Site specific Policies and Proposal Policies DPD Submission ...

Appendices
Site specific Policies and Proposal
Policies DPD
Submission Consultation Statement
Regulation 25 Consultation 2008 - ‘Call for Sites’
Appendix A. Breckland Voice article.
Appendix B. Correspondence sent to consultees advertising the call for sites.
Regulation 25 Consultation 2008 – Issues and Options
Appendix C. Press Release for consultation.
Appendix D. Correspondence sent to statutory and general consultees
advertising the Consultation.
Appendix E. Full list of Parish meetings and outcomes.
Appendix F. Member Forum Drop in session and results.
Regulation 25 Consultation 2009 – ‘Additional Sites’
Appendix G. Correspondence sent to statutory and general consultees.
Regulation 25 Consultation 2010 - ‘Preferred Options’
Appendix H. Press advert for consultation and press release.
Appendix I. Correspondence sent to statutory and general consultees.
Appendix J. Comment Form.
Appendix K. Paris Council attendance list.
Appendix L. Preferred site ‘site notices’.
Appendix M. Parish Posters.
Appendix N. Roudham consultation.
Appendix O. Comments Received and recommendations made at Regulation
25 Consultation 2010 ‘Preferred Options’.
Appendix P. Recommendation of the LDF task and Finish Group.
Regulation 27 Publication 2011 (Proposed Submission)
Appendix Q. Press advert for consultation.
Appendix R. Correspondence sent to statutory and general consultees.
Appendix S. Statement of Representations.
Appendix T. Standardised comment form.
All Consultation Stages
Appendix U. List of all Consultees Invited to Comment During the
Preparation of the DPD.

Appendix A: Breckland Voice Article
Figure 1 – Breckland Voice article March to April Issue 2008

Appendix B: Correspondence advertising
events
Figure 2 Example letter sent to landowners, developers and all other interested
parties

Appendix C: Press Release
Figure 3 Press article of June 5 th 2008 within the Dereham Times

Figure 4 Press article of June 5 th 2008 within the Eastern Daily Press

Appendix D: Correspondence advertising
events
Figure 5 Example statutory correspondences

Figure 6 Example non statutory correspondences

Appendix E: Full list of Parish Meetings and
outcomes

Figure 7 List of Parish Council Meetings.

Outcomes
Parish(es) Attleborough
Date 14 th July 2008
Venue Attleborough Town Hall
Attendance David Spencer, Sam Hubbard
10 TC Members
Town Clerk
15 Public,
Cllrs Stasiak, Byrne and Francis.
Issues Raised o Confirmation that submitted sites exceed the land area
needed to accommodate the growth
o Broad recognition that north of the town underrepresented
and not a desirable direction for growth
o Concern that not enough land had been submitted for
jobs.
o No dissent around the 4,000 homes figure. Strong
support for a link road to be built to access land to the
south of railway.
o Strong demands from Mayor for a public meeting / event
around the site specifics
o No specific views about sites raised, Attleborough Town
Council confirmed that they would not comment on sites
in Besthorpe Parish.
o Concern around the viability of 40% affordable housing
if a link road is to be delivered
o Issues raised around relocating the railway to further
south of the town as an inexpensive alternative to
building a new access road
o A greater variety of homes are needed (sizes and cost)
o Town desperately needs more open space and leisure
facilities – growth presents opportunities
Parish(es) Bawdeswell (and Foxley)
Date 7 th July 2008
Venue Bawdeswell Village Hall
Attendance AL, SH, All PC Members plus Gordon Bambridge, Ward Rep
plus Chairman of Foxley.15 members of the public
Issues Raised • Unhappy that Site Specifics doc mentions the possibility
of LSC status
• Do not want growth above that allowed for in Core Strat
• Do not want to be an LSC
• PC had already cpnsiderd the sites
• Are interested in part of one to the south as being
included in a SB tweak
• Interested in affordable housing for the village
Foxley
• Do not want growth above an beyond that allowed ofr in
Core Strat
• Want to keep their SB but like it particularly tight

Both generally happy with consultation and status to date
Parish(es) Besthorpe
Date 14 th July 2008
Venue Besthorpe Church
Attendance David Spencer,
6 PC Members
Parish Clerk
30 Public,
No Ward Representatives
Issues Raised o Opposition to growth on the eastern side of
Attleborough
o Strong opposition to development and a possible link
road further dissecting the Parish
o Concern that land has been submitted to the LDF
process without the consent of various landowners (at
least 3 landowners identified at the meeting)
o Concern that the network of quiet lanes and green
areas to the south east of Attleborough would be lost
o Lack of agreement that Attleborough represented a
sustainable location for growth – sceptical that people
will use public transport (i.e rail)
o Sceptical that there are sufficient local people to occupy
the housing and that the growth is to accommodate
retired people and economic migrants
Parish(es) Bradenham
Date 6 th May 2008
Venue Bradenham Village Hall
Attendance David Spencer
5 PC Members
10 Members of the Public
Councillor Mrs Hewett
Issues Raised o Concern around removing settlement boundaries –
wanted to keep existing boundary
o Support for the strategy for Bradenham – no significant
growth, only occasional development and affordable
housing.
o Some concern from residents about affordable housing
– will it genuinely meet local needs?
o Highlighted that land to north of the village potentially
floods – River Wissey
o Agreement that village services had declined in last 20
years but unlikely that small-scale development will
bring back a shop or improved public transport
Parish(es) Carbrooke
Date 8 th July 2008
Venue Carbrooke Village Hall
Attendance AL, DS, 5 Members of PC, Ward Rep John Rogers, 7 members
of public
Issues Raised o No real views on sites put forward
o Concern that large scale development in the parish e.g.

RAF sites does not relate well to rest of parish
o Feel RAF site developer contributions should be best
felt in village
o Debate over the future of the school in terms on impact
of RAF site and development
o Concern over drainage issues and impact of
development
Parish(es) Croxton
Date 10 th & 15 th July (15th Public Meeting)
Venue Croxton Village Hall
Attendance Al, 5PC members; Ward Reps Robert Childerhouse and County
Member Ian Monson at meeting of 10 th , District Rep only on
15th
Issues Raised o Concern that Thetford extensions will encroach into
parish
o Support for Thetford SE extension
o Concern over issue of parish boundaries
o Within current Croxton SB don’t want to see much new
development
o Some support for Thetford growth if stays inside bypass
o Big debate re: parish boundary movements
Parish(es) Eynesford Ward
Date 02 July 20008
Venue Lyng Village Hall
Attendance PH, District Councillor, approximately 8 members of the Parish
Councils of Lyng, Foxley and Sparham
Issues Raised o No specific concerns expressed over position of the
villages within the overall strategy.
o Clear that Lyng was not against all further development.
o Significant concern expressed over the effect of new
development on the conservation area in Lyng.
o Significant debate on the weight that was given to
Parish Council comments in the development control
process and concerns raised that comments would not
be taken into account in the process.
o Lyng would like to see a stronger policy requiring new
development to be built in a traditional form within the
conservation area.
Parish(es) Fransham
Date 29 th July 2008
Venue Fransham Village Hall
Attendance AL, PH, 5-6 PC Members, 35 Public – No Ward Rep present
Issues Raised o General feeling that they don’t want a SB
o Concern over ad hoc DC decisions, i.e. mushroom farm
and garage
o Don’t feel their 2 key services – farm shop and pub -
are enough to warrant further growth
o Concern over impact of future development and existing
sewage capacity
o General feeling that issue of SB has been integrated but
too difficult to draw – too spread out

o No specific views about sites raised
Parish(es) Garvestone
Date 23 rd July 2008
Venue Thuxton Church
Attendance David Spencer,
6 PC Members
Parish Clerk
15 Public,
No Ward Representative
Issues Raised o Concern about recent developments in the village –
particularly outside of the current settlement boundary
o Some support for the idea of removing settlement
boundaries to curtail future development
o Strong support that the settlement boundary should not
be amended to include sites which had been permitted
outside of the Settlement boundary since 1999.
Parish(es) Griston
Date 9 th September 2008
Venue Manor Road Day Centre, Griston
Attendance AL, 6 PC Members, 1 Member of the Public. Ward Rep not
present
Issues Raised • General Support for some growth or tweak to SB
• At least 2 sites put forward were by PC members
• No support for site adjacent to eh church – concern over
setting of church and need to find new burial spaces
• No support for site immediately adjacent to that in terms
of access.
• No support for full res dev on the site north of Watton
Road but wood like to see some open space and poss
village hall
• Would like to see lawned area in front of industrial site e
of church road retained as open space
• General feeling that this site (inside of the SB will come
forward for redeve)
• Would support some housing but would like some larger
properties – feel that is lacking in the village at present
• Would like more open space for village generally
• Would support redev of site for light industry but would
be concerned over more B2 uses (which wouldn’t need
pp)
• Sites owned by PC members were south of the main
part of the village
• PC expect further dev to be applied for at RAF Watton
Parish(es) Harling (+ Bridgham)
Date 22 nd July 2008
Venue Old School House, Harling
Attendance AL, 5 PC Members, Ward Rep – Lady Fisher, 2 Members of
Bridgham PC, 25 Members of the Public

Issues Raised • Harling generally content with LSC status
• Some concern over impact of numbers above 50 on
sewage system
• 50 seen very much as a maximum
• Recognition that it represents a slower rate that to
present day
• Broad support for the 50 and LSC status
• Debate as to whether to go for smaller sites or one or
two large ones
• PC to hold open public meeting in Aug to gauge pulic
views
• Generaly happy that they have been listened to up to
now
Bridgham
• Would like to retain their settlement boundary
• Don’t want to extend it as realise they are linear but feel
that retention of SB offers greater certainty than no SB
Parish(es) Hillborough Parish Council
Date 14 July 20008
Venue Hillborough Village Hall
Attendance PH, Exec member, approximately 6 members of the Parish
Council.
Issues Raised o No specific concerns expressed over position of the
villages within the overall strategy.
o Clarification requested on the process of revising
settlement boundaries.
o Exec member indicated that not all development should
cease.
Parish(es) Fransham
Date 20 May 2008
Venue Ickburgh Church
Attendance PH, Exec Member, 8-10 members of the Parish
Issues Raised o Generally happy with the position of Ickburgh in the
strategy.
o Concern over some of the developments that have
taken place in the Parish, particularly the replacement of
single dwellings with multiple dwellings.
o Concerns over highway issues, road condition, lack of
footpaths, speed limits.
o Concern over future development of Ickburgh duck
factory.
Parish(es) Litcham, Great Dunham, Little Dunham, Beeston, Beetley
Date 18 th June 2008
Venue Litcham Jubilee Hall
Attendance David Spencer, Phil Mileham
22 PC Members
Councillor Kiddle-Morris
Issues Raised o Concern around removing settlement boundaries
o Surprise that no land had been represented in Great

Dunham – explained that forthcoming consultation will
enable additional sites to be submitted
o Widespread debate on lack of growth harming the
vitality of villages – the planning strategy has to
recognise that the car will be the principal mode of
transport in the rural areas
o The employment area at Beeston should be allocated /
protected for employment uses
o Concern around the deliverability of some of the sites
that have been submitted – are they genuinely
available?
o Assurances sought that infrastructure providers have
been consulted
Parish(es) Mid Forest Ward (Beechamwell, Cockley Cley, Foulden,
Gooderstone, Great Cressingham, Lt Cressingham,
Oxborough, South Pickenham)
Date 2 nd July 2008
Venue Foulden Village Hall
Attendance 40-50 people – most PCs represented plus members of the
public. AL and Ward Rep Ian Monson
Issues Raised • .Some concern over late notice of meeting
• Some Parish Clerks had not passed on the information
• General relief that the area was not seen as one being
promoted in CS for development
• Oxborough in particular not wanting growth
• Foulden some interest in a settlement boundary tweak
that might include part of a promoted site
• Some concern over the level of landowner interests at
parish council and district council levels
• Beechamwell generally content with the CS as existing
• General consensus that more use of Breckland Voice to
advertise LDF consultation would be a good idea
Parish(es) Mundford & Hilborough
Date 5 th June 2008
Venue Village Hall, Mundford
Attendance 6 Parish Councillors, 4 members of the public, 2 from
Hilborough PC
Andrea Long, Paul Harris
No Ward Member
Issues Raised • Mundford not wishing to see future growth
• Concern over issues of drainage/flooding of certain
areas in the village
• Wishes to protect its existing services
• Content with sites being classed as unreasonable
Parish(es) Narborough
Date 7 th July 2008
Venue Church Rooms, Narborough
Attendance 7 Parish Councillors, 2 members of the public

Cllr David Williams
County Cllr Shirley Matthews
Phil Mileham – Breckland Council
Issues Raised • Support for identification as a Local Service Centre for
growth
• Comfortable with scale of growth proposed
• Some concern that disused allotment site was not
included in consultation – PJM advised Parish Council
of process required to submit a site.
• Some concern that one of the sites represented is an
employer in the village. Parish Council would not wish to
see employment lost.
Parish(es) Necton & Holme Hale
Date 2 nd June 2008
Venue Necton Community Centre
Attendance AL, SH, 6 members of PC, 25 public, 2 Holme Hale PC
members – Ward Rep not present
Issues Raised o Support for identification of LSC for service protection
o Do not want growth – concern over traffic on A47 and
sewage/drainage issues
o No real support for any of the sites – concern over scale
of some proposed
o Concern that the school site will be developed for
housing
o Would like to see roundabout on A47 – realise its
unlikely
o Would support tidying up of Hungry Horse site if
developer contributions would get roundabout
Parish(es) North & South Lopham
Date 9 th July 2008
Venue Methodist Chapel, N Lopham
Attendance AL, 5 Parish Council Members, 3 South Lopham + 40 Public
Issues Raised o Happy with core strategy as written
o Would be happy to support a small site
o Need is for affordable housing and like to explore it as
an option
o Might support a minor SB tweak
o Concern over need to maintain school numbers
o Concern over loss of pub
o Now getting mains drainage
Parish(es) Rocklands
Date 28 th July 2008
Venue Village Hall, Rocklands
Attendance 5 Parish Councillors, 50 members of the public
Cllr Bill Smith
County Cllr Cliff Jordan
David Spencer
Issues Raised • Split between community between those who want
housing for their children and young people to stay in
the village and those who want no further development
(majority against further development)

• Support for affordable housing to meet local needs on
exception sites – although example cited in Hingham
where this approach has not worked.
• Strong concerns over drainage in the village: further
development will result in flooding
• Concern over future viability of village facilities
• Strong support for keeping smaller properties –
preventing the loss of “affordable” housing through
extensions etc.
Parish(es) Shropham & Stow Bedon
Date 23 rd July 2008
Venue Shropham Village Hall
Attendance AL, 6 PC Members, 2 from Stow Bedon, 40 Public Ward Rep
not present
Issues Raised o Strong view that no real growth should occur
o Dismay at recent planning permissions granted outside
of SB
o Support for 2 possible SB amendments from PC but still
needs to be tested at a public meeting
o Concern that A11 corridor and industrial development
would extend to Shropham crossroads
o Concern at existing industrial and commercial
development in the town
Stow Bedon
o Don’t expect to see further growth in stow bedon
o Happy with SB as it is
Parish(es) South & North Lopham
Date 30 th July 2008
Venue Pangsthorne Guest House, S Lopham
Attendance AL, 5 PC members plus N Lopham Chairman, No ward rep
present, 25 public
Issues Raised o SB to remain same – some interest in site in Church
Road – really after a footpath
o Happy with core strategy and what it gives in terms of
numbers
o Good working relationship with N Lopham
o Issues re traffic (Diss Road – new crossing proposed)
o Concern that school role (N Lopham) shouldn’t drop
below 60-65
Parish(es) Swanton Morley
Date 14 th April 2008
Venue Swanton Morley Village Hall
Attendance AL, PH, 6 members of PC & 70+ members of public, Ward Rep
Kate Millbank
Issues Raised o Some support for identification as LSC for growth
o Need re-assurances over the scale
o Interested in the concept of development contributions
o Wants to underpin its services
o Concern over impact on infrastructure

Parish(es) Swanton Morley
Date 14 th September 2008
Venue Swanton Morley Village Hall
Attendance AL, PH, 6 members of PC & 50+ members of public, Ward Rep
Kate Millbank
Issues Raised o Some support following survey for PC preferred option
of site 007
o Some vocal support for 006
o Some support for higher numbers
o Some vocal support for no growth and no LSC
o Concern over future of Robertson Barracks
o Some support for LSC growth status on the basis of
falling school numbers, high costs for the surgery and
play school places
o
Parish(es) Two Rivers – E Tuddenham, Mattishall, N Tuddenham &
Hockering
Date 30 th June 2008
Venue Mattishall Social Club
Attendance AL, PM, 4 Parish Councillors (15 in total); both Ward Reps Paul
Claussen & Bran Rose in attendance
Issues Raised Mattishall
o Happy as tier 2 service centre
o No views on sites expressed
o Re-affirmed don’t want growth
E Tuddenham
o Not interested in growth
o No views on sites but would resist growth
N Tuddenham
o Wish to retain SB as tight as possible
o No support for rep sites
o Wish to resist growth
Hockering
o Concern over future of school
o Some interest in maybe 1 or 2 sites – non-specific
o Traffic impact an issue
o Impact of further employment
Parish(es) Upper Wensum Ward
Date 21 July 20008
Venue North Elmham Village Hall
Attendance PH, 2 District Councillors, approximately 12 members of the
Parish Council of the Upper Wensum.
Issues Raised o North Elmham supportive of re-designation of Village as
SCV without growth.
o No specific concerns expressed over position of the
other villages within the overall strategy.
o Clarification requested on the status of Parish Council
comments within the process and on what the process
would look like and when decisions would ultimately be
made.

o Concerns raised that additional sites could come
forwards through the issues and options consultation
and that it would mean the Parish Council would have to
do additional consultation.
o Suggestion made that Parish Council’s should consider
any changes to the settlement boundary before
considering sites promoted. Suggested that the
consultation document should have been set up in this
way.
o Questions asked about whether flood risk was a
significant issues and how infrastructure constraints
would be dealt with when allocating sites.
Parish(es) Watton
Date 17 th June 2008
Venue Watton Town Hall
Attendance 8 Town Councillors, meeting was closed to public at request of
Watton TC.
Phil Mileham and David Spencer – Breckland Council
Issues Raised • Some debate over the location of new employment sites
(discussion surrounding sites in adjoining Parishes)
• Some concerns expressed regarding the impact of
previous planning decisions on local infrastructure
(Griston Rd)
• Some debate over adequacy of footpaths and highways
to support new development.
• Largely comfortable with scale of new growth proposed.
Parish(es) Wayland – Hockham, Thompson, Wretham & Griston
Date 21 st July 2008
Venue Hockham Village Hall
Attendance AL, 4PC’s -10 people in total – Ward Rep not present
Issues Raised Hockham
o Do not want growth – happy with core strategy as
proposed
o No real support for sites put forward
o Concern over impact on conservation area and on
drainage and sewage systems
Thompson
o Some interest in growth (1 person)
o Interest in sites not close to existing SB
o Interest in amending SB
Wretham
o Happy with core strategy
o Feel that current Planning Permissions give them
enough growth
o No strong views on sites
Parish(es) Wissey Ward
Date 08 July 20008
Venue Blue Lion, North Pickenham
Attendance PH, District Councillor, approximately 8-10 members of the

Parish Councils and public from North Pickenham, Home Hale
and North Pickenham.
Issues Raised o No specific concerns expressed over position of the
villages within the overall strategy.
o Concern that any new developments would not come
the necessary improvements to the local road network,
particularly the A47.
o Questions raised about whether existing infrastructure
constraints were taken into account in the formation of
the strategy.
o Concerns raised that Parish Council views were not
sufficiently taken into account in the determination of
planning applications.
o Concerns raised by a land owner that it was not
worthwhile promoting his land as it had been
categorised as unreasonable.
o Concerns raised by a District Councillor that not all new
development should stop as it would help to support
local services.
Parish(es) Yaxham
Date 12 th June 2008
Venue Village Hall, Yaxham
Attendance 8 Parish Councillors, approx 30 members of the public
Cllr Cliff Jordan
Phil Mileham – Breckland Council
Issues Raised • PC do not wish to see any additional growth
• Were interested to explore possibility of having no
settlement boundary and its implications on the village
• Concern that affordable housing should only be for
people from Yaxham
• Concern re: impact of growth in Dereham, particularly
heavy traffic entering the town and its impact on
Yaxham Rd
• Concern re: infrastructure unable to cope with growth in
Dereham
• Would like to see open spaces in Parish protected,
particularly in Clint Green where there is currently no
identified Open Space.

Appendix F: Member drop in session and
results
Member “Drop-in” Session for the
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document
Issues and Options Consultation
Held on Monday, 16 June 2008 at 1:00 pm in Anglia Room, Elizabeth
House, Walpole Loke, Dereham
Attending
David Spencer, Principle Planning
Policy Officer
Paul Harris, Senior Planning Policy
Officer
Phil Mileham, Senior Planning
Policy Officer
Elizabeth Gould, Member for
Springvale and Scarning
Mark Kiddle-Morris, Member for
Launditch
Gordon Bambridge, Member for
Eynsford
Claire Bowes, Member for Watton
Shirley Matthews, Member for
Swaffham
Richard Duffield, Member for
Taverner

Format of the Session
The session was an open forum held by the Planning Policy Team for the benefit of
members in light of the forthcoming issues and options consultation on the Site
Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document. Members were free to
“drop-in” to the session at any point to discuss issues with the attending Planning
Policy Team or each other.
How the Issues Raised are Reported
The issues raised at the session are reported followed by a response from the
Planning Policy Team. The sequence in which particular issues are reported does
not follow the chronological order in which they were raised at the session, nor is
there position an indication of the importance attributed to a particular issue. As some
very similar or interrelated issues were raised by different members it has been
necessary to amalgamate some comments to avoid repetition, therefore no individual
issue has been attributed to a particular member for the purposes of this report.
Issues
1.
How will we select the sites that will be allocated for a particular type of
development? Will the financial viability of a site be considered when selecting which
sites will be allocated?
The decisions about which specific sites will be allocated will be made in
formulating the Preferred Options of the Site Specifics document. The Core
Strategy has already given broad locations for growth and the Site Specifics
Document is required to be in conformity with it.,
Decisions on specifics sites will be made using a number of factors –..
Developability is the likelihood of a site being developed – namely availability,
suitability and achievability.
The availability of a site is literally the landowner’s willingness to release the
land for the development in question. This is relatively straight forward to
establish and all of the sites included in the forthcoming consultation could be
considered available as they have been promoted by the landowners or their
representative.
Suitability is much more complicated. These issues include the accessibility of
the site, the landscape impact of development on a particular site, whether the
development of the site is consistent with other objectives such as reducing
contributions to climate change or protecting important habitats. A list of
possible suitability criteria is set out in the consultation document under the
more generally understandable title of “site selection criteria”.
The final consideration is the achievability of development on site. Is the a site
is a financially viable proposition for development. ?
The current consultation will establish the views of stakeholders, parish
councils and communities on the sites that have been promoted for
development.

The finalisation of sites to be allocated will be subject to the usual committee
and political process with the final document needing to be agreed by Full
Council before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in
Public.
2.
Will current allocations (Employment and Open Space) that have not been brought
forward during the last plan period be considered for re-allocation, for the same or
different purposes?
Allocations from the former Local Plan will not necessarily be brought forward
into the Site Specific Policies and Proposals DPD. A section in the consultation
document looks specifically at a handful of sites put forward by the Council for
consultation in addition to those sites promoted by landowners and their
agents, these sites include some open space allocations that have not been
brought forward. The re-designation or de-allocation of sites will be
considered..
3.
Will provision be made for employment sites near the rural villages, or more generally
in the countryside?
The main locations for the allocation of employment land are set out in the
Core Strategy the Market Towns. Other rural allocations from the outgoing
local plan will be maintained where they are considered to be important viable
locations. It is important to understand that the allocation of sites needs to be
made on a credible and robust evidence base. The Council commissioned
Employment Land Review, undertaken by Roger Tim and Partners identified
the locations within the district that were attractive to the market and which
should have their employment allocations maintained or enhanced. Alongside
other Council projects, e.g. REV, this study has formed the basis of the Core
Strategy policy on the distribution of employment allocations. A demonstration
of sites suitability and the achievability of development on site would need to
be made to demonstrate any rural employment allocation.
Consideration should also be given to the reality that the allocation of a site for
employment in the rural area that is not achievable is likely to lead to pressure
to release the land for other purposes, e.g residential. Unplanned releases of
land through the release of land for unallocated purpose come with the risk of
compounding any additional local problems.
4.
What provision is made for housing growth in the rural villages?
With the exception of the Service Centres for Growth it is not planned that
there will be any new allocations for speculative residential development in the
rural villages. However other mechanisms are provided by the Local
Development Framework that will mean the rural villages will see some new
development
The LDF has made provision for affordable housing on exceptions sites.
Exception sites are sites outside of an area generally considered acceptable
for housing but which are considered in a positive light as they will provide
100% affordable housing for an identified local need. Exception sites could be

allocated through the Site Specific Policies and Proposals DPD or be approved
in reaction to applications as and when they come forward.
Additional market housing will be provided through the conversion of
appropriate rural buildings or the development, or redevelopment, of existing
sites within defined settlement boundaries. The scale of development related
to this source should not be underestimated, since 2001 there have been
approximately 1401 completions in villages on non-allocated sites, with a
further 706 with permission but not yet completed. Extrapolating this trend
indicates that approximately 3000 houses are likely to come forward through
this source on unallocated sites in the villages over the plan period. This
housing would be in addition to the 19000 that will be strategically planned for
over this period.
5.
Will severe restrictions in development in the rural villages begin/add to the causes of
the destruction of the rural villages?
The word “destruction” is an emotive issue and difficult to quantify in planning
terms.There is no real consensus on what constitutes the “destruction” of a
rural village. View points have certainly been expressed that development is
the very thing that is damaging villages, eroding the form and character of
villages undermining some of the key characteristics and features that make
them unique and those features that are worthy of protection in the public
interest.
A key concern expressed about low levels of development in the rural areas is
the closure of local services and facilities. There is some anecdotal logic in the
that additional development could help to support services in a particular
village, however in reality the situation is more complicated. Some services will
have a direct relationship to new development, services such as schools and
doctors will be fed directly from new development in the locality, although this
may also raise issues of service constraints in some instances. Other local
services such as shops, leisure facilities, public transport or access to local
employment arguably have less of a direct relationship to development. For
example, with the increase in personal mobility shopping patterns may be
dictated by other factors such as cost, quality or convenience.
Evidence for the RSS indicates that local village services have continued to
close in spite of development rather then due to a lack of it.
There are also additional issues that need to be taken into account when
proposing growth in the rural villages. The Council is required by legislation to
plan for sustainable development, this includes, as set out in the RSS, to
reduce the contributions to climate change. Placing development in locations
where there are not adequate local services will place a greater emphasis on
the need to travel. In areas where there is insufficient public transport this will
mean people are either reliant on the private car and therefore increasing
contributions to climate change, or worse isolated from services and facilities
compounding issues of rural isolation.
6.
Parish views have not necessarily been accurately reflected in the meetings and
consultations that have been conducted by the planning policy team. There is a

strong view in some parishes that villages need development. There is real concern
about the lack of affordable housing.
This is not the case, The Team have attended a considerable number of parish
meetings over the last 5 years or so and record the main points from each
parish discussion to enable us to build up a picture. We also have formal
responses from a number of parish councils through the various stages of the
core strategy. Whilst we are very clear that a number of villages specifically do
not want to see further growth e.g Necton and Mattishall we have no evidence
of villages (outside of the Local Service Centres) that are desperate to see
levels of growth above individual houses or small groups.
Four formal stages of consultation were undertaken in the production of the
Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, and this was in addition
to numerous in-formal meetings and event attended by the Planning Policy
Section. Therefore the Planning Policy Team considers the results of the
consultation to be a credible marker for the views of the Breckland’s residents
and other key stakeholders.
The forthcoming 12 week consultation on the Site Specific Policies and
Proposals DPD will be the first formal stage of consultation on this document,
which has and will continue to be promoted and supported by a series of
presentations and question and answer sessions held by the planning policy
team. Therefore it is hoped that this will enable the views of local residents to
be accurately captured.
The role of Members and the Parish Council in the consultation process cannot
be underestimated. If it is clear that the view of a ward or parish are not being
accurately reflected then it is appropriate, within reason and avoiding
prejudicial issues, for a Member to seek to encourage people to put those
views across. The Planning Policy Team would be happy to work with
Members if and when these types of issues arise.
7.
Is there scope to allocate council owned sites for affordable housing? There are sites
available that are closely related to existing social housing but isolated from a village.
Certainly there is scope to consider allocating sites exclusively for affordable
housing. The key to any such allocation will be whether the land is in a suitable
location and that an identified need exists.
8.
The tenure of affordable housing set out within the exception site policy is not correct
/ appropriate. Provision should be made for “low cost” market housing.
The tenure that is promoted by the Core Policies on affordable housing reflects
the need identified in the detailed Strategic Housing Market Assessment
carried out jointly with King’s Lynn and North Norfolk and is based on the
advice and evidence of our Strategic Housing Team. It is important to
remember that the policies promoted in the LDF need to be based upon a
robust and credible evidence base, unduly arbitrary requirements are unlikely
to stand up to Examination in Public.
9.
The mix of house types in villages is not correct. Hockering, for example, has seen
far too many 2 bedroom houses built, this means that they are too small for growing

families, which are forced to move out of the village to find suitable accommodation.
This has a knock on effect on the viability of the local school that only has 25 pupils.
More larger houses should be built in the villages, the housing need indicated in the
SHMA is not necessarily reflective of the full housing need.
The house type mix that is promoted by the Core Policies on housing reflects
the need identified in the detailed Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It is
important to remember that the policies promoted in the LDF need to be based
upon a robust and credible evidence base, unduly arbitrary requirements are
unlikely to stand up to Examination in Public.
10.
Housing in villages should support the retention of local services and facilities, which
would be endangered through a lack of development.
Regionally evidence indicates that growth in the villages has been unable to
halt the closure of village services. The use of local services in reality is based
upon the quality of the service, the proximity of other higher order services
and the relative cost or convenience of using those services. Therefore growth
will not necessarily guarantee the retention of a service, where as, locating
houses in areas with a less than appropriate accessibility to services runs a
high risk of compounding any existing problems of accessibility, social
exclusion and rural isolation, not to mention the continuing the reliance on the
private car, which is becoming ever less affordable.
The policies of the Core Strategy is a far cry from one which would halt
development in the rural villages completely. See response to 4 above.
It is proposed that the balance between development and constraint set out
within the Core Strategy is the appropriate strategy for the good of the villages,
the market towns, the region, the UK and beyond.
11.
The proposed plan is too prescriptive, which is detrimental to the rural villages and
market towns. The plan would not necessarily allow for development even if there is
broad local support for a particular development.
The UK has adopted a plan led planning system, this puts requirements on
LPAs to create Local Development Frameworks and determine applications in
accordance with that development plan..
The policies of the Core Strategy provide what is considered to be the optimum
degree of flexibility to promote but also manage development in the district. It
would not be within the remit of the Local Development Framework to pursue a
policy that would seek to allow ad-hoc decisions to be made based upon
public opinion Or indeed personal circumstances. Members are fully aware
that the personal circumstances of an applicant in the Development Control
process are not a material planning consideration It has been established in
the courts that weight of public opinion in itself, although a material
consideration, is not reason to approve or refuse planning permission for a
particular development. Rather it is the particular planning merits of a case
related to the use and development of land and the protection of such within
the public interest that is key.

Statutory weight is given to any comment made in accordance with the
legislation in response to a planning application registered with the authority.
It is not considered that the LDF can give any greater weight to these
comments than is already given by the legislation.
12.
Are there any proposed policies that would promote the provision of new allotments,
or the protection of existing allotments.
Allotments fall within the definition of open space and therefore will benefit
from the same level of protection as other types of open space. There are no
individual requirements for the provision of a certain amount of allotment land
off the back of new development, although it could be required within the wider
remit of green infrastructure.
13.
The terminology used in the consultation document is not appropriate. It would have
been better not to classify sites in any way for the purposes of this consultation.
It is considered important to indicate how the sites that have been promoted
for development fit within the emerging Core Strategy. This benefits residents
as it draws attention to potential geographical ramifications of the Core
Strategy, and provides them with some surety that the emerging Core Strategy
policies have not been displaced. It also benefits developers and landowners
in the run up to the formal submission of the Core Strategy as it highlights
quite clearly if the Core Strategy would put a halt to their development
aspirations and will help them to form any necessary comments that they may
wish to raise at the Examination in Public. The term “unreasonable” is
commonly used within planning guidance and regulation when considering
how a particular option may perform against an agreed set of criteria.
14.
How will the consultation procedure work?
A consultation document is being produced, a copy of which will be sent out to
the key consultation groups including the Members and the Parish Councils.
Additional copies will be made available at the Council offices, at the local
libraries with the District and an on-line version is available through the
Council’s web-site. The consultation will run for 12 weeks starting on the 30
June and is the first stage in the production of the Site Specific Policies and
Proposals DPD.
15.
A number of sites that were the subject of scrutiny at the last Local Plan Inquiry have
not been presented this time. It is known that some landowners still hold some
development aspirations on sites that have not been identified in the document. What
is the process was for landowners to submit their sites in response to this document?
The sites that have been included in the document only comprise those sites
that were promoted through the Council’s formal “call for sites”, which was
advertised in March and closed on the 30 th April. This process was advertised
through the Council’s web-site and through the Breckland voice. Also all of the
landowners or agents who had previously promoted land were contacted by
letter to advise them of this process. It was necessary to carry out this process

to ensure that the database of promoted land was still accurate, some
representation were several years old, and to get permission from the land
owner to make certain details of the representation public in the consultation
document.
The Planning Policy Team is conscious that there may yet be additional sites
that may come forward. Therefore a new site submission form has been
produced and will be available during the consultation period. Land owners
should submit this form if the would like land considered that does not
currently form part of the document. Depending on the scale of additional sites
that come forward as part of the consultation a second consultation document
may be issued.
16.
It is interesting to note the actual amount of land required was low in comparison to
the amount of land put forward by landowners.
The amount of land promoted for development considerable outstrips the need
for land allocations. Land capable of accommodating approximately 90,000
homes are been promoted whereas the council only need to allocate land for
12,000 new homes over the plan period. There will therefore be significantly
more land that is discounted as opposed to allocated.
17.
Balance between jobs and homes proposed.
The Council’s strategy, in line with the RSS, seeks to balance new housing and
economic development. There are some outstanding debate around the
appropriate jobs figure in Attleborough, and this will be the subject of a single
issue review in the run up to the submission of the Core Strategy. Elsewhere, it
is considered that there is an appropriate balance between jobs and housing.
18.
The LDF should contain policies to ensure that the design of new housing
developments will be of a high quality.
The LDF contains a specific criteria based policy that seeks to promote high
quality design. It is important however to remember that, particular with
design, the standard of implementation of the policy is equally if not more
important than the policy itself. In broad terms, policy implementation was the
responsibility of the development control section with the support of the
Historic Buildings Section of Environmental Planning.

