Public Document Pack

AGENDA

Committee - GREATER THETFORD DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP COMMUNITY SUB-GROUP Date & Time - WEDNESDAY, 16TH MAY, 2018 AT 7.00 PM Venue - KING'S HOUSE, KING STREET, THETFORD, IP24 2AT Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group Wednesday, 16th May, 2018

Page(s) herewith

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4 - 9 Approval of the minutes from the previous Sub-Group meeting of 21 March 2018.

3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MATTERS ARISING 10 - 13 Announcements from the Chair; Matters arising from minutes not covered in another item.

4. SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXPANSION, THETFORD ENTERPRISE PARK AND WATERSPACE UPDATES

5. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Up to 15 minutes for questions and comments from members of the public.

6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 14 - 15 Main items for public discussion and input. See separate papers for further details. a) Community Sub-Group Cycling and Walking Report 16 - 77 b) Thetford Boundary Change Proposals (Community Governance Review)

7. ITEMS TO NOTE (a) The draft Breckland Local Plan is being examined in public hearings from 17th April to 8th June. Details at https://www.breckland.gov.uk/localplanexaminationlibrary

(b) Updated plans have been submitted by the developer under the planning application 3PL/2017/1576/D for Phase 1a of the Kingseet development. The public can submit their comments at http://planning.breckland.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/planningDetails?reference=3PL/ 2017/1576/D

(c) ShopAppy Thetford launch on 19th May: https://www.breckland.gov.uk/article/8443/

(d) Local residents will soon be sought for the four Independent Member positions on the Community Sub-Group. See http://www.gtdp.org.uk/community-subgroup for details.

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9. MEETING SUMMARY

Members of the public are encouraged to attend and participate at the meeting. In addition to the time for public questions, members of the public have the opportunity to contribute during the remainder of the meeting at the invitation of the Chair. Further details and meeting papers are available Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group Wednesday, 16th May, 2018

Page(s) herewith online at http://www.gtdp.org.uk/community-subgroup. Minutes and papers are also available at the Town Council O_ces in King's House and at Leaping Hare on King Street. Agenda Item 2 Public Document Pack

At a Meeting of the

GREATER THETFORD DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP COMMUNITY SUB-GROUP

Held on Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 7.00 pm in King's House, King Street, Thetford, IP24 2AT

PRESENT Mr Robert Whittaker (RW) Chairman Corrine Fulford (CF) – Community Representative Mike Brown (MB) - Business Forum Andy Cruse (AC) – Community Representative Rae Herries (RH) – Brettenham & Kilverstone Parish Council Doug Stephen (DS) – Croxton Parish Council

In Attendance Riana Rudland – Breckland Place Manager, Breckland Council Teresa Smith – Democratic Services Team Leader, Breckland Council

Action By 12/18 INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

13/18 APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr Hodgson, a member of the public, asked for his name to be spelt correctly on Page 1 of the minutes under Members of the public included.

The Chairman asked for an amendment under minute reference 6/18 (paragraph 5) to be amended to say ‘The Chairman had not seen a plan yet but would look into it’.

Subject to these amendments the minutes were approved.

14/18 ANNOUNCEMENTS AND MATTERS ARISING

The Chairman attended the Greater Thetford Development Partnership (GTDP) board meeting on the 16 February. He informed the Sub-Group that the Inward Investment and Projects and Planning Sub-Group had been superseded by the Officer Group. This would mean the Sub-Groups representative Mr Cruse was no longer required on the projects and planning group.

There would be a re-election of the independent members of the Community Sub-Group in May 2018. It would be a repeat of the exercise held first time round, and the panel would consist of the Town Council representatives and the Chairman of the Board to consider the applications. The Chairman offered that if anyone was interested they should put their applications forward.

The Chairman provided an update on previous public questions raised:

Railway Station – the Board had agreed to write to Greater Anglia for

1 4 Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group 21 March 2018

Action By

consideration on improving the station. The Town Council had begun to investigate the possibility of moving the allotments so additional parking could be provided.

Healthcare Provisions – the Chairman had passed on the relevant details to Mr Doleman at Norfolk County Council who had been co- ordinating health issues for the board.

Transport issues – Norfolk County Council have held a stakeholder workshop on a study they are undertaking in Thetford. The Chair has provided an input on behalf of the Sub-Group.

Thetford Town Council and Breckland Council were working together to submit a bid to the Joint Heritage Lottery fund to promote the heritage of Thetford.

The Chairman had spoken with a representative at Norfolk County Council who would meet with the Chairman after Easter to discuss the cycling and walking report in more detail.

A report had been presented by Norfolk County Council to the recent Board meeting. The Chairman informed members of the Sub-Group that the original plan to move Raleigh Infant School to the new site, and expand both it and Admirals Academy to Primary schools was under review. The Board would be advised of further details as soon as possible.

Mr Stephen said that a school supply study relating to Thetford that had been published suggested that no additional places were required at the existing schools. He felt it right that Norfolk County Council Children’s services were reviewing the timescales for providing a new school.

A member of the public referred the Chairman to his previous query on reporting the standard of the potholes. He had had used the ‘report it’ function on the website but this was only for reporting a pothole and not the standard of the repairing of the potholes. The Chairman said to forward the information and he would pass it on.

ACTION: Chairman to forward on the information to RWh Norfolk County Council highways once received.

15/18 SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXPANSION AND THETFORD ENTERPRISE PARK UPDATES

Breckland Council had been successful in its bid to the HCA for funding to provide infrastructure for the sustainable urban extension.

The Chairman reminded those present that the first planning application of 350 homes was available for comment on the Breckland Council planning portal.

The completion of the Thetford Enterprise Park roundabout would be during 2019.

2 5 Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group 21 March 2018

Action By

A member of the public raised that he had been looking at the planning application details and was concerned that the house sizes for the affordable housing was under the appropriate standard. He also raised concerns that there were a number of documents that did not have the correct information. The Breckland Place Manager explained that comments are received from statutory consultees, and if further information was needed to clarify points the Planning Officer would seek the from the developers during the consultation period.

16/18 PUBLIC QUESTIONS

A member of the public raised concern that Norfolk County Council would be charging for disposal of DIY waste with effect from 1 April.

The Breckland Place Manager said the Strategic Waste Officers Group would be actively monitoring fly-tipping across the County. Breckland Council would be monitoring the impact both before and after the implementation. In addition, Breckland District Councillors had already asked for data which would be reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, and invited members of the Sub-group to attend.

CF was disappointed and raised that in the past a representative had attended a meeting of the sub-group to discuss the waste management and felt it gave an inconsistent approach and therefore the issue should be followed up.

The Breckland Place Manager confirmed that all District Councils would be monitoring the issue. If the public were using ‘green bins’ for disposal of DIY waste it would be noticeable in the reported figures.

ACTION – the Chairman of the Sub-Group would highlight RWh the concern of local residents to the GTDP Board, and ask for a letter to be written to Breckland and Norfolk County Council to explain why the new charges had been implemented, especially as fly-tipping was on the increase.

17/18 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

(a) Little Ouse Waterspace Study

Thetford Town Councillor Wright gave an informative presentation to the sub-group on the Little Ouse Waterspace study. The Little Ouse River had been influential in the history of Thetford and there was a vision to bring the river back to life today.

The project was launched by Thetford Town Council, Breckland Council and Elizabeth Truss MP on the 1 February to explain the vision of developing 4 locks between Thetford Mill and Brandon lock, and the budget to develop this would be in the region of £12m. The project would consider not only what happened on the river, but also the river frontage.

3 6 Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group 21 March 2018

Action By

During the summer of 2017 there was the opportunity to use kayaks along the river. However this was not advertised effectively as it happened at the last minute. This year there will be a River Day on the 21 July, which will encourage visitors to a variety of activities on and along the river.

Members were shown photographs of footpaths that have overgrown and Cllr Wright was working alongside the Communities Team at Breckland Council to consider ways of improving the footpaths without incurring major costs.

Cllr Wright explained that he was negotiating a meeting with the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and Breckland Council to be advocates for the scheme.

MB said Thetford were lucky to have the habitats of the chalk stream and would not be happy to see it being dredged.

A member of the public raised concern on the number of units that were empty along riverside, and the vision of the café culture should be supported, and suggested the old Argos unit could be a good starting point to offer this facility.

MB highlighted that retail was changing and that a collective view needed to be taken. He understood that a full offer was given with regards to the purchase of Riverside Units, however it was refused in a bid for asking for more money. He was disappointed to hear this matter as it may have brought interest into the filling of units on the other side. Whilst he understood that the Riverside units needed to be filled, he felt the Gym did not share the vision of the riverside culture it was trying to create.

CF said that at the meeting of Breckland Council Cabinet on 20 March it discussed the commercial letting of the Riverside units, where all three units would be knocked into one for the opening of a 24/7 Gym. She shared disappointment in this decision as the process was not understood of how the Council had come to that decision, especially as the original stance was to only offer these units to food outlets. The original vision of the Riverside project was to regenerate nightlife within the town, and was frustrated that letting the units to a gym did not do this.

A member of the public asked what Breckland Council’s responsibilities were for the river weed as it was not manageable at the moment, and a large amount of waste was being collected around the weed.

The Breckland Place Manager explained that the Environment Agency were responsible for the cutting of the weed, however, if it was becoming a health issue, then Breckland Council would add pressure onto the Environment Agency. Cllr Wright added that he was liaising with the Communities Team at Breckland Council to ensure this would be resolved for the summer months.

4 7 Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group 21 March 2018

Action By

The Breckland Place Manager added that there were a range of projects the Market Town Initiative would be used to promote businesses in the High Street. She would liaise with the Inward Investment Manager to encourage community clean-ups, but if there were specific areas that were needed to be focussed on then the information should be passed to the Communities Team.

