A47 Blofield to North Burlingham

Representations received regarding A47 Blofield to North Burlingham

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on A47 Blofield to North Burlingham and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Evans
"I am please for work to go ahead to deal with the congestion and accident blackspot on this section"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Tony Clarke on behalf of Norwich Cycling Campaign
"Our detailed representation will examine the extent to which the provisions for cycling in these proposals meet the requirements of the CROW principals: * Safety * Directness * Coherence and accessibility * Attractiveness * Comfort We shall refer to: * National Policy Planning Framework sections 84, 91.c, 102c, 104c, 104d * Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Sections relating to Cycling) * "Gear Change" (Government Policy Statement 2020) * Cycle Infrastructure Design 1/20 * Local Transport Plan 4 Strategy 2021-2036 (Norfolk County Council) * Norfolk Walking and Cycling Strategy * Other relevant documents I am a cyclist with over 70 years experience of cycling in the UK which includes rural and smaller urban areas and in 27 overseas countries. I wish to raise objections to this scheme based on Government and other official policies. I will refer in detail to the Government Policy Document "Gear Change" and details of implementation this policy which may emerge during the period that that Inquiry is in progress. I will also refer to the details of provision for cycling set out in the various sections of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and in Local Transport Note 1/20. The focus of my objection will be connectivity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Norton
"Dear Sir. I submitted my original objections to this whole project on 03/10/2018 stating that I "strongly disagree" with this total project. Having studied the proposed scheme in detail, my objections are even stronger against an over designed scheme which the end result will be "catastrophic". This project is ill conceived, resulting in loss of good farmland, building unsightly mega structures in the country side and poorly designed traffic management in the village of Blofield. The result of all of this will simply mean the traffic is pushed to the roundabout at Acle, to the east, where there is only single lane carriageways off each road, hence the same problem you are trying to solve is simply moved a few miles east. Until such times as the Acle straight, with it's inherent problems is resolved, anything proceeding that is a complete waste of time and money. A "catastrophic" end result. Regards Terry Norton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Thirkettle
"I wish to fully support the proposal as submitted. The new junction arrangements at the South Walsham/Lingwood/Cantley junction with the A47, particularly the new bridge arrangement is highly welcome as a great improvement to safety at this point. I also welcome the restriction to a west bound access point to the Blofield turn-off as the removal of the ability to access from a westerly direction would significantly increase safety at this point also. The new link between Blofield and North Burlingham via an overbridge is also highly desirable for both pedestrians and cyclists alike and makes the journey between Blofield and North Burlingham far safer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Furr Family
"This representation is made by the Furr Family. Rebecca Furr and Daniel Furr who are also representing the needs of (Redacted). Whilst we do not object in principle to the dualling of the A47 from Blofield to North Burlingham we STRONGLY OBJECT to the design and the contributing factors which relate to road safety, loss of amenity and noise. Highway Safety The Windle is an existing minor road junction off the A47 with the existing dual carriageway. There is a gap in the central reservation allowing right turns in and out. Our biggest concern is that the design has not specifically addressed the road safety issues The Windle will experience as a direct result of the A47 being dualled entirely. There is not a slip road to the Windle and as a result we already have to endure vehicles tailgating when we are indicating to turn left into the Windle. We can only see this aggravating the situation and we urge you to consider closing the Windle or making a slip road so this junction can be safely used in the future. Furthermore we are concerned about our ability to safely use the central reservation to turn in and out of The Windle when the traffic flow and speed of vehicles will be increased by this application. It is noted within the documents that this area has had various collisions but we have not seen any evidence of a road safety audit nor is there any mention of The Windle /2 Hall Cottages in the transport statement despite The Windle and our property directly being affected and considered in other parts of the application such as noise and vibration and ecology (bat surveys). This clearly demonstrates that all significant aspects should be considered and assessed, especially road safety. Overlooking As a result of increased traffic flow our property is likely to be overlooked more by large vehicles such as buses and lorries. When it is dark we can see the lights of these vehicles from our living room window which then casts a shadow as they pass. The plans propose adding a 2 metre fence (which already exists) from the back of our property, but we would ask Highways England to supply a taller fence of 3m. Furthermore it was our understanding that the layby west of The Windle would be closed in the proposed application but this is no longer the case. As more vehicles will be travelling on the road and potentially using the layby we will experience a greater loss of privacy as the two side upstairs windows and the bottom of our garden can be easily seen from the layby. "Traffic flow We expect the new dual carriageway between Blofield and North Burlingham to be used by approximately 43,000 vehicles a day when it opens in 2023, and 50,000 vehicles a day by 2037. By improving traffic flows we expect drivers will save around two minutes if they travel in either direction. During the morning rush hour we expect our proposed changes to save drivers up to three minutes on their journeys in 2023, and up to four minutes by 2037 for westbound journeys. For eastbound journeys we expect our proposed changes to save drivers up to two minutes in 2023, and up to three minutes by 2037 during the same time period." https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roads/road-projects/A47+Blofield+to+North+Burlingham/Project+update+-+summer+2020.pdf Noise 2 Hall Cottages has been identified as one of the properties within Chapter 11 - Noise and Vibration report to experience a minor adverse affect with predicted Do Something Road Traffic Noise Levels that are above the SOAEL - Significant Observed Adverse Affect Level. At 2 Hall Cottages the short term noise increase due to the Proposed Scheme is predicted to be 1.9dB. This will have an adverse affect on our health and quality of life. The third aim of the Noise Policy Statement for England states "Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development." Therefore we would like Highways England to supply a 3m noise barrier at Category B3 to positively improve our health and quality of life . Our property is within Noise Important Area 5209 and we believe the specification of noise barrier should match the other proprieties identified in this category (Table 11-11 Barrier ID 1 is the only other location within Noise Important Area 5209 but is being provided with a 3m noise barrier at category B3 - the proposal recommends 2m, B2 for 2 Hall Cottages). I would like to add that Highways England have already provided some windows, a door and ventilation within our property under the Noise Insulation Scheme. However one of the upstairs windows which can be seen from the layby west to The Windle was not replaced despite us raising concerns about the noise volume of traffic. We kindly request a reassessment is undertaken."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Eastwood
"I wish to lodge an objection in that the lack of a bridge being included into the design specification to cross north/south over the new build A47 dual-carriageway between North Burlingham and Lingwood via the existing FP3 has significant safety and living style consequences for the following reasons. The inclusion of this footbridge crossing the A47 would provide continued valuable access and connectivity currently used by many people who travel North/South and vice versa. It also allows people the choice or option to make use of the local environment as opposed to effectively denying the option of gaining access north/south of the dualled A47. Both alternatives would require significant extra miles via the 2 planned crossing points at the western crossing point (Blofield), and the revised 'eastern' crossing junction west of the existing Cantley B1140 turn off. The option to access via the eastern new B1140 Junction is laden with risk, as stated later within my objection and is not a reasonable alternative. Any re route would require an additional 5 miles to reach the same FP3 point north/south of the A47 as is now the case. Furthermore the inclusion of this footbridge would also be a natural 'Land bridge' across the A47 dualling, as the central reservation would clearly restrict animals which I and others have observed crossing the single carriageway whilst out walking. This concept is normally factored into new builds across Europe and hope it is of worthy consideration and to be installed into the final submission plans. The provision of this footbridge would avoid the physical geographical separation of the Parish of North Burlingham and Lingwood ,encourage more walkers and cyclists alike and enhance the quality of life for all parishioners. The lack of this footbridge would degrade any future options to encourage walking and/or the use of bicycles in accordance with a eco friendly Safe Route to School policy. It would dissuade (redacted) (and their respective carers), from cycling/walking to and from the school due to the only option being available is the parlous 'eastern route; from North Burlingham to Lingwood and return. This footbridge at FP3 crossing point would also be an excellent opportunity to incorporate it into future proofing such as SUSTRANS/ regional cycle/ footpath routes as and when the opportunities arise. In particular the location of this footbridge is relatively close to the Broadland National Park boundary and would therefore enhance and encourage many peoples choices to access this area without compromising their own safety when walking/cycling via the 'eastern junction' bridge. The new A47/ B1140 junction provides a much improved access to and from the Cantley Sugar processing plant upon which this road is frequented by hundreds of large lorries during the sugar-beet season. The untended consequence in not providing a crossing (FP3) supports HE reasoning and proposal that pedestrians and cyclists can route to and from Burlingham/Lingwood via the revised A47 at the eastern junction crossing point . This stated option bears close scrutiny and is not in accordance with the provision of a safe route to school. The provision of a separated cycle way/footpath within the proximity of the junction is very much that, away from the new junction area, the premise proposed or assumed by HE that this choice of 'route' would continue onto Acle Road and thereafter Lodge Road is based upon flawed assumptions regarding the safety of this entire route. The 'eastern' junction design meets the safety criteria within the immediate vicinity, however, it is the reasoning by HE of which route will be taken by pedestrians and cyclists south of the new B1140 road is very much a dangerous option to all road users. This route (Acle Rd), is by default the only one available, but is inherently not a safe road for cyclists or pedestrians as there are 90 degree blind bends, no footpaths and forward road visibility for vehicle users is very limited due to side vegetation. Therefore any premise that the 'Eastern Crossing' bridge leading onto Acle Road south of the B1140 would safely mitigate or support the decision to omit this footbridge proposal at FP3 point is significantly flawed on safety grounds, for both cyclists and pedestrians alike. It does not provide a safe route to/from Lingwood Village and more importantly Lingwood Primary School, this would be highly dangerous if such a journey was to be undertaken. Leading on, if an Impact and Risk assessment was to be conducted in evaluating the safety of this 'route' in its entirety, it would objectively detail a very high safety risk of threat to road users. I am assuming the consequences I have detailed in HE taking the decision not to have a footbridge at the FP3 point would fall normally fall outside the normal remit of HE area of responsibility. However, I am very much keen to bring this to your attention and HE should consider this safety issue with key partners collectively, including Road Safety GB. Joint shared obligations with regard to duty of care in maintaining a safety culture would permit this decision being assessed objectively. Therefore HE decision in not providing a bridge crossing at FP3 point should based on sound evidenced based reasoning and has no significant overall impact on safety of all Parishioners and other road users in other locations. I fully appreciate the political and designated areas of legal responsibilities of both HE, NCC Highways and BDC however, in this particular circumstance a shared safety risk assessment based on sound evidence would conclusively support the provision of the footbridge at the FP3 point mitigating and in most cases removing Risk of using alternative routes completely. A shared informed approach to safety by way of a risk assessment in turn, would support and compliment the possibility of pro rata responsibilities being burden shared, including the costs in building the footbridge between all respective stakeholders. This long awaited A47 improvement enhances overall road safety and connectivity on the east/west corridor is welcome. However, there appears to be 'gaps' or omissions of the proposed east/ west cycle pedestrian pathways between Acle and Blofield which I hope will be addressed during this phase of consultations and adjustments as this will not be retrospectively made in future works nor budgeted for. Thank you for taking time to consider my objection and that the inherent aforementioned Safety Risks I have identified would be completely negated if HE was to reconsider its decision and plan on building a footbridge at the FP3 A47 crossing point ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Dye