Appendix G: Correspondence sent to statutory
and general consultees.
Figure 8 Example letter sent to statutory consultees.

Figure 9 Example letter sent to non statutory consultees.

Appendix H: Press Advert
Figure 10 Press release of the 11 th June 2010 in the Eastern Daily Press.

Figure 11 Press advert of the 27 th April 2010 in the Eastern Daily Press.

Appendix I: Correspondence advertising events
under the Regulation 25 consultation 2010
Figure 12 Example of Statutory Consultee correspondence.

Figure 13 Example of Non Statutory Consultee correspondence.

Appendix J: Comment Form

Figure 14 Example of the comment form.

Appendix K: Parish Council attendance list

Figure 15 Parish Council attendance list for the launch held on the 16 th June
2010.

Appendix L: Preferred Site ‘site notices’
Figure 16 Example of Preferred Site ‘Site Notices’.

Appendix M: Parish Posters
Figure 17 Example of posters sent to Parish Councils to place on notice
boards.

Appendix N: Correspondence sent to Roudham
Parish Council
Figure 18 Example of Statutory consultee correspondence

Appendix O: Comments and officer responses received at Regulation 25
Consultation 2010 ‘Preferred Options’ stage
Dereham
Policy D1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land at the Old Maltings, Norwich Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Norfolk County Council Support allocation of the site Support noted.
The site is a key piece of
(Highways)
subject to local highway
brownfield land in a highly
improvement works being
sustainable location in close
provided.
proximity to Dereham Town
Mr D. Thompson (Anglia Support inclusion of the site for Support noted.
Centre. The site provides an
Maltings)
residential development, as it is
opportunity to make best use of
a brownfield site in a
brownfield land which limits the
sustainable location. Currently
need for additional greenfield
in negotiation with Norfolk
development and encroachment
County Council Highways as to
into the surrounding
the appropriate access points
necessary to deliver the site.
countryside.
Development offers
Object Miss K. Doyle, Mrs S. Knight Objects due to impact of traffic
opportunities for increased
entering and exiting site.
walking and cycling and the
proposed policy reflects this.
Mr and Mrs Doone, Development will harm local
infrastructure.
The implications of local traffic
would be considered at the
detailed stage through a
Transport Assessment. The
Council has in place Core
Policies seek to protect
residential amenity to which
development should adhere.
Overall level of development
proposed for Dereham is
identified in the adopted Core
Strategy. Development will be
expected to provide any
necessary improvements to
As such, it is considered that
the site should be allocated for
residential development as per
the preferred options document.

Policy D1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land at the Old Maltings, Norwich Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
local infrastructure to enable it
to occur.
Miss G. Russell Objects due to impact of
development on value of her
property and local character
and amenity.
Mr and Mrs Doy, Development will harm local
infrastructure, impact on wildlife.
Mr D. Berry Impact of development on local
sewers, highways, social
infrastructure, and his
residential amenity being
Mr Humbertston, Mr P Brennan,
Mr M. Stevens.
harmed by development.
Impact of additional traffic
generated by development on
Norwich Road/ Greenfields
Road.
Mrs B. Fisher Objects due to wider impact of
development on infrastructure in
Dereham.
The Council has policies in the
Core Strategy relating to design
and the policy accompanying
this allocation also seeks to
ensure layout/ design respects
existing buildings.
Overall level of development
proposed for Dereham is
identified in the Core Strategy.
Development will be expected
to provide any necessary
improvements to local
infrastructure to enable it to
occur.
Development will be expected
to provide any necessary
improvements to local
infrastructure to enable it to
occur.
The Highway Authority (NCC)
has not raised any objections to
this allocation. However, it is
expected that the detailed local
traffic implications will be
considered through a Transport
Assessment accompanying a
detailed Planning Application.
The overall level of growth for
Dereham is identified in the
adopted Breckland Core
Strategy document. It is

Policy D1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land at the Old Maltings, Norwich Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
recognised that individual sites
will be required to provide the
local infrastructure upgrades
necessary (such as transport,
education, sewerage etc) and
policies in the adopted Core
Strategy and the Site Specifics
document will ensure that this is
delivered as appropriate.
However, the evidence to
support the Core Strategy
indicated that there is either
sufficient capacity in wider
social infrastructure to
accommodate the additional
growth or suitable opportunities
Comment
Mr P. Morton (Dereham
Society)
Objects to the scale of
development proposed for
Dereham
Mrs M. Miller Objects, due to potential harm
to the access to her house.
Dereham Town Council, Would like to see a
comprehensive masterplan of
the site before it would be
granted Planning Permission.
Mayfleet, New development could harm
local sewerage network and
increase risk of flooding to their
for enhancement.
The overall level of growth for
Dereham is identified in the
adopted Breckland Core
Strategy document.
Comment noted. Detailed
design would need to have
regard to the lawful access
afforded to existing residents on
site.
Agree. Proposed policy includes
requirement for a masterplan of
the whole site.
Proposed policy includes
criteria which will ensure
development does not harm

Policy D1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land at the Old Maltings, Norwich Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
properties. local sewerage infrastructure.
Mrs K. Doyle Impact of additional traffic on to
Norwich Road.
Mr S. Faulkner (Norfolk County
Council)
Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge
(English Heritage)
Policy should highlight Listed
status of the Maltings itself.
Allocation of site gives
opportunity to secure future of
Listed Maltings which is
currently in a poor state of
repair.
Breckland Contaminated Land Potential contamination could
harm viability and deliverability
of site.
Consultation with the Highway
Authority (NCC) has not
resulted in any objections to the
wider allocation of this site.
Detailed transport impacts
would be assessed through a
Transport Assessment at the
detailed planning stage.
Policy and supporting text have
been amended to reflect grade
II* Listed status of Maltings.
Comments noted. Policy
requires masterplan for whole
site, but at present there is no
identified future use of the
Listed buildings nor any
indication that a redevelopment
is deliverable.
There is no evidence that
currently indicates that
development cannot be carried
out after suitable remediation
has taken place. It is considered
that the site is deliverable.
Policy D2 Preferred Residential Allocation - Land off Greenfields Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Dereham Town Council Support site for residential Comments noted. The policy Despite the significant number
development but wish to see seeks to ensure that of objections received to this
the scheme give serious development has regard to the site, it is considered that the site

Policy D2 Preferred Residential Allocation - Land off Greenfields Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
consideration to the Dereham findings of the Dereham Green should continue to be allocated
Green Infrastructure Study. Infrastructure study. Policies in for residential development as
Would also like to ensure new the adopted Breckland Core per the preferred options albeit
housing is in-keeping with Strategy deal with issues such at a slightly reduced number.
surrounding developments. as design and amenity which This is due to the removal of the
apply to all development. national indicative minimum
Mr and Mrs Hewson Support site for development as Support noted.
density requirement from
area is partially developed and
national planning policy (PPS3)
highway in place.
and removal of erroneous
Mr M. Haslam Supports allocation of this site Support noted. The supporting allotment land from the site
on behalf of his client who is the transport information supplied area.
landowner. Evidence has been by the landowner has been
submitted to demonstrate that passed to Norfolk County
the proposed development will Council Highways for review.
not result in harm to the local NCC has not raised concerns
transport network that the with the adequacy or findings of
objectors believe. Other the transport evidence.
Norfolk County Council
evidence submitted indicates
proposal is deliverable.
Support allocation of the site in Support noted. The proposal to
(Highways)
highway terms subject to local link the two roads has arisen
improvement measures, which from Norfolk County Council
could include right turn lane into standards. It is recognised that
Greenfield Road. There would further off-site highway
be a highway benefit by linking improvements may be needed;
Greenfields Road and however, these will be
Wheatcroft Way by providing considered at the detailed stage
two points of access.
when a greater level of
information will be available.
Object Mrs B. Warwick, C. M. Dove, E. Object to the site due to the It is recognised that new
J and J.C. Catchpole, the impact of additional traffic development will result in the
Herring Family, Hudswell, Mr generated on the local highway creation of additional traffic. The
and Mrs Ford, Mr and Mrs network, and the potential for proposed linking of Greenfields

Policy D2 Preferred Residential Allocation - Land off Greenfields Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
McGough, Mr and Mrs ‘rat-running’ through Road and Wheatcroft Way is
O’Donnell, Mr and Mrs Price, Mr Greenfields Road/ Wheatcroft important as it will provide the
and Mrs Webb, Mr C. Burgess, Way.
two points of access that
Mr C. Mathews, Mr D. Atkins,
development of this scale
Mr D. Howes, Mr G. Wolfenden,
Mr G. Bridges, Mr J. Conder, Mr
requires.
J. Livermore, Mr L. Howlett, Mr
The provision of a link between
M. Stevens, Mr O. Howes, Mr
the two developments will
S. Cox, Mrs C. Sample, Mrs
provide for local vehicle
Finlay, Mrs Freestone, Mr and
movements onto Norwich Road.
Mrs Taylor, Mrs A. Kerr, Mrs J.
The linking of the two
Hammond, Coventry,
developments will not provide a
shortcut for road users seeking
to bypass Norwich Road on to
another destination but will
enable existing residents as
well as new to benefit from a
second access. The link will
also improve options for public
transport, walking and cycling to
from and within this area.
Mr D. Scott, the Herring Family,
Miss B. Brennan, Mr D. Howes,
Objects due to adverse impact
of development on local wildlife.
A detailed Transport
Assessment at the Planning
Application stage will also
provide an opportunity to seek
any further improvements to the
local highway network which
could include traffic calming.
It is noted that the site is
currently an arable field and has
a wider biodiversity value.
Development will need to

Policy D2 Preferred Residential Allocation - Land off Greenfields Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
provide open space and as
such, this could provide
opportunities to promote
biodiversity within the required
green space. The policy also
requires development to have
regard to the Dereham Green
Finlay, Mr and Mrs Doone, Mr
and Mrs Drury, Mr and Mrs
O’Donnell
Master C. Jaques and petition
containing 69 signatures.
Mr and Mrs Waton and petition
of 150 signatures.
Mr P. Brennan, Mr R. Jones,
Mrs E. Everitt, Mr P. Lovewell.
Miss H. Brennan, Mr and Mrs
Cowlard, Mr R. Jones
Objects to the scale of
development proposed for
Dereham.
Objects to allocation of site on
landscape, highway and
infrastructure grounds.
Object due to impact of
development on setting of
Listed Dereham Windmill
Infrastructure study.
The scale of development
identified for Dereham is set out
in the adopted Breckland Core
Strategy document and as such
the overall scale of growth is not
consider further through this
document.
The comments raised by these
objectors have been covered
elsewhere in this section.
Comments noted. The policy
requires development to have
regard to the setting of the
Dereham windmill. It is not
possible at the site allocation
stage to precisely define all
components of the scheme as
this will be considered at the
detailed Planning Application
stage.

Policy D2 Preferred Residential Allocation - Land off Greenfields Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr and Mrs Taylor Objects due to loss of Comment noted. The site
allotments.
boundary identified in the
document erroneously included
an area of allotment land. It is
not intended that this form part
of any allocation and boundary
now amended.
Comment Mr S. Faulkner (Norfolk County
Council)
Development of site D2 should
consider the setting of Listed
Windmill and the provision of
open space as part of the
development could limit impact
upon its setting.
Comments noted.
Policy D3 – Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the east of Windmill Avenue
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Norfolk County Council Highway authority support Support noted.
Despite the significant number
(Highways)
inclusion of the site for
of objections received, many of
residential development subject
the issues raised have been
to local improvements to the
considered through the
footpath/ cycle network.
development of the Core
Mr Mathews (DLP Planning) Support the identification of the Support noted.
Strategy or could be resolved
site for residential development.
through the detailed Planning
The comments indicate that the
Application process. As such, it
site is suitable, available and
is considered that the site
viable for development and
should remain identified for
meets national and local criteria
residential development as per
and should be allocated.
the preferred options
consultation.
Object A. Fugle, H. Barnard, May, Mr Object to development due to The wider infrastructure issues

Policy D3 – Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the east of Windmill Avenue
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
and Mrs Cator, Mr and Mrs Cox, lack of highway, sewerage, and raised (particularly in relation to
Mr and Mrs Kaszubowski, Mr social infrastructure (particularly waste water treatment,
and Mrs Marjoram, Mr and Mrs education, healthcare) in the education, retail provision) were
Price, Mr Cason, Mr Nobbs, Mrs area.
considered as part of the
J. Payton, Mr and Mrs R.
development of the Core
Forshaw, T.K. Bussey, V.
Strategy and the Examination in
Frascogna, Mr A. Thomas, Mr
Public of the Council’s housing
P. Morton
numbers for Dereham.
A. Koozak, E. Achard, R.L.
Smith
Mr G. Blythe, Mrs S. Chisholm,
Mrs U. Mower
Object due to the impact of
additional traffic generated by
the development on the local
highway network.
Objects due to harm to
residential amenity as a result
of overlooking.
The development will be
required to provide any
necessary improvements to the
local sewerage and highway
network and the proposed
policy reflects this.
The Highway Authority has not
raised any objection to the
identification of this site for
residential development, subject
to the provision of localised
enhancements to the footways
and cycle provision.
It is considered that the detailed
highway matters will be
addressed through a Transport
Assessment that would be
expected as part of a future
Planning Application rather than
at strategic allocation level.
The adopted Core Strategy
contains policy dealing with
residential amenity. A

Policy D3 – Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the east of Windmill Avenue
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
development will need to have
regard to this policy; however,
this would be considered
through the detailed scheme
design at the Planning
Mr C. Smith (Hopkins Homes) Objects as site does not have
regard to Landscape Character
Assessment.
Comment Dereham Town Council Support principle of
development subject to avoiding
development right to the edge
of Shilling Lane. Development
should provide landscape buffer
to the lane.
Application stage.
Disagree. All of the reasonable
options for housing growth in
Dereham are contained within
the ‘moderate-high’ sensitivity
landscape character areas in
the 1:10,000 settlement fringe
assessment. Landscape
assessments at this scale
cannot be treated as absolute;
therefore, the assessment of
sites has given regard to
surrounding development and
features at the site level.
Comments noted. The
proposed policy seeks to
ensure development maximises
opportunities to enhance
biodiversity corridors of which
Shilling Lane is an important
component.

Policy D4 – Preferred Employment Allocation - Land at Rash's Green Industrial Estate
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Dereham Town Council Support site for industrial Support noted.
It is considered that the site
development.
should be identified for
Norfolk County Council Support the site for industrial Support noted.
industrial development as per
(Highways)
development with access
the preferred options document.
provided from Rash’s Green.
It will be known as D5.
Object Mr M. Robinson (High Scott - Object as they wish the site to The site is currently saved as
Scotts Trust)
be allocated for residential an employment allocation in the
rather than industrial adopted Core Strategy. The site
development. Landowner does has been identified as being
not consider the site viable for unsuitable for residential
industrial development due to development in previous
infrastructure costs.
consultations.
No evidence has been
presented to indicate that the
site is unviable, and the
infrastructure requirements to
enable development are not
unique to this site. Furthermore,
there is clear evidence of
demand for new industrial
development in Dereham as
has been demonstrated by the
completion of new starter units
elsewhere at Rash’s Green.
It is also important to ensure
that there is a reasonable
choice of employment sites so
that different parts of the
employment market are able to
expand in the types of location
that meet their needs.

Policy D4 – Preferred Employment Allocation - Land at Rash's Green Industrial Estate
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Comment
Policy D5 – Preferred Employment Allocation - Land to the south of Dereham Business Park
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Norfolk County Council Support inclusion of the site Support noted.
It is considered that the site (in
(Highways)
provided an access point is
addition to part of the area
delivered and improvements are
previously identified as D10) be
made to pedestrian and cycle
taken forward for employment
links from this area to enhance
development as per the
opportunities for modal shift.
preferred options document. It
Object E. Rushmore, Mr M. Pond, Mr Objects due to the impact of this The Highway Authority has not will be considered an alternative
and Mrs Hudson, Mr Crisp development on traffic in the raised any objections to the allocation and be known as D9.
wider Yaxham Road area. identification of this site for
industrial development. The
detailed assessment of traffic
movements will be provided as
part of a Transport Assessment
at the detailed Planning
Application stage.
Hudson O’Brien and Lewins
Ltd, Mr B. Smith, Mr J. Shorter,
Objects to the site and consider
site D10 should be allocated in
Other development in the
vicinity (including the Dereham
Recycling centre) have already
been granted Planning
Permission however no further
evidence has been presented to
indicate that there is a
significant adverse cumulative
impact of as a result of these
proposals.
Comments noted.

Policy D5 – Preferred Employment Allocation - Land to the south of Dereham Business Park
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mrs Mortimer, preference.
Jones/ Sinclair, Ms K. Halford,
Mr and Mrs Lambert, Ms M.
Harcourt, Medlar, Miss
Siewright, Mr and Mrs Barker,
Mr and Mrs Barns, Mr and Mrs
Baxter, Mr and Mrs Beckham,
Mr and Mrs C. Burton, Mr and
Mrs Chilvers, Mr and Mrs
Crockford, Mr and Mrs Fiddy,
Mr and Mrs Fletcher, Mr and
Mrs Griffi, Mr and Mrs Horsley,
Mr and Mrs Lawes, Mr and Mrs
Mann, Mr and Mrs Rix, Mr and
Mrs Thacker, Mr and Mrs
Vaukins, Mr A. Blackpool, Mr
and Mrs Pegg, Mr B. Walker, Mr
Broster, Mr Bull, Mr D. Baker,
Mr G. Sayer, Mr R. Lench, Mr T.
Bradley, Mr Walby, Mrs D.
Crossby, Mrs E. McGee, Mrs E.
Walker, Mrs E. Barrett, Mrs K.
Clark, Mrs Lowings, Mrs Morter,
Mrs Parkinson, Mrs S. Finn, Mrs
Styles, Mrs Webb, Mrs. J.
Horseall, P. Lusha, SCD Leslie,
Mr and Mrs Rice, Thacker
Family, T.J. Mortimer, W.
Gilbert, W. Holden, W. Scott
Object to the site as considers it
will harm residential amenity
through overlooking, noise, and
the adverse impact on the local
highway network.
Mrs Hardy Objects and considers land at
Rash’s Green should be
allocated in preference.
The proposed policy contains a
number of criteria that seek to
protect residential amenity by
imposing suitable conditions on
development limiting hours of
operation, as well as requiring
screening and landscaping. The
precise form of employment
development is not known and
this will determine any potential
impacts.
The proposed policy required
access to be secured via
Kingston Road/ Walpole Loke.
The Highway authority has not
raised any objections to the
increase in industrial traffic on
Yaxham Road roundabout.
However, detailed highway
matters would be considered
through a Transport
Assessment provided as part of
a future Planning Application.
The preferred options included
land at Rash’s Green in addition
to the extension of the Dereham
Business Park. This is in order

Policy D5 – Preferred Employment Allocation - Land to the south of Dereham Business Park
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
to meet the requirements for
new employment land that have
been set out in the adopted
Breckland Core Strategy.
Comment
Policy D11 – Preferred Retail Option - Georges Road/ Nunn’s Way to Cowper Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that the site
Object J. Stebbings, Mr T. Wood Objects and consider that the There are no current proposals should remain identified as an
(Dereham Society)
site should be developed for by Norfolk County Council area for the intensification of
new bus station.
(Local Transport Authority) to retail development as per the
locate a bus interchange within preferred options document. It
the area indicated D11, and this will be known as D7.
did not form part of the
consultation options. No
comments were submitted by
Norfolk County Council through
the consultation indicating that
the site should be reserved for a
bus interchange at any point
during the preparation of the
Site Specifics document over
the last two years.

Policy D11 – Preferred Retail Option - Georges Road/ Nunn’s Way to Cowper Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr and Mrs O’Donnell, Cowper Road car park should The intensification of retail
remain as a car park and not be development in this area
redeveloped.
presents an opportunity to
expand the retail offer of
Dereham in a sustainable
location within the town centre.
The provision of car parking in
this area will need to have
regard to the parking strategy
for Dereham, as well as
considering the potential for
parking reorganisation within
the wider site.
Comment Mr S. Faulkner (Norfolk County
Council)
Policy should reflect latest
terminology contained within
PPS5. Policy may also need to
be strengthened in light of
importance of Conservation
Area and heritage assets within
and adjoining the site.
Comments noted.
Policy D14 - Preferred Site for a Cemetery - Land east of Dereham Town Football Club
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Adam Ireland (Environment Support allocation of site for Support noted.
It is recommended that the site
Agency)
open space as a cemetery.
continue to be allocated for
Request that a risk assessment
open space for a cemetery as
be provided at Planning
per the preferred options
Application stage to assess
document. It will be known as
impact on groundwater.
D8.
Mr Mathews (Taylor Wimpey) Support identification of this
piece of land for a cemetery and
Support noted.

Policy D14 - Preferred Site for a Cemetery - Land east of Dereham Town Football Club
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
consider that it is deliverable for
this use.
Object May Objects due to loss of
agricultural land, and impact of
new development on local
highway network and local
infrastructure capacity.
Comment
Dereham Town Council Support allocation of site, but
request changes to wording to
state that ancillary buildings
‘will’ be acceptable rather than
‘may’.
Mr Cason Considers that site should be
for a crematorium.
Disagree with comment. The
allocation of this site for a
cemetery will result in a low
impact on landscape character
as there will be very limited built
development.
Policy amended to state that
ancillary buildings will be
acceptable subject to criteria.
Evidence contained in Dereham
Cemetery study suggests
Crematorium ‘not viable’ in this
location. Dereham TC is the
local burial authority and the
allocation will meet their future
requirements.
D6 – Alternative Residential Allocation - Land at Garden Centre, Shipdham Road, Toftwood
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr R. Shrimplin (K. Anema) Support the identification of the Support noted.
It is recommended that an area
site for residential development
including the glasshouses and
on behalf of the landowner Mr
industrial buildings be identified
K. Anema.
as a fourth residential
Object Dereham Town Council Consider that the site should be Comments noted. The development allocation in
an alternative and not preferred. identification of this site for 50 Dereham for 50 new homes. It
homes on a reduced portion of will be known as D4.

Comment
Norfolk County Council
(Highways)
Breckland Council
(Contaminated Land)
Do not object to site, but
consider that if it were allocated,
there may be a need for
additional highway measures.
Site is within 250m of a
potential source of
contamination. Recommended
that a desk study be required as
part of detailed Planning
Application.
the site bring in to allocation an
additional site to deliver
development which will help to
ensure the timely delivery of
new homes in Dereham. The
redevelopment of the
glasshouses and structures
provides an opportunity to
enhance the visual appearance
of this area. The site is also
considered acceptable in
highway terms.
Comments noted. It is expected
that any further highway
measures would be considered
through a Transport
Assessment provided as part of
a future Planning Application.
Comments noted.
D7 Alternative Residential Allocation – Land at Dumpling Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Dereham Town Council Support this as an alternative Comments noted.
It is considered that insufficient
site.
justification has been provided
Helen Philips on behalf of Document refers to D9. N/A
to indicate that the site should
Gladedale
be brought into allocation as a
Mr Chris Smith Supports the inclusion of this Comments noted.
preferred location for housing
site, however, suggests that
development in the pre-
this site should feature ahead
submission document. It is also

D7 Alternative Residential Allocation – Land at Dumpling Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
of site D3. D3 has lesser
important to reemphasise that
landscape issues and is the
whilst NCC Highways have not
same proximity to local
formally objected to this site,
amenities.
there remain considerable
Object Mr & Mrs Bowden Objects due to loss of It is noted that the site is landscape and highway
agricultural land, increased currently an arable field and implications that constrain
traffic congestion, impact upon has a wider biodiversity value. development. Therefore, it is
access and flooding.
Overall level of development considered that site D7 be
proposed for Dereham is removed from the submission
identified in the Core Strategy document. This will be known
which highlights that greenfield
land will have to be used as
there is insufficient amount of
as D10.
brownfield land remaining
inside existing settlement
boundaries. Development of
this site will be required to
provide any necessary
improvements to the local
sewerage, flooding and
Cllr M Fanthorpe (Ward If this site were to be developed
highway network.
The adopted Core Strategy
Member)
is should be for industrial use. contains policy dealing with
A preferred site would be land residential amenity and all
behind Nursery Buildings and development will need to have
the old CMC Warehouse, off
Norwich Road. This site has
inadequate access to Dumpling
Green or Yaxham Road and
would result in congestion.
regard to this policy.
There are highways and
flooding implications. It would
result in a loss of amenity for

D7 Alternative Residential Allocation – Land at Dumpling Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr & Mrs Hewson, Mrs Sandra
Howard, Mr Alan Kerrison, Mr
& Mrs Adelizzi, Mr & Mrs Alan
& Brenda Floyd, Mr & Mrs
Steward
nearby residents.
Object due to loss of
agricultural land, landscape
sensitivity, loss of existing
hedgerows, impact upon
wildlife, habitats, highway
implications on to Yaxham
Road and implications at the
Tesco roundabout and wider
infrastructure, issues upon
sewerage disposal, drainage
and flooding.
The site acts as a buffer
between urban and rural areas
and this development would
damage the balance of nature.
Mr & Mrs Pitt Object to increase housing
numbers in Dereham.
Ms Anna Jones Objects and consider the site
be better used for as open
space. The Malting’s in the
centre of town would be a
preferred site. Concern that
development of this site would
result in increased number of
It is noted that the site is
currently an arable field and
has a wider biodiversity value.
Overall level of development
proposed for Dereham is
identified in the Core Strategy
which highlights that Greenfield
land will have to be used as
there is insufficient amount of
Brownfield land remain inside
of existing settlement
boundary. Development of this
site will be required to provide
any necessary improvements
to the local sewerage, flooding
and highway network.
Development would be
expected to provide any
necessary improvements to
local infrastructure to enable it
to occur.
Overall level of development
proposed for Dereham is
identified in the adopted Core
Strategy.
Comments noted. The
Malting’s site is being taken
forward within the submission
document as a preferred site
for future housing growth.

D7 Alternative Residential Allocation – Land at Dumpling Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
cars and congestion.
Mr Chris Smith Consider that landscape and
access to services and facilities
are of a similar nature to that of
site D3.
It is suggested that as part of a
future planning application
evidence will demonstrate that
the proposed development will
not result in harm to the local
transport network or landscape
sensitivity.
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major Constraints to the
provision of infrastructure
and/or treatment to serve
proposed growth within the
water capacity, waste water
capacity and the foul sewerage
Norfolk County Council
(Highways)
network.
There is no footway along the
frontage although potentially
the existing footway to the
north could be extended up to
this site. There is sufficient site
frontage to provide an
The preferred options were
considered having regard to
their impact upon the wider
landscape. Site D7 is located
within the river valley which is
given high protection within
Core Policy CP11 of the
adopted Core Strategy.
Furthermore, the Highways
Authority is suggesting that
whilst highway issues are not
insurmountable there remain
significant constraints to
overcome as part of any future
planning application. There has
been no further evidence put
forward that justifies including
this site as a preferred option
ahead of site D3.
Comments noted. All
development in Dereham is
affected by issues surrounding
waste water treatment and the
sewerage network.
Comments noted. Whilst the
Highways Authority in summary
is suggesting that issues are
not insurmountable there are
significant constraints to
overcome as part of any future

D7 Alternative Residential Allocation – Land at Dumpling Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
adequate access point onto planning application.
Yaxham Road. There are
concerns about the suitability of
Dumpling Green to cater for
any increase in vehicular
movements due to its poor
condition, inadequate width in
places and its poor alignment,
however if Dumpling Green
where to be suitably improved
this could be considered as an
additional access point to the
site. Due to the large size of the
potential development, the 30
mph speed limit may need to
be relocated to cover the site
access and improvement works
may be needed to provide
traffic calming measures such
as a roundabout or right turn
lane to prevent conflict with
other road users. There is also
concern over significant
additional vehicular use of
Westfield Lane resulting from
development of this site due to
its inadequate width and poor
alignment at the railway bridge
and some investigation into
possible mitigation measures
should be carried out. This site
is within reasonable walking
distance of supermarkets, a

D7 Alternative Residential Allocation – Land at Dumpling Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
school and an employment
area but relatively remote from
the town centre. There are no
highway reasons why this site
can not be included within the
plan.
D8 – Alternative Residential Allocation - Land at Hoe Road (Northall Green)
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Dereham Town Council Councillors suggested that this This site was consulted on as It is considered that alternative
should be an alternative site an alternative and not a option D8 should be removed
and not the main site.
preferred option.
from the list of alternative
Object NCC Highways The Highway’s Authority Objection noted. Site proposed options as a result of highways
supports the exclusion of this to be removed as an objection. It is therefore
alternative site from the plan. unreasonable option for considered an ‘unreasonable’
The Highway’s Authority would
object if this site were included
in the plan.
development.
site.
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to provision Anglian Water is aware of
of infrastructure and/or constraints and upgrades
treatment to serve proposed required as part of future
growth within the waste water growth within the town and it is
capacity and the foul sewerage considered there are no
network and upgrades required
to waster capacity.
insurmountable constraints.
D9 –Alternative Residential Allocation - Land at Swanton Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Dereham Town Council Councillors suggested that this Comments noted. The site was It is considered that alternative
should be an alternative site consulted as an alternative and option D9 should be removed
and not the main site.
not a preferred option. as an alternative option due to

D9 –Alternative Residential Allocation - Land at Swanton Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Object Norfolk County Council The Highway Authority Objection noted.
highways objection. It is
(Highways)
supports the exclusion of this
considered the site is an
alternative site from the plan.
The Highway Authority would
object if this site were included
in the plan.
‘unreasonable’ site.
Comment Kathryn Money on behalf of Supports allocation of this site Notwithstanding information
Gladedale
on behalf of the client who is raised, the Highway’s Authority
the landowner. Evidence has would object if this site were
been submitted to demonstrate
that the proposed development
will not result in harm to the
local transport network. Other
evidence submitted indicates
proposal is deliverable.
included in the plan.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to provision Anglian Water is aware of
of infrastructure and/or constraints and upgrades
treatment to serve proposed required as part of future
growth within the waste water growth within the town and it is
capacity and the foul sewerage considered there are no
network.
insurmountable constraints.
D10 – Alternative Employment Allocation - Land east of Dereham Business Park
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Hudson, O'Brien & Lewins on Object to the allocation of site Comments noted. The The phasing of development of
behalf of Mr Philip Summers D5 ahead of site D10 and assessment provided in respect future employment expansion
instead propose the allocation of landscape impact of site D10 at Dereham business park is
of site D10 for employment versus D5 is finely balanced. It finely balanced. It is
uses with site D5 that being is notable that the agent recommended that site D10
identified as an alternative acknowledges that both sites should be introduced as the
allocation. Provides are suitable for employment preferred allocation.
justification why site D10 is use and the issues mainly

D10 – Alternative Employment Allocation - Land east of Dereham Business Park
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
preferred over site D5. centre on the phasing of However, Members should be
development.
mindful that the identification of
Mr Ben Walker No reason given. Support noted.
site D5 as a contingency site
Mr M. Robinson (On behalf of Supports this as a logical place. Support noted.
recognises the wider
The Trustees of GR Scott)
acceptability of this site for
Summers Wykes-Sneyd D10 would be more suitable the Comments noted.
employment development.
D5 for employment allocation.
D10 would have less impact
upon local amenity. Have
provided additional evidence in
the form of an ecological
assessment.
This will be known as D6.
TJ Mortimer D10 would be more suitable Comments noted. Both sites
than D5 for employment will have a degree of landscape
allocation. D10 would have impact; however, the
less impact upon local amenity. accompanying policy seeks to
ensure that appropriate
landscaping is provided to
minimise
development.
impact of
Mrs Elaine Walker Support paragraph 2.54. Comment noted.
Object
Comment Mrs Sue Bull Major Constraints to the Anglian Water is aware of
provision of infrastructure constraints and upgrades
and/or treatment to serve required as part of future
proposed growth to waste growth within the town and it is
water and foul sewerage considered there are no
network.
insurmountable constraints.
Highways Authority There are no highway reasons
why this site can not be
included within the plan.
Comments noted.

D12 – Alternative Retail Allocation - Edge of Centre Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that alternative
Object
option D12 not be pursued
Comment Norfolk County Council The Highway’s Authority Comments noted.
further as a result of lack of
(Highways)
would object if this site were
support and highway objection.
included in the plan.
It is therefore considered an
‘unreasonable’ site.
D13 – Alternative Retail Allocation - Georges Road/ Nunn’s Way to Cowper Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Whilst the Highway’s Authority
Object
have not objected to this site,
Comment Norfolk County Council There are no highway Comments noted.
no evidence has been
(Highways)
reasons why this site can
presented for the need for
not be included within the
additional office and leisure
plan.
within Dereham that requires
an allocation. It is
recommended that this
alternative option will not be
taken forward to the
submission document. This
site will be known as D11.
D15 – Alternative option for new open space for cemetery
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that the site is
Object
not taken forward for open
Comment Norfolk County Council Would not object if the site Comments noted. Cemetery space as a cemetery. This will
(Highways)
was to be included in the is not the preferred land use be known as D12.
LDF for a cemetery. for this area of land and as
such is not recommended
to be taken further.