A number of questions were raised with regards to the letting of the Riverside commercial units to a Gym establishment, and were noted as follows:

1. Why had the Gym been offered 3-units at Riverside? 2. What had been the process to reach this decision – especially when at the outset the units were for food outlets only. 3. Why has Breckland Council’s changed its view? What was the strategic plan? 4. Had there been a commitment to spend public money to support the rent on the building for the Gym? 5. What would be the impact to Parkwood Leisure and the penalties it would incur? 6. Why had Breckland submitted their own planning application for the change of use? 7. Why had the ‘change of use’ not been offered to other businesses (such as retail), to give a chance to apply for a unit?

ACTION: The sub-group to write to Breckland Council to ask RWh the above questions.

The Breckland Place Manager explained that it was Breckland Council’s building and therefore should apply for the planning permission.

18/18 ITEMS TO NOTE

The items were noted.

19/18 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chairman had a copy of the planning application for the gym at the Riverside Units as discussed under the previous item.

CF raised the Thetford Calendar Competition, and the closing date for entries was the 31 May. She encouraged anyone to enter, but that photos must be taken within Thetford or 2-miles from the Parish Boundary.

20/18 MEETING SUMMARY

The Chairman would complete this and arrange for it to be uploaded onto the website.

The meeting closed at 9.15 pm CHAIRMAN

5 8 Minute Item 20

GTDP Community Sub-Group Meeting Wednesday 21st March 2018, 7–9pm, King’s House, King Street, Thetford Meeting Highlights

• The four independent members of the Community Sub-Group will be refreshed in the next couple of months. Applications will be invited, with a decision being made by a panel comprising the GTDP Board chair and the three council representatives on the Sub-Group. Those interested should watch for further announcements. • Cllr Stuart Wright gave a presentation and answered questions on the proposals in the Little Ouse Waterspace Study. Some projects are already underway, but the challenge will be to find funding for the larger capital projects. The full study can be read at: http://www.thetfordtowncouncil.gov.uk/download/20177/ . • The planning application for the first part of the Sustainable Urban Expansion remains open for public comments. The application number is 3PL/2017/1576/D, and it can be viewed online at https://goo.gl/QDX43g . There are many documents, but the Design Statement at http://goo.gl/GqMNiu is a good place to start. • A planning application has been submitted to allow a gym to open in three of the empty units by the cinema. There was concern that this was a deviation from the original vision of caf´esand restaurants. The application number is 3PL/2018/0227/F, and it can be viewed online at https://goo.gl/u45muT. The public can submit comments. • Concern was raised about the charges for disposing of DIY waste at the NCC Re- cycling Centre on Brunel Way that will come in on 1st April (details at https: //www.norfolk.gov.uk/diywaste). The meeting felt that the charges were a false econ- omy, as they were likely to lead to increases in fly-tipping and in non-recyclable household waste. Breckland Council will be monitoring both for detrimental effects of the new policy. • An updated draft of the Cycling and Walking Routes Report will be available shortly from http://www.gtdp.org.uk/cycling-walking. For more information, the agenda and papers for the meeting can be found online at http://www.gtdp.org.uk/community-subgroup. The full minutes will be uploaded there within about two weeks of the meeting. Next GTDP Board Meeting: 9th April 2018 (10am–12 noon; venue to be confirmed.) Next Community Sub-Group Meeting: 16th May 2018 (7–9pm; King’s House, Thetford)

9 6 Agenda Item 3

Item 3: Chairman’s Notes Robert Whittaker GTDP Community Sub-Group Meeting, 16th May 2018

1 GTDP Board Meetings

I attended the GTDP Board meeting on 9th April as the Sub-Group’s representative. The agenda and papers can be found online at http://www.gtdp.org.uk/board. At time of writing the draft minutes had yet to be uploaded there, but a ‘Highlight Report’ is linked from the meeting page. Relevant items for the community included: • The Board will be holding a private workshop to develop a forward plan of work over the coming months. To avoid a long gap without a public meeting, it was agreed to hold a public meeting in June in addition to the workshop. • There was some progress on cemetery provision for the SUE houses, with developers sug- gesting a couple of possible locations. However, as there is no funding provision for this, it is likely that any new cemetery would have to be run privately on a commercial basis. • The Board agreed to go ahead with advertising for the four independent positions on the Community Sub-Group. As per the terms of reference, a panel comprising the Board Chair (Sam Chapman-Allen) and the three town and parish representatives on the Sub- Group (Brenda Canham, Rae Herries, and Doug Stephen) will finalise the advert and then shortlist and interview candidates. It was agreed to run the advertising throughout May with a closing date for applications of 31st. This does not appear to have happened yet. At time of writing the other panel mem- bers had not been contacted by Sam Chapman-Allen to begin the process. I asked Sam Chapman-Allen for an update for this report, but none was received. • The paper from the Officer Group on communication first promised for the December 2017 Board meeting has still not materialised. Improving communication with the public will now be picked up with the Board’s forward plan. However, Rob Walker (Breckland Executive Director of Place) did promise to ensure that the GTDP website at http: //www.gtdp.org.uk/ would be updated in the mean time. I sent Rob Walker a list of things that needed updating, and asked for a progress update for this report. At time or writing, I had received no response and the website updates do not appear to have been actioned.

2 Answers and Updates to Public Questions and Concerns

Various issues have been raised by the public at previous Sub-Group meetings, and we have attempted to investigate and provide updates.

Railway Station Access Issues and Parking. Various issues with the station have been raised at different Community Sub-Group meetings, including the poor accessibility of the footbridge and the lack of car parking. On 27th March, the Board wrote to Greater Anglia (the franchise holder who is responsible for the station) to request that a representative of the company meets with the GTDP Officer Group to discuss the various issues. The Town Council have identified two possible sites for allotments that could replace some of those currently to the north of the station, in order to free up land for additional

1 10 station car parking. These were the Charles Burrell Centre, and Closed Elm Road Centre. Investigations are continuing. Cost of Purchasing Train Tickets on the Train. At the November Sub-Group meeting, an issue was raised about passengers being charged more when buying tickets on the train compared with buying them at the station. In almost all cases, this shouldn’t hap- pen. The main exception is those travelling with East Midlands Trains, who do not give railcard discounts on the train if ticketing facilities are available at the station. It was agreed at the January Sub-Group meeting that we should write to East Midlands Trains asking them to waive their railcard policy for passengers boarding at Thetford and travelling towards Norwich, on the grounds that the ticketing facilities are all on the other platform and are not sufficiently accessible. The Board agreed to write a letter instead of us (which should carry more weight), and this was sent on 11th April. Rather than spelling out the issue in detail, they asked for someone from East Midlands Trains someone to meet with the Officer Group to discuss matters further. Health-Care Provision Concern had been expressed at various Community Sub-Group meet- ings about the lack of planning for expanded health-care provision for the new SUE resi- dents. There was nothing further on this at the last Board meeting, but the issues should be picked up in the forward plan work, and dealt with at a future meeting. Charging for Household DIY Waste at Norfolk Recycling Centres From the 1st April 2018, Norfolk County Council has been charging for household DIY waste at its recycling centres. Previously small amounts could be deposited by householders for free. (See https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/diywaste .) This issue was raised again at the March 2018 Sub-Group meeting. The Sub-Group was concerned about a possible increase in fly-tipping, and also the reduction in material being recycled if people instead disposed of it in their household rubbish bins. The Sub-Group resolved to ask the Board to write to Norfolk County Council to express these concerns. The Board rejected the request, I believe largely on the grounds that they did not feel it was appropriate to be writing to one of their own members. Nevertheless, the concerns would be passed on by the two County Councillors on the Board. Since then, it has been reported in the EDP that a local MP Norman Lamb thinks that the charges for household DIY waste may be unlawful, as it they could contravene the the ‘Local Authorities (Prohibition of Charging Residents to Deposit Household Waste) Order 2015’ (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/973/made) which prohibits charges for household waste. The council believes that DIY waste from households can be classified as ‘construction and demolition waste’ whereas Mr Lamb argues it cannot. Read the full EDP article at https://bit.ly/2HWj01f. Poor Standard of Pothole Repairs At our March 2018 meeting, a member of the public again raised the issue of the poor repair of potholes in Harwood Avenue. The repairs seem to have used too much tarmac, which has over-spilled the holes and sites proud of the original surface. I have since noticed similar patches elsewhere around the town. I raised this at the Board meeting. Since pothole filling is the responsibility of Norfolk County Council, the two County Councillors for Thetford (Terry Jermy and Roy Brame) agreed to take up the matter. I have now had a response from David Jacklin (Highway Engineer at Norfolk County Council), who suggested the work was the result of using a different, more efficient, technique for filling the holes (using what are known as ‘hot boxes’). What is not not clear is whether the observed poor standard of the repairs is solely a consequence of the new technique, or because the work has not been done properly. I’ve

2 11 therefore written to Mr Jacklin to clarify, and also ask what standards or tolerances apply to the work, so we can check whether the patches comply.

Change-of-Use Planning Application for a Gym at the Riverside Breckland Council had submitted a Change-of-Use planning application (3PL/2018/0227/F) to allow a Gym to open in some of the currently empty units in the Riverside Complex. The units had pre- viously been earmarked for restaurants or caf´es. The matter was discussed at the April 2018 Sub-Group meeting, and the Sub-Group agreed to write to Breckland Council with a number of questions. The questions and answers can be found in section 5 below.

3 Town Council / Breckland Heritage Lottery Bid

Thetford Town Council and Breckland District Council have been working on a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund for an “Our Heritage” grant of up to £100k, as part of Breckland’s Market Towns Initiative. (See https://goo.gl/tqDKfj.) The Sub-Group members were sent the final draft for comments shortly before Easter. We were not given much time to respond, but we managed to raise a number of issues and make several suggestions, all of which hopefully allowed the bid to be strengthened. I asked Steve James at Breckland Council for an update on whether the bid had been submitted now, and if we could see the final version. At time of writing, I had not received a reply.