"I would like to put on record, that I believe it would be of immense value to the residents of Lingwood and North Burlingham if there was a means of walking from one village to the other. These 2 communities have always been linked, they have a joint Parish Council, but since the A.47 came into existence the 2 communities have been cut off from each other. To cross the A47 is to take your life in your hands, and to get from Lingwood to North Burlingham involves a circuitous route by car. We have used North Burlingham woods as a place of recreation for the past 11 years since our (Redacted) and it would be lovely if we were able to walk there through the woods. What a great community asset that would be. Sincerely, Christine Dye"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emily Rounce
"A footpath or underpass etc, really is needed in order to link Lingwood and Burlingham trails. There is a lack of safe places to walk in Lingwood without walking on roads and more footpaths make this a lot safer for the public. Also not everyone uses blofields facilities and being so close to acle it also makes sense to include paths for access there as well. Especially at a time where people are being encouraged not to drive, it would be much more eco friendly to introduce these paths"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jan Sims
"As we are being encouraged to walk, ride, take more exercise, a footpath/cycle track from Blofield A47 to Acle should be seen as a necessity. There is already a footpath from the lay-by opposite The White House to Acle, this should be extended to Blofield. This track would be used by many if it was safe to do so. Acle has the (redacted) activities and clubs plus Acle has so many amenities, such as large Medical & Treatment Centre, Library, various shops, cafes and businesses. More transport arrangements. North Burlingham has no facilities at the moment, Acle is the place to go for everything, Post Office, etc and it would be great to be able to walk or ride there. The NDR has footpath and cycle track which is widely used and enjoyed by all. Obviously at the moment it is very dangerous to try and cross the A47 so therefore nobody does, safety crossings need to be installed too."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Sturman
"I am recording my frustration and disappointment in relation to the lack of bridge/underpass in the dialling plans for the A47 at North Burlingham. It is vital to have a safe crossing point. Like many from Lingwood, I often walk (redacted) in the woods at North Burlingham but have to take the car, due to the lack of safe places to cross."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Anderson
"Please please allow crossing the A47 from Lingwood Community Woodland to North Burlingham woods. I will be very sad to no longer be able to do this walk and run route. Further I believe cycle paths should be put in wherever possible. The roads to Blofield and Brundall are not good for bikes (fast cars on narrow bendy roads). I only travel on them by car - taking field routes if on foot but I cannot do this on a bike. Cycle path to Acle would massively improve the ability to get on a bike, and also enable routes (redacted) - important for their growing up in the habit of using bikes instead of car."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marc Childerhouse
"The building of a foot bridge crossing the A47 at North Burlingham, would connect the Footpaths between Lingwood and North Burlingham, and would create a lovely walk. It would also provide a safe method of crossing the A47 which is sadly not available today, thus preventing residents from utilizing these fantastic public rights of way."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Briggs
"I fully support the development of this road but I think that it is imperative that this road does not mimic a Wall for those those who cycle and walk. Surely it would be more helpful to provide a family friendly crossing point at the birth of this project rather than wishing that it had been done once the first traffic uses it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phil Henry
"I am requesting that you give due consideration to an additional bridge or underpass to connect Lingwood Community Woodland to North Burlingham Woods. I often walk both of these areas with (redacted), but it is not safe for him to cross from one to the other, so we always use the car to access North Burlingham Woods. I also regularly run and cross the existing single carriageway with great care. The construction of a dual carriageway will remove this possibility and therefore an additional safe crossing to connect these green areas and the two communities is essential as part of this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Barnes
"As a parishioner of Lingwood I would like to ask the Planning Inspector to consider the need for a footbridge or underpass for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to link Lingwood Community Woodland to Burlingham Woodland Trails. There is currently no way of crossing even the single carriageway at this point with safety and a dual carriageway will not improve this situation. Walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders would all utilise an underpass or bridge at this point and it would alleviate the need to take a motor vehicle locally to the other side of the carriage way. The ability to cross the carriageways at this point would vastly improve a situation which sees lots of people having to use cars to cross and then park on the opposing side of the carriageway for numerous reasons from catching trains, to enjoying walks, runs and rides, to going shopping. Please help rejoin two local parishes and a very valued local network, which has been greatly used during the pandemic but could be significantly improved by the inclusion of a safe crossing of the new highway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Medler
"I believe we need a bridge over the new road so that we can walk from Lingwood Community Woodland to North Burlingham Woodland. The A47 has become a huge barrier for us as the road is so dangerous to cross. Please can this be seriously considered as it will be a great help, and make getting across the new dualled road possible"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah L Davison
"PLEASE CAN WE HAVE A FOOT. RIDGE OR UNDER PASS TO LINK BURLINGHAM WOODS TO LINGWOOD AS AT PRESENT THE ROAD IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CROSS. THIS MEANS WE DRIVE 0.5 MILS TO START THE WOODLAND WALKS IN BURLINGHAM WHEN WE COULD JUST WALK ACROSS. ALSO A CYCLE PATH TO ACLE WOULD MAKE IT SAFER AND EASIER FOR (redacted) AT PRESENT CYCLING IS NOT AN OPTION BUT IT EASILY COULD BE."
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. Reducing public exposures to non-threshold pollutants (such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide) below air quality standards has potential public health benefits. We support approaches which minimise or mitigate public exposure to non-threshold air pollutants, address inequalities (in exposure), and maximise co-benefits (such as physical exercise) and encourage their consideration during development design, environmental and health impact assessment, and development consent. The application documents indicate that there will be a small or imperceptible deterioration in air quality (as nitrogen dioxide) at the majority of public health receptors once the proposed scheme is operational; however, it is reported that concentrations will remain beneath relevant air quality standards. PHE have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sophie Hudson
"Consideration needs to be given to a crossing way at the junction close to burlungham woods as this is a popular cycle and walking route from the back of St Peter’s Wood over to Burlingham Woods. This proposal cuts off access to this area for walkers and runners and young cyclists as the ‘go around’ options are too lengthy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Balfe
"As a resident of Lingwood, I myself and many of my friends use the Lingwood Community Woodland recreationally and cross the A47 here to access Burlingham Woodland Trails very regulary. This has always been a crossing point for residents from both sides of the A47. I am very concerned that no provision is included in the plan to create a proper crossing here (footbridge or underpass). I would strongly encourage that this is reconsidered and a suitable crossing should be incorporated into the plan. Lingwood is a growing community the crossing here is always going to receive a lot of use."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hunt family
"Our family of 5 individuals would like to see; 1) a crossing to Lingwood to give access to a rail station and our designated school, either in the form of an underpass at Lingwood Road or a bridge to link with the footpath roughly opposite St Andrews, and 2) a path from the South Walsham Road junction running about 400m towards Acle - where it can join the existing path near The Windle. This would complete an off-road foot/cycle path after the dualling is complete all the way from Blofield via Burlingham to Acle Neither feature in Highways England’s current plans. They cite lack of demand despite being petitioned with over 1000 signatures from visitors and locals who said they would use both."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jan Davis
"On the 25th March, I attended a parish council webinar hosted by Norfolk ALC on the Green Ways project for which funding is available to support the connecting of Green Spaces via Green Ways by footpaths, cycleways, bridleways, and other Public Rights of Ways (PRoWs). The presentation by (redacted), the Norfolk Walking & Cycling Champion, and (redacted), the responsible officer at County Hall, highlighted the Burlingham Master Plan for circular walks and trails on the NCC-owned Burlingham estate, the other side of the A47 from Lingwood and Strumpshaw. Many residents to the south of the A47 are concerned at the lack of access along centuries-old public paths that have been cut by the existing A47 and even more so by the plan to dual the road. It is not the first time this issue has been raised during consultations with Highways England. An HE officer actually said at a forum in Blofield that "we design the road first and then consider paths and bridleways". This is clearly a flawed approach. There appears an ideal opportunity in this case for Highways England to engage with the County Council to design into the project a "Green Ways" scheme to provide the access that is clearly needed, certainly in this day and age. See the NCC website which states, "Greenways offer a safe route for people and animals to travel." https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/out-and.../norfolk-greenways"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Kingston
"I believe there should be a bridge or underpass connecting Blofield and North Burlingham Woods. I live in Acle but use the woods a lot and shop in Blofield and a connection between the two places is essential for local walkers and holiday makers. There needs to be a safe, cycling route from Acle to and from Blofield and beyond. This would help with local cyclists and holiday makers and make our part of Norfolk , a safe place to cycle."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nikki Thomas
"It is disappointing that our current route across the A47 will no longer be available after the A47 dual carriageway is in place. We can currently cross and go down Lingwood lane providing a route to the train station. It’s also a handy circular route back from Acle on my bike."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Weeks
"I am concerned about pedestrian access between Burlingham and Lingwood, and , Burlingham and Acle. Currently there is a footpath directly from Burlingham to Lingwood which I use quite often as I do a lot of country walking, as do many others, as it is all connected as part of the woodland walks, laid out by NCC. Walking to Acle, to shop, can only currently be achieved either by walking on the A47 dual carriageway, which is dangerous, or walking through the woodland walk to the Windle where you can connect to the existing pavement, but during any period if wet weather, this is not passable except in wellington boots. Surely, encouraging walking rather than use of vehicles is something that should be encouraged? As a minimum, we need pedestrian access along the old main road, over the interchange at the B1140 junction, and south to Lingwood, but also onwards eastwards as far as the Windless, to join up with the existing pavement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Coombes
"We would like to bring to your attention previous discussions and support for a walking/cycle route to be integrated into the proposed road scheme. In particular to put in place a path from the South Walsham Road junction running about 400m towards Acle where it can join the existing path near The Windle. Alternatively or in addition it could link into the existing footpaths from Burlingham Woods to Acle via The Windles - this is managed by Norfolk County Council but needs enhancing to be fully utilised. Either would complete an off-road foot/cycle path after the dualling is complete all the way to Acle. The pandemic has created a demand for more walking cycling routes which by all Goverment surveys indicate will continue."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Morton
