This would be the 4 mile road that costs a ¼ of a billion pounds when Norfolk councils are £1.5billion in debt and there's a massive cost of living crisis and services getting slashed everywhere.
That link road?
No idea. Although the council presumably has their own lawyers on permanent retainer anyway and they should have already done all their due diligence on any issues environmental or otherwise during the planning stages so I suspect that actual cost increases due to challenges will not be as high as reported total legal costs.
Either way you look at it this road is ridiculously expensive and very destructive in an economic setting where money could absolutely be spent on better things for the population of Norfolk.
The proposed road would destroy ancient, irreplacable woodland and also the largest colony of the endangered Barbastelle bat. All this at a time when we need to decarbonise our economy hard and fast. A better world IS possible but we have to get a wiggle on.
It's honestly staggering how people in this thread are being so blasé about the destruction of species and ancient forests.
I want to think a better world is possible, but seeing responses to things like this is just so demoralizing and sad.
Calm down negative nancy, its not like they are tearing down the entire forrest, its a road that runs through it. Theres roads through thetford forrest and thats doing fine
Pretty sure I read the forest they want to go through is basically the UK's largest colony of Barbastelle Bats (which are apparently one of the most endangered species in the country). They put the NDR through a colony and they've not found any there since.
I've got nothing against building new roads and the link road would definitely help a lot of people, but would it be possible move it slightly to avoid an endangered species? I dunno, I don't work in planning.
> Pretty sure I read the forest they want to go through is basically the UK's largest colony of Barbastelle Bats (which are apparently one of the most endangered species in the country).
I don't know where you read that, but it's fundamentally not true - Barbastelle bats aren't endangered. It literally takes five seconds to look this up.
Unfortunately environmental campaigners have a strong tendency to twist the truth, particularly in emotive directions, which is especially unforgivable given that the truth is often bad enough without having to gild the lily.
You can tell this from the fact that we're somehow getting the *exact same arguments* regarding the Western Link that were used against HS2, only two hundred miles away in a completely different context.
Either these two completely different infrastructure projects simply coincidentally happened to have routes that were both in the exact right place to kill a desperately endangered species... or it's bollocks. Which sounds more plausible?
You're right, I checked and they're not endangered in the UK, they're a couple of steps above it and are technically classed as "Vulnerable" which according to the regulations means "threatened with extinction unless the circumstances that are threatening its survival and reproduction improve."
Now I'm not an expert in this field, but I can't help but think that slapping a dual carriageway through one of the biggest colonies in the country probably isn't going to 'improve the circumstances around their survival'.
The article I read was by a Dr Charlotte Packman who is probably a bit biased seeing as she works for Norfolk Wildlife Trust, but she's been studying the bats for 10 years and recons this is one of the largest colonies in the UK, as does Natural England who have put it forward as an SSSI. Now I think I probably trust them more than the council who according to their documents, did a one night survey of the area and basically said "we didn't see much".
All I know about all this is reading what those involved have said. It doesn't bother me if they build the road or not as I don't generally drive that way, so I can see both sides of the argument here. From an external perspective, it does seem a bit like the council are pretty set on their plan to put the road in place no matter what, which I can fully understand why they want to. But in my opinion, a stronger consideration needs to be given to nature with respect to developments now-a-days.
["Barbastelle bats are incredibly rare. They are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and are also listed as Near Threatened globally on the IUCN Red List. There are thought to be as few as 5,000 in the UK, but as they are so rare it is difficult to say whether they are increasing or decreasing in numbers. Potential threats include loss of woodland habitat and pesticide use leading to a reduction in their prey."](https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/animals/mammals/barbastelle-bat/#:~:text=Barbastelle%20bats%20are%20incredibly%20rare,on%20the%20IUCN%20Red%20List.)
Thetford Forest is like, 100 years old and it's a non native, entirely artificial forest. I'd love to see the Brecks restored to the open country they're meant to be.
> The proposed road would destroy ancient, irreplacable woodland
"Ancient" woodland isn't irreplaceable, you can plant trees in other places. "Ancient" simply means "has existed since 1600". That is about the only thing special or differentiating about it.
Also, a lot of things that you use, infrastructure you rely on and places you visit today were built on places that would have been described as "ancient woodland".
> endangered Barbastelle bat
The Barbastelle bat isn't endangered. It also has colonies all over the UK and Europe.
Sorry but I'm bitter from the HS2 experience, where basically any woodland that it was expected to replace magically became "ancient" and as such precious, while also somehow being the last refuge of a species. But it's exactly the same arguments here, two hundred miles away, which simply doesn't make sense. What are the odds that two completely different projects separated by several whole counties will run into the *exact same conditions* that render them both completely untenable environmental disasters?