4 Community Sub-Group Terms of Reference

At the December 2017 Board meeting is was agreed to add a representative of the Thetford Business Forum as an additional member of the Community Sub-Group. (This was in lieu of the Forum loosing their place on the main GTDP Board.) After several requests for an up-to- date copy of the Community Sub-Group’s Terms of Reference to reflect this change, we were finally sent a new version on 30th April. However, the wording it contained for the Business Forum representative was:

“One business representative nominated by the Thetford Business Forum and ap- proved by the three representatives above and by the Chair of the GTDP Board.”

I queried this, as I do not believe that the requirement for the representative to be approved by anyone was ever discussed or agreed by the Board. The Board will consider the wording formally at its next meeting, so I would invite the Sub-Group to agree a position on what it would prefer.

5 Change-of-Use Planning Application: Questions and Responses

The questions that the Sub-Group asked Breckland council and the responses we received from them can be found below.

1. Who owns the riverside building and the land it stands on? (There was some uncertainty at the meeting as to whether it was Breckland Council or Breckland Bridge.) The freehold of the Riverside building and land is owned by Breckland Council.

2. The original vision for the site was to have cafes and restaurants there. Presumably the change is due to there being no interest from such businesses. But could you clarify what

3 12 the thinking is behind the change of plan, how it was made and by whom, and what the vision now is for the area? The original vision for Riverside was to regenerate that quarter of the town and provide an evening economy with a leisure-led scheme - which would include restaurants and caf´e style businesses and this matches the original planning use classes for the scheme. The Council was approached through its agent by a gym operator. Whilst the scheme does not currently include a planning use class for a fitness use - with the confirmed interest from the operator the next logical step is to undertake a change of use planning application which is currently being undertaken now to determine if the change of use in planning terms is viable. The ability for a gym operator to operate a fitness operation at the Riverside scheme is dependent on the successful outcome of the change of use planning application. There has been a lack of interest from food and beverage operators since the reduction in the casual dining market nationally since the end of 2017, however the current vision for the Riverside area is still to regenerate that quarter of the town preferably with night time operators based on leisure-led activities, if there is interest from those types of operators and if terms can be agreed. However we have to be agile in our approach and adapt to the market for the good of the town. We have listened to local people and recognise that some residents share our disappointment that the Units are not already fully let, but we know that most people would prefer to see some sort of leisure offer in place, as opposed to ongoing empty units.

3. Was there any sort of open process for bids / expressions of interest for non-restaurant uses, before the Council got involved with the planning application for the gym? Have any other businesses been given the chance to put cases for using the site? At any time the Council through its agent would consider interest from both food and beverage operators and/or other operators that meet the requirements of a town centre leisure-led regeneration scheme. The vacant space in the scheme has been openly marketed since construction completion in November 2016 and any operator/business could put forward a proposal. The Council’s letting agent is Francis Darrah Chartered Surveyors based in Norwich.

4. Has / will any public money been / be used to support the gym at the site? (e.g. help with the planning application, initial support for rent, etc.) The Council, in its role as a commercial landlord at a number of commercial properties, is always willing to be flexible to work with potential tenants to negotiate terms which are agreeable to both the Council and the tenant. However, these discussions and terms are commercially sensitive and cannot be disclosed.

5. We understand there is some sort of penalty clause / conditions in the Council’s contract with the operators of Thetford Leisure Centre, which prevents the council supporting other competing offerings. What is the precise nature of this, and is it/would it be engaged by the council allowing / supporting the gym at the Riverside? Any fitness business either within Breckland or outside of the district could potentially compete with the Council’s own Leisure Centres. The Council’s Leisure PFI agreement in- corporates a competing facilities clause which does not prevent the Council being involved in its wider activities with fitness and leisure operators. However it makes a provision that if the Council’s Leisure PFI operator’s business is affected by other fitness/leisure type operators then there is provision for the Leisure PFI operator to be fairly remunerated for any financial losses - subject to negotiation and terms.

4 13 Agenda Item 6

Item 6: Items for Discussion GTDP Community Sub-Group Meeting, 16th May 2018

(a) Sub-Group Cycling and Walking Report

The third draft of the Cycling and Walking Report has been prepared. It is available with the papers for this meeting. Following a meeting with Norfolk County Council Highways, it seems that the most useful approach to take from their point of view is to provide lists of potential projects sorted by size or scope, so this is what has been done. Section 2 of the report now contains lists of actions grouped under five categories, with a recommendation attached to each. The Sub-Group is invited to review the report with a view to agreeing a final version for presen- tation at the next GTDP Board meeting.

(b) Thetford Boundary Change Proposals (Community Governance Review)

A large new housing development — known as Kingsfleet1 — has been granted planning per- mission on the northern edge of Thetford. This land currently mostly lies within the neigh- bouring parishes of Croxton and Kilverstone. In late 2017, Thetford Town Council requested a “Community Governance Review” to consider changing the boundary of the Parish of Thetford so that the new houses would lie in Thetford Parish. Breckland District Council agreed to carry out this review. A Stage 1 Consultation on the plans was run from 8th January to 16th March 2018.2 A total of 525 responses were received.3 Over 75% of the respondents said they were in favour of the boundary change. However, there was a clear split between those from Thetford parish — who were mostly in favour of the change, and those from the village parishes — who were mostly against.4 The Community Governance Sub-Committee of Breckland Council5 considered the re- sponses. Despite the majority of the responses being in favour of the changes, the Sub-Committee decided to propose “no change to the boundary” to go forward to the Stage 2 Consultation. Their reasoning was that: (1) as a proportion of the total population, the percentage of Thetford res- idents responding in favour was lower than the percentage of parish residents against, and (2) those living in the yet-to-be-built houses should be consulted.6 The Stage 2 Consultation is currently running from 16th April to 22nd June 2018. Full details and an online response form can be found at https://www.breckland.gov.uk/CGR-secondconsultation-2018. The proposal in Stage 2 is to not change the boundary. So if you want to see the Thetford boundary changed to include Kingsfleet, then you should respond that you disagree with the proposal. If you was to see boundary remaining where it is (so most of the Kingsfleet development lies in the two village parishes) you should respond that you agree with the proposal. Representatives of both sides of the argument have been invited to put their case at the Sub-Group meeting, and then answer questions from the public.

1Kingsfleet development web site: https://www.kingsfleet-thetford.co.uk/ 2Stage 1 Consultation details: https://www.breckland.gov.uk/CGR-review-2018 3Full list of Stage 1 responses: https://bit.ly/2rmXasL 4Summary of Stage 1 responses: https://bit.ly/2wgL2PL 5Community Governance Sub-Committee: https://bit.ly/2KAqsg5 6Minutes of the Sub-Committee meeting: https://bit.ly/2wh07kb

1 14 Map of the existing boundaries and Kingsfleet (SUE) area The potential boundary change would move the Thetford boundary to transfer the Kingsfleet (SUE) area from the parishes of Croxton and Kilverstone to the parish of Thetford.

Implications of a Boundary Change If the Thetford boundary was moved to include Kingsfleet, the following changes would occur: ˆ Those moving in to the new development would become residents of the parish of Thetford, rather than belonging to one of the neighbouring village parishes. ˆ Thetford Town Council would be responsible for parish council functions in the area of the Kingsfleet development, rather than one or other of the village Parish Councils. ˆ The new residents in Kingsfleet would pay their council tax parish precept to Thetford Town Council, rather than to one of the village Parish Councils. The rate for the new residents would be higher (by around £90 a year for a Band D property at current precept rates) but the money would help fund Town Council services in the town. ˆ The new residents in Kingsfleet would get to vote for councillors on Thetford Town Council, rather then helping elect parish councillors to one of the neighbouring parishes. The following would not be affected, whether the boundary is moved or not: ˆ The 5000 new houses will be built, whichever parish they end up being in. ˆ The current residents of Thetford (Town) Parish would remain in Thetford Parish. ˆ The majority of the existing residents who live in the village parishes would remain in their current parish, and keep the same council tax arrangements. (The exception would be those living in Hill House Lane, Heathlands, and the small number of other houses inside the development area, who would switch to Thetford Parish.) ˆ The parts of the council tax paid by all residents to the Police, Breckland District Council and Norfolk County Council would be the same. ˆ The addresses of the new houses on the Kingsfleet development would be unlikely to be affected. The new houses would be likely to have straightforward “, , Thetford, IP24 XXX ” addresses, whichever parish they are in.