"As Vice Chair of Burlingham Cottage Gardeners Association and a Parish Councillor, I have attended all HE meetings and participated in the consultation process. I firmly believe that the several changes of the HE Team has resulted in scant accumulated local knowledge due to poor internal briefing. How else would it be possible for HE to conclude Blofield is Burlingham’s shopping destination of choice? They have also declined to share survey results - notably failing to find the commuters that regularly cross the A47 at the Lingwood road and White House crossings. There is also an important democratic point to be made: North Burlingham and Burlingham Green pay precept to the joint Lingwood and Burlingham PC. The facilities we help fund, school, village hall plus the station, shops and pubs should all be equally and easily available by foot or cycle (HE apoears to be motor-centric) as they are now. To deprive us, to encourage motor use, to depress cycling and walking, to add significantly to distance or simply to remove choice should not be in their remit. We have asked for a crossing, either an underpass at Lingwood Road or bridge to link FP3, opposite St Andrew’s and a short path extension from the White House crossing (South Walsham Road) to the existing layby (to be decommissioned) which will allow off-road cycle and pedestrian access all the way from Blofield to Acle. Both these have featured in early drafts and discussion, but both now no longer feature. HE cite ‘lack of demand’. They have a thousand+ signature in their possession proving demand, but decline to advise in what way it is inadequate. We have villagers and others from the south wanting to cross, that do cross now - but wish to do so safely, on the route of their choice, over HE’s new Road. HE have failed in their duty to consult in the fullest sense and have failed to devise a scheme that delivers to the Community they disrupt. In particular the have consigned all children north of the A47 to a school lifetime of car use. They will never “walk, scoot or bike” as Government encourages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana McKie
"I would like to press for a footbridge or underpass to link Lingwood to North Burlingham when the A47 is dualled between Blofield and Acle. At present I walk from Lingwood to North Burlingham woods and from here continue on a variety of longer walks. This is via the footpaths behind Lingwood church, but crossing the A47 on foot is precarious at any time due to sugar beet lorries and the volume of traffic. When the road is dualled, it will be impossible to cross and this will mean having to drive to get across the A47. More cars will mean more parking issues at North Burlingham and also defeats the object of exercising. A footbridge or underpass will open up walks to a wide range of people from both villages and beyond. The proposed bridges at either end of the dualling will not link the two communities as they are too far away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Perkins
"I really believe that a footbridge or underpass for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to link Lingwood Community Woodland (behind the church) to Burlingham Woodland Trails should be built. The crossing would also provide an essential route for our residents north of the A47 to walk or cycle to the station, school and other amenities in Lingwood. It would also be an essential crossing for runners, as anyone who has crossed the existing single carriageway from the Community Woodland to run around Burlingham Woods and the surrounding area would know. This addition has been requested by local Parish Councils, Broadband District Council and Norfolk County Council as well as plenty of other local residents. This scheme should be future proofed for local residents as well as road users and this is a vital part of this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Randlesome Family
"The details provided in the DCO documents (in particular the Book of Reference, Statement of Reasons, and Land Plans) have not included myself or my partner (redacted) as 'Other persons with interest', despite us owning land which can only be accessed from the public highway across plot 2/3 and 1/5 or 2/4 which are all plots for temporary use or permanent acquisition on the Land Plans. This is from a change in land ownership in late 2019/early 2020. A large section of Sunny Acres was transferred to myself and my partner on title deed NK496972. This does not seem to have been included anywhere in the DCO documentation, so I assume that the information was sourced prior to this. This transfer included access rights across Sunny Acres property, and to/across the private road in plot 1/7 and 2/3 on the plans. It also included transfer of all the access rights afforded to Sunny Acres as mentioned below, and included in title deed NK224390. After reading through the documents included in the DCO application, we would like to point out the below inaccuracies in the 4.3 Book of Reference, and 4.1 Statement of Reasons: Plot 1/7 and 2/3 is listed as ownership of (redacted) but as specified above, myself and partner should now be listed as ‘Other persons with interest’ for this property. Plots 1/5, 2/4, 2/6, are all listed as ownership by the (redacted) family (various members and business entities), however neither (redacted), or I are listed as ‘other persons with interest’ for these, despite it being listed in the land registry title deed NK229183 that Sunny Acres has these rights of access (which were transferred in the sale of Sunny Acres from (redacted) in 2012, and land transfer to us in 2019/20). I’m unsure if the rights of access here have perhaps been confused with those listed on title deed NK183506 which is for the farm land to the north of the privately owned road, but does not include the private road itself (which is on the aforementioned title deed NK229183). We would also like the following points clarified for us please: 2/3 is identified as being for temporary use and rights to be acquired permanently. Could it be identified who will retain a permanent right to this land? Highways England? Utility Companies? Public access? 2.2 Land Plans, drawing sheet 2 of 8, note 2 states that for land in blue (temporary use with permenant rights retained) that rights, easements, etc. will be extinguished unless specified otherwise in the Book of Reference. I can't identify anything that definitely states we (or (redacted)) will retain these rights across 2/4 and 2/3. As this is the only means of access to our properties, we would like to seek assurance that we would retain the rights of access across these plots. Plot 1/5 is shown as land to be permanently acquired. Whilst we have no interest in who owns the land, it is our concern that should the road be retained in it's current state, it could lead to the dead-end being used for fly-tipping. If the road is to be retained we would like a gate to be installed to prevent unauthorised access to the plot. It may also be worth noting that 2/3b shown on 2.2 Land Plans as being the driveway access to Sunny Acres and our adjacent plot, but the access is actually at the western end of 1/7a and 2/3a (as can be confirmed by Google maps). I'm unsure if this will have any effect on what land will be temporarily acquired by Highways England for this plot."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Crosby
"The lack of a footbridge or underpass to link the Lingwood Community Woodland and North Burlingham is a major omission in this plan. The reasons cited in the documents that "because not enough people cross the A47 at this point" is only because the road in its current configuration is too dangerous to cross. The potential of creating well structured and well linked walking routes between Brundall and Acle is there if that crossing point on the road is maintained is huge. The walking crossing point in Blofield has already been removed by the construction of the the new housing estate. Cycle routes and walking routes must be improved not just maintained when carrying out this work."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoff Dickinson
"I welcome the dualling of the A47 but wish to make the following points. The A47 bisects the Parish of Lingwood & Burlingham and although it can be crossed now, when it is dualled it will no longer be possible. An underpass for walkers, cyclists and horse riders is needed to enable residents to access amenities in Lingwood and Woodland Walks in North Burlingham and beyond. An underpass would also assist with wildlife crossing. A footpath/cycleway between North Burlingham and Acle is needed to improve connectivity to Acle and its amenities without the need to drive. The scheme does not 'include the provision of new walking and cycling infrastructure to improve connectivity.' Without an additional underpass to replace FP3, the 'severance effect', which Highways England maintains it wants to reduce, will be intensified. A footpath on the proposed eastern junction overpass is welcomed but this will not overcome existing severance effects thereby improving connectivity between settlements located north and south of the A47. Concerning a permissive path to Blofield south of the A47; any extra permissive paths/cycleway/bridleways are a welcome addition, as we are losing some due to the dualling. Please note though that the majority of local amenities in the area are not located in Blofield, but in Lingwood and Acle. To get from Lingwood to North Burlingham via this route would add a lot to the journey if walking/cycling/horse riding. As a horse owner, I am losing a nearby bridleway due to the dualling, it would be great to be able to access the North Burlingham bridleways. These requirements are especially needed since the 1st Covid lockdown rule highlighted the need to be able to access the Parish amenities and walks without having to drive, as the rule was stay within your area if you need to drive you shouldn’t go. There are underpasses being put in elsewhere on the A47 improvement programme, why not here?"
Parish Councils
Lingwood and Burlingham Parish
"Comments from Lingwood and Burlingham Parish Council. We welcome the dualling of the A47 but wish to make the following points. 1. The A47 bisects our parish, and the people of Lingwood and Burlingham have consistently asked Highways England to include the following in its plan:- a) An underpass or bridge for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to replace the existing FP3. (Preferably an underpass as horses may not cross a bridge, this will also assist wildlife crossing). Note:- Highways England has not acknowledged the petition signed by 1,035 people who say they would use such an underpass or bridge. b) A footpath/cycleway between North Burlingham and Acle to enable the people of the parish to access essential amenities in Acle without the need to drive. 2. It would appear Highways England's document, 'Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Review, published 8thAugust, 2020', is flawed. a). WCAHR Review 1.2.7. The scheme does NOT 'include the provision of new walking and cycling infrastructure to improve connectivity.' Those north of the A47 without cars are isolated from essential amenities. Those to the south cannot access woodland trails within their parish unless they drive. Without an additional pedestrian bridge or underpass to replace FP3, the 'severance effect', which Highways England maintains it wants to reduce, will be intensified. b). WCAHR Review 2.3.9 and 2.3.10 A track will link the Blofield Overbridge with North Burlingham. Whilst welcome, this will NOT 'mitigate the severance effect''. It will only be viable if a crossing is provided to replace FP3, otherwise pedestrians will have to walk an extra 11 km to access amenities. (See below.) c). WCAHR Review 2.3.11 and 2.3.12 We welcome a footpath on the proposed eastern overbridge, but this will NOT 'overcome existing severance effects thereby improving connectivity between settlements located north and south of the A47'. Pedestrians and cyclists from North Burlingham, including children, will have to share the proposed over bridge with convoys of enormous sugar beet lorries. Once over the bridge, there is no footpath along the dangerous road into Lingwood. The referenced document, 'Providing Journeys on Foot, 2000,' would appear to be incorrect. The statutory maximum walking distance for children between home and school is 3.2 – 4.8 km and not '1.2 – 2 km' quoted in the Review. ("Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance, Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities, July 2014). Most residents in North Burlingham live close to the A47 and not in the centre of the designated area. The distance as the crow flies between here and Lingwood School and station, is 1.7 km (doogle.co.uk) and NOT 2.5km as the Review maintains. d). WCAHR Review 2.3.13. and 2.3.14 The Review states, 'the majority of local amenities in the area are located in Blofield'. This is absolute nonsense!!! Residents north of the A47 NEED to access their designated primary school, nursery school, train station, buses, village hall, recreation ground, post office, etc., all situated in Lingwood. For the whole parish of Lingwood and Burlingham, our senior school, supermarket, pharmacy, main post office, independent shops, primary/secondary health centre, major sports centre, industrial estate, plus most cafes/restaurants, personal services, etc., are all situated in Acle, NOT in Blofield! e). WCAHR 2.3.17 and 2.3.18 The Review states, 'there is very little demand for (a cycleway to Acle). On what evidence is this based? No-one canvassed local cyclists. Currently, there is no safe way a pedestrian or cyclist can get to Acle. f). WCAHR Review 2.3.19 and 2.3.20 Concerning a permissive path to Blofield south of the A47; whilst any extra permissive paths are a welcome addition as we will also be losing a few, as mentioned, the majority of local amenities in the area are NOT located in Blofield, but in Lingwood and Acle! The distance between the proposed Blofield Bridge and Main Road, North Burlingham is approximately 2.7 km and would take about 33 minutes to walk. (Google Maps.) This means walkers, runners, disabled people, cyclists and horse riders, who would have crossed the A47 at FP3, will be forced into a 5.4 km detour, making a round trip of an extra 10.8 km and taking over 3 hours to walk! (The alternative route from FP3 south of the A47 to Main Road, North Burlingham, using the eastern overbridge is approximately 4.1 km). 'a count at the junction of the A47 with Lingwood Lane, did not record any cyclist movements across the A47 in the vicinity of North Burlingham' . "It is Lingwood Road, and NOT Lingwood Lane, which is close to FP3. Since the wrong point was being monitored, this would explain why the count was low." Lingwood Lane leads only onto the A47 and not to North Burlingham g). WCAHR Review 2.3.21 and 2.3.22 Concerning Burlingham Woodland Walks. This will NOT be 'an enhancement to the network'. The woodland trails are not confined to the north of the A47 but cover North and South Burlingham, Lingwood, Strumpshaw, Beighton and Acle. All official published guides recommend starting points at Lingwood Station and Lingwood bus stops. Then they direct walkers across the A47 to Burlingham Woods. Highways England are now permanently blocking this public path to any walkers who need to access the trail by public transport. h). WCAHR Review 2.4.6 and 2.4.7 No-one has ever asked local cyclists why they don't cross the A47! To reiterate, our local amenities are in Lingwood and Acle, NOT in Blofield! (some cyclists do cross). i). WCAHR Review 2.5.1. No-one has ever consulted local horse riders. There are four commercial stables in the area, and many residents own horses. There are bridleways on both sides of the A47, (part of a south bridleway will be lost due to the dualling). A purpose-built gallop to the south links into the Burlingham Trails, but it cannot be accessed by riders from the north of the A47."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Norfolk County Council
