Cyclists, campaigners and politicians have reacted with anger and frustration after the cycling elements of a plan to boost safety at a notoriously dangerous junction were suddenly entirely dropped by the council.
While Norfolk County Council has blamed “rising costs and limited funding” for the removal of cycling safety improvements from the plan for the Dereham Road-Larkman Lane junction, cycling campaigners say the decision “makes a mockery of the council’s own stated aims of putting cycling at the heart of decision making”.
Proposals were first drawn up in November 2021, with toucan crossings, realigned kerbs, a shared-use section of path and other cycling features which, while the Norwich Cycling Campaign notes were far from perfect, would “have delivered some tangible benefits for cyclists, especially in making the junction safer”.
The Conservative councillor responsible for transport, Graham Plant, has ditched the cycling aspects of the project, with the announcement made quietly on the council’s website and “rising costs and limited availability” blamed.
“It is regrettable that we are no longer able to deliver the full range of highway improvements originally proposed at this location, at the current time,” he told us.
“We are however, using further funding secured through our Bus Service Improvement Plan to provide priority for buses, improved passenger information and a new pedestrian refuge. This funding must be primarily aimed at enhancing our public transport provision but we will continue to seek further funding opportunities through Active Travel England and other sources to deliver additional walking, wheeling and cycling enhancements at this location, similar to those originally proposed, based on the funding available.”
While the council is keen to tell us cycling improvements may follow in the future, Peter Silburn, the chair of the Norwich Cycling Campaign, called it “nonsense” and suggested “this is an excuse we’ve heard time and time again from Norfolk County Council”.
“Cycling schemes get watered down or key features get removed. Then we get told: ‘Don’t worry, we can come back and do that later.’ Which never happens […] This decision makes a mockery of the council’s own stated aims of putting cycling at the heart of decision making and putting ‘the highest priority’ on the safety of people walking and cycling.
“The Dereham Road/Larkman Lane junction is on a key cycle route into the city that is notoriously dangerous for anyone on a bike. Significant changes have been made elsewhere along Dereham Road and this section is badly in need of safety improvements.”
Independent councillor Maxine Webb spoke out about the axing of the cycling plans too, saying she was left “stunned and fuming” by the decision.
“I couldn’t believe it when I realised what had happened, I thought it had to be a mistake,” she told the BBC. “Everything that was in those plans was costed at the time. The idea it’s no longer funded just doesn’t add up.”
The decision has raised additional controversy about a “steering group” that was set up to replace the former Transport for Norwich Advisory Committee, meaning that talks about projects such as this one would no longer take place in public and would instead happen behind closed doors. It was also revealed, via an FOI, that the group has not met since December.
Refuting some of the claims made since last week, Plant and the council have insisted the steering group is not “a decision-making body” and that it is “absolutely correct” transport project decisions happen away from its meetings.
The Norwich Cycling Campaign suggested the whole situation is “concerning” and accused Plant of being “content to make decisions with no input from the members of the steering group”.
“This results in bad decision making,” Silburn told us. “The decision on the Dereham Road/Larkman Lane scheme is a case in point. The Dereham Road/Larkman Lane crossing is an extremely dangerous junction for cyclists which desperately needs to be made safer. The changes in this scheme, whilst not brilliant, went some way towards addressing that danger.
“Norfolk County Council included this scheme in their successful £32m bid for money from the Transforming Cities Fund. The purpose of the fund was to enable local authorities to build sustainable transport infrastructure.
“The scheme that went out to public consultation included changes to make the junction safer for cyclists, and one of the stated aims of the scheme was ‘to encourage walking and cycling’ and ‘to improve connectivity between different modes of travel’. The cycling campaign was happy to support the scheme on this basis, as was the local county councillor.”
Construction on the amended plan is set to start on September 22, with no cycling safety improvements included.
“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Norfolk County Council are just not serious about active travel. Despite all the talk, there is no ambition whatsoever, no vision for what a more sustainable Norfolk might look like,” Silburn concluded.
3 thoughts on “Cyclists slam “secret” move to scrap all cycling safety features from plan to improve “horrendously dangerous” junction, as campaigners call council’s excuse about lack of funding “nonsense””
“The Conservative councillor
“The Conservative councillor responsible for transport, Graham Plant, has ditched the cycling aspects of the project,…”
Trying to out-fUK RefUK. Pathetic. Really, really pathetic.
Councillor Plant should be made to show his working: how much it originally cost, the original funding, the cost now and why the available funding won’t cover it. This is a political decision and the voters should be asking some very pointed questions of Cllr Plant, like why hasn’t the steering group met since December? how can you call it a steering group when it doesn’t know where it’s going?
TBF every political shade I
TBF every political shade I know of (you’d be able to advise on the Greens) have been happy to save cash on active travel aspects of schemes, even though this is usually one of the cheaper items.
Lots of reasons but in some cases it’s “on expert advice” – because as Chris Boardman has noted several times our internal metrics are set up to ignore the “externalities” of more driving but they certainly penalise reducing motor traffic capacity (often indirectly, like journey time metrics).
Until there is “mass cycling” this will be an easy choice to make, politically.
And even after – cycling is susceptible to other interests profiting at its expense, because it delivers benefits that are distributed and often come as “savings” – where eg.selling new motor vehicles / getting a public transport contract represents a large chunk of hard cash, normally in very few hands).
I’m not sure it is political,
I’m not sure it is political, the county council isn’t under any Reform threat and Norwich is politically at odds with both parties anyway, so there are no votes in this either way.
I just dont think they’re very pro cycling infra on that county council
And you could make the argument Dereham road isn’t the place to do this stuff anyway, as you’d have to do the whole lot you can’t fix 1 junction and then dump people on an inner ring road roundabout to cross. And they should do more to promote the quiet way routes parallel to Dereham road. Which is what TFL do and no one complains they arent fixing every junction in London.