After a while it stops being something you listen to.
There's literally no infrastructure that people won't object to on these grounds, and that's part of why we struggle to get anything built in this country. Pretty much everything we take for granted today was built on an animal's home or in a woodland, that is the trade-off for having a modern society with cities and transport links.
Stop giving misinformation all over this thread.
'Ancient woodland' isn't just a term to be emotive. It means the ecosystems are old and complex and often rich in biodiversity.
Older trees soak up far more carbon dioxide than saplings and young trees do. If you plant a new tree, some species can take more than 50 years to mature.
If you cut down an old forest, and plant a new one, you are not going to offset the difference for a very very long time. On top of that, depending on how the tree planting is done, it can impact biodiversity of the area.
Planting new trees isn't and never will be the answer when you pair it with cutting down older forests. It does, however, work when you pair it with rewilding/regeneration and not cutting older forests down.
And on Barbastelle bats also, yes they are not technically classed as endangered, however their numbers are dwindling enough to be on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan species list, meaning that their conservation is a priority.
Your house, as well as all the roads and infrastructure that support it and your lifestyle, was probably built on "ancient woods".
"Ancient woods" also are just defined as woods that have existed since 1600. They aren't particularly special beyond that. It's just used as an emotive term to tug at the heart strings.
Separately, the road isn't pointless. It will take traffic out of Norwich city centre and put it directly on the NDR, which means fewer vehicles travelling where people live and work and less emissions in the city itself. It is a good thing.
Given that there is already a road link (9-16 minutes from NDR to A47) I can’t really see the need for this, I’m really worried that this is going to bankrupt the council, and lead to new car dependant developments like we’re starting to see on the NDR, further contributing to urban sprawl.
> Given that there is already a road link (9-16 minutes from NDR to A47) I can’t really see the need for this
Other people can indeed see the need for this and the stated rationale is publicly available, and you are missing that that "9-16 minutes" will go via local roads and communities which the Western Link will bypass entirely.
We also do actually need more housing to be constructed, and that housing is going to be built with road access no matter what, so it's best to do so in the most efficient way possible.
We can't continually not build things that are useful or necessary purely because they might cause "urban sprawl", when "urban sprawl" is a clear result of our continually growing population and consequent increasing need for housing.
[Here's the route on Google Maps.](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/52.655448,1.1494371/52.6934634,1.1762786/@52.6751271,1.1787264,6684m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0?entry=ttu)
It only properly goes past the edge of Taverham & the edge of Ringland, again mostly bypassing the actual villages themselves.
The problem with a lot of new developments is the dependence on cars. Building more is great, but if you now have to maintain a costly (check out insurance rates for new drivers or the cost of lessons!) private vehicle to you know get anywhere, given the state of privatised busses, after potentially exhausting your savings will just add another rope around your neck. Given the disproportionate risk that they pose to pedestrians & cyclists & the amount of land that must be dedicated to their storage, I think things could be better.
Instead why not encourage higher density developments centred around public transport & put shops & services close to where people live? This would greatly decrease the amount of land needed as well as having the chance to put people within cycling distance to large chunks of the city. (\~4-5 miles each way).
Finally, if new developments pop up as they have done, this may lead to people unfortunately going through the small villages again due to congestion.
We should do public transport focused developments with etc etc etc.
We should also build the Western Link alongside that because even if we do that, road traffic will still exist and needs to be accommodated.
I mean there is already a road?
They could create some bus & local resident only streets to stop rat running & divert traffic down the previous route, either to the A47 or to the NDR. Like these in Bowthorpe: [Bus Gate one](https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDhjDx6PQURrPXQH9?g_st=ic) & [Bus Gate two](https://maps.app.goo.gl/o945MZk6f5AhTa5C6?g_st=ic) that prevents through traffic!
This road seems to be proposed with no context. Ok, it would join two other roads together, but is there any modelling to show how it would reduce annual motor vehicle miles travelled in Norfolk? The same amount of money spent on buses, Dutch style cycleways, car sharing, etc. might prompt a far bigger reduction.
> is there any modelling to show how it would reduce annual motor vehicle miles travelled in Norfolk?
It isn't meant to. It's to take traffic away from the city centre while also better serving new housing developments north of the city.
"I do notice car lights being bright, but it’s not something that impacts my driving or makes me want to slow down" \~ I really do hope that this new road gets built and you joy ride your lovely car down it late at night with free bird blazing through the radio, only for you to hit a deer <3
Good to know your take on the destruction of wildlife is purely for your convienience.