"While the County Council has long supported the principle of full dualling of the A47 – and this proposal is consistent with that objective – there are a number of detailed issues in respect of, amongst other things, local highway and access matters, flood risk and environmental management, and potential impact on delivery of council services that will need to be resolved ahead of any final decision on the DCO. The most significant item of concern continues to be the adequacy of the proposal in dealing with the A47 being a substantial barrier to walkers or other non-motorised users. Although Highways England has amended the application since the previous proposal, adding further provision at grade-separated junctions either end of the scheme, they have not addressed the issue on the main desire line at the central point. In addition, there are concerns about the arrangements relating to transfer of the current trunk road assets to the County Council following the scheme. In summary the County Council supports the principle of dualling the A47 between Blofield and Burlingham subject to the implementation of appropriate highway, historic environment, and surface water conditions / requirements being resolved through the DCO process. NB the County Council has already submitted a detailed statement to the Planning Inspectorate highlighting all issues it wishes to be resolved through the above process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr David Ellis
"The construction of a dual carriageway for this section of the A47 is a welcome development but I am concerned that, contrary to the initial plan, there is no facility for non-motorised users to cross the road except by travelling east or west to the next junction. Highways claim that there is no demand for such a crossing but there is local evidence that this is not the case. Their main claim to support this relies on camera observation of the existing footpath crossing which currently is so dangerous that it is no surprise that it is infrequently used. It is certainly too dangerous for children. As a consequence almost all who need to travel across the existing A47 do so by car whereas they would prefer to do so by walking or cycling. North Burlingham has no facilities for public transport and we rely on bus and train services in Lingwood. Our school catchment area is also Lingwood. I have suggested at public meetings that the best solution for non-motorised users is to have a crossing in line with Lingwood road which is due to be closed. An underpass would be best which could also be used by horses. The Burlingham Woodland Walks have become increasingly popular in the last few years, especially so since the covid restrictions. Currently almost everyone has to arrive by car but the possibility of a crossing for walkers and cyclists would make this important facility more accessible for all."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham P Cooper
"My main point of concern is the surface water drainage from the new road and existing topography via current surface water pathways and new drains in to the planned Infiltration Basin at the west end of the scheme close to Blofield. DRAINAGE LAYOUT PLANS TO SUPPORT DRAINAGE STRATEGY REPORT SHEET 2 OF 8 SHEET 3 OF 8 The above plans clearly show the contours of the land and the current surface water pathways which flow to the Infiltration Basin. They also then show the surface water pathway down to the houses at Waterlow. In the last few weeks I have walked south past these buildings at Waterlow and have seen one resident pumping surface water from the back of her property on to the road after heavy rainfall. Over many years there has clearly been a flooding issue after heavy rains from surface water flowing off the fields north and east of the Waterlow houses. In the Flood Risk Assessment (TR010040/APP/6.2) there is an email dated 15 May 2020 to (redacted) from (redacted) that states: Natural overland drainage and existing ditches / streams between the existing A47 and the proposed new mainline will be intercepted by new collector drains and conveyed along the natural drainage paths as far as possible. This will involve culvert crossings of the proposed new mainline. Where it was not possible to connect directly with existing surface water pathways, locations for proposed infiltration via clean water soakaways were identified. The current red line boundary (which includes a section from Waterlow to Run Dike tributary at Braydston Hall Lane) was informed by the existing drainage design, where surface water run-off from the road would be directed to an attenuation pond and then discharge to an outfall at a tributary of Run Dike. Further development of the drainage for the proposed scheme has concluded that this was deemed unsuitable and inappropriate and that all road drainage will drain by infiltration methods. The current drainage design is subject to consultation with the Environment Agency. However, currently it is proposed there will be no works within the area surrounding or discharging to Run Dike tributary. If the planned Infiltration Basin and the Clean Water Soakaways fail to accomodate the surface water and stop the flooding of the houses at Waterlow then the drainage strategy for the A47 has failed at the west end of these works. In such a case further work would be necessary to ensure that the surface water run off north and east of the houses at Waterlow must connect and discharge in to the Run Dike tributary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
R F Chalk
"Provision of a bridge/underpass for walkers and cyclists between North Burlingham and Lingwood, to link the two halves of the parish and provide safe onward routes for active travel. It has been stated that there is little demand, whereas in fact there is a great hidden pent-up demand: for years it has been far too dangerous to cross the A47 at North Burlingham. The benefits in terms of active travel would be significant, for both leisure and shopping. There would be a safe walking route from Lingwood to Acle for dentist, hardware shop, supermarket etc. There would be safe onward cycle routes to places north of our parish, such as Upton, South Walsham and Ranworth. Walking and cycling have proven environmental and health advantages over feeling forced to use a car for safety."
Parish Councils
Strumpshaw Parish Council
"Strumpshaw Parish Council (SPC) welcomes the proposal to create a new dual carriageway A47 between Burlingham and Blofield. SPC supports Lingwood Parish Council's concerns about the lack of a footway and cycle path on the north eastern end of the new road, from the White House junction. This is required to enable cyclists and pedestrians to travel to and from Acle. The current A47 is too dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians to use. Secondary age pupils in Strumpshaw mainly attend Acle Academy and would benefit from being able to cycle to school if this footway and cycle path was built. Burlingham Woodland Walks form an important part of the network of footpaths and trails in the Strumpshaw and Lingwood area. The lack of a footway crossing from Lingwood to North Burlingham will effectively cut off Burlingham Woodland Walks from the remainder of the network. The Review has stated that 'the majority of local amenities in the area are located in Blofield'. SPC supports Lingwood Parish Council's assertion that this is not the case. Lingwood provides two schools, the post office for the area, the railway station, bus service terminus, food takeaway and a supermarket. Residents in North Burlingham utilise these facilities. The larger service centre for the area is Acle."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Climate Emergency Planning and Policy
"I am an independent environmental consultant (Climate Emergency Planning and Policy, CEPP), working at the intersection of science, climate policy and law. My doctoral work was in structural biology, and most of my 40-year career has been in scientific computation, including high performance climate models. The severity of the climate and ecological emergency is clear through science and has been for several decades, and my work through CEPP is to promote the necessary rapid response to the emergency in planning and policy. I intend to make these submissions at the examination. 1. The testing of the carbon emission impacts of the proposed scheme against inter/national legislation and guidance including: • The Paris Agreement 2015, a legally binding international treaty on climate change to which the UK is a signatory, including to its “temperature target” to limit global overheating to well below 2 degrees, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. • The legally binding target under the Climate Change Act 2008 to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. • UK Carbon Budgets. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has recently published its sixth Carbon Budget (6CB) report (3). Its headline recommendation is for the UK to reduce net annual emissions by 78%, against a 1990 baseline, by 2035. Previous UK ambition was an 80% reduction against 1990 figures by 2050 under the original Climate Change Act. So this is a halving of the time from 2020 to get to around 80% emission cuts (against 1990 baseline) and must be reflected in infrastructure decisions. On surface transport, the report recommended trajectory (“the balanced net-zero Pathway”) is to reduce surface transport emissions by around 70% to 32 MtCO2e by 2035 and to approximately 1 MtCO2e by 2050. • Science-based carbon budgets for how the UK, can meet the Paris temperature target, its net-zero requirement and the published fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets. • NPPF 148 (and other relevant NPPF statements) which requires the planning system contribute to “radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”. 2. Testing the impacts of the scheme on the integrity of sites protected under the Habitats Regulations Directive and European Protected Species. This includes Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and possible SACs (pSACs) in the area, and species including the Barbastelle Bat. 3. Testing the baseline and accumulative environmental impacts on 1 and 2 above (ie climate change and carbon emissions, and habitats and protected species) of other infrastructure projects planned, noting the recent judgement of Pearce v Secretary of State BEIS [2021] (2). These include those projects outlined in the Norfolk Strategic Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2020 (1), and the Highway England A47 corridor programme, in the area: • A47 between North Tuddenham and Easton • A47/A11 Thickthorn junction • A47 Great Yarmouth junction and Vauxhall roundabout reconstruction • A140 Long Stratton Bypass • Norwich Western Link • Broadland Business Park Rail Station 4. Implications for air pollution. 5. The above may require interrogation of and submissions on the relevant transport modelling. Dr Andrew Boswell, Climate Emergency Planning and Policy, April 2021 (1) https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-and-how-we-work/policy-performance-and-partnerships/policies-and-strategies/business-policies/norfolk-infrastructure-delivery-plan (2) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/326.html (3) https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eleanor Laming
"We are experiencing a climate crisis, and serious damage to the ecology and biodiversity of our planet. I think that the building and expansion of more roads cannot be supported in the light of this. Road construction itself creates carbon emissions together with the production of emissions caused by ongoing use of petrol and diesel vehicles on these roads. There is legislation in place to support this view: The UK is signatory to the Paris Agreement (2015) which urges countries to limit global heating to no more than 1.5 degrees C compared to pre-industrial levels. At the most the figure reached should be 2 degrees C. The Climate Change Act 2008 proposes that the UK must meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The UK has been given guidance by the Climate Change Committee to reduce net annual emissions by 78% by 2035 (from a 1990 baseline). It recommends reduction of emissions through all types of decisions made about infrastructure, and this includes roads. NPPF item148 requires the planning system contribute to radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Road building and expansion can also have a major impact on the surrounding ecology. The scheme would need to look at guidance in relation to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Ball
"I am writing regarding the proposed A47 Blofield to North Burlingham road development , where by the existing layby will be closed, the road will be duelled and there is no provision to cross the A47 to Lingwood other than a new over bridge at Blofield. I currently cycle between Burlingham and Lingwood three times a week, crossing the A47 with the 50 mile limit is possible but will be impossible when duelled with a 70 mile hour limit. I am emailing on this date to register my objection to the plan prior to 6th April 2021. I am raising this objection as I feel the current proposed approach cuts off and isolates Burlingham and Lingwood parish communities, inhibits direct and efficient access to essential amenities and increases the possible harm or injury to people who may potentially take the risk of crossing the dual carriage way at inappropriate points along the A47. Within my objection I would like to propose serious consideration is given to an alternative to a crossing point other than the Blofield bridge. This proposition would allow for investment and construction of a block build underpass under the dual carriage way between Lingwood and Burlingham. Such was the provision made for crossing points during the construction of the new Northern bypass. This type of underpass build would clearly support easy cycle and walking access for people to commute between the two parishes, to gain access to amenities and also to areas of great natural beauty, with an outcome of no or low environmental impact made to visit such areas as the Burlingham woodland walks, The Broads and the RSPB sites. This would also create a real option for people to consider of making more use of the established railway system, all of these completed without generating any additional carbon emissions. Supporting this type of cycle or walking infrastructure ensures that people of all abilities and financial means can easily make a safe and supported crossing to either parish and upholds peoples ability to independently support their own health and well being – which has to be seen as an overarching beneficial investment in the community and an objective for this overall project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Robert Chapman
