Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing

Representations received regarding Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Norfolk Constabulary
"On behalf of Norfolk Constabulary, I am interested in the whole bridge project, particularly in relation to the management of traffic using the new facility. This also relates to the size and type of vehicles that will be permitted to use the bridge as it is important for us to use the bridge in the future for heavy abnormal indivisible loads to avoid them using the more unsuitable routes to South Quay. The construction of the bridge is important in relation to how much traffic/pedestrians/cyclists can use the bridge. The new road layout in respect of construction, projected vehicle usage, routes affected by the new facility and congestion relief. Clearly there will be traffic disruption during the construction phase which I will be showing an interest in to ensure no unnecessary delays are made during the construction phase if given the go ahead. Suicide Prevention is also an interest I have at present, so I will be looking at the construction of the bridge and suicide prevention methods employed during its construction. Norfolk Constabulary are broadly in favour of this new project"
Other Statutory Consultees
Corporation of Trinity House
"We refer to the above application for development consent. Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development may have on navigation within Trinity House’s area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order throughout the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [email protected] and to Mr Steve Vanstone at [email protected] Yours faithfully, Russell Dunham ACII Legal & Risk Advisor"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Goodchild Marine Services Limited
"Mr. Gavin Broad Community and Environmental Services County Hall, Martineau Lane Norwich, Norfolk NR1 2DH Date 9th July 2019 Your Ref: CES/PKA018/S56/NS Dear Mr Broad, Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing Thank you for writing and inviting our comments on this project application number TR010043. Whilst we are not opposed to the idea of a third river crossing we are strongly questioning how this bridge shall be operated given long term issues we have with gaining access to the open sea for our business having to rely upon both Breydon and Haven bridges. This situation has been rumbling on for some years but each year the situation is becoming more unacceptable with apparent lack of maintenance or willingness to open bridges in a streamlined manner. The most recent case causing us considerable expense (which we are seeking compensation for) as the situation became untenable. Therefore we would like some written reassurances from those who shall be responsible for operating this and the existing two bridges of exactly how they plan to synchronise all three bridges for passages to and from the sea. Equally we understand from recent communications this crossing shall include layby pontoons to allow safe mooring should there be any unforeseen delays. I attach some recent communications which details the present situation and our frustrations, so to summarise we welcome this river crossing IF the access and operation of all three bridges can be streamlined with some assurances moving forward as the present situation is placing our business at risk together with the 37 plus employee’s we have who rely upon having good sea connections. Yours sincerely Alan Goodchild"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Everett
"As a regular visitor to Gt.Yarmouth I am frequently frustrated and delayed by the traffic hold ups in the South Denes Road, Southtown Road and Suffolk Road area and believe a third river crossing is essential. A third river crossing will be of great benefit to the businesses and the local economy of Gt.Yarmouth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE
"TR010043 1. With regard to the proximity of the development to the two major hazard sites, HSE does not advise against the granting of the Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing. 2. Based on the information presented, this development will impact on the DGHAR sites as shown on Plan A. If this is approved, HSE will be required to review the licences for the nearby DGHAR sites. The review should also consider the proposed structure from a vulnerable perspective and also the existence of a major construction perspective. 3. Considerable time and effort was spent trying to track down the hard copy consultation correspondence which was addressed incorrectly. It is HSE’s preference to receive NSIPs electronically via [email protected] with our full contact details clarified in the HSE Annex to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 11 on the PINs Website at: Annex G – The Health and Safety Executive (PDF 185 KB)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alicat Workboats Ltd and Richards Dry Dock and Eng Ltd
"As a Boat yard that relies on a freely accessible port the new placement of a bridge will impact on our operations, which may result in loss of works, in particular during construction phase of the project as the river will need to be closed for a period of time and later through life during breakdowns. Most of our works is unplanned with vessels turning up at very short notice, We currently have a berth that has 24 hour 7 days a week free access to sea and feel the bridge will have a negative impact on our business and other operational berths in the port that will be now located North of the proposed new bridge location. We have been involved the consultation stage and meetings and have registered these concerns at all times, some reassurance has been given about the operational side of the bridge but reassurances has been given to what happens during river closures in construction and the effect on business and also future life once the bridge needs maintence and fails to open and impacts us a business and ultimately the people we employ"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Forder
"I'm wanted to raise my concerns about the proposed restrictions regarding parking outside my business and the impact it will have. my business relies on customers being able to to park and leave their cars outside our business property on their way to work, also breakdown trucks dropping off vehicles out of hours and they have to be able to leave cars 24/7. If in the future this wont be possible it will effect the business revenue and the viability of remaining operating fully from Great Yarmouth. I started my business 14 years ago from scratch from an empty yard and feel an alliance to the area as i employ local people and with the deprivation in the area it feels like the local issues are not being listen to. Since the Outer harbor construction there is now reduced traffic and these restrictions will effect things for the whole infrastructure on Southgates road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
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 and can confirm that: We replied to earlier consultations as listed below and this response should be read in conjunction with that earlier correspondence. Request for Scoping Opinion 4th May 2018 Public Consultation (Section 42) 8th October 2018 We 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
Pauline Ablitt