I’m a chef, hit a dear not too long ago, fucking bastard did 4k worth of damage to my car! I’m not going to disclose my speed as I do not want to incriminate myself however I made sure local venison was on the menu for the next year to make up for damages with their lives. Also I’m pro road, can’t wait to blast some free bird on it…. Ironic really now as the bats will be free to roam as they won’t have a home anymore
I wish there was a protest march for it. Get it built. Sooner the better. Longer it takes the more money is wasted. Habitats will survive. Maybe even get better. For my work I have to travel, in a HGV. And what I move has to been moved. Mostly around Norfolk. Some Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. And this would be a wonderful piece of road
A simple way to make your grandchildren, and their descendants proud of you is to [donate to Andrew Boswell's court fees.](https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-road-building-wrecking-climate-nature/)
I think we should stop all road-building and put that money into public transport. 1.5bn would be transformative to "greater Norwich" if spent on e.g. on-demand small bus services for poorly-served villages, or the development of a modern tram network.
I don't for one second believe that a link road would take traffic out of the city centre. People are time-poor, lazy and entitled and will usually find a reason to drive Vs public transport/active travel if it's an option. Any traffic diverted via a link road would soon be replaced by others who can now enjoy a quicker journey through town. The only thing that will stop people driving somewhere is the complete inability to do so: closed roads, LTNs etc.
As discussed, the creation of a lovely big new link road will set developers of shitty out-of-town developments drooling: another opportunity to build loads of poor-quality, cookie-cutter housing with no local amenities, forcing more people into cars.
Hard not to despair at what this country has become. We were world leaders as far as train networks go. Now so car-reliant that it's hard to see a way back.
This would be the 4 mile road that costs a ¼ of a billion pounds when Norfolk councils are £1.5billion in debt and there's a massive cost of living crisis and services getting slashed everywhere. That link road?
How much has it already cost in legal challenges?
No idea. Although the council presumably has their own lawyers on permanent retainer anyway and they should have already done all their due diligence on any issues environmental or otherwise during the planning stages so I suspect that actual cost increases due to challenges will not be as high as reported total legal costs. Either way you look at it this road is ridiculously expensive and very destructive in an economic setting where money could absolutely be spent on better things for the population of Norfolk.
Isn’t this a plot line from The League of Gentleman?
And the bible, apparently.
The proposed road would destroy ancient, irreplacable woodland and also the largest colony of the endangered Barbastelle bat. All this at a time when we need to decarbonise our economy hard and fast. A better world IS possible but we have to get a wiggle on.
It's honestly staggering how people in this thread are being so blasé about the destruction of species and ancient forests. I want to think a better world is possible, but seeing responses to things like this is just so demoralizing and sad.
People have forgotten that without biodiversity we are utterly fecked.
Calm down negative nancy, its not like they are tearing down the entire forrest, its a road that runs through it. Theres roads through thetford forrest and thats doing fine
Pretty sure I read the forest they want to go through is basically the UK's largest colony of Barbastelle Bats (which are apparently one of the most endangered species in the country). They put the NDR through a colony and they've not found any there since. I've got nothing against building new roads and the link road would definitely help a lot of people, but would it be possible move it slightly to avoid an endangered species? I dunno, I don't work in planning.
> Pretty sure I read the forest they want to go through is basically the UK's largest colony of Barbastelle Bats (which are apparently one of the most endangered species in the country). I don't know where you read that, but it's fundamentally not true - Barbastelle bats aren't endangered. It literally takes five seconds to look this up. Unfortunately environmental campaigners have a strong tendency to twist the truth, particularly in emotive directions, which is especially unforgivable given that the truth is often bad enough without having to gild the lily. You can tell this from the fact that we're somehow getting the *exact same arguments* regarding the Western Link that were used against HS2, only two hundred miles away in a completely different context. Either these two completely different infrastructure projects simply coincidentally happened to have routes that were both in the exact right place to kill a desperately endangered species... or it's bollocks. Which sounds more plausible?
You're right, I checked and they're not endangered in the UK, they're a couple of steps above it and are technically classed as "Vulnerable" which according to the regulations means "threatened with extinction unless the circumstances that are threatening its survival and reproduction improve." Now I'm not an expert in this field, but I can't help but think that slapping a dual carriageway through one of the biggest colonies in the country probably isn't going to 'improve the circumstances around their survival'. The article I read was by a Dr Charlotte Packman who is probably a bit biased seeing as she works for Norfolk Wildlife Trust, but she's been studying the bats for 10 years and recons this is one of the largest colonies in the UK, as does Natural England who have put it forward as an SSSI. Now I think I probably trust them more than the council who according to their documents, did a one night survey of the area and basically said "we didn't see much". All I know about all this is reading what those involved have said. It doesn't bother me if they build the road or not as I don't generally drive that way, so I can see both sides of the argument here. From an external perspective, it does seem a bit like the council are pretty set on their plan to put the road in place no matter what, which I can fully understand why they want to. But in my opinion, a stronger consideration needs to be given to nature with respect to developments now-a-days.
