Some key reasons for objection to the proposed NDR

1. The NDR is designed to open up land for new development
One of the main reasons why Norfolk County Council want to build the NDR is to "help the economy by improving access to the airport and providing access to existing and potential housing developments in the north of Norwich". In other words, the County wants to use the NDR to encourage developments on greenfield sites, threatening surrounding villages and countryside with urban sprawl and bringing increased traffic to currently peaceful areas.

2. The NDR would make traffic problems worse
Experience shows that new roads generate travel as a result of opening up land for development and making it easier for people to drive. Traffic levels on many local roads are higher than before the opening of the Norwich Southern bypass. A NDR would inevitably lead to major car-based developments and more traffic.

3. The road would cause a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions
This is not just because of the increased motor traffic.  The road is also intended to permit further expansion of Norwich Airport and a large increase in the number of flights.  Air traffic is the biggest producer of greenhouse emissions of any form of mass transport, with carbon dioxide emissions several times greater than for motor car traffic for the same journey.

4. High financial cost of road – paid for by the people of Norfolk
The NDR has already been excluded from consideration for funding by central Government.  Regional level funding is also looking increasingly unlikely.  Even if this were obtained, it wouldn’t cover the whole cost of the road.  And Private Finance Initiative funding has been shown not to be a credible alternative by the collapse of the PFI funding scheme for Norfolk’s Schools (an experience all too similar to PFI schemes across the country).  All that leaves is funding from Council Taxes.

The estimated cost of the road is rising all the time, and that’s before they’ve even factored in inflation, recently quoted by the Transport Minister as being 12.8% for roadbuilding costs in the East of England.  Cost before inflation has been estimated at over £100m and inflation like that would more than double this by the time it was built.

5. The Council has not consulted the public on its proposed route
The Council is proposing a “three quarter” route from Postwick in the East to Taverham in the North West, having, for now, abandoned plans for a crossing of the Wensum Valley to join the road to the A47 in the West.  We agree entirely that the environmental damage that a crossing of the Wensum Valley would cause would be totally unacceptable.  However, the route options on which the Council consulted did not include a three quarter route, which is clearly a materially different prospect from a route that goes fully East to West.  No road scheme of this magnitude should be allowed without the public being consulted and their opinions considered with due seriousness.

6. The road remains a threat to the Wensum Valley SSSI/SAC
Because of the unique character of its wildlife, which includes otters, one of the UK’s most highly protected (supposedly) species, and water voles, the UK’s fastest declining mammal, the Wensum Valley is designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a European Special Area of Conservation.  While plans for an environmentally destructive crossing of the valley have been dropped from the current proposals, the decision to go ahead with a three quarter route will clearly create a traffic situation that will create a pressure for a Wensum Valley crossing in the future.  As it stands, traffic brought to Taverham by the NDR would have nowhere to go but onto existing, already congested roads.  Motorists and the residents of Taverham are, regrettably, being used as pawns in the Council’s attempt to get its way longer term.

7. The need for an NDR has not been demonstrated
The Council claims that the reason an NDR is essential is because it is needed to service new housing proposed for the North East of Norwich.  But an independent consultant’s report makes clear that this is not so (see http://www.norwichn25.org/AWS/AWSreport.doc for a copy of this report). Norfolk County Council have shown no sign of answering the criticisms made in the report.

8. There has been inadequate consideration of alternatives to a road
Councils are only supposed to build roads a s a last resort.  Yet Norfolk County Council has not looked at “Demand Management” alternatives, shown to be highly successful in cutting congestion elsewhere, notably in London.

9. The economics is unsustainable
The trend in petrol prices will continue to be upwards.  Oil industry experts say that within about five years oil production will start to decline as it begins to take more energy to extract oil than can be got out of what’s extracted (so-called “Peak Oil”).  So a shift away from car use will have to occur whether we like it or not and it is foolish to invest in infrastructure for a transport mode that is set to decline.