"I have looked at the proposed lead up to the bridge and am concerned that it is the same height as my bedroom window. People will be able to look right in. It appears that the safety barrier is iron railings could this not be made of sheet form of material and be a bit taller . This will also help with noise reduction. The double glazing we have is not sound proof and will have to be renewed .compensation? Opposite my house will be a massive brick wall . Light and blight and view. Also during construction will be noise and mess for two years. The new parking spaces opposite are a welcome addition thank you for that. I hope the bridge will not cause my property to drop in value but I suspect it will."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Baker
"I wish to be consulted about what happens to Cromwell Court, Cromwell Road, Great Yarmouth as I own number *REDACTED* and also the land currently used as a car park by the residents of the court."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Hannah Ltd on behalf of Regaland Limited
"Concern whether the Scheme as proposed best meets the objectives set: - Whether increased road capacity will be quickly absorbed; - Whether environmental impact could be further reduced; - Whether the Scheme needs to go further to promote more sustainable modes of transport, improve road safety, and encourage comprehensive regeneration. Concern re level of negotiation undertaken to date - is the DCO premature?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Great Yarmouth Port Company (part of Peel Ports Group) (Great Yarmouth Port Company (part of Peel Ports Group))
"The Great Yarmouth Port Company Limited (GYPC) trades as Peel Ports Great Yarmouth. It operates the commercial port operations at the port of Great Yarmouth under an agreement with the Great Yarmouth Port Authority (GYPA). Under that agreement GYPC also acts as agent for the harbour authority in the discharge of the GYPA’s statutory functions except for those functions that GYPA cannot delegate to its agent namely the making of bye-laws, the levying of ship dues, the appointment of the harbour master and decisions relating to the laying down of navigation buoys and the erection of lighthouses. Whilst GYPC acknowledge the potential benefits that improved road connectivity to the peninsula and Outer Harbour the new crossing will bring, GYPC do have significant concerns over the potential adverse impact upon the considerable commercial activity upon the River Yare. This is because the new crossing will sever GYPC’s operational landholdings and a number of its tenants and operators. Of particular relevance to GYPC is the safeguarding of commercial port activity upstream of the proposed crossing. GYPC therefore wish to ensure the continued primacy of the harbour in terms of current and future shipping activity in an unfettered manner. Norfolk County Council, the applicant, has acknowledged these concerns and has entered into negotiations with GYPC. GYPC has requested “Protective Provisions” for the benefit of the port, a scheme of operation and articles in the Development Consent Order which will not prejudice the operation of the port. Parties have entered into a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG). Many of the concerns of GYPC have been met; there are however a number that remain outstanding. In particular, GYPC remain concerned that there is a disagreement between the parties in relation to the flow of the river and the hydrological effects of the construction of the new bridge. The terms of reference and scope for navigation simulation also remain outstanding. The navigational risk assessment therefore is unclear and unfinished and will remain unfinished for some time. At present, GYPC strongly recommend that a lay-by berth should be provided for shipping unless the navigational risk assessment can show otherwise. There is insufficient information to come to that view at this stage. The original output was considered lacking. Particularly, the level of detail in hydrological input was insufficient and prevented adequate simulation of vessel movements. It is essential, GYPC believe, to conclude as soon as possible a proper evaluation of incremental hazards arising as a consequence of the new bridge and identification of possible mitigation measures. Our requirement for an emergency lay-by berth is required to maintain safety of navigation upon the River Yare and will result in less disruption and lead to significantly shorter delays for road traffic users when the bridge is required to be open to shipping. It is hoped that progress can be made in respect of these outstanding matters as GYPC remains supportive “in principle” of the proposed third river crossing."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Historic England
"Historic England (retaining the formal title of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) is the government service championing England’s heritage and giving expert, constructive advice. We summarise our representation regarding this proposed project as follows: 1. The development would comprise the construction, operation and maintenance of a new bridge across the River Yare in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. The proposed scheme would include a new dual carriageway road crossing of the river, an opening bridge and a range of associated works including embankments, remodelled access junctions, a new five arm roundabout to the western side of the bridge and provision for cyclists and pedestrians.) . 2. The applicant’s initial assessment of the built heritage within 1 kilometre of the bridge that could be affected by the proposed development includes four scheduled monuments, four grade I listed buildings, eight grade II* listed buildings, 102 grade II listed buildings, six conservation areas along with 119 undesignated assets. Due to the scale of the development there is potential for visual impact on these assets which could harm their historic significance. The significance of these assets and the impact on them has been assessed by the applicants. We will comment on this assessment, the impact of the development on designated heritage assets and the ability of the deign of bridge proposed to reducing visual impact. 3. The development has the potential to harm archaeological deposits of interest, both directly and indirectly. A mitigation strategy has been presented by the applicant, which includes a programme of archaeological evaluation and the collection of dedicated geoarchaeological boreholes that will inform preservation strategies, either preserving remains in situ or by record. We will comment on this strategy and any other work that should be undertaken to ensure that the significance of the impacted remains/deposits is not lost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mills & Reeve LLP on behalf of ASCO UK LIMITED