"frequently cycle between the two parishes of Burlingham and Lingwood Crossing the A47 this is currently possible as is a single carrageway and 50 mile speed limit but this will be impossible when it is a duel carrageway and 70 mile hour sped limit. A bridge or underpass was promised at the initial meetings but these seem to have been discarded.I would therefore like to suggest that the following points below be further considered before finalisation of the plans :- 1) a crossing to Lingwood to give access to a rail station and our designated school, either in the form of an underpass at Lingwood Road or a bridge to link with the footpath roughly opposite St Andrews, and 2) a path from the South Walsham Road junction running about 400m towards Acle - where it can join the existing path near The Windle. This would complete an off-road foot/cycle path after the dualling is complete all the way from Blofield via Burlingham to Acle As a point to note over 1000 signatures from visitors and locals who said they would use both were recently collected supporting these points . If reconsideration is given and the crossing and path are provided it will benefit the community for ever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew M Cawdron
"One is concerned about the Road Building proposals in the County on the grounds of (a) cumulative impact upon eco systems and the environment, including noise. (b) the lack of assessment of the "killing ground" impact of dual carriageway roadways on wildlife (c) the lack of any planned attempt to reduce transportation movements when this is one of the larger generators of carbon emissions. (d) the lack of any appraisal which seriously attempts to reduce "growth" as an accepted idea, when the planet is a finite resource and our county is similarly part of it. (e) the failure to acknowledge that "mitigation" in current forms is not a solution to the disruption to ecosystems during the years of construction and after for several years."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard Barry Trawford
"Representation to Secretary of State on the proposed duelling of the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham trunk road improvement scheme in Norfolk. REF: TR010040 The duelling of the A47 section of trunk road between Blofield and North Burlingham is going to have significant detrimental affects on my home – Waterlow Cottage, Waterlow, Blofield. NR13 4LJ. The most important and disastrous effect will be the almost guaranteed flooding of my property. All of the surface water off the A47 impermeable carriageways comes down the field at the back of my property and pools on the road outside Waterlow Cottage as this is the lowest point in the area. Ultimately, when it gets deep enough, it floods within my property. To make matters worse the proposed improvement scheme includes a bridge over the new A47 dual carriageway and this will add an extra 275 metres of impermeable road surface to the existing road running past my property. The existing scheme, completed 15 years ago, to remove water off the road will therefore not be able to cope as it was ONLY designed to remove water off the existing roadway surface, not from the field behind my cottage, which will become an ever increasing problem if this proposed scheme goes ahead. The proposed solutions so far put forward by Highways England are in no way adequate to cope with the increased surface water runoff from 3 new stretches of impermeable highway. The second detrimental effect will be the drop in value of my Cottage due to the increased risk of flooding. Thirdly, the new dual carriageway will come within 50 metres of the cottage and will produce significant noise, dust and toxic fumes from traffic travelling so close. The toxic fume level will no doubt exceed the EU and WHO thresholds for clean air environment that the Government is required to enact but has still not done so anywhere in the country. The following is a précis of previous correspondence with Highways England on this subject. Firstly, a scheme was put in place 15 years ago to stop flooding on the road outside Waterlow Cottage. This scheme was designed to only remove surface water coming down the hill and not cope with any water coming off the field behind Waterlow Cottage. The proposed A47 improvement will extend the existing road at the top of the hill to a bridge over the new dual carriageway and add 275 metres of impermeable carriageway to the catchment area of the original scheme. This means additional water will be coming down the hill and the scheme in place was not designed to cope with this. Secondly, The existing A47 single carriageway road generates an enormous amount of water even when it rains moderately. I have calculated that 25 mm of rain produces 100 tonnes of water and all that water comes down the field to Waterlow Cottage. This water ends up on the road outside the Cottage and a year ago it came right up to the front door sill and I got flooded. The flood water left on the road is thankfully removed after a couple of days by the scheme put in place 15 years ago, otherwise it used to stay there for weeks. The water coming off the existing A47 a year ago gouged a trench into the field 2 feet wide, 2 feet deep and 50 yards long so the present holding ditches did absolutely nothing in preventing water flowing off the existing A47 single carriageway! I have asked how the scheme is going to cope with 4 to 5 times the quantity of water that will be generated by the 400 metres of new impermeable dual carriageway? It has been explained that a pond would be included in the scheme. I have asked how this pond would be kept empty? It has been explained that soakaways would be included to allow the water to drain away slowly. I have pointed out on several occasions that the field behind Waterlow Cottage sits on clay and saturates very quickly even with moderate rainfall and then all the water coming off the A47 from a heavy downpour simply ends up behind my cottage. This produces an enormous pond, which eventually overflows into the field at the side of my property, then comes down to the road and ultimately I get flooded. So, if the holding pond fills up and overflows where is all the water going to go and how is my property going to be protected? So far, Highways England have not answered this in detail to my satisfaction. There needs to be an additional piped overflow system from the holding pond that takes the water directly across the Lingwood road to the field systems beyond to ensure the pond is kept completely empty ready for use during a very heavy downpour. Relying on soakaways is not going to work because of the ground makeup and clay subsoil. The field system as it stands can not hold additional water if there has been any rain prior to a heavy downpour as happened 18 months ago when houses at Waterlow were flooded internally. If this scheme is to go ahead I request the Secretary of State to ensure Highways England provide a flood defence system that is going to work 100%. The scheme so far suggested is inadequate to prevent internal flooding of my home. I would appreciate my concerns being addressed and I look forward to hearing from you regarding this urgent matter. Thank you, Barry Trawford. Mob: (redacted) Email: (redacted)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bryan Robinson
"I am confused at the at-grade junction design for this scheme incorporating a limited widened carriageway at exit and joining locations while the scheme for the section of the A47 upgrade between Easton and North Tuddenham has two major grade separated junctions. The main junction for this scheme must cater for traffic to and from Lingwood. Bearing in mind the population of Lingwood and sugar beet lorries going to Cantley, I am unable to understand why this can be an at-grade design but the junctions for the Norwich Road junction within the Easton scheme which will take much lower levels of traffic has to be grade separated. Both schemes are on the A47 and it would be assumed will be subject to the same design constraints."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Fernandez
"I am a walker and cyclist and I am based in Strumpshaw near Lingwood. Please could there be a bridge to cross the A47 once it is dualled ? This could link with North Burlingham Woods."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Ball
"I have often visited the area of North Burlingham and found the crossing of the A47 near North Burlingham very treacherous on foot or while riding my bike. Actually to even turn right onto the A47 from Dell Corner Lane, it is sometimes impossible, requiring me to turn left and drive towards the roundabout at Acle to come back on the A47 the way I wish to travel. That particular road section is a notorious accident black spot. I believe a tunnel crossing could very easily be provided to allow safe and pleasant crossing of the new duel carriageway. This tunnel would, once built provide excellent walking and bike riding, crossing of this road. Without it, North Burlingham will be cut off from the other side of the new duel carriageway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pauline Clark
"Parishioner of Lingwood & Burlingham concerned about traffic and speed limits on the B1140 adjoining the A47 carriageway"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hancock
"To whom it may concern. Whilst I wholeheartedly welcome the improvement of this section of the A47 I would respectfully urge the inspectorate to insist on construction of a pedestrian crossing under or over the new road somewhere between Lingwood Community Woodland and North Burlingham. The Highways Agency deem such a crossing unnecessary, saying few currently cross at this point, but I'd argue that of course they don't, because to do so on one of Norfolk's busiest stretches of carriageway is dangerous. The new road will not reduce the amount of traffic, but it will make it faster & will only make crossing more dangerous. A crossing at this point would allow residents of North Burlingham easy and safe access to public services such as schools and trains just a mile away. Conversely, Lingwood residents such as myself would finally gain safe pedestrian access to the network of footpaths around Burlingham. All of this would reduce the number of short and potentially unnecessary local car journeys residents are currently forced to take. I would add that the two villages constitute the same parish, so such a crossing would represent a reunification of sorts, but the benefits are more than just symbolic. As a regular runner & daily walker with my dogs around the community woodland I would certainly extend my run or walk north of the A47 on a regular basis given the opportunity, I also hope in future to be able to take (redacted) bike rides, nature walks and runs on the same routes for many years to come & I would hope the same for other residents of the village and those who move to future developments in the village to give their family the quality of life available in the Norfolk countryside. I hope you give the points I've made full consideration and I will eagerly await any outcome. Yours sincerely. Richard Hancock"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hawker
"I live near the A47 to the west of Norwich, but this part of the upgrading of the A47 will have a cumulative effect on the whole of the A47, leading to more traffic in this area, where the unique landscape and wildlife will be badly affected by it. Polluting run-off from the road will be worse with increasing traffic, and noise will be increased, to the detriment of residents and wildlife. It is also difficult to see how this project fits in with the government's stated intention to encourage 'modal shift' from cars to public transport. This is especially relevant here, as Norfolk County Council is planning to build an expensive railway station at the Broadland business park, near the A47; this has the potential to help in that modal shift, as this is the rail route which goes to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth and a station here is well overdue. Therefore the Blofield to Burlingham project, as part of the A47 upgrade, is bound to take potential passengers from this little-used rail line. It is thus an unnecessary expense and against the government's own transport policy. Increased traffic and speeds will also increase carbon emissions, the reduction of which this government has accepted as a legal requirement."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Ramblers Norfolk Area
"References here are to the Rights of Way and Access Plans B: 1. Sheet1: We regret that the opportunity was missed to correct the error of the previous dualling at Blofield where Blofield Footpath 4a was cut off at the highway fence and not turned west to connect to Plantation Road. 2. Sheets 2 and 3: The "New Cycle Track" says just that. We think that it should be a combined cycle track and footway, otherwise there is no provision for walkers between Blofield and Burlingham. 3. Sheets 2, 3 &4: The track on the south side of the new A47 is described for most of its length as "New Means of Access" and in other plans as "Agricultural access Track". Why should cyclists not use it. They are not legally allowed to use the new public footpath. 4. Sheets 2, 3 & 4: the new public footpath has been put on the north side of the "New Means of Access" and closest to the noise of the new A47. Why should it not be on the south side of the track, even a few more metres away may be a relief. 5. Sheet 4: We strongly object to the stopping of Burlingham FP3 without providing a means (bridge or underpass) of crossing the new A47 without a long and noisy detour. 6. Sheets 6 and 7: A "New Cycle Track" has been provided across the new B1140 overbridge, but it does not say that it is available and suitable to be shared with pedestrians. 7. Sheets 7 and 8: No provision has been made for cyclists or walkers east of the new B1140 overbridge. This passes up the opportunity provided by the stopping up of the east end of the old A47 (on sheet7) and the closure of the layby (on sheet 8) to establish a cycle and pedestrian connection from the B1140 to The Windle and the existing footway eastward towards Acle."