2 15 Agenda Item 6a

Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group Cycling and Walking Report

(Draft 3)

Robert J Whittaker

8 May 2018 DRAFT

16 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Contents

1 Background & Overview 3

2 Actions & Recommendations 3 2.1 Priority Major Projects ...... 3 2.2 Minor Projects ...... 4 2.3 Routine Maintenance Work ...... 4 2.4 Further Investigation & Feasibility Studies ...... 5 2.5 Planning Objectives & Strategic Solutions ...... 7

3 Routes within the Town for Pedestrians 8 3.1 Condition of Paved Routes ...... 8 3.2 Condition of Unpaved Routes ...... 9 3.3 Unrecorded Public Open Space ...... 11 3.4 Unrecorded Paths ...... 13 3.5 Junction / Crossing Issues ...... 15 3.6 Missing Links ...... 17 3.7 Informal Cut-Through Paths ...... 18 3.8 Riverside Route Through the Town ...... 20 3.9 Accessibility Issues ...... 22

4 Routes within the Town for Cyclists 25 4.1 Major Roads ...... 25 4.2 Problematic Road Junctions ...... 28 4.3 Existing Off-Road Routes ...... 31 4.4 Missing Links ...... 33

5 Connectivity outside the Town for Pedestrians 36 5.1 North-West along the Little Ouse Valley to High Lodge, Thetford Forest, and Brandon ...... 36 5.2 NorthDRAFT to Croxton ...... 37 5.3 East to Kilverstone, Brettenham and the Peddars Way ...... 37 5.4 South-East to Rushford, Knettishall Heath and the Peddars Way . . . . 38 5.5 South-West to Elveden ...... 38 5.6 South to Barnham and Euston ...... 38

Draft 3 1 May 2018

17 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

6 Connectivity outside the Town for Cyclists 39 6.1 North-West to High Lodge, Thetford Forest, and Brandon ...... 39 6.2 North to Croxton ...... 40 6.3 North-East to East Wretham Heath and Great Hockham Woods . . . . 40 6.4 East to Kilverstone, Brettenham and the Peddars Way ...... 41 6.5 South-East to Rushford and Knettishall Heath ...... 41 6.6 South-West to Elveden ...... 41 6.7 South to Barnham and Euston ...... 42

7 Other Miscellaneous Comments 44

C Public Comments in Response to the Call for Feedback 45

E Other Evidence 56

L Relevant Local Studies, Reports & Policies 59

N National Guidelines, Advice and Regulations 60

V Version History 61

DRAFT

Draft 3 2 May 2018

18 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

1 Background & Overview

An investigation and report into Cycling and Waling provision in and around Thetford was first proposed at the Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub- Group on 15th March 2017. An open call for public feedback and suggestions was issued on 19th July 2017 and closed on 8th September 2017. The responses received are reproduced in Appendix C. This report has been compiled based around the issues that were raised by the public, but also includes issues discovered during the course of a wider investigation, bringing in other evidence from Appendix E and reviewing previous reports and studies as listed in Appendix L. Relevant national guidelines are referenced in Appendix N. The report’s recommendations and a list of all the proposed actions to mitigate the issues can be found in section 2 below. The main body of this report, contained in sections 3–7 explains in detail the various issues, and provides the justification for the proposed actions. The most recent version of this report can be viewed online at http://www.gtdp.org.uk/cycling-walking .

2 Actions & Recommendations

This section includes a list of all the actions proposed throughout the report. They have been sorted into five categories, each with a recommendation for how to proceed.

2.1 Priority Major Projects

The following actions are well-defined projects, with significant evidence demonstrating their need and benefit. They are among the most frequently requested projects in the responses to the public consultation, and the three cycle routes form part of the Thetford Loops as set out in the Thetford Area Action Plan [L6].

It is therefore recommended that these major projects are prioritised by the GTDP Board, and that the Board asks the lead agencies to draw up plans for the realisation of each project, and propose potential funding mechanisms.

Action 2 [Page 9] The muddy riverside path from Blaydon Bridge to near the Priory Car Park should be given a hard surface, with sufficient drainage to avoid puddles after rainfall. Action 16 [PageDRAFT 26] Ensure that a high-quality cycleway is provided alongside London Road to link the ex- isting routes at Jubilee Close and the Sainsbury’s roundabout.

Action 18 [Page 27] Ensure that a continuous cycleway is constructed along Croxton Road from Mundford Road to past the A11 junction as part of the SUE transport mitigation measures.

Draft 3 3 May 2018

19 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Action 33 [Page 40] Work to develop the cycle route between Thetford and High Lodge, as described in [L8].

2.2 Minor Projects

The following actions represent more minor projects, for which funding might be available within existing budgets.

It is recommended that the GTDP Board asks the relevant authorities to assess these actions, and prioritise them as appropriate.

Action 9 [Page 17] Add a crossing point on the the A134 Brandon Road just east of the Canterbury Way roundabout, and include a dropped curb on the southern side of the road.

Action 12 [Page 20] Formalise the well-used cut-through paths listed in section 3.7, by making surface and access improvements to them.

Action 20 [Page 28] Review road markings at the Old Croxton Road / Norwich Road junction, with a view to reinstating the right-turn filter for south-bound cyclists, and placing parking restrictions from the junction slightly further up Old Croxton Road.

Action 21 [Page 29] Review road markings and alignment at the Croxton Road / Mundford Road junction, with a view to providing right-turn cycle filter space before the crossing island for south- bound cyclists, and better merging onto Croxton road for north-bound cyclists.

Action 23 [Page 31] Provide safe access and egress to and from cycleway 3Y16 at Saint Helens Way and Anne Bartholomew Road, by installing dropped kerbs or raised tables.

2.3 Routine Maintenance Work

The following actions should represent routine maintenance and upkeep work, but this does not always happen. It is recommendedDRAFT that the GTDP Board asks the relevant authorities review their responsibilities and commit to the points below.

Action 1 [Page 8] The responsible authorities should agree to and uphold a more robust maintenance policy for paved pedestrian routes within the town, in order to they remain safe and usable by all.

Draft 3 4 May 2018

20 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Action 3 [Page 11] The responsible authorities should agree to and uphold a more robust maintenance policy for unpaved pedestrian routes within the town, in order to ensure they remain safe and usable by all.

Action 17 [Page 26] Encroaching vegetation should be cut back and the paved surface cleared in order to reinstate the full width of the cycleway alongside London Road between Newtown and Jubilee Close.

Action 25 [Page 33] Surface improvement works should be carried out on Green Lane to restore the surface and reinstate the full width of the route. More regular cutting of the verges is needed to prevent encroaching vegetation.

2.4 Further Investigation & Feasibility Studies

The following actions relate to projects that are more tentative or require further inves- tigation or feasibility studies before being realised.

It is recommended that GTDP Board asks the responsible authorities review these actions and report back to the Board with their initial thoughts on each.

Action 4 [Page 13] Consideration should be given to protecting the access rights to each of the public open space sites listed in section 3.3, either by designation as Access Land, through an agreement with Fields in Trust, or by some other appropriate mechanism.

Action 5 [Page 14] The unrecorded paths listed in section 3.4 should be investigated, with a view to each of them being recorded with the most appropriate classification.

Action 6 [Page 15] Options should be investigated for increasing the safety of pedestrians crossing roads in the vicinity of the London Road / Hurth Way / Mundford Road roundabout.

Action 7 [Page 16] Review the safety of the junction of Churchill Way with Mundford road for for pedestri- ans travelling along Mundford road and needing to cross the mouth of Churchill Way. Consider remodelledDRAFT the junction to reduce the splays and/or creating a central island in Churchill Way.

Action 8 [Page 16] Ensure there is a safe pedestrian route from Arlington Way in to Town along Castle Street. Possible options include a new pedestrian bridge to the south-west of Melford Bridge, or a crossing island between the bridge and Arlington Way.

Draft 3 5 May 2018

21 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Action 10 [Page 18] Investigate possible pedestrian improvements on Nun’s Bridges and the Station Lane underpass.

Action 13 [Page 22] Investigate the feasibility of providing the missing links in the riverside path between Thetford Garden Centre and Arlington Way, as described in section 3.8.

Action 14 [Page 24] Investigate possible accessibility improvements to the three railway footbridges in Thet- ford.

Action 19 [Page 28] Investigate the provision of protected cycle routes alongside various stretches of Mund- ford Road, between the Hurth Way roundabout and the industrial estates.

Action 24 [Page 31] Investigate possible improvements for west-bound cyclists on National Cycle Network routes 13 and 30 at the Market Place roundabout.

Action 26 [Page 33] Investigate the possibility of installing low-level lighting along Green Lane, at least on the southern-most section between Hurth Way and Mallow Road.

Action 28 [Page 35] Investigate the feasibility of providing the missing cycle links described in section 4.4.

Action 30 [Page 37] Investigate the possibility of providing a pedestrian footway between Thetford and Bran- don along Croxton Road.

Action 31 [Page 38] Investigate the possibility of a new pedestrian (and possibly cycle) link with Brettenham and the Peddars Way; either along the River Thet valley or over land immediately to the south of the A11.

Action 32 [Page 38] Investigate the creation of a safe pedestrian route from Kilverstone village to Thetford.

Action 34 [Page 41] Investigate the creation of a new off-road cycle route following the existing track along- side the railwayDRAFT from Joe Blunt’s lane, under the A11, to the A1075 level crossing, with a link into Forestry Commission land to the north-west.

Action 36 [Page 41] Investigate the possibility of adding a short cycle track alongside the A1066, from Nursery Lane in Rushford to West Harling Road.

Draft 3 6 May 2018

22 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Action 38 [Page 42] Investigate the provision of a shared-use cycle path alongside the B1106 from the Elveden cross-roads to link with Centre Parcs and forest tracks further north.

Action 39 [Page 42] Investigate the use of the old railway corridor to create a new cycling and walking route from the south end of Arlington Way to the C633 at Barnham.

2.5 Planning Objectives & Strategic Solutions

The following actions are strategic planning and policy matters.

It is recommended that the GTDP Board asks the Officer Group take on these matters to ensure they get proper attention.

Action 11 [Page 18] Ensure that pedestrian access is provided along Croxton Road from Hill House Lane to Joe Blunt’s Lane by the Academy.

Action 15 [Page 24] Arrange for a town-wide survey for the presence of dropped kerbs along desire lines, and contact disability groups for their input.

Action 22 [Page 30] Ensure the needs of cyclists are fully taken into account when improvements to the Kilverstone Road / Norwich Road junction are considered as part of the SUE transport mitigation work.

Action 27 [Page 33] Ensure that proper cycling provision is made along the Joe Blunt’s Lane corridor within the planning process for the Thetford Sustainable Urban Expansion. The preferred solution is a parallel hard-surfaced cycle track, to better accommodate cycling, while maintaining the character of the original Lane.

Action 29 [Page 37] Ensure better pedestrian access to the Forest is provided as part of any upgrades to the A11 Sainsbury’s roundabout.