"Representation By ASCO UK LIMITED 1 Introduction 1.1 This is a relevant representation for and on behalf of ASCO UK Limited (“ASCO”) in respect of the application (“the Application”) for the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing Development Consent Order (“the Proposed Order”). The Application for the Proposed Order was submitted and is being promoted by Norfolk County Council (“NCC”) and has been allocated Planning Inspectorate reference TR010043. 2 Summary 2.1 ASCO objects to the Proposed Order. 2.2 ASCO is a major service company operating in the oil and gas sector from Fish Wharf in Great Yarmouth. Its operations are complex, highly regulated and sensitive to disruption and interference. It is a major employer in the area and is key to the local oil and gas service industry. 2.3 ASCO’s operations, landholdings and use of adjoining river berths will be adversely affected by the Proposed Order. 2.4 The Proposed Order is significantly lacking in relation to appropriate safeguards, protective provisions and mitigation measures in relation to ASCO’s landholdings, operations and use of adjoining river berths. 2.5 In turn, the Application fails to properly assess the impact of the proposed development on ASCO and consequently, the oil and gas industry and local economy of Great Yarmouth. 2.6 ASCO considers that the Application should not be granted unless appropriate safeguards, protective provisions and mitigation measures are fully incorporated into the Proposed Order in order to safeguard ASCO’s business and that of its customers. 3 ASCO 3.1 ASCO is a limited company (number SC029934) whose registered office address is ASCO Group Headquarters Unit A, 11 Harvest Avenue, D2 Business Park, Dyce, Aberdeen, AB21 0BQ. 3.2 ASCO is an oil and gas service company whose core business is the operation of complex supply bases, providing support to the offshore oil and gas industry across the life of offshore fields from exploration, through development to production and decommissioning. 3.3 ASCO’s Southern North Sea (SNS) business is located in Great Yarmouth, where its offshore supply base was opened in 1985 and has been the subject of significant investment over the years. ASCO is the largest logistics, waste and fuelling business in the SNS sector. Its operations in Great Yarmouth have an annual turnover of over £50m, and it is one of Great Yarmouth’s biggest private sector employers, with around 120 people employed by ASCO in the town and an additional circa 30 people employed by its direct tenants. In addition, ASCO has a substantial supply chain and infrastructure in Great Yarmouth. Any disruption to ASCO’s business therefore has the potential to affect a wide range of people, and the local economy. 3.4 ASCO’s operations are an integral element of Great Yarmouth’s oil and gas service industry as they provide a key interface between the offshore oil and gas industry and the onshore supply network. Its customers include Spirit Energy, Perenco UK Limited (“Perenco”), Petrofac, ConocoPhillips and Fraser Offshore. 3.5 In addition to its logistics operations, ASCO also operates complementary fuel, waste and ship’s agency businesses from Great Yarmouth. Great Yarmouth is also the sole hub for drilling mud plants in the Southern North Sea – MI Swaco and Halliburton are both tenants of ASCO in Great Yarmouth. 3.6 ASCO’s Great Yarmouth base is also actively involved in expanding its interests and service offering to the developing markets of offshore wind and decommissioning – both of which, it is anticipated, will deliver significant business growth in the next five years. 4 ASCO’s interests in Great Yarmouth 4.1 ASCO’s main operational site in Great Yarmouth is at Fish Wharf. Fish Wharf is an ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) Controlled operational supply base with an explosives holding licence. Complex activities are undertaken at Fish Wharf, including berthing, loading and unloading vessels; fuelling vessels; storage and road tanker distribution of various liquid products; replenishment of marine gas oil tanks from sea going tankers on a bi-weekly basis working with the tides; and the loading, unloading, storing and transporting of sensitive materials, hazardous waste and dangerous goods. Customers demand a reliable, safe and secure service – often on a just-in-time basis. 4.2 The Fish Wharf site can be understood as being separated into two areas: 4.2.1 the northern part of the Fish Wharf site, which is sublet by ASCO to Perenco. ASCO’s interest in this part of the Fish Wharf site is comprised in four leasehold interests. NCC proposes to acquire part of this land pursuant to the Proposed Order and take temporary possession of part. Importantly, through a service agreement with Perenco, ASCO’s employees permanently operate on, and deliver ongoing logistics services from, this site; and 4.2.2 the southern part of the Fish Wharf site, from which ASCO delivers services to the majority of its other SNS clients. ASCO’s interest in this part of the Fish Wharf site is comprised in one leasehold interest. This part of the Fish Wharf is not subject to any permanent land take nor temporary possession pursuant to the Proposed Order, but will be adversely affected by it. 4.3 In addition, ASCO has additional sites elsewhere in Great Yarmouth. These include Gas House Quay, a specialist fuel, decom and renewables facility, situated across from Fish Wharf on the opposite bank of the River Yare. These other sites are not subject to any permanent land take nor temporary possession pursuant to the Proposed Order, but have the potential to be adversely affected by it. 4.4 ASCO services its customers from 4 full sized berths (12 a, b, c and d) immediately adjacent to its warehouse and lay down facilities in the River Port. ASCO is able to provide Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and water at each of these berths. In addition, ASCO provides a full quayside service including crew changes and tank cleaning. 5 ASCO and Perenco 5.1 Perenco is an important customer of ASCO in Great Yarmouth and, like ASCO, is a significant employer in the area. 5.2 The scale of Perenco’s business is such that Perenco’s operations are serviced by ASCO on the northern part of the Fish Wharf site separately from ASCO’s other customers. ASCO has invested in the infrastructure on the Fish Wharf site, particularly in the construction of a modern warehouse and office facility, in order to make it suitable for the provision of services to Perenco. 6 The Proposed Order 6.1 The Land Plans identify four plots within the Proposed Order limits in which ASCO has an interest: 6.1.1 plots 4-30 and 4-36, which are subject to proposed powers of permanent acquisition; and 6.1.2 plots 4-27 and 4-28, which are subject to proposed powers of temporary use and possession. 6.2 Each of these plots is within the northern part of the Fish Wharf site referred to at paragraph 4.2.1 above and is identified as being required for: 6.2.1 4-30 and 4-36: the construction, operation and maintenance of the eastern approach to the crossing, including associated landscaping and the provision of NMU facilities; and 6.2.2 4-27 and 4-28: provision of working space, including a construction compound for the construction of the crossing and associated works. 6.3 In addition, the construction of the Proposed Development would involve the construction of two new ‘knuckles’ extending the quay wall into the river to support the new bridge in close proximity to the berths at Fish Wharf. The Application identifies that this will result in a narrowing of the River Yare by approximately 50% compared with its current width as it passes under the bridge and a constriction of water flows. 7 Grounds of objection 7.1 ASCO objects to the making of the Proposed Order for the following reasons: 7.1.1 the Application fails to properly assess and address the adverse effects on ASCO arising from the acquisition of land, and the construction and operation of the proposed development. The proposed temporary and permanent land take and effects of the scheme would have a serious adverse effect on ASCO’s business and, in turn, the business of its customers including Perenco, and the wider oil and gas industry and economy of Great Yarmouth. ASCO’s concerns are set out in greater detail at section 8 below; 7.1.2 as a result of this, and generally, NCC has not incorporated in the Proposed Order or otherwise provided for proper mitigation of the scheme’s impacts on ASCO nor sufficiently safeguarded ASCO’s important interests. 