Local Authorities
Broadland District Council
"This letter sets out Broadland District Council’s Relevant Representation in respect of the above application. The adopted Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk seeks to enhance the transport system in order to develop the role of Norwich as a Regional Transport Node. This is to be achieved by, amongst other things, promoting improvements to the A47. This strategic aim is echoed in the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP), which supports strategic infrastructure improvements that support the growth needs of the area. The emerging GNLP specifically refers to improvements to the A47 between Blofield to North Burlingham as one of the schemes that will help the plan achieve its aims. The Regulation 19 Publication of the GNLP was undertaken between 1 February 2021 and 22 March 2021 and is anticipated to be examined between November and December 2021. As such, the Blofield to North Burlingham dualling scheme is given in principle support by the existing and emerging development plan. The potential for the scheme to deliver economic growth is strongly supported by the District Council. These benefits, in combination with the wider programme of A47 improvements being proposed by Highways England, include: • help to boost the economic prosperity of a large part of the East of England and contribute to national economic growth. • Shorter and more reliable journey times along the road and onwards to the Midlands. • Reduce delay, congestion and inefficiency. • Attracting more customers for businesses and attracting new businesses. • supporting existing businesses to grow and become more productive and profitable. • allowing businesses to invest with confidence. • encouraging more visitors to the region. • creating more jobs. However, whilst the District Council is supportive of the scheme in principle, there is the potential for impacts that will require detailed consideration through the examination process ahead of any final decision on the Development Consent Order. Matters of particular interest to the District Council through the examination stage are considered to be: • Landscape and visual impact • Impacts arising from noise, air quality and vibration. • Routes for Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Landscape and visual impact The proposed scheme is located in a predominantly rural landscape characterised by agricultural land uses with dispersed settlements. The agricultural fields are enclosed by hedgerows with mature trees and small areas of woodland. The ES notes that the scheme has the potential for adverse impacts on landscape features and landscape character and mitigation is therefore proposed in response. Chapter 7 and 8 of the ES identify that hedges were not subject to a full assessment under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, but an estimate of species richness was made in order to screen hedgerows for likely importance. Broadland District Council would expect to see a full assessment of hedgerows against the full ‘importance’ criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations. Although no objection is raised in principle, Broadland District Council would wish the above issue to be addressed and may wish to make representations on the landscape and visual effects of the project and the suitability of proposed mitigation through the examination process. Impacts arising from noise, air quality and vibration Whilst the project is in a predominantly rural area, the scheme has the potential to impact on the amenity of local residents during the construction and operational phases as a result of noise, air quality and vibration. Although Broadland District Council raises no specific issues on these matters at this stage, we may wish to make representations on these issues through the examination process and ensure that these issues are adequately addressed in the Development Consent Order. Routes for walking, Cycling and Horse Riding The A47 acts as a barrier to north-south movement by non-motorised users particularly between Lingwood and North Burlingham. Within the locality are the Burlingham Woods Walks - a series of Public Rights of Way and permissive paths, well used by pedestrians and dog walkers, which provide opportunities for informal recreation to the north and south of the A47. The proposed scheme would sever Burlingham FP3 and redirect users east-west across the proposed B1140 crossing. Whilst the inclusion of walking and cycling facilities at this junction is welcomed, the severance of Burlingham FP3 results in a significant detour which could be avoided through the inclusion of a footbridge across the proposed A47 thereby connecting Burlingham FP3 with FP1. Broadland District Council are supportive of the County Council’s position on this issue. Broadland District Council has also previously made comments about the potential for the inclusion of cycling and pedestrian routes between North Burlingham and Acle. Whilst it is noted that Highways England have identified that these are outside of the scope of the scheme, Broadland District Council would wish to reiterate that their inclusion would be welcomed on the basis that it would create sustainable access for those in North Burlingham to a greater range of shops and services in Acle, and mitigate pressure on the Broads by providing enhanced access for residents in the locality to access Burlingham Woods Walks. Conclusion Broadland District Council is strongly supportive of the scheme in principle subject to further consideration of the issues identified above. The Council wishes to continue to work pro-actively with the applicants as the application is progressed through to Examination to try to resolve any issues in respect of the above."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Create Consulting Engineers Ltd on behalf of Burlingham Cottage Gardens Association
"I am Jonathan Paul Cage, a Chartered Civil Engineer and managing director of Create Consulting Engineers Ltd. I have been instructed on behalf of the Burlingham Cottage Gardens Association to represent them in putting forward an alternative proposal for the A47 Burlingham Improvement which includes a dedicated footway crossing point of the A47 to facilitate the safe connection of the villages of Burlingham and other areas to the north of the A47 with Lingwood and the villages to the south of the A47. The A47(T) has for years acted as a significant barrier to the movement of pedestrians and cyclists between the villages of Burlingham and Lingwood. There are no safe crossing points and though a speed reduction has been imposed down to 50 mph on the existing single carriageway section, the number of vehicles who use this link to the east coast, results in very few gaps in the traffic, making safe crossing almost impossible during peak periods. This is especially important when you consider that the village of Burlingham is in the primary school catchment for Lingwood Primary. We are aware that earlier consultation options as shown on Draft Plan HE551490-AMY-HGN-BB_STG2-DR-HE-0018 showed a pedestrian bridge linking up with FP3. This has however been removed from the current scheme which is the subject of this DCO application, we understand the reason given was that a survey undertaken showed little or no pedestrian demand for a crossing. The reason for this is that currently it is unsafe to cross the A47 therefore the majority of the residents unfortunately have to drive between the villages to the north and the south of the A47, adding further traffic to this already congested section of road. We will present evidence that clearly shows that there is a demand for this pedestrian link and it is essential for social inclusion that a suitable facility is provided, to ensure that the villages can share essential services such as schools, healthcare and leisure. In addition the nearest railway station for residents of Burlingham is at Lingwood linking with the city of Norwich and beyond. We will also present a number of options of how the crossing could be provided with some budget costs for its inclusion in the scheme, as well as an indication of the greatly increased cost if a crossing is to be retro-fitted after the road has been improved. In addition we will present a scheme for a proposed footpath extension from the new South Walsham junction to the east towards Acle, providing a much needed footway/cycleway link to the main service town. We understand that Norfolk County Council as local highway authority are supportive of the need for a pedestrian link in this area , however they have no allocated funds in their capital programme. We therefore respectively request that Inquiry time is allocated to discussing this important key feature which has been omitted from the current scheme to ensure that a suitable link is provided within the design that finally form the DCO."
Other Statutory Consultees
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation on behalf of Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Development Consent Order (DCO). Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central, East and North West England. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits including should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Cadent has an intermediate pressure gas pipeline and associated below or above ground apparatus located within the order limits which is affected by works proposed and which will need to be diverted to facilitate development. Cadent will not decommission its existing apparatus and/or commission new apparatus until it has sufficient land and rights in land (to its satisfaction) to do so, whether pursuant to the DCO or otherwise. This is a fundamental matter of health and safety. Cadent has experience of promoters securing insufficient rights in land within DCOs to accommodate necessary diversions of its apparatus required by those DCOs, or securing rights for the benefit of incorrect entities. It is important that sufficient rights are granted to allow Cadent to maintain its gas distribution network in accordance with its statutory obligations. As currently drafted Schedule 5 of the DCO refers to Cadent requiring permanent rights for a ‘medium’ pressure pipeline instead of ‘intermediate’ pressure and therefore this will need to be amended. The promoter has not included protective provisions for the benefit of Cadent, as is Cadent’s requirement, in the DCO. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. Adequate protective provisions for the protection of Cadent’s statutory undertaking have not yet been agreed between the parties for this scheme. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will continue to engage with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Howe
"Ref: TR010040 A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Development Consent. Dear (redacted) Thank you for your letter inviting comment on this proposal & I would like to make the following representations in respect to this proposed development. 1. The main Issue I have with the proposal is that the traffic build up from the surrounding areas to access the A47 especially at roundabout with Cucumber Lane. There is considerable development in the surrounding areas which in turn is likely to compound the increased traffic flow through the narrow rural roads through Hemblington to access Blofield & beyond. The proposal contains 2 bridges (Eastern bridge for access to the Sugar processing factory at Cantley & the Yarmouth Road bridge): maybe a less costly & more environmentally friendly road design utilising roundabouts may release funds to be more effectively used to improve the roundabout area 2. As a regular cyclist I am very concerned about the lack of inclusion of a path from the South Walsham Road junction running about 400m towards Acle - where it can join the existing path near The Windle. It is so dangerous to cycle along the A47 at present but this would complete an off-road foot/cycle path after the dualling is complete all the way from Blofield via Burlingham to Acle 3. There is great concern by those neighbours who need to access their designated school along with the railway station in Lingwood on the other side of the A47 either in the form of an underpass at Lingwood Road or a bridge to link with the footpath roughly opposite St Andrews Church. Yours sincerely Catherine Howe"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cathy Pye
"The information in Highways England's document, 'Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Review', appears to be based upon inaccurate recording, inadequate consultation and faulty supposition. The document is clearly unsound, but Highways England has relied upon this Review to resist incorporating a viable pedestrian/cycleway crossing over the A47 to replace FP3. Also, the WCAHR Review was not made available to the public generally. A confidentiality clause states, “This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from Galliford Try”. The Parish Council had to request a copy from HE but was not lawfully permitted to relay the information therein to other interested parties. (I am Chairman of the Parish Council.) The A47 cuts through the parish of Lingwood and North Burlingham and divides people from friends, essential amenities and public paths. Parishoners north of the A47 are unable to access essential facilities and parish amenities unless they have a car. Our legal 'right to roam' over designated trails within our own parish is being denied us by HE because the footpath FP3 will be blocked by the plans. No underpass or bridge for pedestrians, leisure walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders is included in the plans to replace the current FP3, despite being requested constantly by the Parish Council and local residents. Within the past few years, many local residents have not been able to cross the A47 at FP3 because of the dangers posed by increased traffic. (I am one of them.) However, some still cross regularly but have not been recorded on HE's CCTV cameras. It would appear the cameras may have been trained on the wrong crossing points during the survey! Burlingham Woods lie north of the A47 in the parish of Lingwwod and Burlingham. All printed and digital guides to Burlingham Woodland Trails (published by Norfolk County Council, Broadland District Council, Lingwood and Burlingham Parish Council, various walkers groups, etc.), give visitors an option of travelling by public transport and starting from Lingwood Station or Lingwood bus stop. They then suggest crossing the A47 'with caution'. When FP3 is closed, there will be no commensurate crossing over the A47 and, therefore, visitors will not be able to access Burlingham Woods by public transport. Norfolk County Council is considering designating the area of Burlingham Woods as a 'country park'. Lingwood Station will be more in demand as the main access point by public transport then, and FP3 will become an essential crossing point. Currently, it is possible for ramblers to walk on public or permissive paths from Reedham and Cantley to the woodland trails at North Burlingham, and then on to South Walsham and further – except the A47 will now be an impenetrable barrier!!! The suggested diversions over the new east or west overbridges will add unnecessary and unacceptable miles for walkers."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Gates
"? ? I object to the Highways England scheme as proposed. It does not address the greater impact of severance that dualling will impose over the status quo. ?I have attended all HE meetings and participated in the consultation process. The Community has been consistent in requesting 1) a crossing at North Burlingham and 2) a short (450m) pathway link to the existing Acle pathway at South Walsham Road. I have co-ordinated the collection of 1035 signatures to the proposition that ‘if Highways England would provide a crossing at North Burlingham and a path linking the South Walsham (White House) crossing to the Acle path, I would use it.‘ While encouraging us to believe that if demand could be shown these links would be provided, neither have been in the proposal before you. They did appear at one time, as a bridge on the Amey 2018 drawing “preferred option plan” and the extension the DCO boundary line to incorporate the path. We were told at that time they would be provided from Highways England’s ‘Designated Fund’ reserved to service local demand as distinct from project ‘main aim’. Highways England have not acknowledged the demand we demonstrated - it does not feature in the WCHAR report - but claim from their own research lack of demand and cite this as their reason not to provide. This same ‘research’ has led them to state that Blofield is the destination of choice for North Burlingham residents. Lingwood has the local shopping, village hall and bus services required - plus it has the allocated first school, Lingwood Primary Academy and a railway station. Blofield does not have the allocated school or a railway station. Similarly, Acle has railway, plus greater shopping/bus services - and Acle Academy, the allocated senior school. Blofield has no senior school. Failure to provide the crossing and path requested not only firmly divides the Parish and removes access to FP3 directly linking the two halves, it consigns youngsters to car transport in perpetuity to access their schools. They will never “walk, scoot or bike” to school as Government encourages. Provision of the crossing and path has received universal support from Parishioners, Visitors, the Parish Councils, our Broadland District Councillors, County Councillors, Norfolk County Council, landowner Norfolk County Farms, and our MP (redacted). In an early study “East Broadland Green Infrastructure Project Plan” Broadland DC and Norfolk CC described a safe foot/cycle crossing north/south at North Burlingham as “vital” and subsequently in a letter to our Community Group, Burlingham Cottage Gardeners, (Redacted), Head of Environment NCC said this: “By linking up existing routes currently bisected by the A47 and incorporating a North Burlingham crossing into plans, it allows the growing adjacent populations access to a robust green space (Burlingham Woodland Walks) which is so valuable for their mental and physical heath.”"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Day
"It would be amazing if we could have a cycle and footpath connecting the parish villages. Namely we have always been able to walk in Lingwood woods or Burlingham woods but have never felt it safe to cross over the A47, so these walks have been done separately. The building of the new road offers an opportunity to connect these villages without accessing a vehicle which is beneficial for health and the environment and will support local businesses."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Brookes
"- Street lighting. New lights on the bridge will be shining directly into our bedroom thanks to the angle of the new bridge. - road noise. A bridge up high is going to create a lot more noise. - speed limits. Although it is currently a 60mph, all traffic currently outside my drive are slowing down or speeding up from the junction so few are doing 60mph outside my property. Once the bridge is in place, it will be a straight run from Beighton to the bridge which will create huge problems getting in and out of my driveway. - tree removal. The trees that are currently acting as sound barriers from the a47 are due to be removed which again will create more noise. - lack of communication. My property will be affected by this and we have received little to no communication from you. I found this form by chance on Facebook. That is not right. - property devaluation."