Action 35 [Page 41] Ensure that theDRAFT SUE includes a cycle route running north-east from Joe Blunt’s lane to the farm track underpass of the A11 adjacent to the Railway.

Action 37 [Page 42] Lobby for the private Elveden Estate road from Elveden village to the Elveden Memorial to be opened for public walking and cycling use.

Draft 3 7 May 2018

23 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

3 Routes within the Town for Pedestrians

3.1 Condition of Paved Routes

Many respondents mentioned the condition of paved routes, with the majority of the complaints being about surfaces breaking up and being uneven, and vegetation encroach- ing from the sides.

• General issues with poor surfaces of footways with tree roots breaking them up, and encroaching undergrowth, in particular on Abbey Meadows and London Road. (See figure 13.) [C10]

• Surface breaking up and detritus on footway 3F195 between Hill House Lane and Harriet Martineau Close. [C14]

• Poor surface and encroaching vegetation on the path between Harriet Martineau Close and Church of the Nazarene. Also unsafe in dark because of bushes. [C14]

• Stinging nettles on Croxton Road pavement between Woodlands Drive and the post box severely reduce the width during summer months. [C14] (When inspected in February 2018, significant cutting back of the undergrowth had taken place restoring the width of the footway.)

• The Tarmac path between Woodlands and Fairfields is too encroached by vege- tation for push chairs. (It is unclear which path was meant here, but it could be 3F137.) [C19]

• The hard-surfaced cycleway 3Y11 from St Martins Way to Caxton Way is over- grown, as is the hard-surfaced path north-west from here along the side of the Danepak site. [C30]

• The Minstergate underpass is prone to flooding after heavy rain. [C10]

Action 1 The responsible authorities should agree to and uphold a more robust maintenance policy for paved pedestrian routes within the town, in order to they remain safe and usable by all.

Additional comments were made on the following other issues:

• The edges of the raised pavements in King Street Square are a dangerous trip hazard. [C2] Presumably though, a safety assessment was made as part of the planningDRAFT process before the raised areas were installed. • The steeply ramped footbridge over the railway line between the Woodlands and Admirals estates (see figure 11) is slippery in cold weather, and so either a better surface or gritting is needed. [C21] There is actually a grit bin located on the Woodlands side, and evidence from March 2018 suggests that grit is being applied to the bridge. See also section 3.9.1 for more general accessibility issues with this bridge.

Draft 3 8 May 2018

24 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

3.2 Condition of Unpaved Routes

3.2.1 Abbey Meadows Riverside Path

The most commonly raised issue in the public comments was the condition of the path on the north bank of the River Little Ouse between the Priory Car Park and Blaydon Bridge. The route is currently unsurfaced, and 10 respondents asked for the surface to be improved [C4,C5,C6,C8,C10,C11,C13,C15,C27,C28]. The route used is on land owned by Breckland Council and mostly follows the line of the Public Right of Way ‘Thetford FP 1’. It is a desire line for those living in the Redcastle area and wanting to get to the town via Minstergate. It is also part of the route of the weekly parkrun1 event held on Saturday mornings on the Abbey Meadows. The evidence on the ground is that the route is very well-used. In winter it becomes very muddy and slippery, and is blocked by large puddles after moderate rainfall (see figure 1). The desire of pedestrians to avoid the main line can clearly be seen by the widening of the route and the footprints left in the grass on either side. Diverting to the sides is not a solution as the width is restricted by bushes in places and the grass that is available is also typically waterlogged after rain. Several respondents mentioned the danger as well as the unpleasantness of using this route.

Action 2 The muddy riverside path from Blaydon Bridge to near the Priory Car Park should be given a hard surface, with sufficient drainage to avoid puddles after rainfall.

1http://www.parkrun.org.uk/thetford/

Figure 1 DRAFT : The path along the north bank of the River Little Ouse between the Priory Car Park and Blaydon Bridge, taken on 6th January 2018. The area in the foreground will typically be a large puddle after heavy rainfall. See section 3.2.1.

Draft 3 9 May 2018

25 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

3.2.2 Green Lane

This route is considered in section 4.3.1 on page 31 as it is also a key cycle route.

3.2.3 Other Unpaved Routes

Issues with surfaces, flooding, and encroachment by vegetation on a number of other paths were also raised by respondents:

• Improvements needed to the surface of the Avenue path from the Gentle Bridge

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Examples of deteriorating paths on the public amenity land between the Cloverfields estateDRAFT and the river, from January 2018. (a) A muddy section on the path between Harebell Close and Fennel Way. The original line is partly obstructed by the bush to the left. (b) The path immediately to the south of Trafalgar Wood, running between Campion Road and Chervil Walk. The width of the compacted surface has been significantly encroached,and the left-hand edge of the original path can be see disappearing under the brambles. See section 3.2.3.

Draft 3 10 May 2018

26 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

to BTO entrance. [C4](t)

• The unsurfaced footway 3F650 between Fulmerston Road and Hillary Road is overgrown. [C4] (When inspected in January 2018, significant cutting back of the undergrowth had taken place, restoring the width of the path.)

• Cannon’s close cycleway (3Y17/20; with a compacted surface) drainage issues. Large puddles collect at low points blocking path in places. [C8]

• There are various unrecorded yet official paths (originally installed by the develop- ers with compacted surfaces) on the public amenity land between the Cloverfields estate and the river. These paths do not appear to be maintained, and in sev- eral places these suffer from degrading surfaces and encroaching vegetation. (See figure 2) [C19]

• Various unrecorded paths south of Elm road are overgrown. [C29]

Action 3 The responsible authorities should agree to and uphold a more robust maintenance policy for unpaved pedestrian routes within the town, in order to ensure they remain safe and usable by all.

3.3 Unrecorded Public Open Space

The public can have legal rights to enjoy the use of parcels of land. These rights can arise and be recorded in a number of ways. The principal mechanisms are through the land in question being recorded as a Registered Common or Village Green2, or as Access Land3. Both of the above ensure a legal right of access for pedestrians on foot, and should help prevent development of the land for other purposes. An alternative or complimentary approach is to protect sites through a ‘Deed of Dedication’ with the national charity Fields in Trust.4 Areas recorded as Access Land in and around the town can be seen in figure 3 and figure 18 . Some key public open spaces in Thetford appear not to be officially recorded, meaning that the land could potentially be sold and public rights could be removed in the future. The main sites identified are as follows:

• The land between the river and Cloverfields estate, and various parcels of green space within the estate. (This is mostly owned by Breckland District Council, and was given to the council by the developers as public amenity land.)

• Abbey Meadows. (Owned by Breckland District Council.) • DRAFT Castle Park. (Owned by Thetford Town Council.)

• Ford Meadow. (Owned by Thetford Town Council.)

2https://www.gov.uk/common-land-village-greens 3https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam 4http://www.fieldsintrust.org/

Draft 3 11 May 2018

27 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Basemap rendering © OpenStreetMap, CC BY-SA. Basemap data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL. Access Land polygons © Natural England, OGL3. Forestry Commission Land polygons © Forestry Commission, OGL3. Public Rights of Way © Norfolk County Council & Suffolk County Council, OGL3.

CRoW Access Land Forestry Commission Managed Land Key Unregistered Public Open Space Public Footpath Public Bridleway 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 km Resticted Byway Byway Open to All Traffic

Figure 3: Access rights to amenity land and public open spaces in Thetford. Legal rights exist on Rights of Way and Access Land.

• Lady Gentle Meadow. (Owned by the Lady Gentle Memorial (charity number 276102); of which Thetford Town Council is the sole trustee.)

• Riverside green space in the town centre, including Butten Island, land between the School Lane and Tanner Street (south) car parks, and and the island land south of Bridges Walk. (All owned by Breckland District Council.)

• The recreation ground behind the Leisure Centre. (Owned by Breckland District Council.)

• RedcastleDRAFT plantation. (Owned by Breckland District Council.)

• The recreation ground and public open space south of Elm Road. (Owned by Breckland District Council.)

• Sir Frederick’s Wood on the Woodlands Estate. (Owned by Thetford Town Coun- cil.)

Draft 3 12 May 2018

28 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

These parcels of unregistered public open space are shown in figure 3.

Action 4 Consideration should be given to protecting the access rights to each of the public open space sites listed in section 3.3, either by designation as Access Land, through an agreement with Fields in Trust, or by some other appropriate mechanism.

3.4 Unrecorded Paths

There are two different legal ways in which a pedestrian routes can be recorded and legally protected by the local Highway Authority (Norfolk County Council in the case of Thetford). The Authority can list routes as one of the four classes of Public Rights of Way (Footpath, Bridleway, Restricted Byway and Byway Open to All Traffic) in its Definitive Map and Statement [N4]. The Authority can also list a route as an Adopted Footway or Cycle Track in its List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense. In either case, such a listing guarantees pedestrian (and potentially other) access rights, and creates a duty for the route to be maintained — either by the landowner or by the Highway Authority. During the course of this investigation, it was discovered that a number of both formal and informal pedestrian routes in and around the town are not officially recorded. This can potentially create problems for ensuring access is not restricted and that the routes are properly maintained. The following well-used routes (most of which are across land owned by Breckland Council) do not appear to be recorded:

• The hard-surfaced path from the A134 Brandon Road to Canterbury way next to the sewage pumping station.

• Various paths through Redcastle Plantation

• The track from the south-west corner of Barnham Cross Common to the top of Thetford Heath along the edge of the RAF base.

• The riverside and woodland paths to the east of the Cloverfields estate. Also the paths through the green corridor between the main part of Cloverfields and The Willows estate.

• The path from Tennyson Way to Joe Blunt’s Lane.

• The Minstergate Underpass. • The upperDRAFT hard-surfaced path at the north of Abbey Meadows, forming direct link from the cycle barrier adjacent to the priory to Salisbury Way. Plus a couple of linking paths on the Meadows.