8 Impact of Proposed Order on ASCO’s business 8.1 As explained in section 4 above, ASCO operates complex and highly regulated facilities at both Fish Wharf and Gas House Quay. The safe and successful operation of a complex logistics supply business on a scale of operation carried on at Fish Wharf requires reliable and unencumbered transportation routes both onshore and offshore and sufficient useable quayside, warehousing and laydown space to deliver those operations in a safe and viable way. This is achieved through ASCO and Perenco’s current arrangements at Fish Wharf. NCC has failed to properly understand and assess the nature of ASCO’s operations at both Fish Wharf and Gas House Quay. 8.2 Without adequate mitigation and safeguards, the Proposed Order would have the following impacts on ASCO’s business: 8.2.1 Land take: (i) The removal of the land from the Fish Wharf site would have a severely detrimental impact on ASCO's current operations and in particular the delivery of service to its largest SNS client, Perenco. The site is currently laid out in order to create an optimal, efficient, sequential and safe process for the handling and storage of specialist oil and gas equipment, marine gas oil, hazardous waste and dangerous goods. If the proposed compulsory acquisition were to take place, the land remaining in ASCO’s and Perenco’s control is too small to meet those requirements in a safe and efficient manner without the entire site being reconfigured. (ii) As noted above, there is a significant risk that if the Proposed Order is made, Perenco may relocate its business to another port. The loss of Perenco’s business carries a significant risk of impacting on the viability of the remainder of ASCO’s business carried out at the Fish Wharf site due to the volume of business necessary to justify the economic operation of the full range of supply base services currently on offer. 8.2.2 The bridge: (i) Changes to water flow arising from the bridge: ASCO is concerned about potential changes in water flow in the River Yare and the impact this may have on its ability to safely berth, load and unload vessels at its quayside facilities (particularly when the tide is in ebb and/or flood status). ASCO considers that the studies which NCC have undertaken are inadequate and do not adequately demonstrate that the resulting water movements and tidal flows will not present a hazard. ASCO fuels vessels with marine gas oil and loads and unloads dangerous goods at its Fish Wharf and Gas House Quay facility. If there are significant new currents affecting this facility, this has the potential to compromise safety. (ii) River congestion arising from the bridge: Due to the immediate proximity of the Fish Wharf and Gas House Quay facilities to the proposed bridge, ASCO is concerned that both during the construction phase and when fully operational there is a high potential for vessel traffic travelling up river to be held south of the bridge. This would compromise ASCO’s ability to arrive and depart from its quaysides due to additional traffic. There is also a general history of lifting bridges suffering mechanical failures which adds to this particular concern. Furthermore, the removal of the adjoining Berth 13 from operational use during the construction process will further reduce the berthing space available. ASCO's operations are time critical and restrictions or delays upon sailing times will not be acceptable to its customers. (iii) Heavy lift facility: It should be noted that ASCO's heavy lift facility is located at Gas House Quay and forms an essential part of its offering to the developing decommissioning and renewables markets. The nature of this work requires larger vessels to berth and the aforementioned additional river traffic and changes to water flow have the potential to severely compromise these activities. 8.2.3 Road access to ASCO facilities: (i) ASCO operates a receipt & dispatch facility for clients at Fish Wharf which entails approximately 100 small and large deliveries on an average working day. Many of these deliveries are time critical for offshore production. ASCO is concerned by the potential disruption to its business caused by proposed changes to the road layout in the immediately proximate area, both during the construction of the scheme and following its completion, particularly in respect of the various temporary road closures and new signalised crossings. ASCO considers that these have the potential to adversely affect access and egress to its facilities. It is essential that full unimpeded access and egress to ASCO’s facility is maintained at all times. ASCO considers that the Proposed Order does not adequately account for this. (ii) Linked to the above, Fish Wharf is a Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH) Tier 2 Facility due to the storage and handling of marine gas oil and lubricants. It is therefore essential that emergency vehicle access to the site is also maintained at all times. (iii) Further, ASCO considers that the temporary closure of Fish Wharf (Road) to accommodate the construction of a road junction will create severe operational difficulties for its business due to articulated heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) being unable to exit the site. There is currently no space for HGVs to turn within the Fish Wharf site and therefore the closure of one end of Fish Wharf for a period of circa 3 - 6 months will create a major issue which will compromise operations and safety on site. The turnaround of a single offshore supply vessel can involve in excess of 10 heavy goods vehicles requiring access to ASCO's facilities. ASCO does not believe that NCC has given sufficient consideration to this impact. 8.2.4 Security of ASCO’s facility during construction: (i) ASCO's Great Yarmouth Facilities are ISPS regulated sites. ASCO is therefore concerned to ensure that during the construction phase, ASCO’s site security is not compromised by the Order Works. 8.2.5 Timing and uncertainty arising from the Proposed Order: (i) Given the nature of the operations and facilities described above, any proposed temporary or permanent land take or operational impediment (such as road closures) can not take place at short notice without significant disruption. ASCO is an exceptional case and requires a far longer lead-in time. Protective provisions are therefore required in the Proposed Order to control NCC’s activity so as to avoid disruption to ASCO and its clients’ operations. In addition, ASCO is concerned that the adverse effects and uncertainty caused by the Proposed Order are a potential disincentive to future investment in the site, and give rise to the potential for key customers, suppliers and supply chain to relocate out of the county. 8.3 ASCO queries the adequacy of the assessments carried out by NCC as part of the application for the Proposed Order – in particular, the suggestion at section 14.8 of the submitted Environmental Statement that, since the owners of land subject to land take would be financially compensated under the Compensation Code, there can be no significant adverse effect on them. For the reasons summarised above, ASCO considers that the Proposed Order would have significant adverse impacts on it, the oil and gas industry and the local economy, and NCC has failed to properly assess or mitigate this. 9 Negotiations with NCC 9.1 ASCO has engaged with NCC over approximately the last 18 months. Through those discussions, ASCO and Perenco have identified a series of safeguards and accommodation works necessary to resolve both ASCO’s and Perenco’s concerns with regards to the proposed land take. As at the date of this submission no binding commitments have been given by NCC to secure the necessary works. However, ASCO remains in dialogue with both NCC and Perenco. ASCO wishes to emphasise that if NCC wishes to keep to its proposed DCO timetable there is an increasingly narrow time window available in order to undertake the necessary works and implement safeguards, without leading to the implementation of the Proposed Order works needing to be delayed. In order to ensure ASCO’s and its clients’ operational integrity, protective works and safeguards must be completed in advance of the implementation of the Proposed Order. 