Dereham Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Notwithstanding concerns with the
Object Dick Wingate on behalf of Wishes to see land at In respect of Mr Wingate’s represented sites, they were
Dereham Golf Club Dereham Golf Club site, this has not previously submitted at a late stage in the
included in the boundary. been consulted on at process. Due to the los of open
previous stages in the space the site is not considered to
process and as such should
not be considered at this
late stage. Furthermore,
development of this parcel
of land would result in the
be taken forward.
loss of open space
protected under Policy
DC11 of the adopted Core
Strategy. There may well
be access and highway
issues as part of any future
development of the site and
any development may
impact upon the Dereham
Conservation Area.
Comment
Swaffham
Swaffham Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
A number of detailed points have
Object Mr Adam Case Objects to paragraph 2.62 The Council’s Employment been raised on the introductory
as the industrial site at Land Review was section for Swaffham which relate
Redland Tiles was originally undertaken in 2006 by to the evidence base for the town.
rejected by Swaffham independent consultants This evidence base was prepared
Council but overruled by the (Roger Tym & Partners) for the Core Strategy and has been

Swaffham Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Thetford Councillors when who concluded that the found to be sound. The Site
being put forward for former Redland Tiles site Specifics document needs to be in
change of use to was unattractive to the conformity with the Core Strategy
residential.
employment market due to document. Therefore it is
its distance from the A47 recommended that no changes are
and the cost of remediation. required to the factual introductory
The site now has planning
permission for residential.
section for Swaffham.
Mr Adam Case Objects to paragraph 2.65 The Council’s Landscape
in regards to the Character Assessment –
assessment made within Settlement Fringe Study is
the Breckland Landscape an independent piece of
Settlement Fringe which work based on site visits
states there is ‘limited and historical analysis. The
potential for expansion to landscape to the south-west
the west of town’, however of Swaffham is part of the
the area to the west of the distinctive Brecks
town is closer to the town landscape and judged to be
centre than the proposed more inherently and highly
allocation at SW1 and sensitive to new
therefore appears development. The
contradictory.
proposed allocation at site
SW1 is in landscape
defined as tributary
farmland and as such is
assessed to be a more
enclosed landscape which
is moderately sensitive.
The findings of the
Landscape Character
Assessment work have
been reported to and
accepted by Breckland

Swaffham Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr Adam Case Objects to paragraph 2.67.
Stone Curlew restriction
area and sites have been
identified as having to avoid
these areas. SW1 is a
preferred location by the
Council, however, this is
closer to the Stone Curlews
restriction areas than many
of the other sites and
therefore again is
contradictory.
Comment Highways Agency Raise no objection to the
preferred or alternative sites
on the highways network in
Swaffham.
Council.
The Stone Curlew
protection buffer was
established though the
Council’s Core Strategy
document and includes land
close to the south and west
to Swaffham given the
proximity of suitable
protected habitat capable of
hosting Stone Curlew nests.
Site SW1 is not in this
buffer and is shielded from
the buffer by existing
development.
Comments noted.
Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support DPP Ltd on behalf of The preferred allocation of The overall support for site No change. Retain site SW1 as the
Gladedale Anglia Ltd land for housing at Policy SW1 is noted. The proposed allocation for 250 homes
SW1 is sensible and respondent raises some in Swaffham. Whilst competing
appropriate having regard detailed issues about the sites have objected to its proposed
to its relationship with the inclusive delivery of allocation, it should be noted that
former ‘Redland Tiles’ site infrastructure and facilities there is local support for the site
to its south. The allocation in south-east Swaffham as and fundamentally no objection
would ensure a sustainable a result of the proposed from the local Transport Authority to
link between the Redland allocation at SW1 and the its identification as a proposed
site and the town centre extant permission for 414 allocation.

Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
and creating a stronger dwellings to the south of
settlement boundary to the SW1. The policy for SW1
south east of Swaffham. To identifies all the known on-
achieve the form of site infrastructure
sustainable development requirements arising from
appropriate here, we would the development of the site.
suggest a number of Additionally, a masterplan is
benefits to delivery in required prior to the
linking the two sites. These submission of any
include: (1) Highway application. The
Improvements -. Safe masterplanning process will
highway access to the site include addressing the
from Brandon Road, one of detailed linkages to
the principal routes into adjoining areas and the
Swaffham, is important to precise form and location of
the effective delivery of both any on-site community
sites, such that infrastructure. In principle,
opportunities/shared needs shared provision across a
for the sites (such as wider development of 664
access) should be dwellings is to be
considered. (2) A encouraged and any
coordinated approach to the provision will need to be
delivery of a general accordance with the policies
package of transport in the adopted Core
improvements (enhanced Strategy document.
bus services and
pedestrian/cycle links) and
(3) Supporting
Infrastructure – including a
holistic assessment of retail
needs, community and
leisure facilities etc to
adequately meet the needs

Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
of this new community. Our
client considers that
opportunity exists for a new
local centre (at the very
least) on the former
‘Redland Tiles’ site
providing for shopping and
community needs which
would fulfil a number of
these requirements for that
scheme. We consider our
client’s site better placed to
support such infrastructure
principally due to its size,
proposed highway access
(roundabout junction) and
linkages, and deliverability
in the shorter term. It is
acknowledged in your
consultation (Paragraph
2.74) that the proposed
allocation will critically need
to consider provision for the
delivery of key
infrastructure and services
as part of its phasing. The
opportunity for coalescence
between the sites should
therefore be to the forefront.
J B Clements, Marian
Clements on behalf of
Swaffham and District
This site is supported for
residential development as
it is close to local
Support noted.

Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Swimming Pool Association, infrastructure. Development
L Woods, Mr & Mrs Bishop, of this site may reduce town
Mr Trevor Greef, Mr Thair centre traffic congestion.
The proximity to
Hammonds HIgh School
makes it the ideal choice for
adoption in the LDF.
Mr John Wallace Support this site and
encourage low density
development.
Mr Reuben Linehan Support the development of
this site and the principles
as illustrated within the
policy.
NCC Highways Subject to local
improvement works the
Highway Authority supports
the inclusion of this
Richard Sykes-Popham on
behalf of Abel Homes
preferred site in the plan.
Evidence submitted on
behalf of the site
owner/promoter Abel
Homes that the site is
available and deliverable
and can provide the
required infrastructure and
community benefits. The
material submitted affirms
that the site is not affected
by the Stone Curlew
protection area and the
sustainability issues raised
Support noted.
Support noted.
Support noted.
Support noted.

Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
by opposing site promoters
are ‘selective’. The
advantages of proximity to
the schools are highlighted
and the material contains
evidence that the developer
has been working on
bringing the site forward (to
demonstrate delivery)
including a waste water
Object Taylor Wimpey
Developments Ltd
solution with Anglian Water.
Taylor Wimpey
Developments Ltd objects
to the principle of the
preferred allocation (Site
SW1) and provide
justification as to why SW11
is more preferable. Site
SW.1 is located 1.5km from
the town centre of
Swaffham and more than
2km from the Turbine
Way/Castle Acre
employment area at the
northern end of the town.
The development of 664
new homes (including the
extant permission for 414
homes to the south of the
site) will result in a
significant spatial imbalance
and polarisation of uses
within Swaffham, with the
The rationale for selecting
site SW.1 as the proposed
allocation for Swaffham is
robust and sustainable.
The site is acceptable in
landscape and access
terms and has the same, if
not better, ability to access
the waste water network as
compared to other sites to
the east of Swaffham.
Whilst the site is very close
to the junior and high
schools, it is noted that the
site is some distance from
the town centre and
employment areas.
However, given the linear
form of the town and the
landscape sensitivities of
going east or west of the
town centre, all sites will be

Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
primary employment area located some distance from
lying over 2km from what one key service or facility.
would be the largest To mitigate against this
residential area in the town. policy SW1 includes
Taken as a whole, the footpath/cycle
provision of 664 homes in a enhancements and bus
location without adequate facilities to utilise the
local social and economic internal bus service in
infrastructure could have a Swaffham. Whilst the fact
major impact on the that 664 homes would be
sustainability of Swaffham provided to the south is not
as a whole. Whilst the site contested, 414 of those
does present an option that homes already have
will have a low visual, planning permission and
physical and environmental site SW1 provides an ability
impact on the surrounding to link those permitted
environment. Policy SW1 is homes to the town centre,
both unjustified and including off-road cycle and
inconsistent with national footpaths. There is a
planning policy, it should recorded level of public
therefore not be allocated support for the site and no
for housing development local opposition in the LDF
and the proposed quantum process. The Highway’s
of housing for Swaffham Authority has not objected
should be directed to to its proposed allocation
Norwich Road (SW11). unlike other sites where the
Taylor Wimpey’s site at transport sustainability is
Norwich Road (SW11) poor. Therefore it is not
adjoins the present built up proposed to remove site
area of the town and it is in SW1. Concerns with site
a sustainable location to SW11 are addressed
provide housing below.
development to meet the

Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
future housing needs of
Comment
Swaffham.
Adam Case Stone Curlew restriction
area and sites have been
identified as having to avoid
these areas. SW1 is a
preferred location by the
Council however, this is
closer to the Stone Curlews
restriction areas than many
of the other sites and
therefore again is
contradictory.
BDC Contaminated Land Potential contaminative
source or within 250m
adjacent
commercial/industrial site.
Contaminated land
assessment required before
planning permission is
granted – desk study
initially because of the size
of development.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the
provision of infrastructure
and/or treatment to serve
proposed growth in
Site SW1 is not in the Stone
Curlew protection buffer.
Furthermore, the site is
shielded from a direct line to
those areas capable for
hosting nesting Stone
Curlews by existing
residential development.
There is no objection from
either Natural England or
RSPB to the proposed
allocation and the Council’s
own Habitats Regulation
Assessment work has not
identified Stone Curlews as
a reason for not including
site SW1.
Comments noted.
Contaminated land
assessment would be
undertaken at planning
application stage.
The comments from Anglian
Water are noted. The
constraints and required
upgrades to enable future

Policy SW1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Brandon Road and North of the Former Redland Tiles Site
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Swaffham are recognised growth within this part of
with regards to waste water Swaffham are considered to
capacity. Upgrades are be achievable for site SW1
required to the foul given the proximity of the
sewerage network and sewage treatment works
water supply network to and the location of the
deliver the Core Strategy existing strategic sewer
level of growth.
network in relation to the
site.
Policy SW2 - Preferred Employment Allocation - Land to the North of the Ecotech Centre
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Savills on behalf of Lands The allocation of SW2 is Support noted.
No change to the allocation at SW.2
Improvement (c/o agent) fully supported.
However, emphasise in the policy
Object D Cannon Vacant plots on Ecotech Point 3 of the policy relating that the site will only be released
Park should be used first to site SW2 states that once detailed permissions are
prior to allocation of more development will not achieved on the remaining
employment land being commence until vacant and undeveloped areas of the adjoining
developed. This land could developable land on the Ecotech Park.
be rented to the gypsy and existing Ecotech Centre has
traveller community. the benefit of detailed
planning permission. It is
agreed that the focus of
effort should be on
delivering remaining
employment land on
Ecotech before releasing
additional land. However,
once detailed permissions
have been granted it may
be necessary to release site
SW2 to secure economic
investment in the town. It is

Policy SW2 - Preferred Employment Allocation - Land to the North of the Ecotech Centre
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
not in this sites document to
release additional land for
Gypsy and Traveller
provision. The A11 corridor
has been identified as the
strategic location for a
permanent Gypsy and
Traveller site and this is
being addressed through
other Development Plan
Documents, namely the
Attleborough & Snetterton
Comment
NCC Highways Subject to a satisfactory
access being provided
through the Eco Tech
Employment Area, the
Highway’s Authority
supports the inclusion of
this preferred site in the
plan.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the
provision of infrastructure
and/or treatment to serve
proposed growth with
regards to waste water
capacity upgrades are
required to the foul
sewerage network.
Heath Area Action Plan.
Comments noted
Anglian Water is aware of
constraints and upgrades
required as part of future
growth within the town and
it is considered there are no
insurmountable constraints.

Policy SW3 - Preferred Employment Allocation - Land to the West of the Eco-Tech Employment Area
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
No change. Retain SW3 as an
Object
employment land allocation in the
Comment
NCC Highways Subject to a satisfactory Comments noted
proposed submission document.
access being provided
through the Eco Tech
Employment Area, the
Highway’s Authority
Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
supports the inclusion of
this preferred site in the
plan.
Major constraints to the Anglian Water is aware of
provision of infrastructure constraints and upgrades
and/or treatment to serve required as part of future
proposed growth with growth within the town and
regards to waste water it is considered there are no
capacity upgrades are insurmountable constraints.
required to the foul
sewerage network.
SW4: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Brandon Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that alternative
Object NCC Highways The Highway’s Authority Comments noted.
option SW4 should be removed
supports the exclusion of
from the list of alternative options as
this alternative site from the
a result of highway and RSPB
plan. The Highway’s
objections. It is therefore
Authority would object if this
recommended to present SW4 as
site were included in the
an ‘unreasonable’ site in the
plan.
proposed submission document.
Mike Jones RSPB Parts of alternative site Comments noted. The site
SW4 is located within 400m was presented as a
of those parts of the Brecks ‘reasonable alternative’ and
SPA suitable for Woodlark the issue of proximity to the

SW4: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Brandon Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
and Nightjar populations. forest parts of the Brecks
The 400m buffer is a means SPA were identified. The
of restricting impacts on consultation process has
ground nesting species clearly identified concerns
such as the Nightjar and about the impact on
Woodlark from urban Woodlark and Nightjars and
effects such as cat Officers agree that with the
predation. The RSPB would availability of alternative
consider it unlikely that sites it is highly unlikely that
development within this including SW4 as an
400m buffer would be able allocation would enable the
to pass a project-level document to pass Habitats
Habitat Regulations Regulation Assessment and
Assessment (HRA) and as such the document
therefore this location would be found ‘unsound’.
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
should not be put forward.
Major constraints to the Anglian Water is aware of
provision of infrastructure constraints and upgrades
and/or treatment to serve required as part of future
proposed growth with growth within the town and
regards to waste water it is considered there are no
capacity upgrades are insurmountable constraints.
required to the foul
sewerage network.
SW5: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the South East of Cley Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that alternative
Object NCC Highways The Highway Authority
option SW5 should be removed
supports the exclusion of
from the list of alternative options as
this alternative site from the
a result of highway objection. It is
plan and would object if this
therefore considered an
site were included in the
‘unreasonable’ site to present in the

SW5: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the South East of Cley Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
plan.
proposed submission document.
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the Anglian Water is aware of
provision of infrastructure constraints and upgrades
and/or treatment to serve required as part of future
proposed growth with growth within the town and
regards to waste water it is considered there are no
capacity upgrades are insurmountable constraints.
required to the foul
sewerage network.
SW6: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the North of Beachamwell Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that alternative
Object
Mr Adam Case Under the last paragraph of Mill Farm Nurseries was option SW6 should be removed from
SW6 it states there is a gas built in the 1960s/1970s at the list of alternative options as a
pipeline, this is a fuel line a time of different result of highway objection. It is
which goes through the standards. Whilst the route therefore considered an
centre of the site, however of gas pipelines could be ‘unreasonable’ site.
this fuel line goes under accommodated within
houses in Mill Farm developments (ie as open
Nurseries and therefore space) the issue is
again is contradictory. identified as part of a
cumulative picture of issues
which indicate that
development of SW6 will
not be straightforward.
NCC Highways
These delivery issues work
against the identification of
this site for development
when other sites do not
have so many complex
hurdles to address.
The Highway’s Authority Comments noted.

SW6: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the North of Beachamwell Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
would object if this site
Comment Environmental Protection,
Breckland Council
were included in the plan.
Our records indicate a
portion of this site to the
east overlaps a potentially
filled quarry. Planning
permission would be
dependent on the
developer providing a site
investigation with sufficient
quantitative evidence to
show that there is a viable
remediation method for
residential development of
this area. Therefore this
may affect the timely
delivery and viability of the
site.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the
provision of infrastructure
and/or treatment to serve
proposed growth to the
west of Swaffham with
regards to waste water
capacity. Upgrades are
required to the foul
sewerage network and
water supply network.
Comments noted.
The comments from
Anglian Water are noted.
The constraints and
required upgrades to
enable future growth within
this part of Swaffham are
considered to be
insurmountable in the
context of the scale of
growth identified for the
town (250 homes).

SW7: Alternative Residential Site - Land to the South of Lynn Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
No change to the proposed
Object
Mrs Julie Jaques on behalf Objects to paragraphs The assessment of sites submission document and site SW7
of owners MGPD Ltd 2.101 in that development (097) 028 and (097) 031 be retained as a ‘reasonable
would not detract from the concluded they be identified alternative’ site. Whilst there are no
character and appearance as an alternative site SW7 highways constraints to the
of the Brecks landscape. because of landscape development of SW7 in its totality or
Mrs Julie Jaques on behalf Considers that sewerage impact and waste water. In local opposition, it is recommended
of owners MGPD Ltd arrangements can be respect of Site (097) 031 that the sensitivity of the landscape
addressed to enable this further concerns related to in conjunction with the need to bring
site to come forward. access and loss of open in significant waste water upgrades
Mrs Julie Jaques on behalf Development of this part of space (allotment land). It is across the town mean that this site
of owners MGPD Ltd the former allotments site in recognised that the should remain a reasonable
the manner outlined would allotment land protection no alternative and not the preferred
not affect the gas pipeline longer applies. However, site. This will be known as SW4.
to the west of the proposed access to the site can only
development area. be achieved in isolation
Mrs Julie Jaques on behalf
of owners MGPD Ltd
The document should be
amended to include site
from Whitsands Road which
is unacceptable. On this
(097) 031 which is no basis Breckland presented
longer statutorily protected the site as part of the wider
allotment land.
SW7 so access could be
Comment Mr Dick Wingate Objects to this site being a
alternative allocation. Sites
[097]028 and [097]031 have
previously been
represented to the Local
Authority.
secured from the Lynn
Road. Further detailed
evidence on water
infrastructure highlights that
developing land to the west
of Swaffham including SW7
will require strategic
upgrades to the waste
water network which the
proposed scale of
development for the town
cannot deliver on its own.

SW7: Alternative Residential Site - Land to the South of Lynn Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Furthermore, no evidence
has been presented as part
of preferred sites
consultation which
demonstrates that
Breckland Council’s
landscape assessment that
this is ‘sensitive Brecks
NCC Highways Subject to local
improvements there are no
highway reasons why site
SW7 can not be included
within the plan.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the
provision of infrastructure
and/or treatment to serve
proposed growth to the
west of Swaffham with
regards to waste water
capacity. Upgrades are
required to the foul
sewerage network and
water supply network.
landscape’ is flawed.
Comments noted.
The comments from Anglian
Water are noted. The
constraints and required
upgrades to enable future
growth within this part of
Swaffham are considered to
be insurmountable in the
context of the scale of
growth identified for the
town (250 homes).
SW8: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the west of Cley Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
No change to the proposed
Object Mr Adam Case It is suggested that issues Further detailed evidence submission document and site SW8
regarding landscape, sewer on water infrastructure be retained as a ‘reasonable
network gas, and electricity highlights that developing alternative’ site. Whilst there are no
can be resolved and/or land to the west of highways constraints or local

SW8: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the west of Cley Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
mitigated against. Open Swaffham including SW8 opposition to site SW8, it is
space and low cost housing will require strategic recommended that the sensitivity of
will be provided on site. upgrades to the waste the landscape in conjunction with
water network which the the need to bring in significant
proposed scale of waste water upgrades across the
development for the town town mean that this site should
cannot deliver on its own. remain a reasonable alternative and
Furthermore, no evidence not the preferred site. This will be
has been presented as part known as SW5.
of preferred sites
consultation which
demonstrates that
Breckland Council’s
Landscape Assessment
Comment
NCC Highways Subject to local
that this is sensitive Brecks
landscape is flawed.
Comments noted.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
improvements there are no
highway reasons why this
site can not be included
within the plan.
Major constraints to the The comments from Anglian
provision of infrastructure Water are noted. The
and/or treatment to serve constraints and required
proposed growth to the upgrades to enable future
west of Swaffham with growth within this part of
regards to waste water Swaffham are considered to
capacity. Upgrades are be insurmountable in the
required to the foul context of the scale of
sewerage network and growth identified for the
water supply network. town (250 homes).

SW9: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the East of New Sporle Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Paul Took on behalf of It is considered that the The site was considered as Notwithstanding the additional
Mr & Mrs Hall
development of land, part of the preferred options information submitted on behalf of
denoted as site 097/010 (a consultation and Swaffham Mr Hall in support for this site,
3.14ha component part of Town Council was objections have been raised by both
Site SW9) in the LDF supportive that site SW9 the Highways Authority and the
process, to be both was presented as one of Highways Agency which preclude
accessible and sustainable. the preferred sites. development of this site unless
In addition a development However, highways evidence is produced to overcome
of 100 dwellings on the site concerns over accessing these issues. Further constraints
is in our opinion able to be the site have been known are attributed to site SW9 due to it
accommodated without the for some time and the being in multiple ownerships,
need to improve the consultation was an environmental concerns from the
alignment of New Sporle opportunity to test whether A47 traffic levels and lack of
Road on the approach to there was an alternative proximity to town centre and local
the junction with the A1065. way of delivering the site. schools. For these reasons it is
Furthermore the site is The Highways Authorities recommended that the site be
reasonably related to the have maintained their identified as an ‘unreasonable’
town centre and within objection to the site option on highways grounds rather
reasonable cycling distance including concerns about its than a reasonable alternative.
to the schools.
distance from the Primary
and High Schools.
Object NCC Highways The site is in a remote Comments noted.
location from the town
centre and is a good
distance from the schools in
Swaffham. There is,
accordingly, a strong
likelihood that everyday
journeys would be made by
car. There are also
concerns relating to the
suitability of New Sporle
Road for significant

SW9: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the East of New Sporle Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
additional vehicular use,
this being due its junction
arrangement with the
A1065. Summary: The
Highway Authority supports
the exclusion of this
alternative site from the
plan. The Highway
Authority would object if this
site were included in the
Comment
plan.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the
provision of infrastructure
and/or treatment to serve
proposed growth with
regards to waste water
capacity apply to Swaffham
and have influenced the
scale of growth. Whilst
there is some limited
network capacity on the
east side of the town,
upgrades are required to
the foul sewerage network
to accommodate site SW9.
Highways Agency Alternative site SW9 is
located immediately
adjacent to the A47(T).
Environmental
considerations, such as
noise and air quality, may
preclude residential land
use on this site.
The constraints to the waste
water network are noted.
The upgrades required are
considered achievable in
the context of the level of
development proposed.

SW10: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the North of Norwich Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
A number of technical comments
Object
have been received on this site
Comment
BDC Contaminated Land Potential contaminative Comments noted. which reaffirms the evidence
source within 250m of the Contaminated land Breckland Council was in receipt of
site. Therefore a assessment would be before the consultation. Therefore
contaminated land undertaken at planning no new evidence has come forward
assessment is required application stage.
which would result in a
before planning permission
reassessment of the site to include
is granted.
it as a final allocation in the
NCC Highways Subject to local Comments noted.
proposed submission document. It
improvements there are no
is recommended to retain the site
highway reasons why this
as a ‘reasonable alternative’. This
site can not be included
within the plan.
will be known as SW6.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the The constraints to the waste
provision of infrastructure water network are noted.
and/or treatment to serve The upgrades required are
proposed growth with considered achievable in
regards to waste water the context of the level of
capacity apply to Swaffham
and have influenced the
scale of growth. Whilst
development proposed.
there is some limited
network capacity on the
east side of the town,
upgrades are required to
the foul sewerage network
to accommodate site
SW10.

SW11: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the South of Norwich Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Taylor Wimpey It is considered that SW11 Site SW11 has been No change. The reasons why this
Developments Ltd
is a more sustainable site presented as a ‘reasonable site was identified as a ‘reasonable
than the preferred site as alternative’ because of alternative’ remain valid as they are
SW1 due to its close landscape impact and inherently linked to the local
proximity to the town proximity of Grade II Listed landscape and the relationship of
centre, main areas of Buildings at Wood Farm. the site to the Listed Building. It is
employment within the town Views are afforded across not to say that the site cannot be
and local services, the site from Norwich Road developed (as evidenced from the
amenities and school etc. and across the site from the material submitted) and nor is its
PPS3 has been applied to public footpath. Similar location so poor in wider
illustrate its deliverability, landscape and proximity to sustainability terms in relation to
availability and suitability. Listed Building issues due proximity to town centre that its
The site is neither subject not apply in relation to the location is unreasonable. However,
of, nor adjacent to, any proposed allocation at SW1. on balance, the local environmental
areas of ecological The site is well-related to issues affecting this site are such
sensitivity. Taylor-Wimpey the town centre and the that they make the site a
disagree with the infant school however it is ‘reasonable alternative’ rather than
assessment in the equidistant by some 900 part of the proposed allocation for
consultation document and metres from both the main Swaffham. This will be known as
the impact of the site upon employment sites and main SW7.
Listed Buildings.
school areas. The relative
locational advantages of the
site are not considered
sufficient to outweigh the
site specific impacts of the
site on the local landscape
and adjoining Listed
Building.
Object
Comment BDC Contaminated Land Potential contaminative Comments noted.
source within 250m of the Contaminated land
site. Therefore a assessment would be
contaminated land undertaken at planning

SW11: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the South of Norwich Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
assessment is required application stage.
before planning permission
is granted – desk study
initially because of the size
of development.
NCC Highways Subject to local Comments noted.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
improvements there are no
highway reasons why this
site can not be included
within the plan.
Major constraints to the The constraints to the waste
provision of infrastructure water network are noted.
and/or treatment to serve The upgrades required are
proposed growth with considered achievable in
regards to waste water the context of the level of
capacity apply to Swaffham
and have influenced the
scale of growth. Whilst
development proposed.
there is some limited
network capacity on the
east side of the town,
upgrades are required to
the foul sewerage network
to accommodate site
SW10.
SW12: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land to the south of North Pickenham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
No change. Recommend retain site
Object Mr Adam Case The site has previously The site is located at a SW.12 as a ‘reasonable alternative’
been allocated for gateway entrance to the site site rather than a proposed
residential development in to the town approaching allocation for submission. This will

SW12: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land to the south of North Pickenham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
former Local Plan from North Pickenham in a be known as SW.8.
documents. The site has location which has a
good access and has good relatively rural character.
proximity to local amenities The rural character is
and facilities. The site has accentuated by the
new upgraded gas, water proximity of Listed farm
and electricity and meets buildings and the historic
the criteria that the Dulgate Lane to the south
preferred site chosen at of the town. Whilst the site
SW1 does not meet. is reasonably close to the
Suggests that impacts upon town centre it has a
the listed building can be generally poor relationship
mitigated by sympathetic to the town with limited
landscaping on the eastern ability to provide links other
boundary.
than via North Pickenham
Road and White Cross
Road.
Comment BDC Contaminated Land Potential contaminative Comments noted.
source within 250m. Contaminated land
Contaminated land assessment would be
assessment required before undertaken at planning
planning permission is application stage.
granted – desk study
initially because of the size
of development.
NCC Highways Subject to local Comments noted.
Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
improvements there are no
highway reasons why this
site can not be included
within the plan.
Major constraints to the The constraints to the waste
provision of infrastructure water network are noted.
and/or treatment to serve The upgrades required are

SW12: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land to the south of North Pickenham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
proposed growth with considered achievable in
regards to waste water the context of the level of
capacity apply to Swaffham
and have influenced the
scale of growth. Whilst
development proposed.
there is some limited
network capacity on the
east side of the town,
upgrades are required to
the foul sewerage network
to accommodate site
SW12.
SW13: Alternative Employment Allocation - Land to the North of the A47
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that alternative
Object NCC Highways The Highway Authority Comments noted.
option SW13 should be removed
would object if this site were
from the list of alternative options as
included in the plan.
a result of highway objection. It is
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to the The constraints to the waste therefore considered an
provision of infrastructure water network are noted. It unreasonable site.
and/or treatment to serve is not understood whether
proposed growth with the upgrades required are
regards to waste water considered achievable in
capacity apply to Swaffham the context of the level of
and have influenced the development proposed at
scale of growth. Whilst SW13.
there is some limited
network capacity on the
east side of the town,
upgrades are required to
the foul sewerage network
to accommodate site

SW13: Alternative Employment Allocation - Land to the North of the A47
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
SW13.
Swaffham Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
No change. Sites (097) 006 and
Object Dick Wingate on behalf of Land at The Manor, Sites [097] 006 & 022 have (097) 022 should remain as
Heygate Farms Ltd Norwich Road (sites [097] been previously scoped ‘unreasonable’ options.
006 & 022) are capable of through 2008 and 2009
accommodating low issues and options and
density, high quality were agreed by Breckland
designed dwellings which Council as being
would make an entirely unreasonable for
appropriate entrance to the development due to their
town on the north side of impact on Grade II Listed
the Norwich Road. Sites are Buildings and discounted.
currently only being The Norwich Road
promoted by the Council for approach into Swaffham is
maximum density characterised by an
development, with no undeveloped quality
allowance for low density particularly the Antinghams
forms of development. The and land around the Manor
Government has recently House. This area provides
relaxed the requirement for a setting for the Church, the
maximum densities. historical Campingland and
Services are available, and the Manor. Development,
the site is in a completely irrespective of density, will
sustainable location, being encroach into this open
within walking distance from area and harm the
the town centre.
character of this locally
valued and historically
important undeveloped
area. Officers are still of the
view that low density

Swaffham Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
development will adversely
affect the setting of the
Listed Buildings in this area.
Comment
Watton
Watton Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object
Comments noted.
Comment Highways Agency Raise no objection to the
preferred or alternative sites on
the strategic road network in
Watton.
Comments noted.
Mrs Helen Hornagold, Mr Bryan Wishes to see more power to The adopted Core Strategy has Comments noted.
Wykes
local people as a result of the determined the districts growth
Government agenda.
agenda. Local level
consultation remains
Concern existing unfinished unchanged through the
residential developments. planning process.
The town needs more green
open spaces.
Bryan Wykes, John Potter Concern over sewage in the
Langmere road Swaffham
Road, Brandon road and
Saham Road area and flooding
Open Space Policy DC11 within
the adopted Core Strategy
deals with the protection of
existing areas of open space
and contributions to open space
provision from all new
development.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town. It is considered
Comments noted.

Watton Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
at Town Green.
that there are no
Surface water drainage needs insurmountable constraints.
updating in Nelson Court,
Sharman Avenue, Goffe Close,
Tom Milford Place and Brandon
Road. Increased development
will exacerbate this problem.
Policy W1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to west of A1075 and adjacent Wayland High School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mrs J Seal (Watton Town Support for W1 providing that This is emphasised in point 6 of It is considered that despite the
Council)
the piece of land for the policy W1.
representations received that
provision of cycle/footway is
the preferred site W1 remains
located to the north of the site to
benefit the school.
appropriate.
Mr Stephen Faulkner (NCC) Supports the expansion and Detailed design principles would
enhancement of the school. The be established at planning
Policy ought to indicate that the
northern part of the site should
be safeguarded for education
uses and should (with the rest
of the school) lie within the
applications stage.
settlement boundary
town.
of the
Transport Planner (NCC) Highway’s Authority support the
inclusion of this preferred site in
Comments noted.
the plan, subject to a
satisfactory access being
provided and additional
recommendations.
Object Mr Chris Smith Considers this site to be Site 104 [032] has been
unsustainable. Site 104 [032] is previously scoped through 2008
preferable.
and 2009 issues and options

Policy W1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to west of A1075 and adjacent Wayland High School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Norman Phillips (Spokesperson
Churchill Close Residents
Association)
Concern relating to approved
planning application
3PL/2002/0134,
3PL/2010/0474/F and
3PL/2010/0474.
Concerns over highways
constraints from Churchill
Close.
Concerns with regards to the
lack of school facilities as a
result of additional housing
numbers.
Concern over sewer capacity in
this area.
Richard Denempont Concern due to erosion of the
landscape, density of proposed
development and reference to
previous refusal and
subsequent appeals on site.
and has been discounted.
This comment relates to
approved planning applications
rather than a specific site.
NCC Highways have raised no
objection to this preferred site.
Point 5 within Policy W1 refers
to school expansion and
enhancement provision on this
site.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Density is in accordance with
government guidance and
Breckland’s adopted Core
Strategy.
Previous applications and
subsequent refusals/appeals
were dealt with in accordance
with the Breckland 1999 Local
Plan as the site is located
outside of the settlement
boundary. There is not enough
capacity within the Watton
settlement boundary to

Policy W1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to west of A1075 and adjacent Wayland High School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
accommodate proposed
housing numbers and therefore
will result in the use of
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Major constraints to provision of
infrastructure or treatment for
growth in terms of foul
sewerage network capacity.
greenfield land.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Policy W2a - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to south of Norwich Road – Former RAF Officers Mess
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Bennett Plc on behalf of Gerald Support the preferred option for National Guidance has recently It is considered that despite the
Eve LLP
W2a but are concerned that the removed the requirement for representations received that
limited number of dwellings minimum density and allows for the principles of preferred site
proposed (Policy W2a 30 local level determination and W2a remains appropriate -
dwellings on 2.25 hectares at a flexibility. Density has been however, sites W2a, W2b and
density of 13.33 dph represents amended to provide 22 W3 will form one policy
a missed opportunity to provide dwellings on this site as approach to a comprehensive
more homes on land which has opposed to 30 to take in to scheme on this site and will be
mainly been previously account the surrounding known as W2.
developed.
environment and local concern
(policy refers to gross net gain
which may provide more
NCC Highways Support sites (W2a, W2b W3)
these sites however need to be
treated comprehensively.
housing).
Comments noted.
Object Barry Merkin, Ian Mackinnon Concerns over lack of existing There is existing infrastructure
open space and recreation capacity to accommodate 250
facilities, increased traffic along new dwellings and upgrades to
Watton Road/Norwich Road, education and healthcare

Policy W2a - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to south of Norwich Road – Former RAF Officers Mess
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
access arrangement’s, lack of provision have been identified.
local infrastructure (schools, Anglian Water is aware of waste
density, doctors, police, fire water constraints and upgrades
service), sewer and flooding. required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Flooding mitigation methods will
be dealt with on a site by site
basis and NCC do not object on
highways grounds. Density has
been amended to provide 22
dwellings on this site as
opposed to 30 to take in to
account the surrounding
environment and local concern
(policy refers to gross net gain
which may provide more
housing).
Mr Chris Smith [104] 032 is a more sustainable Site 104 [032] has been
site.
previously scoped through 2008
and 2009 issues and options
and has been discounted.
Mrs J Seal (TC) Should be allocated as Comments noted.
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
recreation.
Major constraints to provision of Anglian Water is aware of waste
infrastructure or treatment for water constraints and upgrades
growth in terms of foul required as part of future growth
sewerage network capacity. within the town and it is
considered there are no
insurmountable constraints.