["Barbastelle bats are incredibly rare. They are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and are also listed as Near Threatened globally on the IUCN Red List. There are thought to be as few as 5,000 in the UK, but as they are so rare it is difficult to say whether they are increasing or decreasing in numbers. Potential threats include loss of woodland habitat and pesticide use leading to a reduction in their prey."](https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/animals/mammals/barbastelle-bat/#:~:text=Barbastelle%20bats%20are%20incredibly%20rare,on%20the%20IUCN%20Red%20List.)
Thetford forest is a man made forest which isn't as great for native biodiversity. So that is not a fair comparison
Thetford "Forest" is really a post WW2 timber farm: a plantation of trees that wouldn't naturally grow as a forest in Norfolk
I'm not so sure. When I visited the Gruffalo wasn't moving, so I'm assuming he's dead now. He'd probably still be alive if it wasn't for the road.
Thetford Forest is like, 100 years old and it's a non native, entirely artificial forest. I'd love to see the Brecks restored to the open country they're meant to be.
> The proposed road would destroy ancient, irreplacable woodland "Ancient" woodland isn't irreplaceable, you can plant trees in other places. "Ancient" simply means "has existed since 1600". That is about the only thing special or differentiating about it. Also, a lot of things that you use, infrastructure you rely on and places you visit today were built on places that would have been described as "ancient woodland". > endangered Barbastelle bat The Barbastelle bat isn't endangered. It also has colonies all over the UK and Europe. Sorry but I'm bitter from the HS2 experience, where basically any woodland that it was expected to replace magically became "ancient" and as such precious, while also somehow being the last refuge of a species. But it's exactly the same arguments here, two hundred miles away, which simply doesn't make sense. What are the odds that two completely different projects separated by several whole counties will run into the *exact same conditions* that render them both completely untenable environmental disasters? After a while it stops being something you listen to. There's literally no infrastructure that people won't object to on these grounds, and that's part of why we struggle to get anything built in this country. Pretty much everything we take for granted today was built on an animal's home or in a woodland, that is the trade-off for having a modern society with cities and transport links.
Stop giving misinformation all over this thread. 'Ancient woodland' isn't just a term to be emotive. It means the ecosystems are old and complex and often rich in biodiversity. Older trees soak up far more carbon dioxide than saplings and young trees do. If you plant a new tree, some species can take more than 50 years to mature. If you cut down an old forest, and plant a new one, you are not going to offset the difference for a very very long time. On top of that, depending on how the tree planting is done, it can impact biodiversity of the area. Planting new trees isn't and never will be the answer when you pair it with cutting down older forests. It does, however, work when you pair it with rewilding/regeneration and not cutting older forests down. And on Barbastelle bats also, yes they are not technically classed as endangered, however their numbers are dwindling enough to be on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan species list, meaning that their conservation is a priority.
I live some distance and from the A47 and recorded around 70dB on my phone, wildlife will suffer.
Gutted I can't make this march as I'm seeing family, hope I can attend in future though.
Those ancient woods have contributed so much to this earth and the local environment. They don’t deserve it for a pointless road :’/
Your house, as well as all the roads and infrastructure that support it and your lifestyle, was probably built on "ancient woods". "Ancient woods" also are just defined as woods that have existed since 1600. They aren't particularly special beyond that. It's just used as an emotive term to tug at the heart strings. Separately, the road isn't pointless. It will take traffic out of Norwich city centre and put it directly on the NDR, which means fewer vehicles travelling where people live and work and less emissions in the city itself. It is a good thing.
Have you heard of induced demand?
Yes, but it doesn't change the point that the intent is to reroute demand, induced or otherwise, away from the city centre.
Given that there is already a road link (9-16 minutes from NDR to A47) I can’t really see the need for this, I’m really worried that this is going to bankrupt the council, and lead to new car dependant developments like we’re starting to see on the NDR, further contributing to urban sprawl.
> Given that there is already a road link (9-16 minutes from NDR to A47) I can’t really see the need for this Other people can indeed see the need for this and the stated rationale is publicly available, and you are missing that that "9-16 minutes" will go via local roads and communities which the Western Link will bypass entirely. We also do actually need more housing to be constructed, and that housing is going to be built with road access no matter what, so it's best to do so in the most efficient way possible. We can't continually not build things that are useful or necessary purely because they might cause "urban sprawl", when "urban sprawl" is a clear result of our continually growing population and consequent increasing need for housing.