10 Conclusion 10.1 For the reasons above, ASCO considers that: 10.1.1 there is no compelling case in the public interest for ASCO’s or Perenco’s interests in Fish Wharf to be acquired compulsorily as provided for in the Proposed Order; and 10.1.2 the Proposed Order should not be made, and development consent should not be granted, unless and until ASCO’s interests and those of its clients have been fully protected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Natural England
"SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE Based on the plans submitted Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on: • Southern North Sea SAC • Outer Thames Estuary SPA • Breydon Water Ramsar • Breydon Water SPA • Breydon Water SSSI • Great Yarmouth and North Denes SPA • Great Yarmouth AND North Denes SSSI • The Broads SAC • Broadland SAC • Broadland Ramsar And has no objection subject to the following requirements: • implementation of specific construction methods to limit impacts to designated sites • identification of licensing and mitigation requirements for protected species Further advice on mitigation The development footprint is within close proximity to the aforementioned designed sites and to reduce impacts to interest features and protected species we advise the following actions are carried out: • We advise that mitigation measures as described in the Outline Code of Construction Practice are implemented to limit disturbance and pollution impacts to designated sites and features of interest. Harbour Porpoise • Mitigation should include the adoption of measures set out in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) document entitled ’Statutory nature conservation agency protocol for minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from piling noise’ (2010) as stated in section 7.8.41 of the Environmental Statement Breeding birds • Any vegetation clearance should avoid the breeding bird season and be checked prior to removal to avoid destruction of active bird nests. • If active bird nests are present, an appropriate exclusion zone should be retained and works delayed until birds have fledged and the nest is inactive. Water Voles • Any works that directly impact upon water voles should be subject to mitigation and/or a protected species license from Natural England to avoid an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Bats • Emergence and re-entry surveys should be undertaken as explained in section 6.2 in the Protected Species Survey Report. • If the presence of roosting bats is confirmed further survey work will be required to inform an application for a protected species licence (Preliminary Bat Roost Report, section 6.3.2) • Sensitive onsite light management should be implemented to limit disturbance to bats as specified in section 5.3.7 of the Environmental Statement. Fish • Any translocation of fish should be carried out by suitably qualified ecologists/scientists using evidenced and accepted methods. Where this involves changes in water level the Environment Agency should be consulted in advance. Noise disturbance Natural England is satisfied that noise levels produced by the works will be below the recommended thresholds for both continuous and discontinuous noise (Waterbird toolkit) at designated sites, with the exception of the River Yare (Outer Tames Estuary SPA). However, surveys have shown that features of interest are not present within the vicinity of works and no likely significant effect anticipated (Habitats Regulations Assessment, section 7.3). Water volume and quality The sediment Transport Assessment (sections 6.5.2 and 7.1.7) explains that there will be negligible change in the sediment regime and water levels at Breydon Water and no likely significant effect is anticipated. We advise direct contact with the Environment Agency to apply for the appropriate permit and assess water quality impacts of the proposed drainage strategy. Should the proposal change, please consult us again. Yours sincerely Victoria Wight Norfolk and Suffolk"
Members of the Public/Businesses
New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership
"I am writing in support of Norfolk County Council’s submission of the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing. The third river crossing will help deliver the Norfolk and Suffolk Economic Strategy, which sets out ambitious targets to grow our economy by £17.5 billion, creating 88,000 new jobs and 140,000 new homes and increasing GVA by £39 per hour by 2036. The Third River Crossing is also identified as a priority in our recently adopted Integrated Transport Strategy. The scheme will help to deliver our strategic ambitions by encouraging further investment in the Norfolk and Suffolk Energy Coast, a global centre of oil, gas, nuclear and renewable energy generation and infrastructure and an identified Priority Place in the Norfolk and Suffolk Economic Strategy. Norfolk and Suffolk is the only place in the UK where all these forms of resource extraction and energy generation exist together. This offers significant opportunities for local collaboration and innovation and through wider national and international markets, boosting our clean growth offer to the world. The Third River Crossing will improve access and strategic connectivity between the port and the Strategic Road Network to support and promote economic growth, particularly in the Enterprise Zone. It will also add to the benefits that will be realised by Highways England’s A47 improvements. The project will improve local access and journey time resilience by reducing congestion and support the regeneration of Great Yarmouth to help the visitor and retail economy by removing heavy traffic from unsuitable routes. This will not only improve the environment and public safety it will also encourage the use sustainable transport and help boost social mobility. We look forward to engaging in the examination process with the view of seeing the Third River Crossing scheme delivered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"Full Representation can be found in email sent from Barabara Moss-Taylor dated 31 July 2019 Titled 'Relevant Representation- Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing' Summary: - The role of the Environment Agency - Outstanding Information and Issues of Concern - Flood Risk Assessment - Sediment Transport - Groundwater - Contaminated Land - Construction Practice - Ecology and Biodiversity - Protective Provisions"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Great Yarmouth Port Authority