Policy W2b - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to south of Norwich Road – Former RAF Officers Mess
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Bennett Plc on behalf of Gerald Support the preferred option for National Guidance has recently It is considered that despite the
Eve LLP
W2b but are concerned that the removed the requirement for representations received that
limited number of dwellings minimum density and allows for the principles of preferred site
proposed (Policy W2b 50 local level determination and W2b remains appropriate -
dwellings on 3.30 hectares at a flexibility. This site is reflected however, sites W2a, W2b and
density of 13.33 dph represents by its surrounding and this is W3 will form one policy
a missed opportunity to provide applied in point 2 of policy W2a. approach to a comprehensive
more homes on land which has Furthermore, the (policy refers scheme on this site and will be
mainly been previously to gross net gain) which may known as W2.
developed.
provide more housing.
NCC Highways Support sites (W2a, W2b W3)
these sites however need to be
treated comprehensively.
Comments noted.
Object Barry Merkin, Ian Mackinnon Concerns over lack of existing
open space and recreation
facilities, increased traffic along
Watton Road/Norwich Road,
access arrangement’s, lack of
local infrastructure (schools,
density, doctors, police, fire
service), sewer and flooding.
There is existing infrastructure
capacity to accommodate 250
new dwellings and upgrades to
education and healthcare
provision have been identified.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Flooding mitigation methods will
be dealt with on a site by site
basis and NCC do not object on
highways grounds. Open Space
Policy DC11 within the adopted
Core Strategy deals with the
protection of existing areas of
open space and contributions to

Policy W2b - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to south of Norwich Road – Former RAF Officers Mess
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
open space provision from all
new development. Density of
W2a has been reconsidered to
reflect local character and local
concern from 30 dwellings to
Comment
Mr Chris Smith [104] 032 is a more sustainable
site.
Mrs J Seal (TC) Should be allocated as
Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
recreation.
Major constraints to provision of
infrastructure or treatment for
growth in terms of foul
sewerage network capacity.
Richard and Rose Concerns over lack of
infrastructure and community
services, open space,
recreation, density of
development, affordable
housing provision.
22.
Site 104 [032] has been
previously scoped through 2008
and 2009 issues and options
and has been discounted.
Comments noted.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
There is existing infrastructure
capacity to accommodate 250
new dwellings and upgrades to
education and healthcare
provision have been identified.
Open Space Policy DC11 within
the adopted Core Strategy
deals with the protection of
existing areas of open space
and contributions to open space
provision from all new
development. Density and
open space provision is
identified within the Adopted
Core Strategy. Density of W2a

Policy W2b - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to south of Norwich Road – Former RAF Officers Mess
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
has been reconsidered to reflect
local character and local
concern from 30 dwellings to
22.
Mrs J Seal (TC) W2b to be replaced with W11
as the land owner for W11
would give part of the land to
the town for a much needed
extension to the cemetery.
Policy W3 - Preferred Open Space Allocation - Land to south of Norwich Road – Former RAF Officers Mess
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Bennett Plc on behalf of Gerald Support the preferred option for Comments noted.
It is considered that despite the
Eve LLP
W3.
representations received that
Philip Raiswell (Sport England), Sport England wish to see any Comments noted.
the principles of preferred site
Town Council
new playing fields supported by
W3 remains appropriate -
adequate ancillary facilities
however, sites W2a, W2b and
such as changing rooms and
W3 will form one policy
car parking.
approach to a comprehensive
NCC Highways Support sites (W2a, W2b W3) Comments noted.
scheme on this site and will be
these sites however need to be
treated comprehensively.
known as W2.
Object Ian Mackinnon Concerns over housing There is existing infrastructure
numbers, lack of existing open capacity to accommodate 250
space and recreation facilities, new dwellings, and upgrades to
increased traffic along Watton education and healthcare
Road/Norwich Road, access provision have been identified.
arrangement’s, lack of local Anglian Water is aware of waste
infrastructure (schools, density, water constraints and upgrades
doctors, police, fire service), required as part of future growth
sewer and flooding.
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.

Policy W3 - Preferred Open Space Allocation - Land to south of Norwich Road – Former RAF Officers Mess
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Flooding mitigation methods will
be dealt with on a site by site
basis and NCC do not object on
highways grounds. Open Space
Policy DC11 within the adopted
Core Strategy deals with the
protection of existing areas of
open space and contributions to
open space provision from all
new development. Housing
numbers have been determined
by the adopted Core Strategy.
Density of W2a has been
reconsidered to reflect local
character and local concern
Comment Richard and Rose. Concerns over lack of
infrastructure and community
services, open space,
recreation, density of
development, affordable
housing provision.
from 30 dwellings to 22.
There is existing infrastructure
capacity to accommodate 250
new dwellings and upgrades to
education and healthcare
provision have been identified.
Open Space Policy DC11 within
the adopted Core Strategy
deals with the protection of
existing areas of open space
and contributions to open space
provision from all new
development. Density and
open space provision is
identified within the adopted
Core Strategy.

Policy W4 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to north of Norwich Road and south of Watton Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Andre Read, C Edwards, John The site will provide needed Comments noted.
It is considered that despite the
Davies, Ray Luck, Robert communal facilities in open
representations received that
Crosthwaite, Shirley Hurdle, space and play areas.
the preferred site W4 remains
Tim Leonard
Landscaping and biodiversity
appropriate. This will be known
will be enhanced. Support for a
low density approach and the
site will act as a good buffer
development between the semi
rural Watton Green and the
existing housing development.
A logical extension to the
as W3.
settlement boundary.
Conformation of intention from
the site owner for site
Mrs J Seal.
deliverability, infrastructure and
policy approach.
Support the inclusion. Comments noted.
NCC Transport. Subject to a satisfactory access Comments noted.
being provided and local
improvement works, the
Highway’s Authority supports
the inclusion of this preferred
site in the plan.
Object Bristow, Trevor Whitmore, Concerns over traffic NCC has raised no objection
Terence Newell.
congestion and access.
Would like this part of Watton to
remain as a ‘Hamlet’. Intrusion
into the wider landscape and
concerns over loss of amenity,
subject to access provision and
local improvement works.
concerns over lack of
K Mann, Mr Chris
pedestrian access.
Smith, Exacerbate existing flooding on Anglian Water is aware of waste

Policy W4 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to north of Norwich Road and south of Watton Green
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Terence Newell, Mrs Louisa Watton Green Road. Drainage water constraints and upgrades
Moth.
and sewerage capacity required as part of future growth
concerns.
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Terence Newell.
Vacant buildings to the south
Flooding mitigation will be dealt
with on a site by site basis.
Bat habitats and mitigation will
west of the Northern part of the be dealt with through the
site may contain bats.
planning process.
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water). Major constraints to provision of Anglian Water is aware of waste
infrastructure or treatment for water constraints and upgrades
growth in terms of foul required as part of future growth
sewerage network capacity. within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Terence Newell. Wishes to see more power to
Flooding mitigation will be dealt
with on a site by site basis.
The adopted Core Strategy has
local people as a result of the determined the districts growth
Government agenda.
agenda. Local level
consultation remains
unchanged through the
planning process.
Policy W5 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land adjacent to Swaffham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mrs J Seal (TC) Providing the bridle way be Comments noted.
It is considered that despite the
protected and maintained and
representations received that
that vehicle access be restricted
the preferred site W5 remains
over it.
appropriate. This will be known
NCC Highways.
Supports the inclusion of this
preferred site in the plan.
Comments noted.
as W4.

Policy W5 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land adjacent to Swaffham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Object
Thomas Hough, Mr John
Hornagold, Mrs Helen
Hornagold.
Beverly Hough, Mr John
Hornagold, Mrs Helen
Hornagold.
Concerns over surface water
flooding along Three Post
Road, Bridle Way and Heyes
Lane in addition to exacerbation
sewerage failures.
Concern over loss of wildlife
and biodiversity, and this site
should be retained for
biodiversity purposes.
Beverly Hough Concern over traffic movements
along Swaffham Road, and the
roundabout on to Brandon Road
including lack of pavements
along Swaffham Road.
P Summers, Mrs Laura Stevens Should be retained as open
space and left as it is.
Comment Gedge, Mr John Hornagold, Mrs
Helen Hornagold.
Observations with regards to
appropriate density and design
for housing on site. Density
should be reduced. Concern
over impact upon amenity for
surrounding residential
dwellings.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Flooding mitigation will be dealt
with on a site by site basis.
Comments noted.
NCC does not raise objections
to the site.
This site is privately owned was
previously allocated for open
space within the 1999 Local
Plan. Despite efforts to
implement the allocation, there
is no longer a reasonable
prospect that it will be delivered
as public open space.
National Guidance has recently
removed the requirement for
minimum density and allows for
local level determination. As a
result of local concerns and
local character of this area the
density has been reduced to 17

Policy W5 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land adjacent to Swaffham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Sue Bull (Anglian Water). Foul sewerage requires
upgrading to support growth.
dwellings per hectare.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Flooding mitigation will be dealt
with on a site by site basis.
W6: Alternative Residential Site - Land to the south of the preferred site adjacent Wayland High School and the A1075 (residential only)
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that the
Object
alternative site W6 remains
Comment NCC Transport Subject to satisfactory access Comments noted.
appropriate. This site will be
being provided there are no
highway reasons why this site
can not be included within the
plan
known as W5.
W7: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Merton Road and adjacent to Watton Medical Centre
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
W7 is constrained by its shape,
Object Mrs J Seal (Watton Town This site should be allocated for Comments noted.
access and on site TPO’s. No
Council)
recreation. Any access from this
representations were made
site would cause excessive
through the preferred options
strain on the already congested
consultation which indicated
Merton Road.
that this site may come forward
Comment NCC Transport There are no highway reasons Comments noted.
at this stage. It is situated
why this site can not be
within the settlement boundary
included within the plan
of Watton and therefore,

W7: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Merton Road and adjacent to Watton Medical Centre
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
development is acceptable in
principle, if a scheme was
deemed appropriate for the site.
Therefore, it is considered that
W7 should be removed from the
submission document. It is
therefore considered an
‘unreasonable’ site.
W8: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Norwich Road.
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
W8 is constrained by its multi
Object
ownership, access, on site trees
Comment Mrs J Seal Suggested replacement as a This site is less deliverable than and biodiversity. No
site specific for W2a.
W2a as a result of multiple representations were made
ownership and demolition of through the preferred options
existing properties to ensure consultation which indicat that
adequate access.
this site may come forward at
NCC Highways Subject to satisfactory access
being provided there are no
highway reasons why this site
Comments noted.
this stage. It is situated within
the settlement boundary of
Watton and therefore,
can not be included within the
development is acceptable in
plan.
principle, if a scheme was
Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Upgrading water supply
networks and major constraint
on foul sewerage capacity
networks.
Anglian Water is aware of waste
water constraints and upgrades
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Flooding mitigation will be dealt
with on a site by site basis.
deemed appropriate for the site.
Therefore, it is considered that
W8 should be removed from the
submission document. It is
therefore considered an
‘unreasonable’ site.

W9: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the east of the A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that alternative
Object NCC Highways The Highway’s Authority would Comments noted.
option W9 should be removed
object if this site were included
from the list of alternative
in the plan.
options as a result of highways
Mrs J Seal To be removed from the LDF. Comments noted.
objection. It is therefore
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water) The site has waste resource, Anglian Water is aware of waste considered an ‘unreasonable’
supply and foul sewerage water constraints and upgrades site.
issues.
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Mr & Mrs Dye This parcel of land, which was
considered as conforming, has
Flooding mitigation will be dealt
with on a site by site basis.
Comments noted.
resulted through the
consultation as becoming an
alternative site as a result of
flooding. This site should be
reconsidered.
W10: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land between Hunters Oak and Blenheim Way
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Whilst Highways have not
Object Mrs J Seal To be removed from the LDF.
objected to this site, it is
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water) Needs water supply and foul Anglian Water is aware of waste constrained by multi ownership,
sewerage upgrades.
water constraints and upgrades access arrangement which
required as part of future growth would require demolition, on
within the town and it is site trees and biodiversity. No
considered that there are no representations were made
insurmountable constraints. through the Preferred Options
Flooding mitigation will be dealt Consultation which indicated

W10: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land between Hunters Oak and Blenheim Way
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
with on a site by site basis. that this site may come forward
at this stage. Therefore, it is
considered that W10 should be
removed from the submission
document. It is therefore
considered an ‘unreasonable’
NCC Highways There are no highway reasons
why this site can not be
included within the plan.
Comments noted.
W11: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Church Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is considered that alternative
Object NCC Highways The Highway’s Authority would Comments noted.
option W11 should be removed
object if this site were included
from the list of alternative
in the plan.
options as a result of highways
Michael Haslam Associates Ltd This site should become one of This site is considered to have objection. It is therefore
on behalf of Andrew Garner the Council's preferred sites. It landscape constraints in considered an ‘unreasonable’
is well related to Watton town comparison to sites W2a, W2b site.
centre and is demonstrably and W3. The development of
closer to it than the preferred the sites would extend north in
sites of W2a, W2b, W3 and W4. to a prominent ridge at the
An Access Appraisal Report on
the site has been prepared and
shallow valley of Watton Brook.
an Environmental Scoping
Comment Sue Bull (Anglian Water)
Study and Indicative Master
plan for the development in
order to provide evidence of its
deliverability.
Needs water supply and foul Anglian Water is aware of waste
sewerage upgrades.
water constraints and upgrades
site.

W11: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Church Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
required as part of future growth
within the town and it is
considered that there are no
insurmountable constraints.
Flooding mitigation will be dealt
Michael Haslam Associates Ltd
on behalf of Andrew Garner
Disagree with NCC Highways
comments in regards to
footpath along Griston Road on
sites (104) 027 and (104) 029
with on a site by site basis.
Comments noted.
Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mrs Trudy Crook Proposals need to be Comments noted.
Comments noted.
considered in context with
existing permissions that are
not shown on the maps, in
particular the significant
developments at Richmond
Park Golf Club of 73 holiday
homes, apartments and a
leisure centre which will impact
greatly on traffic flow into and
out of Saham Road throughout
the year.
Object Mr Chris Smith Disagree with the Local Whilst formal comments from
Planning Authorities NCC are awaited on this
assessment of site [104] 002 application, the impact upon
which results contained access. traffic conditions are a concern.
An application for 91 dwellings This planning application has
has been submitted been recommended for refusal
accompanied by a full transport on grounds that the

Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
assessment. development would be contrary
to local and national planning
policies that seek to restrict new
housing development outside
development boundaries and
that the proposal would conflict
with local polices relating to
affordable housing and housing
mix, that the proposal would be
likely to exacerbate existing
sewerage capacity problems in
the area and that there is
inadequate assessment of the
Comment John Potter Concerns raised that sites [104]
002 and [104] 032 have been
subject to a recent planning
application. This is not
supported due to impact upon
landscape and countryside,
highways constraints along
Saham Road, Brandon
Road/High Street Junction.
Sewerage, flooding, capacity of
local infrastructure.
potential flooding problems.
This application has been
recommended fro refusal – see
above comment.

Harling
Harling Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Comments noted.
Object Mrs Pam Prior Concern over too many
houses in Harling and the
suitability of additional
traffic on Kenninghall Road,
including pedestrian safety.
Mrs Pam Prior Concern over Harling’s
sustainability in terms of rail
and bus links. There is only
1 rail service per day and a
limited bus service. The
village has no car parking.
Comment Highways Agency The Highways Agency does
not object to the principle of
the proposed locations and
levels of development as
allocated in the Site
Specific Policies and
Proposals Development
Plan Document.
Mr M Hustler Site 042/019 has been
represented.
Overall level of
development proposed for
Harling is identified in the
adopted Core Strategy.
Development will be
expected to provide any
necessary improvements to
local infrastructure to
enable it to occur.
Harling is one of the larger
villages with both rail and
bus services.
Support noted.
All sites presented have
been previously scoped
through 2008 and 2009
issues and options and
have been discounted.

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Cordell This site would seem Support noted.
Despite comments of both support
preferable to squeezing
and objection, Harling will have no
further houses into the
further housing allocations within
centre of the village.
the submission document as a
Mr & Mrs Sellens This site is supported due Support noted.
result of extant permission on both
to proximity to local
preferred site H1 and reasonable
amenities, transport
alternative site H2. The figure of 50
improvement with
new dwellings identified in Policy
Kenninghall Road and
SS1 of the adopted Core Strategy
reduction in carbon footprint
has been exceeded - a total of 65
due to all houses on one
homes have been approved in
site.
Harling since early 2009. As a
Mr David Gee (Harling H1 remains the preferred Support noted.
consequence, there is technically
Parish Council
site.
no need to allocate land through
NCC Highways Subject to local
improvement works, the
Highway’s Authority
Support noted.
this Development Plan Document to
meet the requirements of the Core
Strategy for Harling. The
supports the inclusion of
settlement boundary will also be
this preferred site in the
amended to include these planning
plan
permissions.
Object Gerald Eve LLP on behalf of Consider that site H3 is a A total of 65 homes have
Bennett Plc
better located site as a been approved in Harling
result of its location, impact since early 2009. This has
upon wider countryside, been achieved in part
highway safety associated through the granting of
with site H1, lack of permission on the preferred
footpath along Kenninghall site (H1) for residential
Road. Development of this development at Kenninghall
site will restrict the future Road for 40 dwellings in
expansion of the school. 2010, and the granting of
Furthermore, concerns over two separate but adjoining
the development for 40 schemes (10 and 15
dwelling on site H1 due to dwellings) at Lopham Road

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
extant permission already on a site identified at the
granted for 25 – this preferred options stage as a
exceeding the Core ‘reasonable alternative site’
Strategy Policy SS1 for 50 (H2). All of these proposals
homes.
were outside the existing
settlement boundary and
approved in advance of this
Site Specifics document
being submitted. As a
result, the figure identified in
Policy SS1 of the adopted
Core Strategy has been
exceeded and as a
consequence there is
technically no need to
allocate land through this
Development Plan
Document to meet the
requirements of the Core
Strategy for Harling.
Accordingly the settlement
boundary will also be
amended to include the
planning permission at
Kenninghall Road (H1) and
part of site (H2) - granting of
planning permission for 10
houses. (The site for 15
dwellings occupies a
peripheral location, distant
from services and facilities.
Amending the settlement
boundary to include this site

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
will limit the Local Planning
Authority's ability to
reconsider the site against
any improvements to the
housing land supply
Mr & Mrs Adcock, Mr
Atkinson, Mr Jermy,
Mr Ken Wright, Mr Lee
Distin, Mr M Wright, Mr
Stephen Jacobs, Mrs Helen
Fearnside, Mrs pamela
Dunkinson, Sue Footer, SW
& MS Dunne
Object due to loss of flora
and fauna, increased traffic
and road accidents,
highway safety and visibility
from Gallants Lane in to
Kenninghall Road, impact
of an increased number of
additional vehicles
converging on Kenninghall
Road, impact upon
properties opposite H1 in
terms of loss of amenity,
loss of grade 3 agricultural
land, loss of hedgerow
along Kenninghall lane.
Development of this land
would restrict future
expansion of the school,
lack of school places,
impact upon drainage, lack
of open space provision,
loss of wildlife habitat, lack
of public transport, loss of
landscape amenity, lack of
employment opportunity in
Harling. There is remaining
brown field land available
position in Breckland).
A total of 65 homes have
been approved in Harling
since early 2009. This has
been achieved in part
through the granting of
permission on the preferred
site (H1) for residential
development at Kenninghall
Road for 40 dwellings in
2010, and the granting of
two separate but adjoining
schemes (10 and 15
dwellings) at Lopham Road
on a site identified at the
preferred options stage as a
reasonable alternative site
(H2). All of these proposals
were outside the existing
settlement boundary and
approved in advance of this
Site Specifics document
being submitted. As a
result, the figure identified in
Policy SS1 of the adopted
Core Strategy has been
exceeded and as a
consequence there is

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
within the town and should technically no need to
be utilised first and allocate land through this
Kenninghall Road/King Development Plan
Street will be congested. Document to meet the
There is also concern that requirements of the Core
Kenninghall Road is the Strategy for Harling.
only approach road to the Accordingly the settlement
village where there are no boundary will also be
parked cars to restrict amended to include the
visibility; and that planning permission at
development in this Kenninghall Road (H1) and
location will go to the part of site (H2) - granting of
supermarket or shopping planning permission for 10
and not use local facilities. houses. (The site for 15
Consideration should be dwellings occupies a
made to the localism peripheral location, distant
agenda. Cloverfield’s on from services and facilities.
Lopham Road would be a Amending the settlement
safer alternative.
boundary to include this site
will limit the Local Planning
Authority's ability to
reconsider the site against
any improvements to the
housing land supply
Stephen Faulkner NCC It is felt that the allocation
position in Breckland).
A total of 25 homes have
should be relocated to allow been approved under 2008
for the future expansion of and 2010 planning
the school.
applications. Norfolk
County Council comment
with regards to school
capacity would have been
provided and assessed

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
through the planning
Mr & Mrs Hasbour Concern over the future
expansion of the school.
Mr David Taylor Concern over proposed
density for new
developments and open
space requirement, land
locking of school, highway
safety. Norfolk County
Councils comments fupon
the current application on
H1 confirms the primary
School is over capacity.
Gerald Eve LLP on behalf of
Bennett Plc
Concerns due to lack of
pedestrian access,
encourage car use resulting
in being contrary to parts of
PPS3. Site H3 is preferable
due to accessibility to
services, local transport.
Development of H1 will land
lock the school.
process.
A total of 25 homes have
been approved under 2008
and 2010 planning
applications. Norfolk County
Council comment with
regards to school capacity
would have been provided
and assessed through the
planning process.
A total of 25 homes have
been approved under 2008
and 2010 planning
applications. Norfolk County
Council comment with
regards to school capacity
would have been provided
and assessed through the
planning process. Density
will have been established
at the planning stage.
A total of 65 homes have
been approved in Harling
since early 2009. This has
been achieved in part
through the granting of
permission on the preferred
site (H1) for residential
development at Kenninghall
Road for 40 dwellings in
2010, and the granting of
two separate but adjoining

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
schemes (10 and 15
dwellings) at Lopham Road
on a site identified at the
preferred options stage as a
reasonable alternative site
(H2). All of these proposals
were outside the existing
settlement boundary and
approved in advance of this
Site Specifics document
being submitted. As a
result, the figure identified in
Policy SS1 of the adopted
Core Strategy has been
exceeded and a
consequence there is
technically no need to
allocate land through this
Development Plan
Document to meet the
requirements of the Core
Strategy for Harling.
Accordingly, the settlement
boundary will also be
amended to include the
planning permission at
Kenninghall Road (H1) and
part of site (H2) - granting of
planning permission for 10
houses. The site for 15
dwellings occupies a
peripheral location, distant
from services and facilities.

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Amending the settlement
boundary to include this site
will limit the Local Planning
Authority's ability to
reconsider the site against
any improvements to the
housing land supply
Comment David Taylor Support site H1 due to
highways accessibility,
proximity to local amenities,
car parking. mini
roundabout, speed
reduction scheme.
Mr David Taylor Concern that the reason
why this site has not been
included has been
described as ‘substandard’
as this is misleading.
Gerald Eve LLP on behalf of
Bennett Plc
Contrary to the views
expressed by Mr David
Gee, site H3 access road is
of the required standard
and the Highways Authority
position in Breckland.
Support noted.
Planning permission for 15
homes (3PL/2009/0589/F)
on part of site H2 was
dismissed at appeal. A
subsequent application has
been approved under
application
3PL/2010/0374/F
addressing issues raised
within the appeal. The
Planning Inspector under
3PL/2009/0589/F deemed
the visibility as acceptable
on Garboldisham Road.

Policy H1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Kenninghall Road, adjacent East Harling Primary School
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
indicates that access
constraints to Site H3 are
not insurmountable.
Additionally, development
of site H3 would not involve
the creation of a lake that
would represent danger to
children. It would merely
involve the relocation of the
partially waterlogged areas
to the north of the site, to
Mrs Sue Bull (Anglian
Water).
the south of the site.
Infrastructure and/or
treatment upgrades
required to serve proposed
growth within the foul
sewerage network.
Anglain Water is aware of
upgrades required as part
of growth within the village
and it is considered there
are no insurmountable
constraints.
H2: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land adjacent to Lopham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr David Taylor Concern that the reason Planning permission for 15 Despite comments of both support
why this site has not been homes (3PL/2009/0589/F) and objection, Harling will have no
included has been on part of site H2 was further housing allocations within
described as ‘substandard’ dismissed at appeal. A the submission document as a
as this is misleading. subsequent application has result of extant permission on both
been approved under preferred site H1 and reasonable
application
alternative site H2. The figure of 50
3PL/2010/0374/F
new dwellings identified in Policy
addressing issues raised SS1 of the adopted Core Strategy
within the appeal. The has been exceeded - a total of 65
Planning Inspector under homes have been approved in

H2: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land adjacent to Lopham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
3PL/2009/0589F deemed Harling since early 2009. As a
the visibility as acceptable consequence, there is technically
on Garboldisham Road. no need to allocate land through
Mr David Taylor The site has met all the Support noted. The site has this Development Plan Document to
PPS3 planning criteria and planning permission for 25 meet the requirements of the Core
can easily accommodate homes in total approved Strategy for Harling. The
the extra 25 homes under 3PL/2008/0579/F and settlement boundary will also be
required for Harling at a low 3PL/2010/0374/F.
amended to include these planning
density of 22 per hectare
with plenty of play and
sports areas.
permission.
Mr David Taylor Concern that the reason Support noted. The site has
why this site has not been planning permission for 25
included is a result of the homes in total approved
Landscape Settlement under 3PL/2008/0579/F and
Fringe Study and the 3PL/2010/0374/F.
impact upon the Harlings
Heathlands Landscape. It
was not mentioned at the
public enquiry in Feb 2010
and the planning application
recommendation
Breckland’s officers.
from
Object NCC Highways The Highway Authority The Planning Inspector
would object if this site were under Planning Application
included in the plan. 3PL/2009/0589F deemed
Comment Mrs Sue Bull (Anglian Infrastructure and/or
the visibility as acceptable
on Garboldisham Road.
Anglain Water is aware of
Water).
treatment upgrades upgrades required as part
required to serve proposed of growth within the village
growth within the foul and it is considered there
sewerage network. are no insurmountable

H2: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land adjacent to Lopham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
constraints.
H3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land west of the Glebe
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Gerald Eve LLP on behalf of Site H3 is more integrated Support noted.
Despite comments of both support
Bennett Plc
with the established built up
and objection, Harling will have no
area. Pedestrian access
further housing allocations within
will be provided. The site
the submission document as a
will encourage walking and
result of extant permission on both
cycling. The site is
preferred site H1 and reasonable
surrounded by development
alternative site H2. The figure of 50
on three sides; therefore, it
new dwellings identified in Policy
can more readily be
SS1 of the adopted Core Strategy
regarded as infill
has been exceeded - a total of 65
development. It has direct
homes have been approved in
access to existing
Harling since early 2009. As a
recreational areas and an
consequence there is technically no
equipped play area via safe
need to allocate land through this
pedestrian footpaths. The
Development Plan Document to
site accords to the
meet the requirements of the Core
principles of PPS3.
Strategy for Harling. The
Mr & Mrs Adcock Site H3 has existing access Support noted.
settlement boundary will also be
capable of absorbing the
amended to include these planning
increase in traffic. The site
is centrally placed within the
village enabling pedestrian
access to doctor’s surgery,
permission.
dentist, shop and post
Object Mrs G Walters
office. It is a good use of
existing unused land.
Concern as this area is The area is not designated
designated an area of as an area of natural

H3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land west of the Glebe
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
natural beauty and in winter beauty; however the SSSi is
is often covered in water, located approximately 700m
presumably from a high away. However, this site is
water table,
considered to have
biodiversity issues as a
result of its surrounding
woodland and lack of
agricultural activity. The
site is considered to have
moderate to high sensitivity
as identified in the
Landscape Character Study
and is considered sensitive
to development. This is
reflected in Core Policy 11
of the adopted Core
Mr David Taylor The waterlogged areas are
Strategy.
Whilst this site is located
over a large part of the area within flood zone 1 (area at
proposed, this area floods least risk from flooding),
to a depth of 1-2 feet for local knowledge and
several months in the evidence suggests that the
winter.
site is prone to water
logging. It is a site where a
number of water courses
are discharged towards the
River Thet.
Notwithstanding this, the
site promoter would be
prepared to undertake
remedial measures to
improve drainage of the
site.

H3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land west of the Glebe
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Comment
BDC Contaminated Land Potential contaminative This would be addressed at
source or within 250m a planning application
Contaminated land stage.
assessment required before
planning permission is
granted - DS initially
because of the size of
development.
Mrs sue Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure and/or Anglain Water is aware of
treatment upgrades upgrades required as part
required to serve proposed of growth within the village
growth within the foul and it is considered there
sewerage network. are no insurmountable
NCC Highways Subject to local
constraints.
Support noted.
Gerald Eve LLP on behalf of
improvement works there
are no highway reasons
why this site can not be
included within the plan.
Do not agree with the Whilst the SSSi is located
Bennett Plc
reasons why this is not a approximately 700m away,
preferred option. Highways the site is considered to
have not objected. Natural have biodiversity issues as
England only objected to a result of its surrounding
development of the wider woodland and lack of
site. The northern part of agricultural activity. The
the site is some 700 metres site is considered to have
from the SSSi. The moderate to high sensitivity
development of this site will as identified in the
improve biodiversity interest Landscape Character Study
with the creation of a and is considered sensitive
wetland area to the south to development. This is
and additional tree planting. reflected in Core Policy 11

H3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land west of the Glebe
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Due to Planning Permission of the adopted Core
now having been granted
for 25 homes in Harling, the
Strategy.
25 homes now remaining to A total of 65 homes have
be allocated in Harling been approved in Harling
could very easily be since early 2009. This has
accommodated at the been achieved in part
northern edge of site H3 through the granting of
abutting the village centre. permission on the preferred
site (H1) for residential
development at Kenninghall
Road for 40 dwellings in
2010, and the granting of
two separate but adjoining
schemes (10 and 15
dwellings) at Lopham Road
on a site identified at the
preferred options stage as a
reasonable alternative site
(H2). All of these proposals
were outside the existing
settlement boundary and
approved in advance of this
Site Specifics document
being submitted. As a
result, the figure identified in
Policy SS1 of the adopted
Core Strategy has been
exceeded and a
consequence there is
technically no need to
allocate land through this
Development Plan

H3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land west of the Glebe
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Document to meet the
requirements of the Core
Strategy for Harling.
Accordingly, the settlement
boundary will also be
amended to include the
planning permission at
Kenninghall Road (H1) and
part of site (H2) - granting of
planning permission for 10
houses. (The site for 15
dwellings occupies a
peripheral location, distant
from services and facilities.
Amending the settlement
boundary to include this site
will limit the Local Planning
Authority's ability to
reconsider the site against
any improvements to the
housing land supply
position in Breckland).
Gerald Eve LLP on behalf of
Bennett Plc
Water logging of parts of
the site occurs only at times
of extreme rainfall. The
development of this site will
include extensive drainage
improvements.
Comments noted.

H4: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land west of Garboldisham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Despite comments of both support
Object
and objection, Harling will have no
Comment
BDC Contaminated Land Potential contaminative Comments noted.
further housing allocations within
source or within 250m
the submission document as a
Contaminated land
result of extant permission on both
assessment required before
preferred site H1 and reasonable
planning permission is
alternative site H2. The figure of 50
granted – desk based
new dwellings identified in Policy
survey initially because of
SS1 of the adopted Core Strategy
the size of development.
has been exceeded - a total of 65
NCC Highways Subject to local Support noted.
homes have been approved in
improvement works there
Harling since early 2009. As a
are no highway reasons
consequence, there is technically
why this site can not be
no need to allocate land through
included within the plan.
this Development Plan Document to
Mrs sue Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure and/or
treatment upgrades
required to serve proposed
growth within the foul
sewerage network.
Anglain Water is aware of
upgrades required as part
of growth within the village
and it is considered there
are no insurmountable
constraints.
meet the requirements of the Core
Strategy for Harling. The
settlement boundary will also be
amended to include these planning
permission.
Narborough
Introduction Narborough
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Burchell (Parish Council)
The introduction should be updated to
Object
reflect current services within the
Comments Highways Agency Due to the small scale of the
development proposed, the
implications on the highways
network are likely to be
Comments noted
village.