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"APPLICATION BY HIGHWAYS ENGLAND FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE A47 BLOFIELD TO NORTH BURLINGHAM PROJECT Please find below our relevant representation for the A47 Blofield to North Burlingham project. The Role of the Environment Agency The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on all applications for development consent orders. We have a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. We have three main roles: (i) We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on business. We issue a range of permits and consents. (ii) We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in and integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. (iii) We are an environmental advisor – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. One of our specific functions is as a Flood Risk Management Authority. We have a general supervisory duty relating to specific flood risk management matters in respect of flood risk arising from Main Rivers or the sea. Overview and issues of concern Our relevant representation outlines where we consider further work, clarification or mitigation is required to ensure that the proposal has no detrimental impact on the environment. In general we are satisfied with the approach taken and the mitigation proposed to date. But we will require the opportunity to review some of more detailed proposals prior to development. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. We look forward to continuing to work with the applicant to resolve the matters outlined within our relevant representation to ensure the best environmental outcome for the project. Yours faithfully Martin Barrell Planning Specialist Environment Agency 1.0 Document 3.1 Draft Development Consent Order (DCO) 1.1 We note that Part 1 Article 3 Paragraph (3) of the draft DCO concerns the disapplication of certain permits required from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. Specifically, these are flood risk activity permits and water discharge consents. The disapplication of these permits has not yet been discussed with us. 1.2 The area within the order limits for the proposed scheme does not include any designated Main Rivers. Therefore, there will be no requirement for any flood risk activity permits to be obtained. 1.3 We would not usually agree to dis-apply water discharge consents. We also note that the draft DCO at Part 4 Article 20 – Discharge of water, Paragraph (6) states that the requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations will still apply. Further clarity is required. 1.4 Requirement 4 requires the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and associated documents. The EMP is a mechanism to ensure the delivery of mitigation measures during the construction phase as outlined in the Environmental Statement, including those in Chapter 13 Road drainage and the water environment. Although we are satisfied with the approach taken in identifying the potential adverse effects of the proposed scheme on surface water and groundwater, and with the mitigation outlined to date, the Environment Agency should have the opportunity to review and comment on the detailed proposals prior to construction. 1.5 The Environment Agency should be included as a named consultee in respect of Requirement 4, for matters relevant to our remit. 1.6 We support the inclusion of Requirement 6 Contaminated land and groundwater. Although no specific sources of contamination were identified as part of the Contaminated Land Preliminary Risk Assessment (ES Appendix 9.1), the potential for unexpected areas of concern to be uncovered during construction remains. Requirement 6 appropriately outlines the procedure to be applied should this occur. We welcome the inclusion of the Environment Agency as a named consultee. 1.7 Requirement 8 is concerned with Surface and foul water drainage. As detailed below, we are satisfied with the approach proposed to date. However, as highlighted in ES Chapter 13, consultation on the drainage design is ongoing. It will be important for us to review and confirm that the detailed proposals are acceptable, in particular where the use of deep infiltration features is proposed. 1.8 The Environment Agency should therefore be a named consultee in respect of Requirement 8 Surface and foul water drainage system. 2.0 Document 3.3 Consents and Licences Position Statement 2.1 Paragraph 3.1.3 lists those consents which are to be addressed by the DCO. The list includes consent to carry out flood risk and water discharge activities. As stated in our comments in relation to the draft DCO above, we would not agree to dis-apply water discharge consents. There are no Main Rivers within the order limits to trigger the possible requirement for a flood risk activity permit. 2.2 It should be noted that the Environment Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations from 2007 onwards replaced the permitting system in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. Guidance on this can be found in the DEFRA Environmental Permitting: Core Guidance document. 2.3 Appendix A – Table of Consents and Agreements. On the issue of ‘Waste and Materials’, it should be noted that an Environmental Permit will be required for the importation and treatment of waste material falling outside the scope or limits detailed in either a Regulatory Position Statement or a waste exemption. In respect of ‘Waste Materials’, it should be noted that the regulating authority for mobile plant licences for the crushing of concrete is the relevant local authority, not the Environment Agency. 3.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 8 - Biodiversity 3.1 With reference to section 8.8.2, we would agree with the scoping out of designated sites and species as listed, and agree that there is no requirement for these to be be carried forward to the impact stage. We acknowledge that species including otter and water vole have been scoped out due to lack of suitable habitat within the proposed scheme area (also addressed in sections 8.7.46 & 8.7.48). 3.2 Table 8.8 illustrates that the remediation and habitat enhancement will produce an overall net gain for habitats types lost in the footprint of the scheme. We note and welcome the provision of a wildlife pond as part of this. 3.3 Section 8.7.18 highlights that there are 66 ponds in the ZOI. There may be scope for enhancing some of these existing ponds, especially where they have become silted up or dried out. 4.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 9 – Geology and Soils 4.1 Overall we are generally satisfied with the approach taken and level of detail provided within the application on the issue of contaminated land. We note that an assessment of the risk of contamination to groundwater is not deemed necessary in this chapter, and that hydrogeology and groundwater are considered in Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement. 4.2 We reviewed Appendix 9.1 - Contaminated Land Preliminary Risk Assessment in advance of the submission of the DCO application. We note that no specific sources of contamination were identified, but there remains the potential for unexpected areas of concern to be uncovered during construction. 4.3 As highlighted above, we support the inclusion within the draft DCO of Requirement 6 Contaminated land and groundwater. We welcome the inclusion of the Environment Agency as a named consultee in respect of that Requirement. 5.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 10 – Material Assets and Waste 5.1 We are satisfied that this section of the Environmental Statement and supporting appendices are appropriate to support this application. 5.2 Appendix 10.3 Outline site waste management plan is comprehensive in its current form. But the references at 10.1.20 and 10.1.32 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, should be updated to Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. 6.0 Document 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 13 – Road Drainage and Water Environment 6.1 The Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 13.1) identifies that the full extent of the site is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk) for fluvial and tidal flood risk. We are satisfied that this is the case in both the current day scenario and with an adequate climate change allowance applied to represent the future scenario (+100 years). Therefore we have no further comments in respect of fluvial or tidal flood risk. 6.2 We are satisfied that the potential risks to surface and groundwater bodies during both construction and operation have been appropriately identified. We note that there are no proposed outfalls discharging to surface water, but the potential for surface flood flow pathways into ditches or watercourses is identified and considered. 6.3 We have reviewed and are satisfied with the Groundwater Assessment (Appendix 13.3) and with the Water Framework Directive Assessment summarized within Chapter 13 at Table 13.9. We are also satisfied currently with Appendix 13.2 – Drainage Strategy; but note that both the detailed design for temporary drainage during construction, and for the final scheme during operation, are yet to be finalised. 6.3 We will need to review and confirm that the detailed proposals for both the construction and operational stages are acceptable. As highlighted above with regards to the draft DCO, the Environment Agency should therefore be a named consultee in respect of Requirement 8 Surface and foul water drainage system. 6.4 Mitigation measures to address the risk to surface water and groundwater during construction are proposed from section 13.9.3. It is stated that best practice methods for pollution prevention and water management (including sediment release), and emergency response procedures would be implemented as part of the overall Environmental Management Plan (EMP). A temporary surface water drainage strategy will form part of the EMP. 6.5 The Environmental Management Plan is the subject of Requirement 4. As highlighted above with regards to the draft DCO, the Environment Agency should be included as a named consultee in respect of Requirement 4, for matters relevant to our remit. 6.6 As highlighted previously, references to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, should be updated to Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (section 13.3.5). 7.0 Document 7.7 Environmental Management Plan 7.1 With reference to Table 3-1 Record of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC), we note that the following documents are to be prepared to mitigate potential adverse effects upon surface waters and groundwater during construction: • a water monitoring and management plan • a temporary surface water drainage strategy 7.2 As highlighted above, the Environment Agency should be included as a named consultee in respect of Requirement 4, to enable us to review and comment on relevant documents. 7.3 We would also wish to review the Soil management plan, Materials management plan and Site waste management plan. 7.4 Regarding Table 4-1 – it should be noted that the Environment Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations from 2007 onwards replaced the permitting system in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act. On the issue of ‘Waste and Materials’, it should be noted that an Environmental Permit will be required for the importation and treatment of waste material falling outside the scope or limits detailed in either a Regulatory Position Statement or a waste exemption. In respect of ‘Waste Materials’, it should be noted that the regulating authority for mobile plant licences for the crushing of concrete is the relevant local authority, not the Environment Agency."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hanne Lene Schierff
"I object to the plans on environmental and climate emergency grounds"
Parish Councils
Hemblington Parish Council
"TR010040 A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Development Consent. Hemblington Parish Council wishes to make the following representations in respect to this proposed development. 1. Eastern Bridge proposal. This bridge design is predicated on the heavy traffic to the Cantley sugar refinery. Has a risk assessment been made as to the likelihood of Cantley’s remaining in production in the longer term, given doubts as to how profitable sugar beet farming will be (it has been abandoned by several local farmers in recent weeks), and reports that the number of sugar beet refineries will need to be reduced in the future? 2. Yarmouth Road bridge. The preference of the Council remains for a roundabout rather than bridge (on environmental grounds) but it is reassured by the greater clarity that access from High Noon Lane will be closed off and that the road depicted as joining the new road is simply an access road from the Sparrow Hall properties. However, the detail as to the point at which High Noon would be closed off would be appropriate at this stage. 3. An overriding concern remains that this development will encourage greater traffic flow through Hemblington and the adjoining rural roads to Blofield for access westwards and to the Cucumber lane roundabout. Pre-lockdown the build-up of traffic towards this roundabout caused considerable delays which will be exacerbated by this development. It is therefore extraordinary that no consideration seems to have been given to this roundabout as part of the overall scheme. A more economical and environmentally friendly road design without two bridges might allow resources to be devoted to this vital improvement of this roundabout."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Historic England