"The Great Yarmouth Port Authority (GYPA) is the Statutory Port and Harbour Authority for the River Yare, for the purposes of the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Acts and Orders 1866 – 1986 and the Harbours Act 1964. GYPA has acknowledged and welcomed the improved connectivity to the peninsular and Outer Harbour the crossing will bring, but our concerns remain over the likely impact of the effective ‘severance’ of the river on the considerable commercial activity in the River Yare, if the primacy of the Port is not acknowledged. GYPA fully support the comments and concerns in this respect raised by our agents Great Yarmouth Port Company (GYPC) It is of note that the current proposals have the potential to impact on the operation of the Port, both during construction of the crossing and in its subsequent operation. GYPA are particularly concerned that part of the Port may have to be closed during construction. This would place the Port at a competitive disadvantage as an operating base and impact on both current and prospective operations. This must be avoided. GYPA also has similar concerns to GYPC about the draft Navigational Risk Assessment. We would wish, for example, to see the risk of bridge failure or delay fully considered and the establishment of a control measure in the form of a layby berth for inbound vessels as a minimum. Further meetings have been arranged so that GYPA can be satisfied that it will be possible to construct and operate the new bridge without danger to navigation and for Norfolk County Council to ensure that the navigational risk is minimised. It is hoped that discussions and negotiations will enable GYPA to confirm to the Examining Authority that it is satisfied with the proposals put forward by the promoting authority, Norfolk County Council."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Elizabeth Baker
"I am the occupier of 5 Cromwell Court. My main concerns are related to proposals to give at least part of Cromwell Court the status of public road (though I appreciate and certainly do not object to the principle of this proposal) specifically: (i) retention of reserved parking for Number 5 (ii) guaranteed access to this parking and to all the areas currently within the bounds of the property and its garden; and also to include the area currently used for parking for Number 5 and the garden and amenity space adjacent to this (iii) loss of privacy and security upon losing land in the courtyard that is currently not open to the public (iv) loss of privacy and security, because of the public footpath shown as running (from Suffolk Road to the Southtown end of Cromwell Road) along the edge of Cromwell Court, with no barrier shown to separate footpath users from the courtyard, and potential noise and light pollution from this area (v) responsibility for the upkeep of the areas adjacent to those to which the public will have access I also have concerns about noise, dust, other types of pollution, loss of amenity, loss of natural habitat and associated wildlife, restricted access to the property, interruptions to services, potential threats to the safety of domestic pets (cats) during construction (pets acquired because of the secure local environment) and after completion. Again, I welcome the project in principle."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation
"Dear Sir/Madam Due to the word limit in this section, please refer to the email sent on the 1 August 2019 to the following email address [email protected], for the Marine Management Organisation's relevant representation. This document comprises the MMO’s initial comments in respect of the DCO Application. Yours Sincerely, Daniel Walker"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Norfolk Chambers of Commerce
"Norfolk Chambers of Commerce is a business membership organisation representing over 900 Chamber members across the county, who employ over 100,000 people. We have many members with businesses in Great Yarmouth, who are challenged by the current lack of connectivity, which severely inhibits movement in Great Yarmouth resulting in congestion and ultimately limiting the economic potential of the town. Particular areas that are affected include: the Great Yarmouth Enterprise Zone, the Energy Park, the South Denes Business Park and the deep water outer harbour. The Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing would provide much needed connections between the strategic road network and the fat growing energy related Enterprise Zone. It provides linkages across the River Yare to the economic growth hub on the South Denes peninsula. The additional crossing would also support tourism, which is worth £577m per annum to Great Yarmouth and create jobs for 30% of the local workforce."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashtons Legal on behalf of Perenco UK Ltd
"Confirmation of registration as interested party for Perenco UK Ltd (“Perenco”) through their solicitors, Ashtons Legal. PINS reference TRO10043 1. The DCO provides for the taking of a significant part of Perenco’s site. The impact on the business is so severe that, unless alternative arrangements are made by Norfolk County Council (“NCC”), Perenco will be forced to leave Great Yarmouth. Document 4.4: Negotiations Tracker is now misleading. Perenco has been engaged in discussions with NCC, Peel Ports and ASCO UK Ltd (“ASCO”) for a considerable period for the remodelling of the Perenco and ASCO sites on an agreed basis so as to provide appropriate facilities for Perenco to remain. NCC has not brought this to fruition and Perenco is now in a position where the DCO, as it stands, will prevent it remaining in Great Yarmouth, since there are no alternative sites available. Perenco has currently no good business reason to leave; it is deeply ironic that a scheme which has an objective to support the offshore energy sector should be promoted on the basis that a leading North Sea operator should be forced to depart to another port, to its detriment and that of the local economy. . 2. Perenco now has to object to the scheme as a matter of principle, as well as questioning its justifications. The public good of providing a third crossing as proposed in this scheme does not outweigh the harm to Perenco’s business operation and impact on its land and North Sea operations, the loss of its business to its services supplier and the consequential impact on the town of loss of a major energy operator. NCC has not made an adequate case for the public interest being so compelling as to justify dispossession of Perenco. The scheme should not be allowed to proceed on the basis that Perenco would be forced to relocate to another port, which would require adequate time for planning and implementation. 3. NCC have considered alternatives previously. Whilst this scheme is their preferred choice, insufficient regard has been paid to the impact on Perenco. NCC should find an alternative way of meeting its objectives without causing the departure of Perenco. 4. Compensation would normally be dealt with under other procedures but the very high cost of relocation to another port is relevant to the financing of the scheme and requires a fundamental reappraisal. That compensation will represent a significant additional burden to the public purse which cannot be justified. 5. NCC’s approach to resolving transportation needs for the town is fundamentally flawed because it has failed to adequately account for the harm to Perenco, its supplier and the local economy from forcing Perenco to relocate. Compensation is not an adequate remedy. 6. Perenco operates over 48 gas platforms and 2 gas terminals and maintains some 2,300 kms of pipeline in the UK. All its marine vessels operate through Great Yarmouth, 60,000 tonnes of material are shipped through the port annually and the local supply chain is an integral part of its business."