Introduction Narborough
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
negligible. Therefore, the
Highways Agency does not
object to the principle of the
proposed allocations. Future
documents should set out the
need for detailed Transport
Assessments.
Mr Bucknell Evidence underpinning the
allocation of this village is
now out of date.
Narborough has been
designated as a local service
centre village through the
adopted Core Strategy, due
to its high level of service
provision. The document
should be updated to include
the current list of village
facilities.
Policy NAR.1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land west of Chalk Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support NCC highways Whilst some highway Comments noted
Whilst a number of objections have
improvements would be
been raised against this site, a number
needed to secure safe access
of issues within them are not
onto this site, it is thought that
insurmountable. The Core Strategy has
these are not insurmountable.
provided a positive housing allocation
Improvements needed would
for Narborough, and it is considered that
include extension to the
site NAR.1 still offers the best
30mph speed limit and
opportunity to meet this housing
provision of pedestrian and
cycle access.
allocation.
Mr Burchell (Parish Council) The Parish Council would like All sites for over 5 dwellings It is recommended that the preferred
to see a mixed use would be expected to provide option NAR.1 is carried forward to the
development of both affordable housing at a rate of proposed submission document, as the

Policy NAR.1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land west of Chalk Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
affordable and executive 40%. This site would be no best site to meet Narborough’s housing
homes. Also, the inclusion of exception to this. The exact allocation.
sheltered housing within the type and mix of that
site. The parish council would affordable housing, would
prefer to see the erection of need to be agreed with
bungalows on the edge of the Breckland’s housing team,
development bordering and would be dependent on
Westfields
the current need within the
village.
Object B Quincy
Ms Greeno
J Campbell
Miss Desborough
Mr & Mrs Ellen
Mr & Mrs Green
Mr & Mrs Pocknell
Mr & Mrs Lambert
Mr & Mrs Mitchell
Mr & Mrs Veness
Mr Mitchell
Mr Limbert
P Smith
Narborough does not have
the facilities to support the
current residents within the
village, without further
expansion. At present,
residents have to drive to
Swaffham for the majority of
there shopping.
NAR.1 is located on the road
towards RAF Marham and
drivers regularly do not obey
the speed limit in this area,
Until this application reaches
a detailed Planning
Application stage , the size
and type of housing will not
be decided. However, there
are policies within the Core
Strategy, which do require all
applications to take into
regard the form and character
of the surrounding area.
As part of the adopted Core
Strategy, Narborough has
received a positive housing
allocation for 50 houses over
the plan period to 2026. The
village has been allocated
with this level of growth, due
to its position as a local
service centre, with a high
level of service provision. This
site is well related to a
number of these facilities, and
is adjacent the village

Policy NAR.1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land west of Chalk Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
R Rainstowe
making the road dangerous. A Community Centre and
Mr Bucknell
further access point onto this
road would exacerbate the
playing fields.
problem.
A number of comments raise
concerns about access to this
Drainage at Westfield is site. NCC highways have
currently a problem, with appraised each of the site
flooding occurring during options within Narborough,
periods of heavy rain. and have not raised any
objections to NAR.1. They
have howeve, indicated that a
number of measures,
Comment Mr Bucknell How would the SSSI and area
including the extension of the
speed limit, and should occur
if this site is to be developed.
It is noted within the policy
of biodiversity interest be justification that the site is in
protected from development? close proximity to Narborough
Railway Embankment SSSI -
approximately 350m from the
SSSI and it is not considered
that development here would
impact upon it. Additionally,
within the policy it is proposed
that structural landscaping is
provided to the southern
boundary, which would
minimise the impact of the
development
settlement edge.
from the
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Some infrastructure Comments noted.
improvements would be
needed for this site to be

Policy NAR.1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land west of Chalk Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
developed. However, these
are not insurmountable.
NAR.2: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land off Meadow Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Burchell (PC) Some concerns over access Comments noted.
NCC highways have raised an objection
past the Primary School.
to this site as an alternative option due
Object NCC highways Access to the site is Comments noted.
to access constraints. Therefore, it is
insufficient.
recommended that this site is removed
Comment Mr Bucknell
Queries the need to build 50 Comments noted. The from the list of alternative options and
houses in Narborough, housing strategy for the whole becomes an ‘unreasonable’ option.
however, if they are to be district has been set through
built, would rather see them the adopted Core Strategy,
split between NAR.2 and and does include an
NAR.3
allocation of 50 houses for
Narborough.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Some infrastructure
improvements would be
needed for this site to be
developed. However, these
are not insurmountable.
Comments noted.
NAR.3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Swaffham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Burchell (Parish Council) Support the site as long as Comments noted.
It is considered that whilst there has
the speed limit would be
been representations raised against the
extended to include the entire
site, it should still be included as a
site.
potential alternative option for
Mr Bucknell Questions the need for The housing strategy for the development within Narborough. This
development within district, including the will be site NAR.2.

NAR.3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Swaffham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Narborough. However, if the allocation of 50 houses at
development is necessary Narborough, has been set
would support this site. through the adopted Core
Strategy.
Object
Comment NCC highways The 30mph limit would need
to be extended to cover the
entirety of the site. In
addition, pedestrian and cycle
access would also need to be
extended along this site.
Comments noted.
Mr & Mrs Green Consider this site to be Comments noted. This site is
preferable for future though located further from
development as opposed to the village facilities than
NAR.1, due to it being located
on a quieter road, close to the
A47.
NAR.1.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Some infrastructure Comments noted.
improvements would be
needed for this site to be
developed. However, these
are not insurmountable
Harling Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support No comments received No further representations were received in regard to
these sites within the preferred options consultation. All of
the sites were assessed as part of this consultation, and it
is considered that they should remain as ‘unreasonable
options’.
Notwithstanding representations were made within the

Harling Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
preferred options consultation, is recommended that
NAR.2 is removed from the list of alternative options and
placed within the unreasonable site category.
Shipdham
Introduction
Shipdham - Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Leonard Shipdham is a sustainable Support noted.
It is recommended that the
location for new development.
introduction to Shipdham be
Without development, the village
updated to include a list of
will stagnate. Younger people in
current facilities. It is not though
the village cannot afford to stay in
considered at this time, that the
the village, new homes may help
representations adversely affect
this.
the proposal. The principle of
Mr Williams Sites SH5-SH13 have been Comments noted.
development and level of
excluded for a number of
growth have already been
reasons. However, it should be
determined in the Core
noted that most people access
village facilities via the use of a
car, so sites at the edge of the
village should not be discounted.
Strategy.
Object Dr Ivan Slaughter
The ability of existing village Comments noted. NCC
M Nicholls
services to cope with additional highways department have
Mr & Mrs Duggan
Mr & Mrs Simmons
Mr Anderson
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs Dawn Tindale
growth. Many of the services are
already at capacity.
There are a number of existing
planning permissions in the
village, which are waiting to be
considered all of the potential
sites for development. Whilst
they have raised concerns in
regard to a few of the sites,
these are now suggested to be
changed to become
Mrs Lesley Warman
built. Have these houses been ‘unreasonable options’. All of

Shipdham - Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mrs Mary Fern
considered when the housing the sites going forward as
Mrs Susan Elizabeth Hart numbers were allocated? Should preferred and alternative
Mrs Sylvia Tuck
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs Dawn Tindale
they come off the provision of
new homes?
Concerns have been raised
options have not received any
objection from the highways
department.
regarding the impact that building The level of housing growth has
100 new homes will have on the been set through the adopted
volumes of traffic passing through Core Strategy. This has had
the village.
regard for existing planning
permissions and services within
the village., and has allocated
Shipdham with 100 new homes
for the remainder of the plan
period
Mr Stebbing
The new government supports Although the RSS has been
Mr & Mrs Simmons
local housing levels, why is abolished by the new
Breckland pushing ahead with the government, housing levels
previous targets, when they are within Breckland have already
no longer set.
been agreed at a local level,
through the adoption of the
Core Strategy.
Comment Mr & Mrs Bayliss
Concerns have been raised Comments noted. NCC
Mr & Mrs Cossins
regarding the impact that building highways department have
Mr & Mrs Ralph
Mr & Mrs Robinson
Mr Chris Hart
Mr David Gray
W Pound
100 new homes will have on the
volumes of traffic passing through
the village.
The ability of existing village
services to cope with additional
considered all of the potential
sites for development. Whilst
they have raised concerns in
regard to a few of the sites,
these are now suggested to be
changed to become
Chris Taylor
growth. Many of the services are unreasonable options. All of
Mr. Simon Page
already at capacity.
the sites going forward as
Mrs Ann Johnson
preferred and alternative

Shipdham - Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mrs Joanne Kidd
There are a number of existing options have not received any
planning permissions in the objection from the highways
village, which are waiting to be
built. Have these houses been
department.
considered when the housing The level of housing growth has
numbers were allocated? Should been set through the Core
they come of the provision of new Strategy. This has had regard
homes?
for existing planning
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) Lack of consistency in the
permissions and services within
the village, and has allocated
Shipdham with 100 new homes
for the remainder of the plan
period.
Prior to the consultation, each
document for the choice of sites. of the sites represented within
Shipdham have been subject to
The number of houses on each of a site visit, and have been
the preferred sites is not a considered on an individual
maximum. Could this increase? basis. The size and location of
each of the sites vary
considerably, and the
cumulative impact of a number
of factors may exclude some
sites whilst including others.
Cllr P Hewett Concerns over the ability to NCC highways department
achieve safe access to some of have considered all of the
the sites.
potential sites for development.
Whilst they have raised
Questions the need for sites to concerns in regard to a few of
come forward prior to 2014. the sites, these are now
suggested to be changed to
become unreasonable options.
All of the sites going forward as

Shipdham - Introduction
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
preferred and alternative
options have not received any
objection from the highways
department.
Highways Agency On account of the small nature of
the sites proposed, the impact on
the highways network is likely to
be negligible.
The Core Strategy has
allocated land for development
up until 2026. To meet the
districts housing need, it is
proposed that sites within the
Local Service Centres are
delivered earlier, as the larger
strategic sites in Attleborough
and Thetford will be delivered
later in the plan period. No
evidence has been presented
to suggest that sites within
Shipdham can not be delivered
earlier within the plan period.
Comments noted
Policy SH1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Coal Yard and associated buildings, north of Chapel Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support NCC highways Site has frontage onto Chapel Support noted. This site offers the only
Street, which is sufficient to
opportunity for brownfield
provide an access point. There
development within Shipdham.
are existing footways and the
The site is centrally located,
site is centrally located within
having good access to all of the
the village.
services and facilities within the

Policy SH1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Coal Yard and associated buildings, north of Chapel Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
D. Dodds and P.Dodds (Site Support the inclusion of site as Support noted.
village.
owners)
the preferred option. Land on
the west of the site that has
Despite representations made
currently not been included, is
objecting to this site, it is still
being used as a Christmas tree
considered a viable preferred
plantation and could be included
option, and should be taken
within the site.
forward as such to the proposed
Margaret Baker
This is the only brown field site Support noted.
submission document.
Miss Karen Holmes
Mr & Mrs Ralph
Mr David Stebbing
put forward.
Central location.
Additionally, it is recommended
that the Christmas tree
plantation is also included within
the site boundary. This would
mr paul chubbock
create a more regular shape to
mr peter dodd
Mr Stebbing
Mr. Simon Page
the settlement, and also allow
for a lower density development,
which would be more in keeping
with a village. It should be noted
Mrs Ann Johnson
that lower density developments
Mrs Foster
in villages is an approach
Object
Mrs Joanne Kidd
Mrs T Coe
R Sykes and S Chowing
D Parfitt
Denise Element
Gladys Copsey
J. Carpenter & D. Pipe
NCC highways have not raised
any objections to this site.
supported by Policy DC2
Principles of New Housing,
within the adopted Core Strategy
and Development Control
Policies DPD.
Mary Larwood
Mr & Mrs Robinson
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr Heath Warner
Mr Nigel Godfrey
This site has access directly
onto Chapel Street. There are a
number of concerns regarding
not only the use of Chapel
Street as the access point, but
also the volume of traffic the site
would generate.

Policy SH1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Coal Yard and associated buildings, north of Chapel Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr Pick
Mr R S Caffyn
mr robert parfitt
Mr T Burrell
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs A Payne
Mrs P Godfrey
Mrs Vicki Parfitt
Ms Holly Monton
S Forder
Mrs Dawn Tindale
Mrs Mary Fern
Mrs Susan Elizabeth Hart
Mr & Mrs Duggan
Mr & Mrs M & P Parnell
Mr & Mrs Owen
Mr & Mrs R & J Rudling
Mr & Mrs Tuttle
Mr Adam Larwood
Mr Adam Moore
Mr Daniel Greenwood
Mr David Gray
Mrs Dawn Tindale
Mrs L F Parfitt
Mrs Theresa Hewett
Ms J Bogglist
Mrs Mary Fern
Objections raised regarding the
size of this site, and that it is too
large a development for a rural
village.
Concern over the ability of the
village services to cope with the
scale of the new development
proposed, as many of the
facilities are already
oversubscribed.
Large scale disruption in the
centre of the village.
Housing numbers within
Shipdham have been set
through the Core Strategy. This
site offers the only opportunity
for brownfield development
within the village.
Additionally, the central location
of this site means that the
majority of the village facilities
are within walking distance.

Policy SH1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Coal Yard and associated buildings, north of Chapel Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Comment Mr Gilbert Wooldridge (English This site is located within the Comments noted. Reference to
Heritage)
village Conservation Area, and the historic context of this part of
yet no mention of this is the village should be included
mentioned within the policy. within either the policy or
supporting text.
The site would be a large
northerly extension to Chapel
Street, and would go against the
historic linear form of the
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water)
settlement.
Upgrades to waste water The issues are not
capacity and sewerage required. insurmountable, and there are
similar
Shipdham.
concerns across
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) Whilst it is acknowledged that
this is a brownfield site, there
are concerns about the loss of
businesses. Although the Parish
Council do not object to housing
on this site, a mixed use
Comments noted.
development
preferable.
would be
Cllr P Hewett (Ward Agreement with the principle of Comments noted.
Representative)
SH1, however not all of the site
is brownfield. The shape of the
site is intrusive into the
countryside, and the shape of
SH8 may be better.
The addition of village shops on
the site should be supported.
Cllr T Hewett Rather than a small area of
open space, it would be better to
It is a requirement of DC11 of
the adopted Core Strategy that

Policy SH1 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Coal Yard and associated buildings, north of Chapel Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
receive contributions towards a all developments of over 25
larger area of open space. dwellings provide onsite open
space.
Mr Robinson
Concerns over the urbanisation Housing numbers within
Mrs Tuck
of a rural village, site could be Shipdham have been set
suitable for a smaller scheme. through the Core Strategy. This
site offers the only opportunity
for brownfield development
Mr & Mrs Malin This option is potentially better
than other alternative options.
within the village.
Comments noted.
Policy SH2 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Chapel Street, formerly Thomas Bullock School Playing Field
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Chris Taylor Bullock Park has not been Comments noted
A large number of
looked after previously.
representations have been
Mr Raiswell (Sport England) Whilst this site was the playing Comments noted. The site is not received in relation to this site,
field for the school, the classified as protected open showing a depth of feeling within
equivalent playing field has been space, and development on the the village against any proposed
relocated at the new school; site would not conflict with DC11 development.
therefore Sport England would of the adopted Core Strategy.
support the re-use of the site.
The highways authority has also
Mr & Mrs Abbott
We believe that smaller Comments noted
raised concerns about this site,
Mr & Mrs Synnock
developments of 25-30 houses
stating that it should only be
Mr & Mrs Ralph
will be better than larger sites.
developed in conjunction with
Mr & Mrs Shelly
site SH1. The feasibility of these
Mrs Kidd
The site is also well related to
two applications coming forward
Mrs Coe
village facilities.
in conjunction with each other
Please see attached list of Objections have been raised to Comments noted
creates further complications.
objectors to this site.
477 people have objected to the
the use of this site for housing,
with people wishing to see the
site being used as a village
Therefore, due to the level of
local objection to this site and

Policy SH2 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Chapel Street, formerly Thomas Bullock School Playing Field
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
inclusion of this site. green space/children’s play
the highways complications
area, due to its central location.
which have emerged, it is
recommended that this site
should in fact be removed from
the list of preferred options and
become an ‘alternative’ option.
Object K. Goodwille & S. Stolworthy
Mr & Mrs Malin
Mr & Mrs Appleby
Comment
It should be noted that the
majority of objections to this
site have been submitted as
part of a petition, which was
sent to every house in the
village.
If there is to be development in
the village, this would be a good
site as it is already within the
village. It is currently going to
waste as it is not used for
anything.
Preferred option is better, except
could part of it remain as a play
area.
NCC Highways SH2 would need to come
forward in conjunction with SH1,
to ensure works to Chapel
Street are co-ordinated. A policy
control should be included with
this.
Mr Hinchliffe This area should be used as a
central community area, with a
few social housing bungalows
around the edges.
The level of housing
development has been agreed
through the adopted Core
Strategy. This site is currently
unused, and entirely fenced off,
with no existing public access.
Any development of over 25
houses would be expected to
provide an on-site children’s
play area. As noted in policy
DC11 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
Comments noted. The feasibility
of including a policy control on
the development of the two sites
is also questioned.
Any development of over 25
houses would be expected to
provide an on-site children’s
play area. As noted in policy
DC11 of the adopted Core
This site is located within the
Shipdham settlement boundary.
Shipdham currently has a deficit
of open space, and it is
considered that this site could go
someway to meeting this deficit.
It is therefore recommended that
this site is zoned as open space.

Policy SH2 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Chapel Street, formerly Thomas Bullock School Playing Field
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Cllr Paul Hewett (Ward
representative)
Mr Gilbert-Wooldridge (English
Heritage)
Mr Keith Wood
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs V Champion
Recent village surveys have
shown that the majority of
residents would like to see this
site retained for open space.
Is such a high proportion of
affordable housing located
within one area of Shipdham
needed? A mixed development
would be better.
If this site and SH1 are to be
developed, rather than two small
play areas, would one larger
play area shared between the
two not be better option.
The site has drainage problems.
The site has access concerns,
as the entrance onto Chapel
Street has two protected trees.
The policy does not refer to
Shipdham’s Conservation Area,
and should be noted within the
policy that any development will
need to preserve and where
appropriate to enhance it.
This site offers the opportunity
for Shipdham to become a
vibrant village, with a central
village hall, parking and area of
Strategy.
Comments noted. The high level
of resident objections to this site
and preference for the sites use
as open space may also be
seen within the objections
section.
There is a high need for
affordable housing within
Shipdham, and this site would
go someway to meeting this
demand.
Comments noted.
Comments noted

Policy SH2 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the south of Chapel Street, formerly Thomas Bullock School Playing Field
Category Respondents Summary of Comments
open space.
Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
BDC Contaminated Land A desk study would be need and Comments noted
preliminary site investigation
including gas monitoring
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastruction upgrades and
SUDSwould be needed, but
these are not insurmountable.
Mr Neil Robinson
mr paul chubbock
Mr Stebbing
Mr. Simon Page
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs L F Parfitt
Mrs T Coe
W Pound
NCC Highways This site has access onto
Parklands Avenue and could link
Comments noted.
Policy SH3 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the South of Park Estate
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support D Parfitt
This is a small site, which could Support noted.
Whilst a number of objections
J Champion
J. Carpenter & D. Pipe
Mary Larwood
be developed quickly.
Would not create
congestion on the A1075.
more
have been raised against this
site, a number of issues within
them are not insurmountable.
The adopted Core Strategy has
Mr Adam Larwood
provided a positive housing
Mr David Stebbing
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr I Leonard
Overall preference for smaller
sites.
allocation for Shipdham, and it is
considered that site SH.3 still
offers the best opportunity to
meet this housing allocation.
Support noted
It is recommended that the
preferred option SH.3 is carried
forward to the proposed
submission document. This will
be known as SH2.

Policy SH3 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the South of Park Estate
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
with existing footways. The
school is within walking
Object
Comment
Mrs Mary Fern
Mrs Kidd
Mr & Mrs Jordan
Mr & Mrs Baker
Margaret Baker
distance.
Access concerns. The existing
road is too narrow and will not
cope with this increase in traffic.
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) The Parish Council object to the
development of this site, due to
McCarthy and Evans
Mr & Mrs Rudling
Mr Pick
Mrs Payne
Mr & Mrs Robinson
Mr Moore
Mr Weet
Mr Wood
Mrs Payne
Mrs Tindale
Mrs Foster
Mrs Kidd
R Sykes & S Chowings
concerns over access.
There are existing drainage
issues on this estate.
Would wish to see this land left
as greenfield.
Concern about the ability of
services within the village to
cope with all the additional
growth.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Upgrades to waste water
capacity and sewerage.
Mr & Mrs Malin
Mr & Mrs Ralph
This site represents a better
option for development than a
NCC highways have not raised
any access concerns for this
site.
NCC highways have not raised
any access concerns over this
site.
Anglian Water have indicated
that upgrades would be needed
to the drainage system.
However, these are not
insurmountable, and similar
upgrades would be needed for
all of the sites within Shipdham.
There are limited opportunities
for development on brownfield
sites within the district, due to
the rural nature of the district.
The majority of brownfield sites
have already been developed.
The issues are not
insurmountable, and there are
similar
Shipdham.
concerns across
Comments noted.

Policy SH3 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the South of Park Estate
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr Chris Hart
number of the other sites.
BDC Contaminated land Potential contaminative source
within 250m of this site a desk
study would be required.
Mr Adam Moore
Mr Neil Robinson
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs Joanne Kidd
Mrs L F Parfitt
Parfitt Nurseries
D Parfitt
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) This site could accommodate
the same number as SH2 and
SH3 combined, and is partially
brownfield. The Parish Council
would like to see this site as the
preferred option.
This would occur at the planning
application stage.
SH4 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Old Post Office Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr & Mrs Cossins
Mr Adam
Larwood
The front section of this site is
brownfield land.
Site has access onto the A1075,
Support noted.
A number of representations
have been received in regards to
this site. However, it is not
considered that the
and could provide more than
representations raise any
one access point.
insurmountable concerns in
regards to the site.
Object Mr & Mrs Duggan
Mr David
Stebbing
Mr Geoff
Hinchliffe
Mr Pick
Mr Stebbing
This site is too large and too
urban for a village location.
The site is also remote from the
village services and school,
which means that it is likely to
generate more vehicle
movements.
Support noted.
The objections to this site are
noted.
Furthermore, the loss of site
SH2 as a preferred option,
means that there is a balance of
30 houses to be accommodated
within Shipdham. This site would
offer the opportunity for a partial
brownfield development. Whilst
this site would be an extension
of the existing village into the
countryside it is not thought that
it would be as prominent as
other sites to the east of
Shipdham. The recommendation
is therefore that part of this site
is carried forward to the
proposed submission document
as a preferred option for

SH4 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Old Post Office Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Comment
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs A Payne
Mrs Foster
J Champion
NCC Highways Site has two potential access
points onto Watton Road and
Old Post Office Street. Local
improvements would be needed,
Comments noted.
development of 30 houses, with
the inclusion of onsite children’s
play provision. This will be site
SH3.
including footway provision,
though these could be
Cllr P Hewett (Ward
Representative)
Cllr T Hewett
overcome.
Site is approximately the same
distance from the village centre
as SH3, and also partially
brownfield. Site could create an
overall benefit to the village.
Comments noted.
Mr Page Potential alternative to SH2. Comments noted
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Upgrades to waste water
capacity and sewerage.
The issues are not
insurmountable, and there are
similar concerns across
Shipdham.
SH5 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Old Post Office Street and land to the east of Little Hale Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support D Parfitt
Good potential option for the Support noted. A number of representations
Mr & Mrs Cossins
development of 100 houses in
have been received in regards to
Mr Adam Larwood
Mr Adam Moore
Mr Neil Robinson
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs Foster
Mrs L F Parfitt
Shipdham.
this site, including an objection
from Norfolk County Council
Highways department. As such,
it is recommended that this site
is removed from the alternative
options within the proposed

SH5 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Old Post Office Street and land to the east of Little Hale Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Object NCC highways Site is distant from the centre of Objection noted.
submission document, and
the village, and there are no
reclassified as an ‘unreasonable
existing footways linking site to
centre of the village.
site’
Margaret Baker
This site is a large extension into The adopted Core strategy has
Mr & Mrs Duggan
the countryside on allocated the level of housing
Mr David Stebbing
predominantly greenfield land. growth for Shipdham.
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr Pick
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs A Payne
Mrs Foster
Shipdham is a village and
should remain as such.
Loss of views across the
countryside.
Larger sites do offer advantages
over smaller sites for
development, including the
provision of larger areas of open
space in accordance with NPFA
standards.
Comment Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and Similar infrastructure upgrades
SUDS would be needed, but would be needed for all of the
these are not insurmountable sites within Shipdham.
SH6: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land South of A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr David Gray
This would cause less disruption Support noted
The sites on the eastern edge of
Mrs Foster
for the centre of the village.
Shipdham, have high landscape
Object K Goodwille & S. Stolworthy
Margaret Baker
Mr & Mrs Duggan
Mr David Stebbing
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr Pick
mr robert parfitt
Mr Stebbing
Mr Stuart Abbott
Development on this site would
be too large and would alter the
character of Shipdham as you
enter the village from Dereham.
This would be an unnatural
extension to the village.
Further linear expansion of the
village.
The objections raised against
this site have been noted. The
eastern edge of Shipdham, has
been classified as having a
moderate-high sensitivity to built
development, within the
landscape character
assessment.
sensitivities, and are likely to
need extensive landscaping
schemes with development.
The sites at this edge of
Shipdham are distant from the
services and facilities within the
village.
It is proposed that these sites

SH6: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land South of A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr. Keith Wood
Shipdham is a village and
are reconsidered within the
Mrs A Payne
should be kept as such.
proposed submission document,
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs L F Parfitt
Mrs Theresa Hewett
Mr D Parfitt
and due to their distance from
village facilities, and impact on
the landscape are marked as
‘unreasonable’.
Mr Abbott
The adjacent field and houses to Comments noted.
Mr Pick
these sites are known to flood.
Mrs Payne
These sites on the edge of the Comments noted.
Mr Abbott
village are distant from village
Mr Hincliffe
services and facilities and
Comment BDC Contaminated Lane
people are unlikely to walk to the
centre of the village.
Potential contaminative source This would occur at the Planning
within 250m of this site a desk
study would be required.
Application stage.
Mr N Robinson Current housing here is dated
and unattractive. A housing
development on the open space
could improve the approach to
the village.
Comments noted.
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) The Parish Council would not
wish to see these as preferred
sites.
Comments noted.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and Similar infrastructure upgrades
SUDS would be needed, but would be needed for all of the
these are not insurmountable sites within Shipdham.
NCC highways Site has frontage onto Dereham
Road. Footways would need to
be provided to link with existing.
Site is distant from village
centre.
Comments noted

SH7 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land South of A1075 and to the rear of Walnut Meadow
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr David Gray
This would cause less disruption Support noted
The sites on the eastern edge of
Mrs Foster
for the centre of the village.
Shipdham, have high landscape
Object
Comment
K Goodwille & S. Stolworthy
Margaret Baker
Mr David Stebbing
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr Pick
Mr Stebbing
Mr Stuart Abbott
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs A Payne
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs L F Parfitt
Mrs Theresa Hewett
Mr Robert Parfitt
D Parfitt
BDC Contaminated Land
Development on this site would
be too large and would alter the
character of Shipdham as you
enter the village from Dereham.
This would be an unnatural
extension to the village.
Further linear expansion of the
village.
Shipdham is a village and
should be kept as such.
Potential contaminative source
The objections raised against
this site have been noted. The
eastern edge of Shipdham has
been classified as having
moderate-high sensitivity to built
development within the
Landscape Character
Assessment.
This would occur at the planning
sensitivities, and are likely to
need extensive landscaping
schemes with development.
The sites at this edge of
Shipdham are distant from the
services and facilities within the
village.
It is proposed that these sites
are reconsidered within the
proposed submission document,
and due to there distance from
village facilities, and impact on
the landscape are marked as
‘unreasonable’.
within 250m. A desk study would
be required.
application stage.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and Similar infrastructure upgrades
SUDS would be needed, but would be needed for all of the
these are not insurmountable sites within Shipdham.
Mr N Robinson Current housing here is dated Comments noted.
an unattractive. A housing
Mr Dadd (Parish Council)
development on the open space
could improve the approach to
the village.
The Parish Council would not
wish to see these as preferred
sites.
Comments noted.
NCC Highways Site has frontage onto Dereham
Road. Footways would need to
Comments noted.

SH7 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land South of A1075 and to the rear of Walnut Meadow
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
be provided to link with existing.
Site is distant from village
centre.
SH8 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Chapel Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Margaret Baker
Housing development here Support noted.
Despite the objections raised
Mrs Foster
would cause less disruption in
against this site, it is still
Object
Mrs Theresa Hewett
Mr & Mrs Duggan
Mr & Mrs M & P Parnell
Mr & Mrs Owen
Mr & Mrs Tuttle
Mr Adam Larwood
Mr David Stebbing
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr Heath Warner
Mr Pick
Mr R S Caffyn
mr robert parfitt
Mr Stebbing
Mr T Burrell
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs A Payne
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs Foster
Mrs L F Parfitt
Ms J Bogglist
the remainder of the village.
This site is far too large, and
extends too far out from the
existing building line.
All of the issues mentioned for
SH1 will be magnified.
This site is extending into
greenfield land – loss of
farmland, wildlife and habitats.
Access concerns onto Chapel
Street, volume of traffic this site
would produce.
The adopted Core strategy has
allocated the level of housing
growth for Shipdham.
Larger sites do offer advantages
over smaller sites for
development, including the
provision of larger areas of open
space in accordance with NPFA
standards.
NCC highways have not raised
any concerns over the site
access.
considered that it is a viable
option to accommodate growth
within the village, and as such
should be retained as an
alternative option within the
proposed submission document.
In addition to this, if it is decided
not to include site SH2, as an
allocation, this site is one of the
more viable alternatives to
accommodate Shidham’s future
housing growth. This will be site
SH4.
Comment NCC highways Site has frontage onto Chapel
Street which is sufficient to
Comments noted.

SH8 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Chapel Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
provide an access point. There
are existing footways, and the
site is centrally located within
the village. Either some or all of
the buildings along the A1075
road frontage would be needed
to be demolished.
BDC Contaminated Land Records show that part of this
site to the north potentially
covers part of a filled quarry. A
site investigation would be
Cllr P Hewett (Ward
representative)
required.
This site could provide a softer
overall shape than SH1. In
addition, it is also closer to
village facilities than other
preferred options.
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) The parish council would not
wish to see this included as a
preferred site at this time.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and
SUDS would be needed, but
these are not insurmountable
Comments noted. A desk study
and site investigation would
occur at the planning application
stage.
Comments noted.
Comments noted.
This is similar to all of the sites
within Shipdham.
SH9 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the rear of 68-74 Market Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr D Stebbing
Whilst not central, this site is Comments noted Changes to PPS3, means that
Mr G Hinchliffe
within walking distance of the
whilst this site was initially
Mr S Page
school and other village
classified as brownfield land, it is
Mrs A Johnson
Mrs Foster
facilities.
now greenfield.
W Pound
This would offer small scale
Whilst a number of

SH9 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the rear of 68-74 Market Street
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
development.
representations have been
Object Mr Dadd (Parish Council) Inadequate access and Norfolk County Council has raised for this site, it is thought
D Parfitt
backland development. raised no objections to this site that it should remain an
Mr Pick
on access grounds.
alternative option. This will be
Mr R Parfitt
Mr K Wood
Mrs Payne
Mrs L Parfitt
site SH5.
Comment NCC Highways Site has frontage onto Market
Street, and existing footways for
pedestrian access.
Comments noted
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and This is similar to all of the sites
SUDS would be needed, but
these are not insurmountable.
within Shipdham.
Cllr P Hewett Site offers limited potential. Poor Norfolk County Council has
access.
raised no objections to this site
on access grounds.
SH10 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the South of Larwood Way
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr & Mrs Stebbing
This site is within walking Comments noted.
Whilst further site investigation
Mr D Stebbing
distance of many of the village
would need to be carried out by
Mrs A Johnson
facilities, and would also prevent
the developer into this site, it is
W Pound
further ribbon development.
not thought that at this time, the
Object Mr G Hinchliffe
Access to the site would need to Norfolk County Council has not representations received on the
Mr Pick
be from Larwood Way and raised any objection to the site make it an unviable as an
Mr R Parfitt
Richard Haggard Close, along development of this site on alternative option. Therefore, the
Mr S Page
which there are a number of highways grounds.
site should remain within the
Mrs A Payne
parked cars. Neither of which
proposed submission document
Mrs S Tuck
would provide suitable access.
as an alternative option. This

SH10 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the South of Larwood Way
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
D Parfitt
This site forms part of the old Comments noted
will be site SH6.
Mrs L Parfitt
stone quarry and should not be
developed.
Comment
Mr Dadd (Parish Council)
Mrs Foster
Mr K Wood
Mrs L Duggan
Object to this site being put
forward for housing.
Extension into the countryside.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and
SUDS would be needed, but
Cllr P Hewett (Ward
Representative)
these are not insurmountable
Queries the time constraints
placed against the site.
Site has suitable access.
NCC highways The site has frontage onto
Larwood Way, and there are
existing footways. The site is
also relatively centrally located.
No objections have been raised.
BDC Contaminated Land This site is potentially a
backfilled quarry and site
investigation would be required
to ensure it is safe to be
developed.
Comments noted. This site has
been recommended as an
alternative option, rather than a
preferred.
This is similar to the entire site
within Shipdham.
Whilst the adopted Core
Strategy plans for housing
development until 2026,
development within the local
service centre village are
expected to come forward much
earlier, within this period. With
the larger sites in Thetford and
Attleborough expected later in
the plan period. Earlier delivery
of sites would help towards the
districts 5 year supply of land.
Comments noted.
Comments noted.