• The hard-surfaced path on Abbey Meadows from FP 1 up to Canterbury Way bridge.

• Other informal paths on Abbey Meadows.

Draft 3 13 May 2018

29 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

• The informal path from the Little Ouse path (Thetford FP 1) to Durham Way recreation ground.

• Station Lane (from Mundford Road to the Railway Station), plus the route over the footbridge and across the station car-park.

• The cut-through path from Tanner Street Car park to King Street.

• The hard-surfaced riverside path from Riverside Walk to the School Lane car park.

• The hard-surfaced paths on Butten Island.

• The track signed as a cycle route from Nunnery Place to Arlington Way.

• Various routes on FC managed land east of Barnham Cross Common that isn’t Access Land.

• The paths south of Elm road linking Barnham Cross Common, the playing area and FC land.

• The new ramp from Canon’s Close Cycleway (3Y17/20) up to London Road.

• The hard-surfaced paths across Castle Park.

• The hard-surfaced riverside path from the end of 3F513 at TL86948301 (the back of the old Argos building) to the School Lane car park at TL87038292 (U30515).

These routes could potentially be recorded by Norfolk County Council either as Public Footpaths on the Definitive Map and Statement, or as Adopted Footways on the List of Streets. The first option can be done voluntarily by a dedication agreement by the landowner. It can also be achieved by a third-party application based on 20 years’ unimpeded use. The second option requires an agreement between the County council and the landowner.

Action 5 The unrecorded paths listed in section 3.4 should be investigated, with a view to each of them being recorded with the most appropriate classification.

Other unrecorded paths also exist on land (such as Commons and Access Land) to which the public already has a right of access on foot. There is less need to ensure that these routes are recorded, as access rights are already guaranteed. However there would be some benefit from doing so in order to ensure a suitable standard of maintenance, and possibly to allow additional cycling and/or equestrian rights. Key routes in this category include:

• On BarnhamDRAFT Cross Common: – The main path through Barnham Cross Common east of the A134, linking Nuns Bridges Road to the A134 opposite Thetford FP 20. – The hard-surfaced path along the northern boundary of Barnham Cross Com- mon, linking Fir Road to Bracken Road.

Draft 3 14 May 2018

30 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

– The path along the western edge of Barnham Cross Common, linking the hard-surfaced path along the northern boundary to Thetford FP 20. – The three paths from Nuns Bridges Road to the Gentle Bridge. • On Butten Island – The hard-surfaced paths from Bridges Walk to and over the tricorn bridge.

3.5 Junction / Crossing Issues

A number of junctions and crossings of major roads create problems for pedestrians in the town.

3.5.1 Mundford Road

A couple of respondents complained about pedestrian crossings on Mundford road at or near the Norwich Road / Hurth Way roundabout [C4,C25]. Fast-moving traffic, three approach lanes, and a lack of indicator use by vehicles make crossing at the roundabout, even with the islands, hazardous. Options should be investigated, and perhaps a crossing point could be provided on Mundford Road somewhere west of the roundabout.

Action 6 Options should be investigated for increasing the safety of pedestrians crossing roads in the vicinity of the London Road / Hurth Way / Mundford Road roundabout.

Also, for pedestrians heading east along Mundford Road from Croxton Road (e.g. Leisure Centre or Train Station to Red Gate or Cloverfields) the large splays at the Churchill road junction make crossing there dangerous. The junction should be remodelled and/or a central island introduced to make it safer. See figure 4. DRAFT

Figure 4: The junction of Churchill Road and Mundford Road. The large splays in the vehicle carriageway make crossing the entrance of Churchill Road dangerous for pedestrians. See section 3.5.1.

Draft 3 15 May 2018

31 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Action 7 Review the safety of the junction of Churchill Way with Mundford road for for pedestrians travelling along Mundford road and needing to cross the mouth of Churchill Way. Consider remodelled the junction to reduce the splays and/or creating a central island in Churchill Way.

3.5.2 Castle Street / Melford Bridge

One respondent [C4] has flagged up the issue that there is poor pedestrian access to the north end of Arlington Way from town. Arlington Way is on the south-west side of Castle Street, but the only footway over the river is on the old bridge on the north-east side. Crossing Castle Street south-east of Melford Bridge is particularly hazardous as the road has started to widen for the roundabout approach, and cars coming off the roundabout from major roads may not respect the urban 30mph speed limit. A footbridge over the river on the south-east side of the road was suggested by [C4], but another (possible more feasible) alternative would be a crossing island on Castle Street between Melford Bridge and Arlington Way.

Action 8 Ensure there is a safe pedestrian route from Arlington Way in to Town along Castle Street. Possible options include a new pedestrian bridge to the south- west of Melford Bridge, or a crossing island between the bridge and Arlington Way.

3.5.3 Brandon Road

It would be useful to have a crossing point (possibly a crossing island) on the A134 Brandon Road just east of the junction with Canterbury Way, where the signed Thetford DRAFT Figure 5: The view north along Castle Street over Melford Bridge from the end of Arlington Way. Pedestrians travelling between the Town Centre and Arlington Way need to cross the road in the foreground, where the only crossing facilities are dropped kerbs. See section 3.5.2.

Draft 3 16 May 2018

32 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Connect route emerges from Redcastle woods. This is a key route between the local centres in the Redcastle Furze and Abbey estates. [E1]

Action 9 Add a crossing point on the the A134 Brandon Road just east of the Canterbury Way roundabout, and include a dropped curb on the southern side of the road.

3.5.4 Hurth Way

Other issues One respondent suggested there were unnecessarily long waits for pedestri- ans on Hurth Way toucan crossing. [C25] Norfolk County Council have provided details of the waiting times for this crossing (site reference Y93123). There should be a max- imum of 36 seconds waiting from pressing the button to being shown a green man to cross. This comprises up to 30 seconds wait with a green light shown to traffic (while traffic is continuously flowing), followed by 3 seconds of amber light shown to traffic, followed by up to 3 seconds of a red light shown to traffic, before the green man is shown to cross. The initial 30 second maximum wait is stopped as soon as the road is clear and at least 7s has elapsed since the lights turned green to traffic. [E4] It is suggested by [C4] that a crossing point on Hurth Way by the bridge over the river Thet would be useful to help complete a riverside path. See also section 3.8.

3.6 Missing Links

While Thetford generally has a good pedestrian network, a few respondents drew out attention to missing links:

• Three respondents commented on the lack of pavement footway on Station Lane (the one that goes through the underpass to Canterbury Way). (See figure 6.) DRAFT

Figure 6: The narrow pavement under the Station Lane railway bridge. Note also the lack of pavement on the far side of the bridge. See section 3.6.

Draft 3 17 May 2018

33 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

There is a reasonably well-kept verge on the western side of this street, which is already used by pedestrians. But it could presumably be improved. There is a pavement though the underpass, but it is very narrow because of the limited space. [C4,C8,C10]

• One respondent requested a pavement be added on Croxton road from Hill House Lane to the Academy. This is an important link. Hopefully it will be addressed as part of the SUE transport improvement measures. [C14]

• Two Respondents raised the issue that there is no pavement over Nuns’ Bridges, and that this is a key route to town from Nunnery Drive. It is not clear what could be done here, apart from closing the route to motorised vehicles. [C25,C31]

Action 10 Investigate possible pedestrian improvements on Nun’s Bridges and the Station Lane underpass.

Action 11 Ensure that pedestrian access is provided along Croxton Road from Hill House Lane to Joe Blunt’s Lane by the Academy.

3.7 Informal Cut-Through Paths

There are a number of informal cut-throughs, which are well-used (as evidenced by the erosion of the ground), but which are not formally recorded or maintained. They would benefit from being recorded, properly surfaced, and possibly with steps or a ramp installed. These include:

• The informal path that links the Grenville Way side of the Mundford Road under- pass to Mundford road. This would benefit from the installation of steps. [C4] (See figure 7a.)

• The cut-through path from the Harwood Avenue spur to the roundabout at the junction of Norwich Road and Mallow Road. This would benefit from being prop- erly surfaced, being levelled and having a more visible waiting area provided on the north side of Norwich Road. Dropped kerbs could also be provided on both sides of Norwich Road and on the island between the roundabout flares. See figure 7b.

• The cut-through path from the Harriet Martineau Close play area to Croxton Road (opposite Joe Blunt’s Lane). This would benefit from a better surface, something to address the slope down to the road, and a level and more visible waiting area at the roadside.DRAFT See figure 7c. • One of more of the three paths from Hurth Way to the Cloverfields estate. These join one each with Teasel Drive, Speedwell Close and Sorrel Drive. The northern most path to Teasel Drive is the most eroded, and should be considered the highest priority in terms of desire lines. In all cases there is a steep descent from Hurth Way, which would require steps or (preferably) a ramp. See figure 8.

Draft 3 18 May 2018

34 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

(c) DRAFT Figure 7: Cut-through paths that would benefit from improvements. (a) Grenville Way underpass up to Mundford Road. (b) Harwood Avenue to Norwich Road, opposite the Mallow Road roundabout. (c) Harriet Martineau Close to Croxton Road, opposite Joe Blunt’s Lane. See section 3.7.

Draft 3 19 May 2018

35 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

Figure 8: Two of the cut-through paths from Hurth Way to the Cloverfields Estate. (a) The path to Teasel Drive. (b) The path to Speedwell Close. See section 3.7.

Action 12 Formalise the well-used cut-through paths listed in section 3.7, by mak- ing surface and access improvements to them.

3.8 Riverside Route Through the Town

The Thetford Green Infrastructure Study [L2] promoted making more of the river corridor in Thetford over 10 years ago, and this is also likely to be a key part of the more recent Waterspace Study [L7] which is due to be published soon. One respondent also promoted completing thisDRAFT route. [C4] Consideration of the river valley outside the town can be found in section 5.1 (pedestrian access to Brandon) section 5.3 (pedestrian access to Brettenham) and section 6.1 (cycle link to High Lodge). Through the town, the route is mostly complete, except for a few missing links.

