regional
contribution
|
|
|
|
Responsibility
|
Local Authority
contribution
|
Local Authority
contribution
|
|
|
|
Responsibility
|
Scheme
(eg Road)
|
Scheme
(eg Gas Power
station)
|
|
|
39
Whilst the national ‘legally binding’ target for carbon
emissions only exists in legislation at the level of the national 5 year
Climate Budgets, our position is that there are responsibilities at every other
level down to the Scheme level.
40
Challenging targets have been set for carbon reduction
in the national five year Carbon budgets.
In the context of Climate Change Act carbon
budgets for the first three 5 years periods up to 2023, the Carbon Plan makes a
projection of 15% savings
for the transport sector by 2020
[4].
41
A logical conclusion is that at the emissions sectorial
level, under-achievement in one sector would require over-achievement elsewhere
(see diagram above): for example a 20 MtCO2e under achievement in
decarbonisation of the national Energy Supply requires over achievement in
other sectors, such as transport, of the same amount.
42
Further Local Authorities and their contribution to
regional and national sectorial targets must be seen the same way: “All parties
have to contribute”. It is
responsibility to “take the lead” is at the local authority level in line with
the Government’s Localism agenda. Any
one local authority than under achieves requires an over achievement by another
local authority elsewhere in their region or the country.
43
This is not a prescriptive approach. The maths simply does not add up
otherwise.
44
To make the maths add up, it is necessary for there to
be “ownership of the carbon issue at the local level” (for example, by local
authorities). Such an evolving
ownership, as evidenced already by some local authorities, is completely
consistent with, and also a mature and responsible approach, to Localism.
45
By building high-carbon infrastructure, specifically
the NDR, Norfolk is not making its local and regional contribution to the
national sectorial target of 15% reductions of transport emissions by 2020. This is a dereliction of the socio-economic responsibilities to reduce carbon emissions at the local and regional level.
3.2
The role of the planning system
46
There are very strong arguments on the basis of the
urgency to deal with climate change that would preclude allowing schemes to be
developed that are assessed as carbon generators. We express this as follows:
“The planning system
is charged with producing reductions in CO2 emissions (NPPF, para 94) in line
with its contribution to meeting national Carbon Budgets as set out in the
Climate Change Act 2008. There is an associated
singularity in socio-economic responsibility in relation to this: that is, that
any singular decision process for scheme or project that increments carbon
emissions should take account of a socio-economic responsibility to reduce
carbon emissions under the NPPF and the Climate Change Act 2008”.
47
The Norwich Northern Distributor Road, as a local
authority major transport scheme, has carbon emissions associated with it in
the 5 figure tonnes per annum range [ie: 10,000 – 99,999 tCO2e/annum]. The ‘latest’ exact figure cannot clearly be
determined from the promoter’s case: at one time, it was given as 25000 tonnes
of carbon a year. At this scale of emissions, a scheme is
making significant contributions to the local and regional carbon footprint. It clearly cannot demonstrate that it can
save carbon emissions according to the transport sector projections under the
Carbon Plan, and is counter to the NPPF and Climate Change Act.
4
Right to Add Statement
48
The Author and Norwich Green Party reserve the right to
introduce any such additional documents as may be relevant to future Inquiries
in respect of the Scheme.
Yours
sincerely
Norfolk
County Councillor and Norwich City Councillor Andrew Boswell
Of
behalf of Norwich Green Party
September
20th 2013
5
APPENDIX A:
Climate Change: The problem and current global situation
49
Climate change ranks very high indeed as a UK
government policy issue embracing very strong policy commitments to reduce
greenhouse gases (so-called “mitigation”) so that we can avoid the worst
consequences of climate change. The
science of climate change is clear that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
(i.e. those generated by human activity) are contributing to increases in
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) including carbon dioxide (CO2) and that there
is a powerful case for reducing these emissions.
50
In a seminal 2008 paper NASA and Columbia University scientist
Professor James Hansen
[5]
states that we have already exceeded the safe level of atmospheric greenhouse
gases (GHGs) to prevent ice sheet disintegration and equilibrium sea level rise
of at least several metres scientist.
Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that
industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global
climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing
appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of
the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to
doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free
planet, preceded by a period of chaotic change with continually changing
shorelines.
51
An article by twenty nine of the world’s leading
climate scientist published in the journal
Nature in 2010
[6] identified
9 “planetary boundaries” that should not be crossed if we are to avoid drastic
consequences in terms of biodiversity, weather, food production and the
continuation of liveability for our species on planet Earth.
The article concluded that the safe limit
(i.e. the planetary boundary) for climate change was 350 parts per millions
(ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere:
this
level was breached in the mid-1980s.
52
Correcting this breach (“mitigation”) and returning to
a safe planetary boundary for atmospheric gases requires nothing less than
reducing GHG concentrations to 1985 levels (ie 350ppm CO2eq). Note, this is different to reducing rates of emissions - a
decreasing, but positive rate of carbon emissions rate still generates an
overall increase in GHG concentration levels over time. To reduce concentrations of CO2 to safe levels implies actually
removing CO2 from the atmosphere (ie a negative rate of emissions).
53
This is explained using the analogy of water in a bath
where water trickles into the overflow at a depth of 12 inches (350ppm), or
more, causing environmental damage. We
are now at 14 inches (nearly 400ppm) and water is not only pouring through the
overflow but close to pouring over the side (‘catastropic climate change’). As water is continually being added via the
tap (the addition of about 2ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere each year), each year
the bath level rises. The challenge to
reach 350 ppm is not only to reduce the tap flow (“reduce emissions”) but to
remove water from the bath (“reduce overall concentrations of GHGs”) back to no
more than the 12inch level.
54
Global levels of CO2 have been measured at the Mauna
Loa Observatory in Hawaii
[7]
since the 1950s.
55
Pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2 were around
270ppm. The 300ppm threshold was crossed
around 1950, and the 350ppm level was breached around 1986.
56
The 400ppm level was reached, at globally averaged
measurements, in May 2013
[8],
although localised levels of 400ppm were recorded over the Arctic in the summer
of 2012
[9].
57
The global average concentrations for May 2010, 2011
and 2012 were 392.95, 394.16, 396.78 ppm CO2
[10].
58
One of the global physical characteristics which
indicates the effect of anthropogenic global warming is the melting of the
Arctic polar ice cap.
On 27
th
August 2012, scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre announced that
the extent of sea ice in the Arctic had reached its lowest level since
satellite measurements began
[11],
breaking the previous record in 2007.
The graph below shows how this record was broken about 3 weeks before
the usual minimum of summer ice (mid September)
[12].
59
For a number of years, UK Government and international
UN policy has had the objective at limiting global temperature rises to 2oC.
60
On 23rd August 2012, Prof Sir Bob Watson, in an interview
with the BBC
[13] said
that efforts to stop a sharp rise in global temperatures were now
"unrealistic". He said that the rise could be as high as 5
oC
- with dire consequences.
Sir Bob is
among the most respected scientists in the world on climate change policy. He
is currently chief scientist at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
and a former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
61
On the very current evidence, given above, we are not
performing well on carbon reduction targets and tackling climate change.
There is no room for complacency.
In May 2013, the Independent newspaper reported that UK GHG emissions
jumped by 3.9% in 2012 more than any other country in Europe[14].
62
This background has been given because it is crucially
important to understand that projects like the NDR are building into the system
permanent future increases in CO2
emissions, and associated increases to overall GHG concentrations. These may be ‘small’ on the global level, but
they are significant given the need for socio-economic responsibility at all
levels under the UK Climate Change Act (as explained in main text).
63
With the global issue of carbon emissions, the issue of
relative scale is not relevant. Any increase in emissions anywhere increases total
emissions (the water level in the bath analogy).
64
The consequences of failing to meet appropriate CO2
reduction targets are very serious indeed.
They include an increase in the frequency and severity of severe weather
events, floods, disruption to transport systems, loss of agricultural
productivity and large public and private financial losses in an era of fiscal
restraint and in the context of reduced insurance cover.