SH11 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Swan Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Cllr T Hewett Site has good access onto NCC has raised concerns over Following Norfolk County
Object
A1075 and offers the opportunity access onto the site.
Council Highway objection to the
for a small number of dwellings.
inclusion of this site, it is
Mr A Larwood
This is a small site, which would Support noted.
recommended that SH11 should
Mr G Hincliffe
provide for small number of
be removed from the list of
Mr S Page
dwellings along a quiet street.
alternative options, and within
NCC highways There are concerns over the Comments noted.
the proposed submission site it
suitability of Swan lane, to cope
should become an
with additional traffic. Whilst the
site is close to village facilities,
there are no existing footways.
Additionally there are concerns
over visibility along Swan Lane.
‘unreasonable option’.
Adele Travis
Objections to the development Norfolk County Council
D Parfitt
of this site on access grounds. Highways have also raised
M Travis
concerns over access to this
D Travis
site. As such, it is proposed that
Mr Robinson
the site is placed within the
Mr R Parfitt
Mrs L Parfitt
unreasonable list.
M Baker
This site is an unnatural Objections noted.
Mr Pick
extension along Swan Lane,
Mr Wood
which is not suitable for such a
Mrs Payne
Mrs Foster
large increase in housing.
Site would have a detrimental
impact on the surrounding
Mr Dadd (Parish Council)
countryside
The parish council object to
development on this site.
Comments noted.
Comment BDC Contaminated Lane A potential contaminative site
within 250m, a desk study would
Comments noted.
be required prior to

SH11 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Swan Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
development.
Mrs Tuck This site could be viewed as
logical infill, however the road is
narrow.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and
SUDS would be needed, but
these are not insurmountable
Cllr P Hewett This site is small an in obtrusive,
with reasonable access onto the
A1075.
Norfolk County Council
Highways have raised
objections to the inclusion of this
site due to access concerns.
This is similar to the entire site
within Shipdham.
SH12 - Alternative Residential Allocation -Land to the North of the A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Gray
This would cause less disruption Support noted.
This site is on the edge of
Mrs Foster
for the centre of the village.
Shipdham, and any
Mrs Champion
development here would an
Object D Parfitt
K Goodwille
Stolworthy
& S.
Development on this site would
be too large and would alter the
character of Shipdham as you
The objections raised against
this site have been noted.
Development on this site would
impact on the landscape
character as you enter the
village.
Margaret Baker
Mr & Mrs Duggan
Mr David Stebbing
Mr G Dadd (Parish
Council)
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr Pick
Mr Stebbing
enter the village from Dereham.
This would be an unnatural
extension
This area is distant from all of
the village facilities, and people
would drive into the centre of the
village rather than walk.
have a large impact on the
character of the village as you
enter from the Dereham side of
the village, due to the flat open
nature of the site. Extensive
landscaping schemes are likely
to be needed in conjunction with
any development on this site.
The site is also distant from the
services and facilities within
Shipdham.
It is recommended that this site
is reconsidered within the
proposed submission document
and placed within a list of
Mr Stuart Abbott
Would make an already long Additionally, all of the village unreasonable sites, due to the
Mr. Keith Wood
village longer.
facilities are located close to the landscape.
Mrs A Payne
centre of the village, which is

SH12 - Alternative Residential Allocation -Land to the North of the A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs Foster
Mrs L F Parfitt
Mrs Sylvia Tuck
Mr. Simon Page
Greenfield land. distant from this site.
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) Object to the inclusion of this
site.
Comments noted.
Comment Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and This is similar to all of the site
SUDS would be needed, but
these are not insurmountable.
within Shipdham.
BDC Contaminated Land Potentially close to a This would occur at the planning
contaminative source, a desk
study would be needed.
application stage.
NCC highways Site has frontage onto Dereham
Road. Footways would need to
be provided to link with existing.
Site is distant from village
centre.
Comments noted.
SH13 - Alternative Residential Allocations - Land to the North of the A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr David Gray
Whilst these sites are not Support noted.
This site is on the edge of
Mrs Foster
currently preferred, development
Shipdham, and any
Mrs V Champion
here would not impact on the
centre of the village in the same
development here would an
impact on the landscape
way.
character as you enter the
Object K Goodwille & S. This is a very large site, on The objections raised against village.
Stolworthy
greenfield land at the edge of this site have been noted. This
Margaret Baker
the village, which is not suitable site is a smaller version of The site is also distant from the
Mr David Stebbing
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
for further development.
An example of planning creep –
SH12, and a number of similar
issues arise.
services and facilities within
Shipdham.

SH13 - Alternative Residential Allocations - Land to the North of the A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Mr Pick
would make a long village even As noted in the representations, It is recommended that this site
Mr Stebbing
longer. Risk becoming an any development on these sites, is reconsidered within the
Mr Stuart Abbott
Mr. Keith Wood
Mrs A Payne
Mrs Ann Johnson
Mrs Foster
Mrs L F Parfitt
extension of Dereham rather
than a village in our own right.
This area is distant from all of
the village facilities, and people
would drive into the centre of the
village rather than walk.
will have a large visual impact
on the approach to Shipdham
from Dereham. In an area that
the Settlement Fringe
Landscape Character
Assessment classifies as having
a moderate – high sensitivity to
proposed submission document
and placed within a list of
unreasonable sites, due to the
landscape.
Mrs Sylvia Tuck
development. Any development
D Parfitt
here is likely to need extensive
landscaping schemes.
Mr G Hinchliffe
Developments on sites of this Comments noted
Mr Pick
size are likely to overwhelm
Mrs Payne
present services within the
village.
facilities.
Particularly, medical
In addition, the centre of the
village does not have enough
parking to cope with all the
additional cars.
Mr Dadd (Parish Council) The Parish Council would not
wish to see these sites
developed.
Comment Mr N Robinson Development on this site could
provide a link onto Letton Road,
which would make access safer.
It could also improve the visual
approach to the village, as
housing currently looks dated
and not very attractive.
Comments noted.

SH13 - Alternative Residential Allocations - Land to the North of the A1075
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
BDC Contaminated Land Potentially close to a This would occur at the planning
contaminative source, a desk
study would be needed.
application stage.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Infrastructure upgrades and This is similar to all of the site
SUDS would be needed, but
these are not insurmountable
within Shipdham.
NCC highways Site has frontage onto Dereham
Road. Footways would need to
be provided to link with existing.
Site is distant from village centre
and services.
Comments noted.
Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
The justification behind each of
Object
the sites classification as
Comment NCC highways Sites appear to have been Each of the sites represented to unreasonable is still considered
evaluated inconsistently. There the Council, were subject to a to be relevant, and it is not
appears to of been only limited site visit. The table displaying proposed that this should be
desk based analysis.
unreasonable sites merely changed.
provides a summary of the
major constraints identified with
the site.
Some of the sites could come
forward immediately under
existing planning rules.
In relation to the smaller sites
currently inside the settlement
boundary. It is acknowledged
that these sites could come
forward immediately. However, it
is considered that due to their
size, a strategic housing
allocation would not be

Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Swanton Morley
Mrs Tuck Land at 36 Letton Road was
submitted, this seems to be a
better option than some
preferred, why it was not
considered?
appropriate.
All of the sites submitted to
Breckland Council within
Shipdham, were analysed both
through a desk based study and
with a site visit. This site was
considered unreasonable due to
an objection from the highways
authority which stated that
Letton Road was unsuitable for
the increased vehicular
movements that any
development would bring about.
Swanton Morley - Introduction
Category
Support
Object
Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer recommendation
Comments Highways Agency Due to their small nature, the
Highways Agency does not
consider that the proposed
sites will have any adverse
impact on the strategic road
network.
Comments noted.
SM1 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land at Rectory Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Strutt and Parker on behalf of Supports this site as the Support noted. Following representations
Swanton Morley Farms (Site preferred option.
received on this site, it is still
representors)
considered that this site is a

SM1 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land at Rectory Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Swanton Morley has a wide
viable option and should be
range of facilities to support
carried forward within the
development. This site is
proposed submission document
sustainably located in relation to
as the preferred option for
them.
development within Swanton
Mrs LeBon (Parish Council) This is the Parish Council’s One site to accommodate all of Morley.
Mr Willis
preferred site for development. the 50 houses proposed, does
There is an existing highways offer a number of advantage.
scheme to widen the road at Mill The site will be required to
Street.
provide a larger area of on-site
open space, in accordance with
The Parish Council would rather
see one large site rather than a
NPFA standards.
Object Mrs Walden
Mrs Sadler
Mrs Foster
Comment
number of smaller sites.
NCC highways A road improvement scheme is
currently proposed in this area.
Following this scheme, safe
access should be able to be
provided onto Rectory Road.
Access concerns onto Rectory
Road, Mill Road and Town
Street.
This is a large scheme, smaller
areas would be more
appropriate.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water Upgrades to the foul water
sewerage would be needed if
this site was to be developed.
Mr Gilbert-Wooldridge (English
Heritage)
Policy SM1 should include
reference to preserving the
setting of the listed church.
Comments noted.
Norfolk County Council
Highways have not raised
highways concerns in regard to
this site.
Whilst upgrades would be
needed, these are not
insurmountable to prevent
development.
Comments noted. This could
either be included within the
policy or the reasoned

SM1 - Alternative Residential Allocation - Land at Rectory Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
justification.
Policy SM2 - Preferred Residential Allocation - Land to the West of Manns Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Whilst representations have
Object Mrs LeBon (Parish Objects to this as an alternative Comments noted
been raised in conjunction with
Council)
site.
this site, it is still considered that
Comment BDC Contaminated Land There is a potential This would occur at the Planning site SM2 should be included
contaminative source within Application stage.
within the proposed submission
250m of this site – a desk study
document as an ‘alternative
would be required.
option’.
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water Upgrades to the foul water Whilst upgrades would be needed,
sewerage would be needed if these are not insurmountable to
this site was to be developed. prevent development.
NCC Highways Site has frontage onto Manns Whilst some improvement would be
Lane. Whilst some needed, these are not insurmountable.
improvements would be needed This site could also have the additional
for vehicle access, access benefit, of improving footways to the
would be possible. In addition,
site could offer the opportunity
to improve footway provision
from Gooseberry Hill to the
primary school.
primary school.
SM3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Manns Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Whilst representations have
Object Mrs LeBon (Parish Council) Objects to this as an alternative Comments noted
been raised in conjunction with
site.
this site, it is still considered that
Mr Willis Site constitutes one of the Norfolk County Council site SM3 should be included
remaining pieces of agricultural Highways have not raised within the proposed submission
land visible from the road highways concerns in regard to document as an alternative

SM3: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the East of Manns Lane
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
through the village.
this site.
option.
Impact on setting of listed
building Kesmark House.
Inability to achieve safe access.
Comment NCC Highway Site has frontage onto Manns
Lane, achieving vehicular
access would be dependent on
some infrastructure
improvement, including
increasing footway provision.
The rural nature of Breckland
district means that the majority
of housing sites will be located
on greenfield land adjacent to
existing settlement boundaries.
Comments noted
SM4: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Gooseberry Hill
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Although representations have
Object Mrs LeBon (Parish Council) Objects to this as an alternative Comments noted
been made against this site, it is
site.
recommended that the site
Mr Parker (Historic Houses Concern that any development Comments noted.
should go forward from the
Association)
here should impact on the
preferred options document in to
setting of grade II listed
the proposed submission
Kesmark house. If the fields
between the property and the
document.
village hall were to be
Mr Willis
development, it would remove
the historic setting of the house.
Site constitutes one of the Norfolk County Council
remaining pieces of agricultural Highways have not raised
land visible from the road highways concerns in regard to
through the village.
this site.

SM4: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the north of Gooseberry Hill
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Impact on setting of listed The rural nature of Breckland
building Kesmark House district means that the majority
of housing sites will be located
Inability to achieve safe access on greenfield land adjacent to
existing settlement boundaries.
Comment Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Upgrades to the foul water Whilst upgrades would be
sewerage would be needed if needed, these are not
this site was to be developed. insurmountable
development.
to prevent
NCC Highways Site has frontage along both
Gooseberry Hill and Manns
Lane. Some improvement would
be needed to Manns Lane to
provide access, however safe
access could be provided from
Gooseberry Hill.
Comments noted
SM5: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land to the South East of Dereham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Following objections from
Object NCC highways Site has access onto Dereham Objection noted.
Norfolk County Council
Road/Tuddenham Road. A
Highways, regarding the ability
number of improvements to
to gain safe access to this site. It
these roads would be needed,
is recommended that this site is
before it would be possible to
removed from the alternative
see if safe access could be
options and placed within the list
provided. The site is also distant
from the village centre.
of unreasonable sites.
Mrs LeBon (Parish Council) Objects to this as an alternative
site
Comments noted
Comment BDC Contaminated Land Potential contaminative source This would occur at the planning
within 250m of this site, a desk application stage.

SM5: Alternative Residential Allocation -Land to the South East of Dereham Road
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
study would be required.
SM6: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land to the North West of Greengate.
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Although representations have
Object Mrs LeBon (Parish Council) Objects to this as an alternative Comments noted
been made against this site, it is
site.
recommended that the site
Comment BDC Contaminated land Potential contaminated source This would occur at the planning should go forward from the
within 250m of this a desk study application stage.
preferred options document in to
would be required.
the proposed submission
Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Upgrades to the foul water Whilst upgrades would be document. This will be known
sewerage would be needed if needed, these are not as SM5.
this site was to be developed. insurmountable
development.
to prevent
NCC highways NCC highways have queried the
ability to gain access to this site.
Access to this site would be
achieved from Greengate, this
would need to utilise third party
land, and could be seen as a
constraint to development.
SM7: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land between Primary School and Village Hall
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Although representations have
Object Mrs LeBon (Parish Council) Objects to this as an alternative Comments noted
been made against this site, it is
site
recommended that the site
Comment Mrs Bull (Anglian Water) Upgrades to the foul water Whilst upgrades would be should go forward from the
sewerage would be needed if needed, these are not preferred options document in to
this site was to be developed. insurmountable to prevent the proposed submission
development.
document.
BDC Contaminated land Potential contaminated source This would occur at the planning

SM7: Alternative Residential Allocation - Land between Primary School and Village Hall
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
within 250m of this a desk study application stage.
However, a small change to the
would be required.
site area is proposed. This
NCC highways SM7 is located on a Comments noted.
change is to enlarge the site to
substandard road network and
include the full extent of SM2.
the associated vehicular
The change is proposed, due to
movements would put pressure
the inability for SM7 to come
on other substandard lengths of
forward without the development
roads. However, the allocation
of SM2, therefore the
of SM7 could come forward in
development of the entire site
association with SM2 as
would allow for the necessary
SM2 provides frontage to put in
improvements to Manns Lane.
necessary pedestrian
improvements.
Due to the constraints of the
site, whilst not being
insurmountable, it is proposed
that the site should be retained
as an alternative option for
development. This will be
known as SM6.
Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
It is proposed that the
Object J Cook Site [098]002 site has adequate This site was previously unreasonable sites should
access for a low density assessed prior to the publication remain as such within the
development. Any adverse of the preferred options proposed submission document.
visual impact would be limited. document, where it was not
considered to be suitable for
residential development. At this
time, it is not thought that there
is any new evidence which
would alter this.

Unreasonable Sites
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
D Wingate on behalf of J Willis Site [098]004 site has adequate This site was previously
access for a low density assessed prior to the publication
development. Any adverse of the preferred options
visual impact would be limited. It document, where it was not
is also not thought that considered to be suitable for
development of this site would residential development. At this
impact upon the Listed Building. time, it is not thought that there
is any new evidence which
would alter this.
Comment Mr R Barlow Site [098]014 should be This site was previously
considered further. It has access assessed prior to the publication
from Bedingfield Road and of the preferred options
would not impact on the older document, where it was not
part of the village.
considered to be suitable for
residential development. At this
time, it is not thought that there
is any new evidence which
would alter this.
Representations made to the Preferred Options Consultation and officer responses for the Introduction, Gypsy and Traveller Site,
Monitoring and Sustainability Appraisal.
D3
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Object
Support
Comments Sarah Roberts TW
Gaze
Land north of Windmill Avenue
Dereham should be included as
part of a preferred option for
housing - 3.9 hectares (ha). The
site is situated adjacent to
preferred option D3 and Neatherd
This site has not been
consulted on in the previous
2008 and 2009 stages and
should not be considered at
this late stage. Whilst the site
area itself is identified as not
It is considered that despite the
representations received the
preferred options for Dereham
remain appropriate and are
continued to the proposed
submission document.

Moor. subject of any specified
conservation designation, the
site may offer potential as
suitable habitats for a number
of protected species including
reptiles, great crested newts
and bats. The northern and
eastern site boundaries are
identified as lying within Flood
Zone 2. Furthermore the site
is located adjacent to
Neatherd moor which acts as
a buffer between proposed
new housing and Neatherd
Moor open space.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.1
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object
Comment
Lt Col Christopher
Taylor
Criticism that a Shipdham
meeting was organised on the 1 st
of July – the same date as the
Norfolk show.
No comments to make on the
Miss Rachael Bust –
Coal Authority document
Mr Brian Kidd The current state of play with the
RSS as a result of its revocation
and the demise of EERA and
EEDA.
This meeting was organised No further comment.
by the Parish Council and was
not the responsibility of the
Local Planning Authority.
No further comments. No further comment.
The RRS was confirmed on
the 10 th of November that, the
contents therein, remain the
top tier development plan for
the purposes of delivering
Level and location of growth will
remain as detailed within the
adopted Core Strategy and
Development and Control Policies
DPD.

growth in the East of England.
Furthermore, Breckland
District Council has an
adopted Core Strategy which
guides the level and location
of growth within the District.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.2
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object
Comment
Mr Brian Kidd What would happen to the Site
Specifics Policies and Proposal
LDP’s etc as a result of the
demise of the RSS?
Mr Stephen Faulkner Site Specifics DPD needs to take
in to account mineral resources,
existing and proposed mineral
extraction sites, waste
management facilities and
sewage treatment works.
Mr Stephen Faulkner County Council school sites
should be included within the
respective settlement boundary.
If the RSS were to be
abolished, Breckland has an
adopted Core Strategy which
has, through examination,
endorsed the housing
numbers, location and
direction of growth. This
document would guide the
future planning of the District.
Constraints and site analysis
is undertaken as part of the
site specifics process.
Majority of school sites are
not designated as open space
through the Adopted Core
Strategy as a result of their
restricted use for school only,
Level and location of growth will
remain as detailed within the
adopted Core Strategy and
Development and Control Policies
DPD.
No further action.
No further action.

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.2
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
and their removal from the
settlement boundary would
provide protection from future
redevelopment if that should
arise. This is also consistent
with the approach taken within
the preferred options
document.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.4
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Brian Astley Great Ellingham Parish Council is Support noted. It is recommended that the
in agreement with the proposed
change as set out in the preferred
settlement boundary changes.
options consultation to amend the
Great Ellingham settlement
boundary is continued to the
proposed Submission document.
Object
Comment Mr Brian Kidd Concern on the impact on the The RSS was confirmed on
village infrastructure as a result of the 10
the revocation of the RSS and its
impact upon the Core Strategy
and Development Control
Policies. Furthermore, what will
be the impact upon the Shipdham
Conservation Area and access to
the preferred sites?
th Comments noted.
of November that, the
contents therein, remain the
top tier development plan for
the purposes of delivering
growth in the East of England.
Furthermore, Breckland
District Council has an
adopted Core Strategy which
guides the level and location
of growth within the District. If

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.4
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
the RSS were to be abolished
PPS5 (Planning for the
Historic Environment) is the
National Policy for the
protection for the Historic
Environment of which
Conservation Area protection
is included.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.6
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object Mrs Jean Walden The site selected for Swanton
Morley is considered
inappropriate due to road access
At a public meeting in Swanton.
Morley, Gooseberry Hill was
voted as the preferred site by
those villagers in support of
housing development. This site
does not have the road access
issues.
Comment Mr Brian Kidd How will the role of LPAs change
with the coalition government's
wish to delegate more planning
policy matters down to Local
Council level, and then what will
be the role of the Planning
Inspectorate in either deciding on
Whilst the site benefits from
few physical constraints, it is
considered that factors such
as location and proximity of
existing listed buildings and its
historic context in relation to
the village have deemed that
site SM1 within the village is
preferable in terms of fewer
constraints.
The RSS was confirmed on
the 10 th of November that, the
contents therein, remain the
top tier development plan for
the purposes of delivering
growth in the East of England.
Furthermore, Breckland
It is recommended that this site
remain an alternative site within
the submission document.
Comments noted.

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.6
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
the LPDs (if they exist) or making District Council has an
decisions on Appeals.
adopted Core Strategy which
guides the level and location
of growth within the District.
Id the RSS were to be
abolished and the Localism
Agenda endorsed by Council
Members then this may have
an impact upon the future of
‘planning’ within the district.
At present, the Local authority
has an adopted Core Strategy
which guides housing
numbers, location and
direction of growth within the
District.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Introduction - Section 1.9
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
The site is a key piece of
Object Mrs Donna Tayler Objects to the proposed Overall level of development brownfield land in a highly
development of 250 houses on proposed for Dereham is sustainable location in close
the greenfields site in Dereham identified within the Core proximity to Dereham Town
due to access arrangements, in Strategy. Development will Centre. The site provides an
particular on the Norwich Road, be expected to provide any opportunity to make best use of
currently over developed, loss of necessary improvements to brownfield land which limits the
outlook, spoil view of windmill. local infrastructure to enable it need for additional greenfield
to occur.
development and encroachment
Comment
into the surrounding countryside.

Development offers opportunities
for increased walking and cycling
and the proposed policy reflects
this.
As such, it is considered that the
site should be allocated for
residential development as per
the preferred options document.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document –Relationship to the Core Strategy - Section 1.12
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object Mrs Kerry Doyle Concern that development will not
increase jobs or retail space given
that existing retail space is
currently vacant. These should
be filled first.
Mrs Jean Walden There are currently 80 dwellings
on Robertson Barracks empty.
Why does Swanton Morley
require an additional 50 houses?
The adopted Core Strategy
supports the reuse of vacant
retail space, however, the
Spatial Strategy looks to 2026
therefore needs to identify
appropriate areas for future
employment growth.
Swanton Morley has been
identified within the adopted
Core Strategy as a Local
Service Centre with a positive
housing allocation. Overall
level of development
proposed for Swanton Morley
is identified in the adopted
Core Strategy.
No further comment.
Overall level of development
proposed for Swanton Morley is
identified in the Core Strategy.
Mrs Rebecca Rejzek The representation presents a As no additional information No further comment.

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document –Relationship to the Core Strategy - Section 1.12
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
on behalf of case that Weeting should or evidence containing new
Childerhouse Lodge accommodate additional growth if empirical research has been
Farms.
the evidence identifies that further received as part of the Site
development can be Specifics process it is
accommodated without likely recommended that the
significant effect on qualifying document is not amended
features of the Breckland further in respect of Weeting.
Farmland SPA. The Any review of Weeting will
representation further argues that require new evidence which
the Inspectors Report on the Core can adequately demonstrate
Strategy has enabled an to the satisfaction of the Local
allocation in Weeting to be Planning Authority and
determined positively in such statutory bodies that a clear
circumstances. The causal mechanism has been
representation is not identified and consequently
accompanied by any detailed successful mitigation can be
research or any new empirical
evidence which demonstrates that
the existing evidence base is
implemented.
deficient or that a causal
mechanism for lower Stone
Curlew nesting attempts
proximate to development has
been successfully identified and
therefore capable of successful
mitigation. Therefore, it is not
possible to recommend a positive
way forward on this issue as part
of this document.
Notwithstanding the Stone Curlew

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document –Relationship to the Core Strategy - Section 1.12
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
issue, the Core Strategy was not
amended to allow for a positive
allocation of development at
Weeting at either SS1 (the Spatial
Strategy) and at CP1 (Housing) to
facilitate any significant release of
land. New evidence on Stone
Curlews may allow for modest
development in line with Policy
CP14 (ie schemes of up to 5
units) and DC5 (affordable
housing on exception sites) but it
will not be possible to make any
strategic requirement for housing
at Weeting in line with adopted
Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy.
Therefore there is no sound basis
for considering an allocation at
Weeting as part of this document
and Officers recommend that the
issue is reconsidered as part of a
review of the Core Strategy when
evidence on Stone Curlews is
further developed. Additionally, it
would be deleterious to the
sustainable planning of the
remainder of the District, including
the much needed development of
housing in the market towns and
other sustainable villages, to

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document –Relationship to the Core Strategy - Section 1.12
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
delay the Site Specifics document
to specifically address Weeting
when there has been little activity
or concerted effort (despite the
efforts of Breckland Council) in
2010 to provide new empirical
research on the causal effect
between development and Stone
Curlew nesting activity.
Comment
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document –Relationship to the Core Strategy - Section 1.13
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object
Comment Mrs Margaret
Synnock
Whilst favouring development in
Shipdham and an increase in
affordable housing, concern that
the existing infrastructure will not
be able to cope with the increase
in traffic. An increase in traffic
may cause damage to the Church
walls. A weight restriction is
suggested which would cause
heavy goods vehicles to find an
alternative route, and a 20mph
speed limit round the church
would help to make any scheme
more acceptable to the majority.
Highways Agency/Authority
has not objected the level of
growth within the village.
Development will be expected
to provide any necessary
improvements to local
infrastructure to enable it to
occur. Any speed restriction
would be a Highway’s
responsibility.
No further comments.

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document –Relationship to Appropriate Assessment - Section 1.18
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mike Jones RSPB RSPB are pleased that the Support noted. Impacts upon the SPA and
recommended sites proposed
additional protected species
within the preferred options
within the district are covered
document are all situated outside
within CP10 of the adopted Core
of the Breckland Special
Strategy.
Protection Area (SPA) and its
associated 1,500m buffer for
Stone Curlews. Furthermore,
regards to the potential impacts
on the Nightjar and Woodlark
features of the Breckland SPA, it
is noted that no recommended
site allocations are located within
400m of the site. Furthermore,
Habitat Regulations Assessment
(HRA) - Mitigation and Avoidance
- support the approach made in
paragraph 7.1.4 of the HRA which
states that ‘should the monitoring
indicate that disturbance is
increasing to a point that could
adversely affect integrity, access
management measures will need
to be set in place before that
effect actually occurs’. RSPB also
agree with the approach taken in
the HRA, which notes that whilst
no significant effect was noted on

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document –Relationship to Appropriate Assessment - Section 1.18
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
breeding success from
recreational disturbance, it is
possible that other recreational
impacts have gone unrecorded as
existing nest sites may already be
distributed away from areas of
high recreational disturbance.
Object
Comment
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document - Site Assessment - Section 1.22
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support Mr Adam Ireland - Breckland Site Specific Policies Support noted. Flood risk is covered in DC13 of
Planning Liaison and Proposals DPD have both
the adopted Core Strategy.
Officer Environment correctly applied the Sequential
Agency
test in accordance with PPS25,
and have appropriately used the
baseline information projects
undertaken by Breckland DC
(such as the Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment and the Water Cycle
Study). The locations of growth
are therefore supported.
Object Mr Andrew Thomas Concern that Windmill Comments noted. Windmill No further comment.
Avenue/Football Club site does Avenue/Football Club came
not meet all the criteria when out as a preferred site through
assessing sites.
the site assessment.
Comment Mike Jones RSPB Greater clarity should be provided For the purpose of illustrating All constraints layers will be
when providing the SPA buffer on settlement boundary changes, illustrated on any new proposed

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document - Site Assessment - Section 1.22
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
the site specific policies mapping. not all layers were depicted settlement boundary mapping for
on mapping for the Site the submission document.
Specifics document. All
constraints layers will be
illustrated on any new
proposed settlement
boundary mapping for the
submission document.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Monitoring - Section 5.2
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object Mrs Theresa Hewett The table for Shipdham states the
deadline for development as 2014
and 2015? This document is
supposed to cover development
up to 2021 or 2026. Concern
with the description/terminology of
SH2 and the proposed future use
of the site.
The Site Specific Policies and
preferred options consultation
document states that
development is expected to
come forward in the early part
of 2014. The Core Strategy
does cover development up to
2026. SH2 has been
removed from the submission
document due to local
concern for future housing. It
is recommended that it may
be used for open space
provision.
The Highways Authority raised
concerns about this site, stating
that it should only be developed in
conjunction with site SH1. The
feasibility of these two
applications coming forward in
conjunction with each other
creates further complications.
Therefore, due to the level of local
objection to this site and the
highways complications which
have emerged, it is recommended
that this site should in fact be
removed from the list of preferred
options and become an
alternative option.

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document – Monitoring - Section 5.2
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Comment Mr Tom Gilbert-
Wooldridge – English
Heritage
With regards to Policy D1 and
SM1, an indicator relating to
respecting the setting of the
Listed Malting’s is welcomed. A
further indicator is recommended
that records whether or not the
Malting’s are removed from the
Heritage at Risk register (as a
Building at Risk) as a
consequence of development at
Site D1.
With regards to Policy D11, SH1
and SH2 an indicator measuring
the impact of development on the
character and setting of the
Conservation Area and Listed
Buildings should be included.
The local authority does not
have mechanisms in place to
monitor impacts upon
character and setting of
Conservation Areas.
This site is though located within
the Shipdham settlement
boundary. Shipdham currently
has a deficit of open space
provision, and it is considered that
this site could go someway to
meeting this deficit. It is therefore
recommended that this site is
zoned as open space.
No further comments.

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document - Section - SA Framework
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object Mrs Theresa Hewett Q7. Considers that too many of
the preferred sites are huge
swathes of land bordering the
villages and several smaller sites
Comment
have been disregarded.
Overall level of development
and identification of service
centres have been identified
within the adopted Core
Strategy.
No further comment.
Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document - Section - Gypsy and Travellers
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Support
Object Mr Steve Staines There is clear evidence of need
for pitches located along the A47
and the speed of delivery is
questioned. If there is need now,
then provision should be made
according to that need. New
Travellers form part of the
Travelling Community and hence
provision should be made for
them in the same way as the rest
of the population, and to the same
timescale.
Mr Steve Staines The RSS policy H3 clearly states
that beyond 2011 provision
should be made for an annual 3%
compound interest increase in
residential pitch provision. As
such it cannot be premature to
The adopted Core Strategy
identifies the need for 15
pitches for the Gypsy and
Traveller community which
shall be delivered through the
Attleborough and Snetterton
Heath Area Action Plan along
the A11 corridor.
The adopted Core Strategy
states at policy CP2 that
provision should be focussed
on the A11 corridor in the first
instance to meet the
requirements set out in RSS
15 pitches for the Gypsy and
Traveller community will be
established through the
Attleborough and Snetterton
Heath Area Action Plan along the
A11 corridor.
15 pitches for the Gypsy and
Traveller community will be
established through the
Attleborough and Snetterton
Heath Area Action Plan along the
A1 corridor.

Site Specific Policies and Proposals Preferred Sites Consultation Document - Section - Gypsy and Travellers
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
delay making plans for provision policy H3. This is not being
beyond 2011 (only one year addressed as part of the
away). This risks unacceptable Attleborough and Snetterton
delay in enabling the Heath Area Action Plan.
development of new sites. We There is no evidence of
believe that not making some sort immediate short term need
of post 2011 provision risks elsewhere in the District but
making this planning document the situation will be reviewed.
unsound. The policy does not At this stage, the Councils
state when a new GTAA will be evidence indicates a likely
carried out and merely states that need for a short stay stopping
Site Specific document is likely to place on the A47 and this is
be reviewed on a 3 yearly basis best dealt with as a planning
without indicating when a new application rather than an
needs assessment will be carried
out.
allocation in a DPD document.
Comment Mrs Theresa Hewett Are we still beholden to the The RSS was confirmed on
Regional Spatial Strategy? the 10 th The RSS remains the top tier
of November that, the development plan for the
contents therein, remain the purposes of delivering growth in
top tier development plan for
the purposes of delivering
growth in the East of England.
the East of England.
Sustainability Appraisal - Table 4.1
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
Paragraph inserted within SA to
Agree
clarify that detailed site specific
No Opinion Tom Gilbert Consistency with Site Specific Comments noted.
appraisal questions have been
Wooldridge Appraisal Questions within table
summarised/condensed within
(English 4.1 Assessment Database and
table 12.2 to enable concise site

Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Heritage) tables within Appendix A.
assessment.
Sustainability Appraisal - Table 3.13 & Table 5.14
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
No further action required.
Agree Stephen Faulkner (NCC) Support the inclusion of Comments noted.
historic landscape
character within tables
5.13/14.
No Opinion
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Sustainability Appraisal - Paragraphs 5.59
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
Agree
No Opinion
Baseline data will be updated.
Disagree Stephen Faulkner (NCC), Clarification of both Comments noted.
Tom Gilbert -Wooldridge figures for the NCC
(English Heritage) Buildings at Risk (BAR)
Register and EH
Heritage
Register.
at Risk
Disagree Strongly

Sustainability Appraisal - Table 5.15
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
Table will be revised and
Agree
No Opinion
updated.
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Stephen Faulkner (NCC) Terminology suggestion
from ‘historic heritage’ to
‘built heritage’.
Comments noted.
Sustainability Appraisal - Table 5.32
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
Document will be revised as a
Agree
result of Planning Policy
No Opinion
Guidance changes.
Disagree Stephen Faulkner (NCC), Need to update Comments noted.
Tom Gilbert -Wooldridge references from PPG.15
Disagree Strongly
(English Heritage) and 16 to PPS.5.
Sustainability Appraisal - Table 9.1
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
No further action –
Agree
NNC capture Building at Risk
No Opinion
(BAR) at District and Norfolk
Disagree Tom Gilbert -Wooldridge Objective 8 SA indicators Comments noted. level. Furthermore, all ‘heritage’
(English Heritage) should include areas
can be considered risk, in
within the Heritage at
particular Conservation Areas as
Risk Register.
a result of weak legislation.
Furthermore, the methods of

Disagree Strongly
assessment of at risk are not
endorsed.
Sustainability Appraisal - Table 10.1
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
Literature review will be revised
Agree
No Opinion
and updated.
Disagree Tom Gilbert -Wooldridge Table 10.1 in Appendix B Comments noted.
Disagree Strongly
(English Heritage) should include
references to PPS5 or
the European Landscape
Convention.
Sustainability Appraisal – Table 4.1
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
Will revisit D1, D11, SH1, SH2
Agree
No Opinion
and SM1.
Disagree Tom Gilbert -Wooldridge The score for objective 8 in Comments noted.
(English Heritage) D1, D11, SH1, SH2 and
SM1 In Appendix D, should
be positive/negative (+/-) to
reflect the uncertainty of the
development’s impact
depending on the final
design.