Draft 3 20 May 2018

36 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

(c) DRAFT Figure 9: Barriers to the riverside route near Hurth Way and Castle Street. (a) The informal cut-through at at TL88018305. (b) The overgrown and impassible Pubic Foot- path Thetford FP 9, between Hurth Way and Castle Street to the north of the river. (c) The current steps at the start of the permissive path through the BTO Reserve. See section 3.8.

Draft 3 21 May 2018

37 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

• Provide a footbridge over the drain at TL88588332 to link the riverside paths between the two parts of the open space between the Cloverfields estate and the river. (There is a reference to the developer providing a footbridge over a drain in the planning documents for the estate, but it is unclear if this was the intended location. No footbridge exists today but perhaps it referred to another location and a culvert was provided instead.) • Formalise and improve the cut-through path linking the riverside route to Hurth Way at TL88018305 immediately north of the road bridge. (See figure 9a.) • Provide a crossing point on Hurth way near TL88018305. See section 3.5.4. • Reinstate and maintain the Public Footpath Thetford FP 9, which runs on the north bank of the river between Hurth Way and Castle Street. (See figure 9b) • Provide a better crossing point on Castle Street to access Arlington Way. See section 3.5.2. • Provide step-free access to the permissive path through the BTO land near the entrance to Arlington Way. While there would be plenty of space to do this, with a drop in height of around 2m, the length of slope needed would be 40–50m. While there is adequate space along the line of the existing path, significant earthworks would be required.

Action 13 Investigate the feasibility of providing the missing links in the river- side path between Thetford Garden Centre and Arlington Way, as described in section 3.8.

3.9 Accessibility Issues

While many of the issues recorded above will particularly affect those with mobility issues and those who need to use mobility aids, there are a number of specific defects that create barriers for such users.

3.9.1 Railway footbridges

There are three railway footbridges in Thetford, none of which could be deemed fully accessible. The footbridge at the Railway Station comprises only steps. The tread depth is narrow and the treads are uneven in places. (See figure 10.) There is no reasonable accessible alternative. Even as sets of steps, they almost certainly do not comply with modern building regulationsDRAFT [N2]. The footbridge between Gloucester Way and Brunel Way (adjacent to Jayes) has a number of wide steps on both sides, making access to wheelchair users difficult. This is a shame, since there is adequate space on both sides for proper ramped access. The footbridge over the railway line between the Woodlands and Admirals estates com- prises steep ramps on both sides (see figure 11). The gradient of the ramps is around

Draft 3 22 May 2018

38 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

(c) DRAFT

Figure 10: The footbridge over the railway line at Thetford Station. (a) The bridge viewed from the Station car park. (b) and (c) Close-ups showing the uneven steps. See section 3.9.1.

Draft 3 23 May 2018

39 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Figure 11: The railway footbridge between the Admirals and Woodlands estates. The ramped sections are each over 14m long, with a gradient of around 1:6. See section 3.1 and section 3.9.1.

1:6, and the lengths are roughly 17m on the lower sections and 14m on the upper sec- tions. These ramps are far below the disability standards in the current UK Building Regulations [N2], which have a recommended gradient of 1:20 for lengths no more than 10m between level landings, or a maximum gradient of 1:12 over shorter lengths of up to 2m.

Action 14 Investigate possible accessibility improvements to the three railway foot- bridges in Thetford.

3.9.2 Dropped Kerbs

While none of the respondents specifically mentioned problems with a lack of dropped kerbs in the town, such issues have been mentioned informally to Sub-Group members from time to time. There are certainly some locations within the town where access along desire lines is blacked by kerbs. This has not been investigated further for this report, but we would recommend that a town-wide survey is done and disability groups contacted to determine the scale of the problems people encounter.

Action 15 Arrange for a town-wide survey for the presence of dropped kerbs along desire lines,DRAFT and contact disability groups for their input.

Draft 3 24 May 2018

40 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

4 Routes within the Town for Cyclists

Thetford already has a reasonable signed network of local cycle routes under the ‘Thet- ford Connect’ banner (see figure 12). However, there are a number of missing links and a distinct lack of routes along (or parallel to) the major radial roads, which are also key desire lines for travel, particularly for commuting. [C3]

4.1 Major Roads

The town has a number of major roads radiating outwards in different directions. These are typically busy with speed limits over 30mph, making them generally unsuitable for cycling [E3]. One respondent suggested lowering speed limits to 30mph [C25], but a better solution might be the provision of more dedicated cycling infrastructure. The different roads are dealt with in turn in the sub-sections below.

250 0 250 500 750 1000 m

Key On-Road Routes Off-Road Routes Basemap rendering © OpenStreetMap, CC BY-SA. Basemap data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL.

Figure 12: Signed on-road and off-road cycle routes in Thetford. Most of these routes are signed as partDRAFT of the ‘Thetford Connect’ network. Several gaps and missing links are evident. See section 4.

Draft 3 25 May 2018

41 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

4.1.1 London Road

A number of respondents [C4,C8,C11,C21] highlighted the need for a new cycleway alongside London Road between the Sainsbury’s roundabout and the end of the existing route at Jubilee Close. The route was also included as part of one of the Thetford Loops cycle routes in the Thetford Area Action Plan [L6], and is listed in [E1]. There are detailed plans and costings in [L5], although the precise route shown there may not be optimal as it involves more side-road crossings. A better route would be to cross London Road at a new crossing sited between the south-west entrance to Burrell Way and the main entrance to the Retail park. This route should be considered a priority as the road is too dangerous for cycling (heavy use, high speeds, and pinch-points created by the frequent crossing islands) and Traffic data? yet provides the only direct access from town to large employment and retail areas. It also provides access to the A11 cycleway to Elveden — which embarrassingly ends with a “Cyclists Dismount” sign at the entrance to Thetford. The most difficult part of this route to realise is the part adjacent to the the former Tulip Viking site south-west of Caxton Way, because of a lack of space at the side of the carriageway. However, planning permission was granted in January 2018 for a retail development on this site (3PL/2017/0949/F), which includes the provision of this part of the cycleway. Unfortunately, the lack of firm plans for the rest of the route prevented Norfolk Highways from insisting that the developer provide a complete link with existing route from the Town Centre.

Action 16 Ensure that a high-quality cycleway is provided alongside London Road to link the existing routes at Jubilee Close and the Sainsbury’s roundabout.

Respondents also raised issues with the existing cycleway between Newtown and Jubilee Close:

• One respondent reported overhanging foliage narrowing the existing track. [C8] This issue was also reported to Norfolk County Council via FixMyStreet in July 2017,5 but as of February 2018 no action had been taken. See figure 13.

• Another respondent said that the existing section is narrow and often obstructed by pedestrians. [C11]

• A third respondent suggested that the exit of the cycleway at St Martin’s way was dangerous. [C18]

Action 17 DRAFTEncroaching vegetation should be cut back and the paved surface cleared in order to reinstate the full width of the cycleway alongside London Road between Newtown and Jubilee Close.

5https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/1072212

Draft 3 26 May 2018

42 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Figure 13: The segregated cycleway alongside London Road, between Icknield Way and St martin’s Way, taken in February 2018. The part between the white lines is the footway; the part to the right of the central white line is the cycleway. The surfaced cycleway is at least as wide as the footway, but the width is restricted by encroaching vegetation, forcing cyclists into conflict with pedestrians using the footway half. See ??.

4.1.2 Croxton Road

Croxton Road runs from the Leisure Centre northwards to the A11 and then on to Croxton. It forms part of National Cycle Network routes 13 and 30. It has a 30mph speed limit for most of it’s length south of the A11, but is still relatively busy. It’s use Traffic data? by motor vehicles will only increase when the SUE is built. Many respondents [C4,C7,C18,C20,C26,C28] called for a cycleway or improved cycling provision here, and it also appears in [E1]. An inspection of the road suggests it would be possible to provide space for a continuous cycleway along the western side of the road. This could be segregated from a pedestrian route for most of its length, with a few short shared-use sections where space is tight.

Action 18 Ensure that a continuous cycleway is constructed along Croxton Road from Mundford Road to past the A11 junction as part of the SUE transport miti- gation measures.

4.1.3 Norwich Road

The A1075 Norwich Road runs from the Hurth Way roundabout past the junction with Kilverstone RoadDRAFT (for Tesco) and out to the A11. It is a busy road with a 40mph speed limit, and is too dangerous for most cyclists. Traffic data? Safer parallel routes exist though the Norwich Road (Admirals) and Cloverfields estates, though these may not be convenient for all users. Two respondents [C4,C16] asked for a cycleway linking the Churchill Road junction to Tesco. A third [C21] wanted a cycle way all the way along Norwich Road.

Draft 3 27 May 2018

43 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

4.1.4 Mundford Road

The A1066 Mundford Road runs from the Norwich Road / Hurth Way roundabout westwards, past the Leisure Centre, past the Fison Way and Brunel Way industrial estates and out to the A11. It is a busy road with a 40mph speed limit, and is too dangerous for most cyclists. Thetford Connect cycle routes provide alternative access to the industrial areas from the Abbey and Ladies estates. There is a notable gap in the Thetford Connect network between Brunel Way and Fison Way that could do with being filled (see section 4.4). A few respondents requested cycleways over longer stretches of Mundford Road. Two [C8,C10] requested one from Wyatt Way to Croxton road, and one [C4] from Croxton Road to Churchill Road.

Action 19 Investigate the provision of protected cycle routes alongside various stretches of Mundford Road, between the Hurth Way roundabout and the industrial estates.