Members of the Public/Businesses
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail
"Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. Royal Mail’s Delivery Office for Great Yarmouth is located at 6 North Quay NR30 1AA which is some 1.7 miles from the proposed Third River Crossing. This is a large and busy operational mail handling facility. The construction phase of the Third River Crossing may present risk of impact / delays to Royal Mail’s road based operations on the surrounding road network. Royal Mail has requested from Norfolk County Council confirmation on the extent of land required for the Variable Messaging Sign proposed adjacent to Great Yarmouth Delivery Office (Work No. 13D) as well as details of the proposed construction timescale. Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use all of the main roads that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of this proposed new river crossing. Any periods of road disruption/closure, night or day, have the potential to impact operations. Royal Mail therefore wishes to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public in accordance with its statutory obligations which may be adversely affected by the construction of this proposed scheme. In order to address the above concerns Royal Mail requests that the DCO application includes a requirement that Royal Mail is pre-consulted by Norfolk County Council or its contractors on: 1. any proposed road closures/ diversions/ alternative access arrangements, 2. hours of working, the content of the final Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and 3. details of the Variable Messaging Sign proposed adjacent to Great Yarmouth Delivery Office (Work No. 13D)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
RYA (East) (RYA (East)) on behalf of Royal Yachting Association
"Regarding Leisure and Small-Boat users:- (i). Any structure built into the waterway will restrict natural water flow-rate (akin to a 'weir-effect'); for upper-reaches of the whole Broads basin, this is highly likely to exacerbate risk of fluvial and pluvial (non-tidal) flooding up to ~20miles distant due to the system being less able to empty particularly after strong rain or after a 'Tidal Gate’ standstill of waters. Flood Risk has been conducted for the immediate surrounds of Works, but there is no evidence of such study having been effected yet for Upper Reaches of the Broads (issue discussed with and registered by Environment Agency). (ii). Small-boat "Waiting Pontoons” [ Not potentially inappropriate large-vessel fenderings ] are requested both within the inter-bridges pool (inside) and below the new bridge (outside). Norfolk & Suffolk Boating Association (NSBA) recommends waiting pontoons at all-four quadrants of any bridge to accommodate any small vessels which may have difficulty berthing in unfavourable conditions. Thus far within the Project only one location has been proposed below the new bridge; proposal for inter-bridges pontoon has been side-stepped. (iii). The eventual regime of openings (timing, signals, access) needs to accede to limitations of potentially slow moving and restricted manoeuvrability of smaller vessels, especially under sail. (iv). The intended Control Tower should in interests of efficiency operate both existing old and new bridges, particularly for through-passage of vessels accessing or exiting The Broads. (v). The reduced proposed height of the new bridge impacts on all of #i, #ii and #iii above; the trade-off from previous ~12.5m clearance could have seen substantial mitigation in all of these effects."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as sewerage undertaker for the above site: Anglian Water is in principle supportive of the above project. Impact on existing assets: There are existing water recycling infrastructure in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the above project. These assets are critical to enable us to carry out Anglian Water’s duty as sewerage undertaker. We have had discussions with the applicant regarding the above project. Protective provisions: We have previously requested the inclusion of specific wording for the benefit of Anglian Water as part of the Section 42 consultation. It is noted that specific protective provisions have been included in the current version of the DCO (Schedule 14, Part 4 of the Draft DCO) as requested. Therefore we are supportive of the wording of the Draft DCO as submitted subject to our comments relating to surface water disposal (please see below). Connections to public sewerage networks: Anglian Water is not aware of any requirements made upon them for a foul connection(s) to the public sewerage network for the above project. We understand that a surface water connection to an existing combined sewer is required to for the eastern part of the development as outlined in the submitted drainage strategy (document 6.2). We have had constructive discussions with the applicant regarding the proposed surface water strategy and are supportive of the strategy in principle subject to evidence being provided to demonstrate that they have followed the surface water hierarchy as specified in Part H of Building and further details of the flow control mechanisms to confirm the discharge rate which is assumed. We note that the Draft DCO as submitted includes a requirement for a surface water strategy to be submitted for approval by Norfolk County Council as County Planning Authority following consultation with a number of bodies (Schedule 2, Part 1). Given that the intention is that Anglian Water would continue to be involved in the development of surface water drainage strategy it is requested that the wording be amended to include reference to Anglian Water being consulted on the strategy. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing 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 and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing 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 low, medium and intermediate pressure gas pipelines and associated below or above ground apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits which may be affected by works proposed and which may require diversions subject to the impact assessment. 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 Cadent where necessary to allow Cadent to maintain its gas distribution network in accordance with its statutory obligations. To date, Cadent has not been consulted on the extent of land secured pursuant to the DCO or the form of rights to be acquired. Further discussion is required with the Promoter to identify the impact to Cadent apparatus. Furthermore, compulsory powers are sought across Cadent land and plots (plots 2-10, 2-11, 2-15 and 2-16) within which Cadent has rights of access to an existing gas depot. These rights of access must remain unfettered. To date Cadent has received limited correspondence in relation to proposals to acquire its land and requires further discussion on the likely impact of these proposals. 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 or discussed between parties. Cadent therefore wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will seek to engage with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Carl Smith
"As the Leader of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, I am wholly supportive of the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing. This key infrastructure project has been a long standing ambition of our Council to improve traffic flows throughout the borough and provide a direct link from the main trunk road to the South Denes Enterprise Zone which is focussed on the offshore energy sector. As England’s offshore energy sector capital, the borough is at the forefront of £39billion of energy investment over the next 20 years, with the world’s largest offshore windfarms already being built from here. As Norfolk’s top coastal resort, the bridge will also provide a link to Great Yarmouth’s seafront and the heart of our flagship visitor economy which is worth over £625million annually and supports an estimated 12,000 jobs. The bridge will help to create thousands of jobs and unlock further business, regeneration and economic growth opportunities. I would be willing to participate in the examination process to elaborate on the points made."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Graham Plant