Disagree Strongly
Sustainability Appraisal - Table 12.4
Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation
Strongly Agree
Agree
No Opinion
No further action.
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Mr Chris Smith Concerned with
landscape and flood risk
assessment for D7.
Comments noted.

Appendix P – Recommendations of the LDF Task and Finish Group 15.12.10.
Schedule of recommended changes to the Preferred Option in Dereham and Shipham and the Rural Settlement
Boundaries from the Preferred Options document - with further column (Recommendation of the LDF Task and Finish Group
15.12.10)
Parish
Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Dereham 240 dwellings on site D2
– land off Greenfields
Road.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
240 dwellings
on site D2 –
land off
greenfields
Road.
Issues since Preferred
Options
This site has generated
considerable local opposition
from residents at Greenfields
Road and Wheatcroft Way
including concerns on traffic
impact and loss of
undeveloped land. The site
is supported by Dereham
Town Council and the
Highways Authority. The
long term strategy for
Dereham has always
intended for this area to come
forward and the preliminary
infrastructure is already place
to deliver the site.
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
The proposed submission
document retains the site
notwithstanding the significant
scale of local objections.
However, given concerns over
development numbers in this
location and an
acknowledgement to secure a
density of development which
respects its context it is
proposed to reduce the
allocation down to 220 new
homes (equivalent to 25dph).
It is recommended that - Land
at Garden Centre, Shipdham
Road, Toftwood including the
glasshouses and industrial
buildings be identified as a
fourth residential development
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Agree with officer
recommendation of 220
dwellings on site D2 but
remove site D4 from
the submission
document.

Parish
Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Shipdham 30 dwellings on SH2. 30 dwellings
on SH2.
Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Beetley Boundary is considered
logical, defensible and
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Retain
settlement
Issues since Preferred
Options
Large number of local
community responses does
not wish to see the Thomas
Bullock Playing Field
allocated for development
and for the area to be left
open, ideally for public use.
The Highways Authority has
raised doubts about access,
particularly from Chapel
Street.
Issues since Preferred
Options
Three comments were made
on the recommendation to
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
allocation in Dereham for 50
new homes. It would be
known as D4.
Site SH.2 no longer to be
included as a preferred site
and as such becomes a
reasonable alternative site. It
is not proposed to allocate the
site for public open space
given the covenant on the site.
In accommodating the balance
of 30 new homes, it is
recommended that Site SH.1
be enlarged to incorporate
some of the land to the east
which was identified as
reasonable alternative site
SH.8. SH1 will accommodate
80 dwellings and SH.3 20
dwellings.
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Amend the settlement
boundary to remove the
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Agree officer
recommendation.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Amend settlement
boundary as per officer

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
has scope to allow for
some modest potential
for infilling without
causing harm to the form
and character of the
village.
Recommendation was to
retain the settlement
boundary as the status
quo which was endorsed
at the meeting of the 25 th
of November 2009 by
the task and finish group
and Cabinet on the 26 th
April 2010.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
boundary retain Beetley’s settlement
boundary as the status quo.
One comment was in
support of its retention. A
second comment requested
that an area situated within
the CWS was removed to
prevent development within
this area. This small cul-desac,
Beetley Meadows
gained planning permission
in 1998 within the CWS. The
Wildlife Trust may asked to
re-visit their designation in
this area. The third comment
suggested the removal of the
school playing field from the
settlement boundary to limit
the potential for future
residential development
which could prejudice the
ability for the school to
expand to meet its own
needs. This was taken on
board and is recommended
within the submission
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
playing field from St Mary's
Primary School. This is to
limit the potential for future
residential development
which could prejudice the
ability for the school to
expand to meet its own
needs.
Recommendation – Amend
settlement boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
recommendation.
Cockley Cley Officer recommendation Retain
document.
No comments were received The village is entirely within Retain settlement

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
was to delete the
settlement boundary as
there is only 1 facility
(Pub) and the village is
completely within
1,500m stone curlew
buffer. Following
representations from
chairman of the Parish
Council and the Ward
Member, the panel
recommended the
boundary be retained.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
on changes to the settlement
boundary during the
consultation either in support
or objection to the proposal
to retain the boundary.
Cockley Cley lies completely
within the 1,500m buffer
from the Breckland SPA
supporting or capable of
supporting Stone Curlew
which is one of a number of
internationally important
habitats and species which
are protected by European
Directives. CP14 of the
adopted Core Strategy
provides a policy approach
for reviewing settlement
boundaries including
deletions for those Parishes
containing limited services
and facilities situated within
the Stone Curlew buffer
zone. No new evidence has
been submitted during the
Preferred Options
consultation to demonstrate
that limited housing
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
the 1,500m Stone Curlew
protection buffer and further
infill development is unlikely
to satisfy the Habitats
Regulation Assessment
requirements.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
boundary.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
development in Cockley Cley
would not have an adverse
effect on Stone Curlews. In
accordance with Policy
CP10 of the adopted Core
Strategy the Stone Curlew
buffer would not inhibit the
commercial re-use of
existing factory buildings on
the edge of the village.
Cockley Cley is a small
village with very limited
services or facilities (1 pub)
and can be considered an
unsustainable location for
further development.
The deletion of this
settlement boundary would
be consistent with both
higher order policy contained
within the adopted Core
Strategy and it is
recommended that the
proposed recommendation
within the submission
document is for the deletion
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Croxton Amend settlement
boundary – at the Task
and Finish group
meeting on 11/12/2009
the recommendation for
the settlement boundary
was for amendment.
Members recommended
that a further meeting to
be held with Croxton
Parish Council to
discuss further tightening
of the boundary, this
occurred on 08/01/2010.
Changes as discussed
with the Parish Council
were subsequently
agreed by Cabinet and
these recommendations
were shown in the
preferred options
document.
East
Tuddenham
Officer recommendation
to the LDF task and
finish group on the 25 th
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Amend
settlement
boundary.
Amend
settlement
boundary to
Issues since Preferred
Options
of the settlement boundary.
No comments were received
on changes to the settlement
boundary during the
Consultation. However,
change CRO.6
recommended the tightening
of the boundary between 99
The Street, and Ty Cae. The
subsequent granting of
planning permission
3PL/2010/0228/F meant that
this recommendation is no
longer appropriate and
should not be included within
the proposed submission
document.
It is considered that the
remainder of the changes
recommended within the
Preferred Options document
are still appropriate and
should be carried forward to
proposed submission.
A small number of
representations were made,
including the Parish Council
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Amend the settlement
boundary as per the preferred
options consultation, with the
exclusion of change CRO.6.
Recommendation: Amend
Settlement Boundary
Amend settlement boundary
as per preferred option
consultation document.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Amend settlement
boundary as per officer
recommendation.
Amend settlement
boundary to include
additional land north of

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
November 2009 for East
Tuddenham was for the
deletion of the
settlement boundary.
This recommendation is
consistent with Core
Policy CP14 of the
adopted Core Strategy
which sets out the
planning approach for
sustainable communities
within the District.
Alternatively, the option
remained for the
settlement boundary to
remain as ‘status quo’ as
a result of limited
essential services and
facilities to support net
gain in land allocation.
The LDF Task and
Finish group on 25 th
November
recommended the
retention of the
settlement boundary and
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
remove land
north of
Mattishall
Road / The
Street and
include land
east of
Common
Road (The
Beeches).
Issues since Preferred
Options
which disagreed with the
sustainability assessment
and level of service provision
in and near the village and
wished for land north of
Mattishall Road ‘The
Baylings’ to be included
along with one dwelling on
land north of The Beeches.
A meeting was undertaken
with the Parish Council and
the Local Authority on the 7 th
of July 2010 to discuss
officer recommendation and
the Cabinet decision. In
summary, the Parish Council
were not opposed to the
principle of ET.1 or ET.2 but
wished to see the Baylings
included as opposed to all of
the land at ET.3.
Officers considered the
Parish Council comments
but following further
assessment (including site
visit), recommend that The
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation: Amend
Settlement Boundary
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Mattishall Road at The
Baylings.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
the request from East
Tuddenham Parish
Council to include two
additional pieces of land
within the envelope (land
north of The Beeches on
Common Road and
Baylings, north of The
Street).
These were considered
and endorsed by
Cabinet on the 26 th April
2010 -
[ET.1] Amend settlement
boundary to land north
and west of property
‘The Green’, which is
situated north of The
Street. This would result
in the removal of this
part of the settlement
boundary. This has
received support from
the Parish Council.
The general form and
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
Baylings given its form and
character of this part of the
village would not be suitable
for future development.
ET.3 would enable increased
housing to be provided
within the village as this
piece of land has been
identified by the owner as
being available.
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
character to the north
side of ‘The Street’,
including Green Farm
and associated lands,
Wellgate Farm and the
Baylings in part, consists
of relatively undeveloped
land in comparison to
the rest of the village.
This area is
predominantly detached,
working farmhouses and
ancillary buildings,
situated amongst
generous amenity areas
and associated garden
and lands. There is
mature boundary
screening adjacent to
the highway including
the Baylings frontage.
This area depicts a more
rural character to this
part of the village which
to retain and/or include
additional lands within
the settlement boundary
may harm the form and
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
character of this part of
the village if developed.
[ET.2] Removal of
properties 32 and 33
Mattishall Road which
fall within the settlement
boundary north of
Mattishall Road. This
is to provide consistency
with the removal of EC1
and protect the form and
character of this part of
the settlement.
[ET.3] It is proposed to
redraw the settlement
boundary on land to the
north of property ‘The
Beeches’ on the east
side of Common Road.
This site was previously
within the draft
settlement boundary in
the early 1990’s. The
rear boundary is drawn
in line with the ‘The
Beeches’ rear boundary,
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
as opposed to the
boundary of ‘The Hollies’
to the North. This is to
limit the potential of over
development of this site
and causing harm to the
character of this part of
East Tuddenham village;
which is predominantly
detached dwellings, set
back from the road with
generous front and rear
amenity areas. The
addition of this site, as
opposed to the Baylings,
north of The Street offers
consistency with
residential development
on the east and west of
Common Road, if this
site ever came forward
for development. As
discussed in [ET.1], the
site covering Baylings
depicts more of a ruraL
nature and if developed,
may harm the form and
character of this apart of
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
the settlement.
Foxley Delete settlement
boundary.
Garvestone Amend settlement
boundary.
Guist Delete settlement
boundary.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Retain
settlement
boundary.
Amend
settlement
boundary.
Retain
settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
No comments were received
during the preferred options
consultation in either support
or objection to the
recommendation.
Since the closure of the
Natterjack Public House,
Foxley lacks any of the
essential services and
facilities (as included within
Policy CP14) to support
additional growth within the
village. Therefore, the
recommendation to retain
the existing boundary
conflicts with adopted
council policy and does raise
concern.
Area GV.6 has been granted
planning permission.
No comments were received
during the preferred options
consultation in either support
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
The deletion of settlement
boundary at Foxley would be
in accordance with Council
policy and provide a
consistency of approach with
similar settlements across the
District.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
GV.6 has recently been
granted, as such it is
considered that specific
change to the boundary be
maintained.
The deletion of the four
settlement boundaries within
the village, as initially
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Retain settlement
boundary.
As per officer
recommendation.
Retain settlement
boundary.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
or objection to the
recommendation.
However, the retention of the
existing settlement boundary
within the village raises a
number of further concerns.
Whilst there is a small level
of service provision
remaining within the village
with a post office and village
store, this is not of a
sufficient quantity to meet
the requirements of Policy
CP14. In addition to this, the
nature of the settlement
boundaries within the village
is of relevance. Guist’s
settlement boundary is made
up of four individual
components, which are
drawn tightly around the
existing buildings. This
therefore creates very limited
opportunities for expansion
within them. One of the
boundaries currently
contains two dwellings,
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
recommended to the Task
and Finish group, would be in
accordance with adopted
council policy and help to
provide consistency with
similar settlements across the
district.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Gressenhall Recommendation was to
make two amendments
to the settlement
boundary which was
endorsed at the meeting
of the 25 th of November
2009 by the Task and
Finish group and
Cabinet on the 26 th April
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Amend
settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
whilst another boundary
contains pairs of estate
dwellings. Any further
development within any of
these four boundaries is
likely to result in infill
development on greenfield
land. This is reflected in the
fact that no houses were
built within the village
between April 2001 and
March 2010.
Furthermore the extension to
the village settlement
boundaries would be
contrary to the aims of
CP14, which looks to limit
growth in these areas.
Two comments were made
to the proposed
amendments to the
settlement boundary. The
first comment suggested that
the rear boundary of 18
Bittering Street should match
that of the rear boundary of
14-16 Bittering Street. This
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
GR.3 – additional amendment
to the settlement boundary to
exclude land to the 14-16
Bittering Street. This is to
limit the potential for backland
development which would
harm the form and character
of this part of the settlement.
The revision would provide
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Amend settlement
boundary as per officer
recommendation.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
2010. would result in an increase in
backland/garden land
therefore it was considered
to make a third amendment
to the settlement boundary
to exclude land to the rear of
14-16 Bittering Street,
consistent with PPS3 and
CP14 of the Adopted Core
Strategy. A second
comment wished to see
more distribution of housing
in villages; however the
distribution of housing within
this document is consistent
with National Planning Policy
and CP14 of the adopted
Ickburgh Delete Settlement
Boundary. Following
representation from the
Ward Member at the
Task and Finish group
meeting of the 11th of
December 2009, the
group recommended the
settlement boundary be
retained. This was
Retain
settlement
boundary.
Core Strategy.
1 comment was received on
Ickburgh during the preferred
options consultation
suggesting the village could
accommodate some
additional development.
However, Ickburgh lies
completely within the 1,500m
buffer from the Breckland
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
consistency with the rear
boundary of number 18
Bittering Street and reduce
the pressures of backland
development consistent with
PPS3 and CP14 of the
Adopted Core Strategy.
Recommendation - Amend
settlement Boundary.
Delete settlement boundary.
The village is entirely within
the 1500m Stone Curlew
protection buffer and further
infill development is unlikely
to satisfy the Habitats
Regulation Assessment
requirements.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Retain settlement
boundary.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
agreed by Cabinet. SPA supporting or capable
of supporting Stone Curlew
which is one of a number of
internationally important
habitats and species which
are protected by European
Directives. CP14 of the
adopted Core Strategy
provides a policy approach
for reviewing settlement
boundaries including
deletions for those Parishes
containing limited services
facilities and situated within
the Stone Curlew buffer
zone. No new evidence has
been submitted during the
preferred options
consultation to demonstrate
that limited housing
development in Ickburgh
would not have an adverse
effect on Stone Curlews. In
accordance with Policy
CP10 of the adopted Core
Strategy the Stone Curlew
buffer would not inhibit the
commercial re-use of
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Little
Cressingham
Officer recommendation
was to delete the
settlement boundary for
Little Cressingham as
the village is completely
within the 1,500m Stone
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Retain
settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
existing factory buildings on
the edge of the village.
Ickburgh is a village with
very limited services or
facilities (1 petrol filling
station with limited retail
offer) and can be considered
an unsustainable location for
further development.
The deletion of this
settlement boundary would
be consistent with both
higher order policy contained
within the Adopted Core
Strategy and it is
recommended that the
proposed recommendation
within the submission
document is for the deletion
of the settlement boundary.
Five representations were
received in respect of the
proposal to retain the
settlement boundary. Of
these, 1 was from the
Chairman of the Parish
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
The village has no services or
facilities and is entirely within
the 1500m Stone Curlew
protection buffer and further
infill development is unlikely
to be satisfy the Habitats
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Retain settlement
boundary.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Curlew buffer and has
no services and facilities.
Following
representations by the
Chairman of the Parish
Council, the LDF Panel
recommended the
boundary be retained.
This was endorsed by
Cabinet.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
Council as well a further
representation from Mr Abel
in a personal capacity
requesting further land be
included. Other
representations considered
the boundary should be
retained ‘as is’ in order to
protect the village from
unwanted speculative
proposals.
Little Cressingham lies
completely within the 1,500m
buffer from the Breckland
SPA supporting or capable
of supporting Stone Curlew
which is one of a number of
internationally important
habitats and species which
are protected by European
Directives. CP14 of the
adopted Core Strategy
provides a policy approach
for reviewing settlement
boundaries including
deletions for those Parishes
containing limited services
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Regulation Assessment
requirements. Conversions of
existing buildings may be
permissible irrespective of the
absence of a settlement
boundary.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
facilities and situated within
the Stone Curlew buffer
zone. No new evidence has
been submitted during the
preferred options
consultation to demonstrate
that limited housing
development in Little
Cressingham would not have
an adverse effect on Stone
Curlews. In accordance with
Policy CP10 of the adopted
Core Strategy the Stone
Curlew buffer would not
inhibit the commercial re-use
of existing factory buildings
on the edge of the village.
Little Cressingham is a
village with no services or
facilities and can be
considered an unsustainable
location for further
development.
The deletion of this
settlement boundary would
be consistent with both
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Shropham Amend settlement
boundary.
Sparham Delete settlement
boundary – following
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Amend
settlement
boundary.
Retain
settlement
Issues since Preferred
Options
higher order policy contained
within the adopted Core
Strategy and it is
recommended that the
proposed recommendation
within the submission
document is for the deletion
of the settlement boundary.
Following preferred options
there has been constructive
dialogue with the Ward
Member on how best to
ensure that the proposed
settlement boundary
changes achieve the
outcomes which the Parish
is looking for. The
amendment at SHR.3 is
considered to allow for two
separate but appropriately
scaled schemes to come
forward in Shropham whilst
maintaining the rural
character in this part of the
village.
No comments were received
during the preferred options
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
SHR.3 - amend settlement
boundary to subdivide the
proposed change at SHR.1 to
reduce the amount of
developable land area and
secure a scale of
development consistent with
local objectives and policy
CP14 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
Officer recommendation for
Sparham is that the preferred
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Amend settlement
boundary as per officer
recommendation.
Retain settlement
boundary.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
representation from the
Parish Council at the
Task and Finish group
meeting, the group
recommended the
settlement boundary be
retained. This was then
agreed by Cabinet.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
boundary. consultation in either support
or objection to the
recommendation.
Sparham lacks the essential
services and facilities that
policy CP14 of the adopted
Core Strategy would look for
in the expansion or retention
of a settlement boundary.
Currently a number of
houses within the village are
located outside of the
settlement boundary, and in
planning terms would be
classified as located within
the countryside. Whilst the
settlement boundary is
focused around the core of
the village, within the
existing settlement
boundary, there are no
opportunities for further
development, and therefore
its retention rather than
deletion will not facilitate
further growth within the
village.
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
option is reconsidered, and
that the proposed submission
document should recommend
that the boundary is deleted.
This approach would be
consistent with both CP14
and other settlement
boundaries across Breckland,
which have a similar level of
service provision.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Stanfield Delete settlement
boundary – following
representation from the
Parish Council at the
Task and Finish group
meeting, the group
recommended the
settlement boundary be
retained. This was then
agreed by Cabinet.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Retain
settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
No comments were received
during the preferred options
consultation in either support
or objection to the
recommendation.
The settlement boundary
within Stanfield represents
one of the smallest
remaining settlement
boundaries within Breckland.
The existing boundary
reflects the core of the
village, however large
proportions of the village
remain outside of the
designated settlement
boundary.
The village is bereft of any of
the essential services and
facilities which would
normally be required to
maintain the settlement
boundary. Future expansion
of the settlement boundary
would therefore not be
considered to appropriate. In
addition to this, the existing
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
The deletion of settlement
boundary at Stanfield would
be in accordance with Council
policy and provide a
consistency of approach with
similar settlements across the
District.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Retain settlement
boundary.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Stow Bedon Delete settlement
boundary – following
representation from the
Parish Council at the
Task and Finish group
meeting of the 25 th of
November 2009, the
group recommended the
settlement boundary be
retained. This was
agreed by Cabinet on
the 26 th April 2010.
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Retain
settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
settlement boundary leaves
no opportunity for further
development, within its
existing limits.
No comments were received
during the preferred options
consultation in either support
or objection to the
recommendation.
The part of the village that
has a defined settlement
boundary (Mere Road) has
no services or facilities and
as such is no longer a
sustainable location for
further development. There
is land remaining within the
settlement boundary at Mere
Road at Chapel Farm but
whether it can be developed
without harming the form
and character of this part of
the village is questionable.
Otherwise all remaining plots
for development have been
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
The deletion of settlement
boundary at Stow Bedon
would be in accordance with
Council policy and provides a
consistent approach with
similar settlements across the
District.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Retain settlement
boundary.
built / permitted.
Shipdham Amend settlement Amend Whilst a number of Amend settlement boundary, Amend settlement

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
boundary. settlement
boundary.
Tittleshall Delete settlement
boundary.
Retain
settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
representations have been
raised in regards to the
Shipdham settlement
boundary, it is not
considered that they
materially alter the preferred
options.
However, an additional
amendment to the
settlement boundary is
recommended to include site
given planning approval
under 3PL/2001/0221/D
(between 27 and 29 market
Street). This site has now
been completed and its
inclusion within the
settlement boundary would
result in a logical and
defensible boundary which
reflects features on the
ground.
Within the preferred options
document, the settlement
boundary at Tittleshall was
proposed for retention, with
its alternative option being
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
as per the preferred option,
with the additional inclusion of
site SHP.5.
Recommendation: Amend
Settlement Boundary
The deletion of settlement
boundary would be in
accordance with Council
policy and provide a
consistency of approach with
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
boundary as per officer
recommendation.
Retain settlement
boundary.

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
Issues since Preferred
Options
for deletion. No comments
were received during the
consultation to support or
object to the preferred or
alternative options.
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
similar settlements across the
District.
Recommendation: Delete
Settlement Boundary.
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
Tittleshall lacks any of the
essential services or facilities
which would normally be
needed to justify the
retention of the settlement
boundary in accordance with
the principles set out within
CP14. There are limited
opportunities for further
development within the
existing boundary, that
Watton Amend settlement Amend
would not harm the form and
character of the settlement.
Future expansion of the
settlement boundary would
also not be consistent with
the aims of CP14, which only
looks to expand settlement
boundary, where there are
existing services to support
the growth.
Two comments were made WAT.16 - additional Amend settlement

Parish Original Officer
Recommendation to
LDF Panel (2009/10)
Preferred
Option
Consultation
(2010)
boundary. settlement
boundary.
Issues since Preferred
Options
to the proposed
amendments to the
settlement boundary.
Norfolk County Council
objected to the removal of
WAT.5 - school land from the
settlement boundary as this
would restrict future school
expansion or development.
It was considered that WAT.
5 is not designated as open
space through the adopted
Core Strategy as a result of
restricted use for school
only, its removal from the
settlement boundary would
provide protection for future
redevelopment. A second
comment provided a late
submission of land with a
number of constraints.
Neither of these comments
resulted in any further action.
Proposed Submission
Recommendation
amendment to the settlement
boundary. Extend settlement
boundary to include land
behind 115 - 125 Norwich
Road in Watton. Land behind
115-121 Norwich Road
received planning approval in
August 2010 for 14 dwelling
outside of the existing
settlement boundary. This
area has been included to
ensure that the settlement
boundary reflects existing
development. Land behind
number 123-125 is also been
included to provide a logical
settlement boundary that
reflects features on the
ground.
Recommendation – Amend
settlement boundary
Recommendation of
the LDF Task and
Finish Group 15.12.10
boundary as per officer
recommendation.

Appendix Q Press Advert for Regulation
Consultation
Figure 19: Press advert.

Appendix R Correspondence Advertising Event

Figure 20: Letter advertising consultation.

Appendix S Statement of Representation

Figure 21: Statement of representations

Appendix T Standardised Comment Form

Figure 22: Standardised comment form.

Appendix U
List of Consultees Invited to Make
Representations during Regulation 25 and 27.
Statutory Consultees
Age Concern Highways Agency
Age UK Home Builders Federation
Airport Operators Association Learning and Skills Council
Anglian Water Services Ltd Library and Information Service
B T National Express Customer Services Centre
British Geological Survey National Grid
Civil Aviation Authority Natural England
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) Network Rail
Crime prevention and Architectural Liaison Officer Norfolk & Waveney Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust
Defence Estates Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership
Defence Estates Operations North Norfolk Connexions
Diocese of Norwich Norfolk Constabulary - Estates Department
East Midlands Trains Norfolk Landscape Archaeology
East of England Development Agency (EEDA) Norfolk Primary Care Trust
East of England Local Government Agency Norfolk Rural Community Council
EDF Energy Norfolk Tourism Team
Elizabeth Truss MP Norfolk Wildlife Trust
English Heritage Norwich International Airport Ltd
Environment Agency RSPB
Equality and Human Rights Commission Secretary of State for Transport
Fields In Trust Offices Sport England
Forestry Commission Sport England (East Region)
Freight Transport Association The Coal Authority
George Freeman MP The Crown Estate
G P S S The National Trust - East of England Regional Office
Go-East Wensum Valley Trust
Gypsy Roma Traveller Achievement Service Leeds
Health and Safety Executive
Parish Councils
Ashill Longham Wendling
Attleborough Lt Cressingham Whinburgh
Banham Lt Dunham Whissonsett
Bawdeswell Lt Ellingham Wretham
Beachamwell Lynford Yaxham
Beeston Lyng
Beetley Mattishall
Besthorpe Merton
Billingford Mileham
Bintree Mundford
Blo' Norton Narborough
Bradenham Narford
Brettenham Necton
Bridgham New Buckenham
Brisley Newton
Bylaugh Nth Elmham
Carbrooke Nth Lopham
Caston Nth Pickenham
Cockley Cley Nth Tuddenham
Colkirk Old Buckenham
Cranwich Ovington

Cranworth Oxborough
Croxton Quidenham
Dereham Riddlesworth
Didlington Rocklands
East Tuddenham Roudham
Elsing Rougham
Foulden Saham Toney
Foxley Scarning
Fransham Scoulton
Garboldisham Shipdham
Garvestone Shropham
Gateley Snetterton
Gooderstone South Acre
Gressenhall South Lopham
Griston South Pickenham
Gt Cressingham Sparham
Gt Dunham Sporle
Gt Ellingham Stanfield
Guist Stanford
Hardingham Stow Bedon
Harling Sturston
Hilborough Swaffham
Hockering Swanton Morley
Hockham Thetford
Hoe Thompson
Holme Hale Tittleshall
Horningtoft Tottington
Ickburgh Twyford
Kempstone Watton
Kenninghall Weasenham All Staints
Kilverstone Weasenham St. Peter
Lexham Weeting
Litcham Wellingham
Adjoining Parish Councils
Redgrave Parish Council Hopton cum Knettishall Parish Council
Themelthorpe Parish Meeting Kimberley Parish Council
Barnham Broom Parish Council Marham Parish Council
Barnham Parish Council Marlingford & Colton Parish Council
Barton Bendish Parish Council Methwold Parish Council
Boughton Parish Council Morley Parish Council
Brandon Town Council Northwold Parish Council
Bressingham Parish Council Pentney Parish Council
Carleton Rode Parish Council Pudding Norton/Testerton Parish Council
Castle Acre Parish Council Reepham Town Council
Deopham Parish Council Runhall Parish Council
East & West Raynham Parish Councils Ryburgh Parish Council
East Walton Parish Meeting Santon Downham Parish Council
Elveden Parish Council Shelfanger Parish Council
Euston Parish Meeting Stibbard Parish Council
Feltwell Parish Council Stoke Ferry Parish Council
Foulsham Parish Council Thelnetham Parish Council
Great Massingham Parish Council Tibenham Parish Council
Great Witchingham Parish Council West Acre Parish Council
Hinderclay Parish Council West Rudham Parish Council
Hingham Town Council Weston Longville Parish Council
Hockwold Parish Council Winfarthing Parish Council
Honingham Parish Council Wood Norton Parish Council
Wymondham Town Council
Little Massingham Parish Council

Non-Statutory Consultees
Brecks Partnership
Mayfair Investments
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology
Norfolk Wildlife Trust
School of History, UEA
Thetford Access Group
Adjoining Authority
Broadland District Council North Norfolk District Council
Broads Authority Norwich City Council
Forest Heath District Council South Norfolk District Council
Great Yarmouth Borough Council St Edmundsbury Borough Council
King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Suffolk County Council
Mid Suffolk District Council Suffolk County Council - Environment & Transport Service
Norfolk County Council
Area Partnership
Attleborough Area Partnership
Dereham Area Partnership
Iceni (Swaffham & District) Partnership
Keystone Development Trust
Norfolk Local Access Forum
Thetford Town Centre Manager
Upper Yare Partnership
Wayland Partnership
Weeting 21
Chamber of Trade
Attleborough District Chamber of Trade
Brecks (Thetford) Chamber of Commerce
Dereham Chamber of Trade and Commerce
Swaffham & District Chamber of Commerce
Wayland Chamber of Commerce
Housing Associations Operating in Breckland
Broadland Housing Association
Circle Anglia
Flagship Housing Group
Granta Housing Society
Guinness Trust
Hastoe
Iceni Homes
Orwell Housing Association Ltd
Peddars Way Housing Association
Voluntary Organisations
Ancient Monuments Society The Garden History Society
Banham Residents' Association The Georgian Group
Breckland Astronomical Society The Lawn Tennis Association

CPRE The Showmen's Guild of Great Britain
Dereham Access Group The Society for the Protection of Ancient Building
FFT Planning The Theatres Trust
LINK-UP Breckland's Talking Newspaper The Twentieth Century Society
Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership The Victorian Society
Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service The Woodland Trust
Norfolk No.1 Circuit of Jehovah's Witnesses Thetford Society
Norfolk Philippines Support Group Thetford's Forgotten Garden
Renewables East Voluntary Norfolk
SPARSE West Norfolk Chinese Association
The Council for British Archaeology Friends of the Earth
Public Who Expressed an Interest in LDF
Messrs Thurtle
Mr & Mrs
Stapleton
Jonathon &
Christine Stapleton
Mrs Kaszubowski Mr Joseph Lawrence
Messrs
Hudson, O'Brien
& Lewins Mr Jovan Gajic
Mr & Mrs Gornall Mrs Joyce Watling
Mrs Robson Mrs Julia Naylor
Mr Willet Mrs Katharine Darby
Messrs Melton Mrs Katharine Durrant
Mr & Mrs Adcock Mrs Kathryn McCarthy
Mr & Mrs Hunter Mr Kees Anema
Ms Lisa Trivett Mr Keith Mason
Mr & Mrs A Darby Mr & Mrs Keith Allen
Exors A Aves (Dec'd) Mr Ken Clabburn
Mr A Dockray Mr Kenneth Durrant
Mrs A Bowes Mr Kevin West
Mr and Mrs A Rush Mr Kevin Powles
Mr & Mrs A Rawnsley Mrs Kim Weight
Mr & Mrs A Haylett Mr L Lancaster
Mrs A M Garnier Mr & Mrs L & M Brandish
Mr Adrien Annison Mr L A Rider
Mr Alan Nichols Mr & Mrs L R Blythe
Mr Alan Abram Mr Lee Rider
Mr Alan Hobson Mrs Lesley Crosthwaite
Rev'd Alan Wright Mr Leslie Osborne
Mr Alan Howard Mr Leslie Hammond
Mr Alan Bunn Mr and Mrs
Leslie and
Patricia Martin and Henry
Mr Alan Martin Mrs Linda Crawford
Mr Alistair Ewing Ms Louise Everington
Mr Allan Lynn Mrs Louise Buck
Mr Anders Rasmussen Mrs Louise Gale
Mr Andrew Mexholme Mr Luke Plimmer
Mr Andrew Edwards Mrs Lyn Walker
Mr Andrew Greenland Miss Lynda Hopkins
Mr Andrew Hector Mr & Mrs M Clements
Mr Andrew Garner Mr M Cock
Mr Andrew Clayton Mr M Wilkin
Prof. Andy J. Maule Mr & Mrs M Everett
Mrs Angela Browne Mr & Mrs M Negus

Mrs Angela Weller Mr M Finch
Mrs Angela Weston Messrs M Symonds & D Ridgeon
Mrs Angela Read Mr & Mrs M J Bloom
Mrs Angela Calton Mr M J Sayer
Mrs Anglie Firman Mrs Madeline Stubbings
Mrs Anita De Wilde Miss Maisie Barry
Mrs Anita Cook Mr Malcolm Newby
Mrs Ann Dooley Mr Malcolm Pates
Mrs Anne Bone Mrs Margaret Avory
Miss Anne Bustard Mrs Margaret Topping
Mrs Annie Neave Miss Margaret Hall
Mrs Anthea Mark Mrs Margaret Wilkin
Mrs Anthea Borrett Mrs Margaret Brown
Mr Anthony Baldwin Mrs Marie Gathercole
Mr Anthony Banham Mr Mark Gorton
Mr Anthony Lanham Mr Mark Whitehead
Mr Anthony Long Mr Mark Monk
Mr Anthony Wright Mr Mark Cole
Mr Anthony Collins Mr Mark Spring
Mr B Chapman Mr & Mrs Mark Crook
Mr & Mrs B Teate Mr Mark Howell
Mr Barrie Hall Mr Martin Eastoe
Mr Barry Howell Mr Martin Leibrick
Mr Barry Sutton Mr Martin Booth
Mr Barry Pardue Mrs Mary Fairclough
Mr Basil Todd Mrs Mary Crofts
Mr Basil Todd Mr Matthew Hustler
* BDC * Mr Matthew Barker
Mr Ben Knights Mrs Maureen Powles
Mr Ben Wyatt Dec'd Mrs Maureen Fitt
Mr Benjamin Warnes Mr Mervyn Lambert
Mrs Beryl Minshull Mr Michael Wright
Mrs Beth Entwistle Mr Michael Tufts
Mrs Bettina Handy Mr Michael King
Mrs Betty Curtis Mr Michael McManus
Mr Bill Bailey Mr Michael Bart
Mr Bob Thacker Mr Michael Betts
Mr Brian Wilford Mr Michael Alger
Mr Brian Taylor Mr Michael Summerfield
Mr Brian Borgas Mr Michael Foulger
Mr Brian Cooper Mr Michael Cooling
Mr Bryan Colborn Mr Michael Nunn
Mr Byron Wilkinson Mr Michael Willett
Mr & Mrs C Greenacre Mr Mike Burrow
Mr C Lowe Mr Mike Ackerman
Mr C Howell Mr Mike Garner
Mr Cameron Young Mr Mike Parkhouse
Mrs Carine Offord Mrs Molly Kenchington
Mrs Carole Jarvis Mr and Mrs N Giles
Mrs Catherine Joice Messrs NA and PA Cater