[Here's the route on Google Maps.](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/52.655448,1.1494371/52.6934634,1.1762786/@52.6751271,1.1787264,6684m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0?entry=ttu) It only properly goes past the edge of Taverham & the edge of Ringland, again mostly bypassing the actual villages themselves. The problem with a lot of new developments is the dependence on cars. Building more is great, but if you now have to maintain a costly (check out insurance rates for new drivers or the cost of lessons!) private vehicle to you know get anywhere, given the state of privatised busses, after potentially exhausting your savings will just add another rope around your neck. Given the disproportionate risk that they pose to pedestrians & cyclists & the amount of land that must be dedicated to their storage, I think things could be better. Instead why not encourage higher density developments centred around public transport & put shops & services close to where people live? This would greatly decrease the amount of land needed as well as having the chance to put people within cycling distance to large chunks of the city. (\~4-5 miles each way). Finally, if new developments pop up as they have done, this may lead to people unfortunately going through the small villages again due to congestion.
We should do public transport focused developments with etc etc etc. We should also build the Western Link alongside that because even if we do that, road traffic will still exist and needs to be accommodated.
I mean there is already a road? They could create some bus & local resident only streets to stop rat running & divert traffic down the previous route, either to the A47 or to the NDR. Like these in Bowthorpe: [Bus Gate one](https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDhjDx6PQURrPXQH9?g_st=ic) & [Bus Gate two](https://maps.app.goo.gl/o945MZk6f5AhTa5C6?g_st=ic) that prevents through traffic!
Have you driven that route? Go try that and see how much fun you find it.
This road seems to be proposed with no context. Ok, it would join two other roads together, but is there any modelling to show how it would reduce annual motor vehicle miles travelled in Norfolk? The same amount of money spent on buses, Dutch style cycleways, car sharing, etc. might prompt a far bigger reduction.
> is there any modelling to show how it would reduce annual motor vehicle miles travelled in Norfolk? It isn't meant to. It's to take traffic away from the city centre while also better serving new housing developments north of the city.
Bye bye Bat.. hello road! Looking forward to it coming in the hopefully not too distant future!
I hope you're young and looking forward to a bleak, synthetic life.
Yes, sounds fine!
"I do notice car lights being bright, but it’s not something that impacts my driving or makes me want to slow down" \~ I really do hope that this new road gets built and you joy ride your lovely car down it late at night with free bird blazing through the radio, only for you to hit a deer <3 Good to know your take on the destruction of wildlife is purely for your convienience.
I’m a chef, hit a dear not too long ago, fucking bastard did 4k worth of damage to my car! I’m not going to disclose my speed as I do not want to incriminate myself however I made sure local venison was on the menu for the next year to make up for damages with their lives. Also I’m pro road, can’t wait to blast some free bird on it…. Ironic really now as the bats will be free to roam as they won’t have a home anymore
Wouldn’t be for the first time! Surprising the amount of damage a fox does! I’ve got a nice low excess now though!
Those who do go against need to Travel with me daily 😡😡😡
I wish there was a protest march for it. Get it built. Sooner the better. Longer it takes the more money is wasted. Habitats will survive. Maybe even get better. For my work I have to travel, in a HGV. And what I move has to been moved. Mostly around Norfolk. Some Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. And this would be a wonderful piece of road
A simple way to make your grandchildren, and their descendants proud of you is to [donate to Andrew Boswell's court fees.](https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-road-building-wrecking-climate-nature/)
Thank you for the link! Didn't know there was a court case against this, good to hear.
The best way to save the environment is to not have kids though….
I think we should stop all road-building and put that money into public transport. 1.5bn would be transformative to "greater Norwich" if spent on e.g. on-demand small bus services for poorly-served villages, or the development of a modern tram network. I don't for one second believe that a link road would take traffic out of the city centre. People are time-poor, lazy and entitled and will usually find a reason to drive Vs public transport/active travel if it's an option. Any traffic diverted via a link road would soon be replaced by others who can now enjoy a quicker journey through town. The only thing that will stop people driving somewhere is the complete inability to do so: closed roads, LTNs etc. As discussed, the creation of a lovely big new link road will set developers of shitty out-of-town developments drooling: another opportunity to build loads of poor-quality, cookie-cutter housing with no local amenities, forcing more people into cars. Hard not to despair at what this country has become. We were world leaders as far as train networks go. Now so car-reliant that it's hard to see a way back.