1. Section 51 advice
  2. Advice in detail

Advice to Melody Wright

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Melody Wright
Date advice given
9 June 2014
Enquiry type
Email

I was at the meeting at St. Andrews hall and came away confused and unconvinced that the mislaid documents issue has been openly and convincingly dealt with. I feel unhappy that such a major development should start with such shaky foundations. It's a matter of confidence and trust. Of course this is in addition to any original objection that I simply do not think the huge cost of such a road is acceptable, when the county cannot afford to keep present roads free of potholes. Apparently our weather events are becoming more severe, so road maintenance costs will increase. My other concern is the attraction and charm of Norfolk has always been it's rural and - dare I say - sleepy reputation. This does not mean backward, we have a vibrant and flourishing county, without any more major roads. Surely we should be encouraging fewer, not more, cars. A city encircled by a ring of speeding traffic - please no.

Advice given

I am sorry to hear that you were confused and unconvinced following the Preliminary Meeting. The issue has been discussed at some length within the Planning Inspectorate and with other parties. The Planning Inspectorate?s assessment of the episode is contained within our section 55 acceptance checklist at http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010015/2.%20Post-Submission/Procedural%20Decisions/TR010015_Norwich%20Distributor%20Road_Section_55_Checklist.doc.pdf. We have also explained our process in correspondence with CPRE, at http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/eastern/norwich-northern-distributor-road-ndr/?ipcsection=advice&ipcadvice=3cedad9354.

Your own representation has been published at http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/eastern/norwich-northern-distributor-road-ndr/?ipcsection=relreps&relrep=998, and you may use our website to view any other submission. We publish material after the deadline for which it was submitted, so any party can check whether their material has been included.

The latter part of your email deals with the merits of the scheme, and I would consider this to the a written representation, in accordance with the Examining Authority's request of Friday 6 June 2014. Therefore, unless I hear otherwise, this will also be published and considered in the examination.