"As the Deputy Leader of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, I am wholly supportive of the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing. This key infrastructure project has been a long standing ambition of our Council to improve traffic flows throughout the borough and provide a direct link from the main trunk road to the South Denes Enterprise Zone which is focussed on the offshore energy sector. As England’s offshore energy sector capital, the borough is at the forefront of £39billion of energy investment over the next 20 years, with the world’s largest offshore windfarms already being built from here. As Norfolk’s top coastal resort, the bridge will also provide a link to Great Yarmouth’s seafront and the heart of our flagship visitor economy which is worth over £625million annually and supports an estimated 12,000 jobs. The bridge will help to create thousands of jobs and unlock further business, regeneration and economic growth opportunities. I would be willing to participate in the examination process to elaborate on the points made."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Trevor Wainwright
"As the Leader of the Labour Group of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, I am wholly supportive of the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing. This key infrastructure project has been a long standing ambition of our Council to improve traffic flows throughout the borough and provide a direct link from the main trunk road to the South Denes Enterprise Zone which is focussed on the offshore energy sector. As England’s offshore energy sector capital, the borough is at the forefront of £39billion of energy investment over the next 20 years, with the world’s largest offshore windfarms already being built from here. As Norfolk’s top coastal resort, the bridge will also provide a link to Great Yarmouth’s seafront and the heart of our flagship visitor economy which is worth over £625million annually and supports an estimated 12,000 jobs. The bridge will help to create thousands of jobs and unlock further business, regeneration and economic growth opportunities. I would be willing to participate in the examination process to elaborate on the points made."
Local Authorities
Great Yarmouth Borough Council
"As Director of Development for Great Yarmouth Borough Council, I am wholly supportive of the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing. This key infrastructure project and protected route alignment is prominent in the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (December 2015) development plan for the borough and has been a long standing ambition of our Council. The compelling business case in support of the application highlights improved traffic flows throughout the borough and the provision of a direct link from the main trunk road to the South Denes Enterprise Zone which is focussed on the offshore energy sector. As England’s offshore energy sector capital, the borough is at the forefront of £39billion of energy investment over the next 20 years, with the world’s largest offshore windfarms already being built from here. Better connecting businesses across the area, including the Beacon Park Enterprise Zone site to the south of the borough, will unlock significant economic growth. As Norfolk’s top coastal resort, the bridge will also provide a link to Great Yarmouth’s seafront and the heart of our flagship visitor economy which is worth over £625million annually and supports an estimated 12,000 jobs. The bridge will help to create thousands of jobs and unlock further business, regeneration and economic growth opportunities. The Council would be especially interested in participating in the following topic areas during the examination: economic development; public realm / landscaping; sustainable transport connectivity; signage; surface water drainage and air quality. I am willing to participate in the examination process to elaborate on the points made (inclusive of the Local Impact Report) and request that I may also call upon other officers of Great Yarmouth Borough Council (for their technical expertise) to participate in the examination. David Glason BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI Director of Development Great Yarmouth Borough Council"
Local Authorities
Norfolk County Council
"- Why Norfolk County Council made the Third River Crossing one of its key infrastructure priorities - The Third River Crossing's importance to Great Yarmouth's and Norfolk's economy - The benefits the Third River Crossing will bring to the town and borough, such as reducing traffic congestion, shorter journey times and improved journey reliability, improved access to the port and energy-related enterprise zone, tackles severance issues caused by the river (including reducing emergency response times and increasing opportunities to walk and cycle), supporting the borough's visitor economy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hope (Borough of Great Yarmouth) (Hope (Borough of Great Yarmouth))
"I am writing regarding the new waiting and parking restrictions proposed in the relation to the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing. The particular area of concern is the proposed no waiting on Queen Anne’s Road outside the Kings Centre. The north side of this road is frequently used by centre users as overflow parking and having a no parking restriction imposed on this road would severely impact the day to day users and use of our popular community centre. Many of these users include parents with small children who would benefit from parking as near to the centre as possible. We would not have an objection to the south side of the road being designated as no waiting as this side is not used for parking anyway, but the north side of the road (alongside the pavement) is where we have the issue. The No Parking restriction seems to start outside of our entrance and head towards the roundabout from there. We would like to suggest that the no parking restriction starts a far as possible towards the roundabout, leaving space for more unrestricted parking than is currently proposed at the west end of Queen Anne’s road. I hope that this small adjustment can be made to the plans to help people to still be able to park and enjoy access our busy centre. Yours sincerely Julia Miller Chair of Trustees Hope (Borough of Great Yarmouth) Owners of the Kings Centre, Queen Anne's Road"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Great Yarmouth Port Users Association
"As an organisation that has represented the Port community for in excess of 40 years and the make up of our organisation is from those businesses that have relevance to the use of the Port of Gt Yarmouth. For over a decade the GYPUA has opposed the siting of the Gt Yarmouth 3rd river crossing at the selected position and not the principle of having a new crossing. The opposition is based on the fact that the new crossing will split the river and will Create a barrier which will (and is) act as an obstacle to attracting new businesses related to the Port to the north of the crossing as well as the possibility of preventing new investment from existing businesses. Other concerns are the difficulty created when the bridge is broken down and requiring repairs. This happens on several occasions to our haven bridge and has created difficulties for at least one business to the north of this bridge. Also the height of the air draft planned is such that will require significant openings to allow exit and entrance. We have had dialogue with the NCC and are looking at a Statement of common ground and at this point awaiting the final document, however we remain very concerned at the impact on river traffic and companies that rely on the river for their business."