Mr Charles Passant Mr Nathan Syrett
Mr Charles Nelson Mr Neil
Neville and
Alston
Mr Charles Dewing Mr
Duane Frewer
Mr Charles Critchley Miss Nichola Lambert
Mr Charles Bell Mr Nicholas Pounder
Mr Charles Harrison Mr Nicholas Hendry
Mr Charles Dennis Mr Nick Hartley
Mr Chris Fickling Mrs Nicola Harrison
Mr Chris Griffin Mrs Nicola St Lawrence
Mr Chris Price Miss Nicole La Ronde
Mr Chris Tilley Mr Niels
Nigel &
Olesen
Mr & Mrs Chris Grey-Wilson Messrs Charles Carey
Mrs Christine Duffield Mr Nihat Darbaz
Mrs Christine Delamare Mr Noel Dye
Mr Christopher Tilley Mr Noel Bennett
Mr Christopher Atkin Mr Norman Whybrow
Mr Christopher Atkin Mr Norman Eagle
Miss Claire
Claire
Hudson Mr Oliver Adcock
Mmes Winchester & Kerry Scase Mr P Howell
Mr Clive Crane Mr P Hall
Mr Clive Nelson Mr & Mrs P Drake
Mr Colin Smith Mr P Dodd
Mr Colin Dolder Mr & Mrs P Clarke
Mr Colin Eagle Mr P Stevenson
Mr Colin Jones Mr & Mrs P Burton
Mr Colin Wright Mr P.J. Hall
Mr Colin Kilby Mrs Patricia Watling
Mr Colin Howe Mrs Patricia Clarke
Mr Crispin de Boos Mr Patrick Childerhouse
Mrs Cynthia Bailey Mr Patrick Thomas
Mr & Mrs D Harris Mr Patrick Childerhouse
Mr D Carr Mr Patrick Childerhouse
Mrs D Vincent Mr Patrick Taylor
Mr D Minns Mr Paul Curtis
Mr & Mrs Daniel Metcalfe Mr Paul Boggia
Mr Daniel Arpels Mr Paul Budd
Mr Daniel Panoramo Mr Paul Reavey
Mr and Mrs Daryl Culmer Mr Paul Davis
Mr David Lambert Mr Paul Bacon
Mr David Taylor Mr Paul Bush
Mr David Yaxley Mr Paul Rackham
Mr David Payne Mr Paul Cross
Mr David Bunning Mr Paul Staden
Mr David Hill Mr & Mrs Paul Walmsey
Mr David Thompson Mr Paul Dunning
Mr David Larwood Mr Paul Fox
Mr David Greenwood Mr Paul Baldwin
Mr David Thacker Mr Paul Hewett
Mr David Ewin Mr Paul Rogers
Mr David Cram Mr Paul Ellis

Mr David Baker Mrs Pauline Brewster
Mr David Greenwood Mrs Pauline Quantrill-Hunt
Mr David Trollope Mr Peter Lee
Mr David Bignell Mr Peter Stevens
Mr David Keen Mr Peter Hall
Mr David Stott Mr Peter Downs
Mr David Coates Mr Peter Osborne
Mr David Adcock Mr Peter Rout
Mr David Sayer Mr Peter Stebbings
Mr David Cann Mr Peter Hallum
Mr David Cormack Mr Peter Francis
Mr David Henry Mr Peter Prior
Mr David Turner Mr Peter Brown
Mr David Clarke Mr Philip Potter
Mr David J Sayer Mr Philip Field
Mr Dean Osbon Mr Philip Morter
Mrs Debbie Lake-Kent Mr Philip Tye
Mr Dennis Burton Mr Philip Webb
Mr Dennis Cooper Mr Philip Hall
Mr Dennis Barrett Mr Philip Hall
Mr Dereck Watts Mrs Phylis Barham
Mr Derek Burdett Mr R Kiddle
Mr Derrick Parfitt Mr R Layte
Mrs Diana Reader Mr R Willis
Ms Diane Wilkinson Mr R Brooks
Mr Don Birkinshaw Mr R Kelsall
Mrs Doreen Holman Mr R Wilkin
Ms Doreen Garner Mr & Mrs R Thorndyke
Mrs Doreen Fox Messrs R & J Nunn
Mr Duncan Livingstone Mr & Mrs R S Don
Mr Duncan Russell Mr Ralph Fickling
Mr E Buscall Mr Ray Smith
Mr E Cole Mr Raymond Humphreys
Mr & Mrs E Court Mrs Rebecca Proctor
Mr & Mrs Edward Kelly Mr Richard Parrott
Mr Edward Bales Mr Richard Foulger
Mr Edward Johnson Mr Richard Crisp
Mr Edward Sorrell Mr Richard Bishop
Mrs Eileen Tilbrook Mr Richard Crisp
Mrs Eileen Bent Mr Richard Sturman
Ms Elizabeth Milimuka Mr Richard Finch
Mrs Elizabeth Gray Mr Richard Brown
Mrs Emma Kriehn - Morris Mrs Rita Parsons
Mrs Enid Turner Mr Rob Lond-Caulk
Mr Eric Keene Mr Robert Richmond
Mr Eric Ward Dr Robert Davey
Mr Ernest Woolley Mr Robert O'Neil
The Family Fox Mr Robert Taylor
Mr Fareed Kuan Mr Robert Bensley
Mr Felix Desira Mr Robert Eburne
Mrs Fiona Richmond Mr Robert Betts
Mr Francis Ulrych Mr Robert Malabar

Mr & Mrs G Heyhoe Mr Robert Jenness
Mr G Winslow Mr Robert Bull
Mr & Mrs G Fulcher Mr Robert Mitchell
Mr & Mrs G Marjoram Mr Robert Tash
Mr & Mrs G Farrar Hon Robert de Grey
Mr Gary Holly Mr Robert McCallum
Mr Geoff Buckingham Mr Robert Dawson
Mr Geoffrey Hind Mr Robin Green
Mr Geoffrey Palmer Mr Rodney Beckwith
Mr Geoffrey Dadd Mr Rodney Sturdivant
Mr George Prodromow Mr Roger Thornton
Mr George Daniels Mr Roger Duffield
Mr George Black Mr Roger Baldwin
Mrs Gillian Boucher-Guest Mr Roger Ewing
Mrs Gloria Lloyd Mr Rory Watson
Mr Gordon Bailey Mrs Rosemary Surfleet
Mr Gordon Warren Mrs Rosemary Durrant
Mr Gordon West Mr Rowland Hill
Mr Graeme Gore-Rowe Mr Roy Crofts
Mr Graham Lloyd Mr Roy Dunthorn
Mr Graham Lond-Caulk Mr Roy Rudling
Mr Graham Negus Mrs S Edwards
Mr Granville Horan Mr & Mrs S Jewson
Miss Gwynne Palmer Mr & Mrs S Vincent
Mr & Mrs H Tyrrell Mrs S Larwood
Mr H. E Harris Mrs S Ling
Mr Hamish Ross Mrs Sally Dye
Mr Harold Barker Mrs Sally Starling
Mrs Heather Heslop Mrs Sally Starling
Ms Heather Thompson Mrs Samantha Lond-Caulk
Mrs Helen Byrne Sir Samuel Roberts
Mrs Hilary Handoll Mrs Sandra Morris
Mr Hugh Scott Mr Sanjib Mozumder
Mr Iain Reid Mr Sean Moore
Mr Ian Womack Mr Sergio Mattei
Mr Ian McIntosh Mrs Sharon Spooner
Mr Ian Leonard Mrs Shirley Wild
Mr Ian Monson Miss Shirley Macann
Mr Ian Skipper Mr Simon Cushion-Swales
Mr Ian Arthur Mr Simon Rogers
Mr Ian Thompson Mr Simon Rowling
Mr Ian Faircloth Mr Simon Broke
Mr Ian Robertson Mr Simon Jessup
Mrs Irene Richetti Mr Simon Ledsham-Darter
Mr Ivan Bowman Mr Stanley Matthews
Mr Ivan Haynes Mr Stanley Burton
Mr Ivor Gibbon Mr Stanley List
Mrs J Cook Mr Stephen Hancock
Mr J Lake Mr Stephen Garner
Mr & Mrs J Labouchere Mr Stephen Hearn
Mr J Spratt Mr Stephen Cross
Mr J Daniels Mr Stephen May

Messrs J S and H R Cracknell Mr Stephen Biart
Mr Jack Barham Mr Stephen Wright
Mr James Stone Mr Stephen Knowles
Mr James Eke Mr Stephen Crossley
Mr James Alston Mr Steven Jones
Mr James Stafford Mr Steven Catchpole
Mr James Blakey Mr Steven Catchpole
Mr & Mrs James Thomas Mr Steven Le Lerre
Mr James Mullenger Mr Stewart Bush
Mr Jamie Bird Mr & Mrs Stuart Bush
Mrs Jane Dorling The Revd Stuart Nairn
Ms Jane Kruse Mr Stuart Sayer
Mrs Jane Napier-Wilson Mrs Susan Bunning
Mrs Jane Salmon Mrs Susan Brown
Mrs Jane Scarrott Mr T Williamson
Mrs Janice Bird Mr T Lambert
Mrs Jean Waller Mr T Harper
Mrs Jean Stearman Mr T Miles
Ms Jessica Sparkes Mr T Harper
Mrs Jill Ludkin Mr T Rollings
Mrs Jill Ball Mr T J Barrell
Mrs Jilly Key Mr Tennison Bell
Mr Jimmy Eke Mr Tennyson Bell
Ms Jo Norton Mr Terence Bridgeman
Mrs Joan Downes Mrs Teresa Rand
Mrs Joan Smith Mr Terry Gray
Mr John Barker Mr Thomas Holdom
Mr John Ripper Mr Thomas Hall
Mr John Alston The Rt Hon Thomas Coke
Mr John Dingle Mr Tim Ing
Mr John Blair Mr Tim Goddard
Mr John Stocking Mr Tim Walker
Mr John Rolfe Mr Timothy Hooley
Mr John Bradley Mr Timothy Wyatt
Mr John Potter Mr Tom Childerhouse
Mr John Barwick Mr Tom Hall
Mr John Allen Miss Toni Townshend
Mr John Heaton
Mr
Mr Tony Matthews
Mr John Mann Mr Tony Le Coq
Mr John Leeder Mr Tony Westwood
Mr John Alston Mr & Mrs Tony Barrett
Mr John Parfitt Mr Tony Mallon
Mr John Davies Mr Tony Greavett
Mr John Symonds Mr Tony Freezer
Mr John Dingle Mr Trevor Armiger
Mr John Balaam Mr Trevor Taylor
Mr John Gill Mr Trevor Wood
Mr John Keen Mr Trevor Whitmore
Mr John Daniels Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr John Martin Mr Trevor Warner

Mr John Horstead
Trustees of
the Great
Hockham
Estate
Mr John Mendham Mr W Hammond
Mr John Rogers Mr Walter Chard
Mr Jonathan Chapman Mr William Smith
Mr Jonathan Marler Mr William Downes
Mr Jonathan Cason Mr William Lee
Mr Jonathon Gooch Mr William Atkin
Agents Who Expressed an Interest in LDF
Mr William Dennis
Mr William Tarry
ADM Architectural Services Ltd Durrants Peecock Short Ltd
Adrian Morley Architectural
Design DWA Planning Pegasus Planning Group
Alan Irvine Edward Gittins & Associates Peter Mantell-Sayer
Andrew Martin Associates Entec UK Ltd Plandescil Ltd
R J Parker Building Design Consultants
Anglian Building Designs Ltd Great Dunham Parish Council Ltd
Annington Greenland Houchen Pomeroy Rees Pryer Architects LLP
Barry J. Bridgwood Building
Designs Hans House Group of Companies Richard Bailey
Barry L. Hawkins Hopkins Homes Limited Richard Harmer Brc MRICS
Bidwells HOW Planning LLP
Hugh Ivins Chartered Planning
Robinson Property Consultants
Bidwells
Consultant
Ian Harding Ltd Development
Roger Whitehouse
Bidwells
Consultancy Roy Payne - Chartered Architect
Bidwells Ian J M Cable Architectural Design RPS Planning
Bidwells Ian Thorburn Commercial RPS Planning and Development Ltd
Bidwells Indigo Planning Sanderson Weatherall
Brown & Co Irelands Chartered Surveyors Savills
Brown & Co J S Design Services Ltd Savills
Brown & Co January's Savills (L&P) Limited
Burns Associates Chartered
Architects Januarys Consultant Surveyors Savills (L&P) Ltd
Case & Dewing JCJ Planning Savills (L&P) ltd
Case and Dewing JCPC Ltd Savills (LLP) Limited
Cator and Co JS Bloor (Services) Ltd Savills (LLP) Limited
Chaplin Farrant Ltd JSA Planning Shoosmiths
Chase & Partners JWM Design Simon Westaway Associates
Clive Warren Architectural
Services K Garnham Technical Service Sketcher Partnership
Co-Dunkall KWA Architects Spalding & Co Ltd
Colliers CRE
Construction Management
Landmark Associates
Stephen A C Bush Architectural and
Property Cons
Services Les Brown Associates Stephen English
County Norfolk Ltd Lisa Foweather Strutt & Parker
Courtley Consultants Ltd LPB Design Strutt and Parker
Cowen Consulting Lyndon Barker Sturdivant Design Consultants Ltd
Cruso & Wilkin M Falcon Property Solutions Summers Wykes-Sneyd
CSA Design Studio Martin Hall Associates Ltd T W Gaze
Cunnane Town Planning LLP Michael Haslam Associates Ltd T W Gaze
CSA Design Studio Michael Morley T W Gaze

Cunnane Town Planning LLP Nick Clark Architectural Technologist T W Gaze
David A Cutting Building
Surveyors Ltd NPS Property Consultants Ltd Traves James Architects
David Evans - Chartered
Planning Consultancy Overbury Solicitors Trevor Mason
David Futter Associates Ltd Owen Bond Partnership Truck City Services
Davies & Co Parsons & Whittley Ltd Vivian Singh
DLP Planning Parsons & Whittley Ltd Webster Associates
Drivers Jonas Paul Took Planning Wells McFarlane
Drivers Jonas Wilbraham Associates Ltd
Names and addresses taken from lime house
Title First Name Surname
Mr & Mrs Lambert
Mr Martin Wallis
Miss M Crawley
Miss Melissa Rolfe
Miss P Lyster
Miss R Cox
Miss Sievwright
Miss Thompson
Mr A Blackpool
Mr A Element
Mr A Evans
Mr A Gray
Mr A Leach
Mr A Wells
Mr Adam Case
Mr Adrian Hall-Carpenter
Mr Alan Close
Mr Andrew Garner
Mr Andrew Tiernan
Mr Barry Merkin
Mr Brian Smith
Mr C T Copsey
Mr David Gurney
Mr Dennis Leech
Mr Derek Marsham
Mr E Baskerville
Mr E Cole
Mr Edward Howard
Mr Fanthorpe Fanthorpe
Mr G Blythe
Mr G Freeman
Mr G Pail
Mr G Rowell
Mr G Sayer
Mr G P Madden
Mr Geoff Armstrong
Mr Geoff Hinchliffe
Mr George Shepherd
Wright Benjamin & Co

Mr Gordon Eagling
Mr Graham Bridges
Mr Heath Warner
Mr I Leonard
Mr Ian Mackinnon
Mr Ian Tracey
Mr J Conder
Mr J Roberts
Mr James Stebbings
Mr John Davies
Mr John Dickerson
Mr John Doel
Mr John Elliot
Mr Jonathon Mitchell
Mr K Stagles
Mr Ken Wright
Mr Kenneth Sheen
Mr Lee Distin
Mr Les Howlett
Mr M Garner
Mr M Hustler
Mr M Lambert
Mr M Sayer
Mr Malcolm Baldry
Mr Malcolm Potter
Mr Mark Ramsden
Mr Michael Barlow
Mr Michael Clements
Mr N Alston
Mr Neil Hardingham
Mr Neil Robinson
Mr Nigel Godfrey
Mr Nigel Warnes
Mr Paul Carter
Mr Paul Hewitt
Mr Paul Joy
Mr Peter Terry
Mr R Malabar
Mr R S Caffyn
Mr Robert Parker
Mr Robert Plumbly
Mr Robin Blailley
Mr Robin Green
Mr Roger Sargeant
Mr Roger Lench
Mr Roger Shrimpling
Mr S Morris
Mr Samuel Eggleton
Mr Sean Webster
Mr Simon Thompson
Mr Stephen Barrell
Mr Stephen Chenery
Mr Stephen Nobbs
Mr T Burrell

Mr T Duffield
Mr Thomas Bradley
Mr Trevor Greef
Mr Trevor Wood
Mr Atkinson
Mr Baker
Mr Broster
Mr Bull
Mr Cason
Mr Cox
Mr Forder
Mr Gee
Mr Hardiment
Mr Hardingham
Mr Holseworth
Mr Humberston
Mr Jermy
Mr Knights
Mr Limbert
Mr Melhurst
Mr Pick
Mr Price
Mr Walby
Mr Westhorpe
Mr & Mrs Alan & Brenda Floyd
Mr & Mrs Brian Gratton
Mr & Mrs C Burton
Mr & Mrs C Fitt
Mr & Mrs C Green
Mr & Mrs D Travis
Mr & Mrs David Aves
Mr & Mrs Gordon Norton
Mr & Mrs Graham Pritchett
Mr & Mrs H Dodd
Mr & Mrs I & A Dent
Mr & Mrs J Champion
Mr & Mrs J Newson
Mr & Mrs K Pocknell
Mr & Mrs L Weet
Mr & Mrs M Lodge
Mr & Mrs M Parnell
Mr & Mrs Malcolm Woods
Mr & Mrs Mark Bartram
Mr & Mrs Michael Baker
Mr & Mrs Michael Simms
Mr & Mrs N Sheldrake
Mr & Mrs Nigel Pickwell
Mr & Mrs R Land
Mr & Mrs R Malt
Mr & Mrs R Rudling
Mr & Mrs Raymond Fern
Mr & Mrs Robert Young
Mr & Mrs S Parkinson
Mr & Mrs S Willis

Mr & Mrs Stephen Tribe
Mr & Mrs T Humphrey
Mr & Mrs T D Griffiths
Mr & Mrs William Risdon
Mr & Mrs Adcock
Mr & Mrs Adelizzi
Mr & Mrs Allum
Mr & Mrs Anderson
Mr & Mrs Andrews
Mr & Mrs Aram
Mr & Mrs Arnold
Mr & Mrs Barker
Mr & Mrs Barns
Mr & Mrs Barrell
Mr & Mrs Baxter
Mr & Mrs Bayliss
Mr & Mrs Bean
Mr & Mrs Beckham
Mr & Mrs Beech
Mr & Mrs Bellamy
Mr & Mrs Best
Mr & Mrs Biggs
Mr & Mrs Bingham
Mr & Mrs Bishop
Mr & Mrs Bishop
Mr & Mrs Bloomsbury
Mr & Mrs Bordero
Mr & Mrs Bowden
Mr & Mrs Brown
Mr & Mrs Buckle
Mr & Mrs Bunning
Mr & Mrs Bush
Mr & Mrs Cator
Mr & Mrs Chapman
Mr & Mrs Chilvers
Mr & Mrs Clarke
Mr & Mrs Cossins
Mr & Mrs Cowland
Mr & Mrs Cox
Mr & Mrs Crockford
Mr & Mrs Crofts
Mr & Mrs Dale
Mr & Mrs Dean
Mr & Mrs Dodd
Mr & Mrs Doone
Mr & Mrs Doy
Mr & Mrs Drury
Mr & Mrs Duggan
Mr & Mrs Element
Mr & Mrs Ellen
Mr & Mrs Everett
Mr & Mrs Farley
Mr & Mrs Fawcett
Mr & Mrs Feakes

Mr & Mrs Fiddy
Mr & Mrs Fisher
Mr & Mrs Fletcher
Mr & Mrs Ford
Mr & Mrs Gale
Mr & Mrs Gamble
Mr & Mrs Gibbs
Mr & Mrs Costello
Mr & Mrs Gould
Mr & Mrs Gray
Mr & Mrs Green
Mr & Mrs Green
Mr & Mrs Green
Mr & Mrs Griffin
Mr & Mrs Groom
Mr & Mrs Hammond
Mr & Mrs Hantan
Mr & Mrs Harder
Mr & Mrs Harding
Mr & Mrs Harper
Mr & Mrs Harbour
Mr & Mrs Hines
Mr & Mrs Holden
Mr & Mrs Holliday
Mr & Mrs Holmes
Mr & Mrs Horn
Mr & Mrs Horsley
Mr & Mrs Hubbard
Mr & Mrs Hudson
Mr & Mrs Hunter
Mr & Mrs Jarvis
Mr & Mrs Jordan
Mr & Mrs Kaszubowski
Mr & Mrs Kilpatrick
Mr & Mrs Kindieysides
Mr & Mrs Lambert
Mr & Mrs Larwood
Mr & Mrs Lawes
Mr & Mrs Lion
Mr & Mrs List
Mr & Mrs Loredam
Mr & Mrs Lund
Mr & Mrs Lyons
Mr & Mrs Mann
Mr & Mrs Marjoram
Mr & Mrs McCarthy
Mr & Mrs McGough
Mr & Mrs McMahon
Mr & Mrs Miller
Mr & Mrs Mitchell
Mr & Mrs Mitchell
Mr & Mrs Money
Mr & Mrs Mouse
Mr & Mrs Nicholls

Mr & Mrs Nicol
Mr & Mrs Owen
Mr & Mrs Parfitt
Mr & Mrs Pitt
Mr & Mrs Plaston
Mr & Mrs Playford
Mr & Mrs Pollington
Mr & Mrs Pound
Mr & Mrs Price
Mr & Mrs Pummell
Mr & Mrs Quadling
Mr & Mrs Ralph
Mr & Mrs Reid
Mr & Mrs Reynolds
Mr & Mrs Ridewood
Mr & Mrs Rix
Mr & Mrs Roberts
Mr & Mrs Robinson
Mr & Mrs Rudling
Mr & Mrs Rule
Mr & Mrs Savage
Mr & Mrs Scott
Mr & Mrs Sellens
Mr & Mrs Setchell
Mr & Mrs Simmons
Mr & Mrs Smith
Mr & Mrs Stagles
Mr & Mrs Steward
Mr & Mrs Synnock
Mr & Mrs Tarsey
Mr & Mrs Taylor
Mr & Mrs Taylor
Mr & Mrs Taylor
Mr & Mrs Thacker
Mr & Mrs Turner
Mr & Mrs Turner
Mr & Mrs Tuttle
Mr & Mrs Vaukins
Mr & Mrs Veness
Mr & Mrs Wagge
Mr & Mrs Watson
Mr & Mrs Webb
Mr & Mrs Whitesides
Mr & Mrs Wood
Mr & Mrs Wright
Mr & Mrs Young
Mr & Mrs P Pegg
Mrs A Foster
Mrs A Payne
Mrs Angela Brown
Mrs Barbara Fisher
Mrs Brenda Wilson
Mrs Carol Sample
Mrs Christine Stevens

Mrs D Crossby
Mrs D Rudling
Mrs Dianne Miles
Mrs Doreen Hubbard
Mrs E Dodd
Mrs E McGee
Mrs E Spearing-Lacey
Mrs Edna Fitt
Mrs Eve Attridge
Mrs G Walters
Mrs Helen Fearnside
Mrs HL Long
Mrs J Price
Mrs J Riches
Mrs J Westwood
Mrs Janet Ayling
Mrs Janet Hastings
Mrs Joanne Kidd
Mrs K Clark
Mrs Karen Nye
Mrs Laura Stevens
Mrs Lesley Warman
Mrs Louisa Moth
Mrs M Hargreaves
Mrs M Middleton
Mrs M Morter
Mrs Maisie Ixer
Mrs Molly Cator
Mrs P Godfrey
Mrs P Skittrall
Mrs P Warner
Mrs Pauline Cattermole
Mrs R Pratt
Mrs Ruby Harding
Mrs S Brightman
Mrs Sandra Howard
Mrs Shirley Menezes
Mrs Shirley Quinn
Mrs Shirley Wright
Mrs Suzie Scott
Mrs Syliva Chisholm
Mrs Sylvia Despicht
Mrs T Bowtell
Mrs T Coe
Mrs U Mower
Mrs Vera Page
Mrs Zena Youngs
Mrs Almond
Mrs Barrell
Mrs Carpenter
Mrs Chilvers
Mrs Christie
Mrs Crisp
Mrs Evennett

Mrs Foster
Mrs Hall
Mrs Hardy
Mrs Johnson
Mrs Lathangue
Mrs Lewis
Mrs Lowings
Mrs Marshall
Mrs Marsham
Mrs Mortimer
Mrs Parkinson
Mrs Pilgrim
Mrs Rix
Mrs Styles
Mrs Webb
Ms Anna Jones
Ms J Baaring
Ms J Bogglist
Ms J Horseall
Mr Adam Dickie
Mr Adam Read
Mr Andy Nicholls
Mr Benjamin Wicks
Mr Christopher Earl
Mr Clive Monk
Mr Colin Arksey
Mr David Francis
Mr Edward Archard
Mr Gerald Fulcher
Mr Gerald Gooch
Mr Ian Monson
Mr Ingram John Bray
Mr James Willis
Mr Jason Dulswent
Mr John Allen
Mr John Monk
Mr Mark Rylands
Mr Mike Pond
Mr Noel Hervey
Mr Patrick Denning
Mr Paul Lovewell
Mr Phillip Summers
Mr Raymond Perryman
Mr Robert Eagle
Mr Rodney L Eglen
Mr Rory Campbell
Mr Simon Forder
Mr Simon Thompson
Mr & Mrs Darren Butler
Mr & Mrs Bower
Mr & Mrs R Forshaw
Mr & Mrs S Leslie
Mr & Mrs S Rice
Mr & Mrs W Purdy

Mrs Maggie Abel
Ms Ann Miller
Ms Audrey Smith
Ms Barbara Howe
Ms Barbara Warwick
Ms Blossom Warner
Ms Bonnie Bunyan
Ms Brenda Shorter
Ms Carla Knight
Ms Carolyn Bassett
Ms Clair Rylands
Ms Cynthia Ward
Ms Deborah Sibley
Ms Doreen Fotherly
Ms Dorothy Saddington
Ms Eileen Barrell
Ms Elaine Risebro
Ms Elizabeth Kirk
Ms Emily Greenland
Ms Gladys Copsey
Ms Helen Cramp
Ms Helen Goward
Ms Helen Philips RPS
Ms Jacqueline England
Ms Jane Henry
Ms Janet Higgs
Ms Janet Wood
Ms Joanna Plant
Ms Judy Parker
Ms Julie Derges
Ms Juliet Gates
Ms June Barnes
Ms Karen Butters
Ms Kathleen Halford
Ms Kathy Custler
Ms Kirsty Fitt
Ms Lily Codling
Ms Linda Bales
Ms Lorna Faulkes
Ms Louisa Barrell
Ms Lynda Turner
Ms Lynn Sunnucks
Ms Magdalena de Burgh
Ms Margaret Jennings
Ms Margaret Travis
Ms Marian Clements
Ms Mary Harcourt
Ms Mary Heaney
Ms Mavis Burnell
Ms Meredyth Limberg
Ms Norah Brown
Ms Olga Manley
Ms Patricia Flowers
Ms Peggy Burton

Ms Penny Boyce
Ms Rachel Podmere
Ms Rita Russell
Ms Rose Herring
Ms Sadie Needham
Ms Sally Bishop
Ms Sandra Goodson
Ms Sarah Howard
Ms Sarah Price
Ms Stephanie Bishop
Ms Susan Studd
Ms Valerie Rix
Ms Vanessa Parker
Ms Vera Frascogna
Ms Vicky Mitchell
P Lusha
Gerald Eve LLP
A Bower
A Fugle
A Ardley
A Cornwall
A Evans
A James
A Koozak
A Larkshear
A Nichols
AJ Wakefield
Mr Ashley Ford
B Feakes
B Galer
B Mackie
B Quincy
B R Dack
C Balchin
C Edwards
C M Dove
D Claxton
D Dodd
D Holland
D Larwood
D Pipe
D & C Lingwood
D & C Say
D B Miles
E Clisby
E Norris
E Rushmore
F Mead
F & D Burton
G Hunter
G & B Brown
G & J Marshall
G P & J J Greatrex
H J Pyne

J Campbell
J Cook
J Gibson
J Newton
J B Clements
J R Gillespie
J. Carpenter & D. Pipe
Jones/Sinclair
K Bailey
K Mann
K & G Pate
K Goodwille & S. Stolworthy
L Brown
L Woods
M Fileder
M Gorston
M Kelleher
M Kirk
M Lancaster
M Livingstone
M Tilford
M & F Butcher
N Newton
Owner/Occupier
P Skettan
P Summers
P & J Field
P J Sargent
P.J. Smith
R Allison
R Rainstowe
R Terry
R Sykes S Chowings
R. E. Appleby
R. L Smith
Owner/Occupier
S Tuttle
Mr Symon Barrett
T K Bussey
Thair
W Gilbert
W Scott
W & T Collins
Wiebke Clarke
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Dereham Golf Club
Diocese of Norwich
EJ & JC Catchpole
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier

Title First Name Surname
Finlay
Dooley
Hudswell
Coventry
Ms Dawn Adams
Dr Ivan Slaughter
Lt Col Christopher Taylor
Master Charlie Jaques
Miss Briana Brennan
Miss Gemma Russell
Miss Hollie Brennan
Miss Jane Hunting
Miss Karen Holmes
Miss Kerry Doyle
Miss Laura Brennan
Miss Leanne Desborough
Mr Alan Kerrison
Mr Andrew Thomas
Mr Andrew Mathews
Mr Brian Astley
Mr Bryan Wykes
Mr Chris Hart
Mr Chris Smith
Mr Chris Burgess
Mr Craig Matthews
Mr Daniel Greenwood
Mr David Berry
Mr David Atkins
Mr David Mead
Herring Family
Owner/Occupier
Hudson, O'Brien & Lewins
Lands Improvement (c/o agent)
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
McCarthy and Evans
Owner/Occupier
Parfitt Nurseries
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Swanton Morley Farms
The Thacker Family
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Owner/Occupier
Heygate Farms Ltd
MGPD Ltd
Childerhouse Lodge Farms
Taylor Wimpey Developments
Ltd
Davies & Co

Mr David Thompson
Mr David Stebbing
Mr David Howes
Mr David Taylor
Mr Derek Baker
Mr G Dadd
Mr Gavin Wolfenden
Mr George Hayes
Mr Hugh Scott
Mr J Alston
Mr Jim Shorter
Mr John Wallace
Mr John Keen
Mr John Livermore
Mr John Potter
Mr John Hornagold
Mr Johnnie Giffin
Mr Mark Stevens
Mr Martin Leibrick
Mr Matthew Bagnall
Mr Michael Sparks
Mr Norman Phillips
Mr Owen Howes
Mr Paul Hickman
Mr Paul Brennan
Mr Paul Chubbock
Mr Peter Hall
Mr Peter Dodd
Mr Philip Summers
Mr Philip Cowen
Mr Philip Morton
Mr Reuben Linehan
Mr Richard Denempont
Mr Richard Broster
Mr Robert Taylor
Mr Robert Keron
Mr Roger Cole
Mr Roland Terry
Mr Roy Dickinson
Mr Russell Jones
Mr S Smith
Mr Stephen Jacobs
Mr Stephen Cox
Mr Stephen Ellis
Mr Steve Staines
Mr Stuart Abbott
Mr Terence Newell
Mr Trevor Whitmore
Mr Victor Bucknell
Mr William Arkell
Mr Stebbing
Mr Willis
Mr Ben Walker
Mr Martin Kay

Mr Thomas Hough
Mr &
Mrs Christopher Williams
Mr &
Mrs James Donald
Mr &
Mrs M Taylor
Mr &
Mrs Robert Parfitt
Mr &
Mrs Hewson
Mr &
Mrs Avory
Mr Keith Wood
Mr Simon Page
Mr &
Mrs Graham Edwards
Mrs A Kerr
Mrs Angela Weller
Mrs Anne Sadler
Mrs Beverley Hough
Mrs Carrol Parfitt
Mrs Chantel Spurgeon
Mrs Dawn Tindale
Mrs Donna Taylor
Mrs Elaine Walker
Mrs Erica Everitt
Mrs Eve Barrett
Mrs Helen Hornagold
Mrs J Hammond
Mrs Jean Walden
Mrs Joanne Allen
Mrs Julie Payton
Mrs Linda Duggan
Mrs Louise Gale
Mrs Margaret Synnock
Mrs Mary Fern
Mrs Mary Gibbon
Mrs Michelle Miller
Mrs Pam Prior
Mrs Pamela Annison
Mrs Pamela Dunkinson
Mrs Rebecca Rejzek
Mrs S Finn
Mrs Susan Knight
Mrs Susan Kay
Mrs Susan Elizabeth Hart
Mrs Sylvia Tuck
Mrs Theresa Hewett
Mrs Trudy Crook
Mrs Freestone
Mrs Derbyshire
Mrs Finlay
Ms Hilary Handily
Ms Holly Monton