"The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (HBMCE) is better known as Historic England, and we are the Government’s adviser on all aspects of the historic environment in England - including historic buildings and areas, archaeology and historic landscape. We have a duty to promote conservation, public understanding and enjoyment of the historic environment. We are an executive Non-Departmental public body and we answer to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Digital Culture, Media and Sport. We summarise our representation regarding this proposed project as follows. Please note we do not intend to attend the preliminary hearing, However will be submitting full written representation at a later date. Representation: 1. Introduction We note the applicant has provided a full Environmental Statement with a Cultural Heritage chapter that includes the results of geophysical surveys and archaeological trial trenching. Historic England’s written representation will comment more fully on the key historic environment issues in due course, however for the purposes of this representation they are summarised below. 2. Designated Heritage Assets The Cultural Heritage assessment establishes that there are no scheduled monuments, grade II* listed structures, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields or conservation areas within the defined study area. Historic England’s advice on designated heritage assets will be limited grade I listed structures, with advice on grade II structures being provided by Broadland District Council’s Conservation Team. The grade I listed Church of St Andrew at North Burlingham is located just over 100m from the application site boundary and the proposed development would result in a change to its setting. 3. Non-Designated Heritage Assets The Cultural Heritage chapter identifies a wide range of non-designated heritage assets within the application boundary. These include North Burlingham Park, the former extent of which would be directly affected by the proposed development. The archaeological surveys already undertaken have identified previously unrecorded buried archaeological remains and a high potential for further such heritage assets to be present within the application site boundary. We note that not all parts of the application site were available for investigation and further field survey would be necessary to fully establish the archaeological potential of the proposed development area. 4. Summary We intend to expand on these matters more fully in our written representation. However, at this stage we are satisfied with the assessment methodology used in the Cultural Heritage chapter of the submitted Environmental Statement and are broadly in agreement with its conclusions. In the event that the development is consented, we would be concerned to ensure that the historic environment is adequately and appropriately considered, and that the DCO is appropriately worded to ensure appropriate mitigation would be delivered. Dr James Albone (Redacted)@historicengland.or.uk"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louis Demarco
"I am writing to inform you that I believe there is a great importance of there being an underpass or bridge for pedestrians, walkers, runners, cyclists or horse riders between Lingwood and North Burlingham across the new A47 when it is dualled. The future is green, the future is not always driving. The ability to easily cross this road as a pedestrian is just if not more important than the duelling itself. I also on a daily basis leave Lingwood onto the A47 heading to Norwich (adjacent to the Norwich Camping and leisure). I feel strongly that this exit onto the A47 to Norwich is important. Going through Blofield to the Brundal roundabout will be back logged with traffic. Regards Mr Demarco"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Davis
"I enjoy accessing the Burlingham Woodland Walks on foot from.my home in Lingwood. Being able to safely cross the A47 without a long detour is the only way that I will be able to enjoy this amenity without getting in a car which is not good for the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of Mrs Jane Jones
"My representation re Acle Hall Farm as prepared by Bidwells is as follows:- ? Proposed closure of the current A47 layby adjacent to the Windle Our client currently farms 50 acres of land to the north of the A47 which is accessed from the existing layby (to the west of the Windle) which Highways England are proposing to close (but retain with no access provisions) in connection with the construction of the above scheme. This closure will mean that our client will have to access this land using the Windle with its associated health and safety implications, particularly during the summer months with additional holiday traffic on the A47 and when using tractors with full trailers starting from stop at the junction onto the A47. The current access from the existing layby enables fully loaded tractors and trailers and other slow moving agricultural vehicles to enter the moving traffic with momentum. Using the Windle access means that they are starting from 0 miles per hour. We believe there is a way that only our client can use the layby as an exit from their field. This way, they could make sure their vehicles have momentum when joining the A47. Lockable bollards could be placed at the eastern end of the layby which our client could then open during periods of agricultural use to allow direct access from the layby onto the A47, albeit nobody else will be able to use the layby as it is proposed to stop up the western end and prevent access. Your current proposals to prevent the layby being used are a significant health and safety concern for our client, so could you please consider the limited use of the layby as access as we are proposing. ? Relocation of overhead lines We understand it is proposed to relocate/divert overhead lines across our clients land to the south of the A47 road and the layby. At present, there are no poles in this field and, while our client does not want any such lines across her land, if this is essential for the scheme, can these lines be placed underground. ? Maintaining access to Acle Hall Farm during the works from the northern carriageway Agricultural traffic travelling from the west on the northern carriageway is able to cross the central reservation via a dedicated area so that they can access directly Acle Hall Farm without the necessity to travel eastwards to the Acle flyover and then return on the southern A47 carriageway to enter the farmyard. As you can appreciate, the “Acle route” is a considerable distance especially with slow and large agricultural vehicles. Can the central reservation please remain open to agricultural traffic during the period of the construction works. ? Replacement hedge & post & rail fence There is an area of land take immediately to the west of the Acle Hall farmyard which will involve the removal of a young hedge planted approximately 2 years ago. While it is accepted that it will be necessary to remove this hedge as part of the works, this hedge needs to be replaced along the new boundary line together with a post and rail timber fence."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Maureen Pipe-Fowler
"I wish to outline that the proposed bridge should have provision for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the A47."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patrick Meo
"My name is Patrick Meo, I am (redacted), my wife is (redacted), and we are both very keen cyclists, mainly to keep fit. We live in Lingwood, which is due south of the main A47 road, and currently we find it very difficult (and exceedingly dangerous, because very few vehicles stick to the 50mph speed limit!) to cross this road at any point. This restricts the direction that we can take for a "local" bike ride in safety. (or take a risk, as we sometimes do, and face the possibility of serious injury!) Consequently, we feel very strongly that some form of cycle-friendly bridge, or underpass, should be considered in the construction of the proposed A47 Duelling. If not,we will be cut off from any chance of cycling in a Northerly direction, which would reduce our route options by well over 50%, as we have a river to the south of us. I must point out that very many of the local people that we have spoken to on this subject, totally agree with us on this matter. The alternative would be to cycle to either Acle or Brundall before we could even "start" our bike rides, if we have any strength left by then."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Walland
"As a property which lies within 100m of the proposed route of the A47 we intend to make the following representations: 1. We consider that, given the proximity of the new road to our property, the proposed noise abatement measures are inadequate, being limited to a short section of fencing 2. The presently proposed dual carriageway in combination with the maintenance of the existing road as a local feeder creates an unnecessarily large visual impact 3. The proposed new road will physically divide communities currently able to enjoy and access walking, cycling and riding amenities either side of the road. The proposed access via a 3-mile diversion for walking and cycling access is unacceptable. No continued access for maintaining connection within the local community has been incorporated into the scheme. 4. The proposed high level fly-overs will contribute significantly to light pollution in what has been a dark skies area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Davis
"I walk from my home in Lingwood to Millenium woods (Burlingham Woodland Walks). I would like to know if there will be an access for pedestrians and/or cyclists to cross the A47 safely."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Gates
"The scheme as it stands, cuts off North Burlingham's walking/cycling accesses to Lingwood and would necessitate getting in a car to go to the Lingwood shop, primary school and the village hall in our parish of Lingwood and Burlingham. It also means that visitors arriving at our nearest BR station (Lingwood) will not have easy walking/cycling access to the properties here in North Burlingham, the areas beyond and importantly the lovely Burlingham Woodland walks that may in the future be extended and developed further. We therefore need a bridge or underpass to maintain the safe walking/cycling access that currently exists between Lingwood and North Burlingham. Additionally, we do not have a complete path/cycle way to get to Acle. It would take only short additional paths to complete the route to our local Co-Op, our Dr's Surgery and the other retail outlets that exist there. We use the facilities in Acle a great deal and would like to be able to access them safely by walking or cycling to increase levels of healthy exercise and avoid using our cars."
Local Authorities
South Norfolk Council
"The adopted Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk seeks to enhance the transport system in order to develop the role of Norwich as a Regional Transport Node. This is to be achieved by, amongst other things, promoting improvements to the A47. This strategic aim is echoed in the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP), which supports strategic infrastructure improvements that support the growth needs of the area. The emerging GNLP specifically refers to improvements to the A47 between Blofield to North Burlingham as one of the schemes that will help the plan achieve its aims. The Regulation 19 Publication of the GNLP was undertaken between 1 February 2021 and 22 March 2021 and is anticipated to be examined between November and December 2021. As such, the Blofield to North Burlingham dualling scheme is given in principle support by the existing and emerging development plan and the scheme is supported in principle by South Norfolk Council."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Watts
"I would request that a crossing be created between North Burlingham and Lingwood for use by Cyclists and Pedestrians. It could be either an underpass or bridge."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stop Wensum Link
"Submissions in relation to A47 Blofield to North Burlingham ( ‘Proposed Scheme’) Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010040 I am a solicitor and a member of the steering committee of the Stop Wensum Link (’SWL’) action group. I make for and on behalf of SWL the following submissions. The Proposed Scheme needs to be evaluated and tested in relation to climate change and the need for carbon emission reduction, as well as environmental considerations. In testing and evaluating the objectives of the Proposed Scheme, and to assess its impact in relation to carbon emissions and the environment there will be a need to take into account not only the impact of the project per se but also its cumulative impact when assessed alongside other projects planned to be implemented in immediate area.(1) It will be my wish to expand upon the following submissions and to interrogate within the context of these submissions the evidence adduced in support of the Proposed Scheme. Carbon Emission Reduction The Paris Agreement signed at the United Nations Climate Conference in 2015 (COP21) sets out a framework to avoid the dangerous impacts of climate change by limiting global temperature rise to “well below 2 degrees Celsius” above pre-industrial levels, and committed signatories to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019: the UK parliament passed legislation which replaced a previous target of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 with a more ambitious target to reduce the UK’s net emissions to zero by 2050 – the so called “Net Zero” target. These duties in legislation are also supported by national planning policy and guidance. In particular, Chapter 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that: ‘The planning system should … help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions’. It is recorded (2) that transport is the worst-performing sector of the economy when it come to looking at carbon emission reduction. Whereas emissions in all other sectors have fallen, emissions from transport are still going up. This is recognised by the Department for Transport which has stated when developing a decarbonisation plan for the transport sector that the forecast rate of carbon reduction from transport is much slower than is needed. There are three flaws with the approach normally used to evaluate the carbon impacts of individual road schemes. First, the comparison with emissions across the whole economy (‘denominator’) is inappropriate, since its impact is small relative to the emissions of the economy as a whole. At the scheme level, a comparison with a Paris-compliant carbon budget for road transport emissions in the relevant local authority area would be more relevant. Second, the denominator used for this comparison is in any event out of date and too high, as it was set before the Paris Agreement and Climate Change Act 2008 and is based on out of date carbon budgets. Finally, the method used to assess a scheme’s carbon impact does not take full account of likely increases in emissions over time due to induced traffic and car-based development, and so the carbon impact is systematically under-estimated. Environment There is also the need to assess and evaluate the impact of Proposed Scheme on the integrity of sites protected under the Habitats Regulations Directive and European Protected Species.  This includes Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and possible SACs (pSACs) in the area, and species including the Barbastelle Bat. David Pett (redacted) 5th April, 2021 END (1) - A47 between North Tuddenham and Easton A47/A11 Thickthorn junction A47 Great Yarmouth junction and Vauxhall roundabout reconstruction A140 Long Stratton Bypass Norwich Western Link Broadland Business Park Rail Station  (2) The carbon impact of the national roads programme (redacted) With contributions from (redacted) July 2020    "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suzanne Lake
"For a crossing for walkers cyclists etc from Lingwood to North Burlingham i walk this route 3/4 times a week but can only go at curtain times because of traffic once it is dwelled there will not b a chance of crossing the a47 the government want to reduce emissions this would help a great deal if not all the walkers will have to drive over there to b able to go for a walk"