4.2 Problematic Road Junctions

4.2.1 Old Croxton Road / Norwich Road

Both [C26] and [E1] raise the issue that the junction/crossing layout at the Old Croxton Road / Norwich Road junction is awkward for cyclists heading south from Old Croxton Road to Whitehart Street. The paint on Old Croxton Road that should provide a a right turn cycle filter is faded, and parked cars often restrict the width at the junction. See figure 14. This is a key route into town, and part of National Cycle Network routes 13 and 30. Thus the junction should be improved.

Action 20 Review road markings at the Old Croxton Road / Norwich Road junc- tion, with a view to reinstating the right-turn filter for south-bound cyclists, and placing parking restrictions from the junction slightly further up Old Croxton Road.

4.2.2 Croxton Road / Mundford Road

Both [C26] and [E1] raise the issue that the junction/crossing layout at the Croxton Road / Mundford Road junction is awkward for cyclists heading south from Croxton Road to Old Croxton Road. The crossing island on Mundford Road lies to the west of the junction, so cyclists need to make a dangerous right turn across Croxton road, immediately beforeDRAFT the junction. This is a key route into town, and part of National Cycle Network routes 13 and 30. Thus the junction should be improved. Also, for cyclists heading north, the cycle path forces cyclists back on to Croxton road, just at the point where the road narrows, bringing them into immediate conflict with motor traffic on the road. (See figure 15b.) A better merging configuration should be provided here, or the off-road cycle path extended further north (see section 4.1.2.)

Draft 3 28 May 2018

44 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

Figure 14: The junction of Old Croxton Road and Norwich Road. (a) View looking south out onto Norwich Road, with the painted right-turn cycle filter for cyclists barely visible. (b) View looking north up Old Croxton Road, showing parked cars obstructing the safe joining of cyclists heading north from the shared-use pavement in the foreground. See section 4.2.1.

Action 21 Review road markings and alignment at the Croxton Road / Mundford Road junction, with a view to providing right-turn cycle filter space before the crossing island for south-bound cyclists, and better merging onto Croxton road for north-bound cyclists.

4.2.3 KilverstoneDRAFT Road / Norwich Road / Joe Blunt’s Lane The junction between Kilverstone Road and the A1075 Norwich Road is particularly bad for cyclists, and currently has no dedicated cycle facilities. Routes for cyclists going to and from the cycle route along Joe Blunt’s Lane also needs to be considered here. [E1] It is expected that this junction will be upgraded in some way as part of the SUE transport

Draft 3 29 May 2018

45 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

Figure 15: The junction of Croxton Road and Mundford Road. (a) View looking south towards the junction with Mundford Road. South-bound cyclists need to make a dangerous right turn onto the shared-use pavement just before the junction. (b) View looking north from the junction along Croxton Road. North-bound cyclists are brought into conflict with motor traffic when merging back onto Croxton Road, right at the point where the carriageway narrows. See section 4.2.2. mitigation works. Consideration should be given at this time to making improvements for cyclists, and ensuring that key routes in the new SUE development can be linked safely to the rest of town.

Action 22 Ensure the needs of cyclists are fully taken into account when improve- ments to theDRAFT Kilverstone Road / Norwich Road junction are considered as part of the SUE transport mitigation work.

Draft 3 30 May 2018

46 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

4.2.4 St Helens Way to Anne Bartholomew Road Cycle Path

A Thetford Connect signed cycleway (3Y16) runs from Saint Helens Way to Anne Bartholomew Road. As noted by [E1] a dropped curb is needed at Saint Helens Way to allow cyclists to safely enter and join the route. A dropped curb is also missing at the Anne Bartholomew Road end, but here the cycleway crosses the road, so a raised table in the road might be more appropriate.

Action 23 Provide safe access and egress to and from cycleway 3Y16 at Saint Helens Way and Anne Bartholomew Road, by installing dropped kerbs or raised tables.

4.2.5 King Street / Well Street / Market Place

National Cycle Network routes 13 and 30 run up Castle Street and then proceeds down King Street (where bikes must be wheeled). As noted by [E1], negotiating the round- about at the marketplace in this west-bound direction is problematic. The Well Street exit is no entry, so cyclists need to dismount on the roundabout. One possible mitigation would be to create a short contraflow cycle lane within the highway boundary on the build-out south of Well Street. This would allow cyclists space to dismount safely off the roundabout.

Action 24 Investigate possible improvements for west-bound cyclists on National Cycle Network routes 13 and 30 at the Market Place roundabout.

4.3 Existing Off-Road Routes

4.3.1 Green Lane

Green Lane runs along a thin green corridor (much of which is designated as a Street- Side Nature Reserve) through the Cloverfields estate, from Hurth Way to Kilverstone Road. The route provides an important traffic-free connection through the estate. It is part of National Cycle Network Routes 13 and 30, and also the Peddars Way Cycle route. Green Lane is unlit, and the surface is compacted but unsealed. Leaf mulch and soil is spoiling the surface, and undergrowth is encroaching from the sides and restricting the width. See figure 16. Many respondents [C8,C10,C12,C17,C19] complained about the poor surface and en- croached width on this route. These problems are also highlighted by [E1]. Noting the route’s designationsDRAFT as a National Cycle Network and Norfolk Trail Cycle Route, the route should be maintained to a suitable standard, including a decent surface and sufficient width to allow two cyclists to comfortably pass. The encroaching vegetation needs cutting back more regularly, and surface improvement works are needed to remove mud and avoid flooding, and to restore the full width of the route.

Draft 3 31 May 2018

47 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

(c) DRAFT Figure 16: Issues with Green Lane on the Cloverfields Estate. (a) Stinging nettles in July 2017, making it hard for even a single cyclist to use the route, let alone pass anyone. (b) Muddy and narrowed surface in December 2017. (c) Surface deterioration and puddles in February 2018. See section 4.3.1.

Draft 3 32 May 2018

48 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Action 25 Surface improvement works should be carried out on Green Lane to restore the surface and reinstate the full width of the route. More regular cutting of the verges is needed to prevent encroaching vegetation.

One respondent [C28] and [E1] would also like to see improved lighting to allow more use in winter. Action 26 Investigate the possibility of installing low-level lighting along Green Lane, at least on the southern-most section between Hurth Way and Mallow Road.

4.3.2 Joe Blunt’s Lane

This ancient track mostly follows the boundary of Thetford Parish, and runs between Norwich Road and Croxton Road. It is recorded as Public Footpath (Croxton FP 1). The land-owners (Kilverstone Estate) have also designated it as a Permissive Bridleway (allowing both horse-riding and cycling). The route is also signed as a cycle route from its southern end. The route is narrow in places, particularly on the western section where it is restricted by encroaching vegetation. On the eastern section the route is wider, but can be muddy underfoot after rain. (See figure 17a,b.) Several respondents asked for improvements to the lane [C4,C8,C19] including making the surface better for cycling and the cutting back encroaching vegetation to improve the width. As a longer-term solution, it would probably be better to look to provide a parallel hard-surfaced cycle route to the north of the current lane. This would provide a better facility for cyclists, avoid conflict with pedestrian users, and allow the original lane to retain its rural character. Such a route could be an extension of the existing section of hard-surfaced path installed as an access to the Skate Park. (See figure 17c.)

Action 27 Ensure that proper cycling provision is made along the Joe Blunt’s Lane corridor within the planning process for the Thetford Sustainable Urban Expansion. The preferred solution is a parallel hard-surfaced cycle track, to better accommodate cycling, while maintaining the character of the original Lane.

4.4 Missing Links

A few missing links were discovered during the investigation:

• A contraflow cycle lane would be useful on Staniforth Road to provide more access to and from the Charles Burrell Centre without large detours. [C4] This would be worth investigatingDRAFT further, though it is unclear how feasible this would be given the road width and prevalence of road-side parking. • A cycleway is needed to link the Maine Street and Coney Close residential areas to the Thetford Connect cycle network, in order to provide a safe cycle route in to town. The most obvious route would be a shared-use cycleway on the south side of Brandon road from Maine Street at least as far as Redcastle Road. [E1]

Draft 3 33 May 2018

49 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(a)

(b)

(c) DRAFT

Figure 17: Joe Blunt’s Lane. (a),(b) The rural lane, pictured in February 2018, which is narrow and muddy in places. (c) The short section of parallel cycleway near the skate park. See section 4.3.2.

Draft 3 34 May 2018

50 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

• A cycleway link from Green Lane to Arlington Way would be useful to connect up the north-east end of Arlington Way to the Thetford Connect network. [E1] The southern section of Castle Street is a little on the busy/fast side for comfortable cycling. Options would include a shared-use cycleway parallel to Castle street or a new cycle track following the eastern boundary of Melford Common.

• A short section of cycleway is needed on Mundford Road to fill a gap in the Thetford Connect network between between Brunel Way and Fison Way [E1].

Action 28 Investigate the feasibility of providing the missing cycle links described in section 4.4.

DRAFT

Draft 3 35 May 2018

51 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

5 Connectivity outside the Town for Pedestrians

Within walking (or running) distance of Thetford, there are large areas of forest that residents can enjoy. There are also a number of smaller settlements whose residents might welcome safer routes into the town. However, safe and pleasant pedestrian routes do not exist in all directions. See figure 18.

5.1 North-West along the Little Ouse Valley to High Lodge, Thetford Forest, and Brandon

Making the most of the river valley asset has been a theme in a number of previous studies: [L2] [L6] and [L7]. Respondents [C4](n–p) and [C20] raised this, and aspects are included in [E1]. The existing Little Ouse path runs along the river valley from Thetford to Brandon. Parts nearer Brandon have recently been improved as part of the ‘Breaking New Ground’

Legend Forestry Commission Managed Land Public Footpath Resticted Byway CRoW Access Land Public Bridleway Byway Open to All Traffic

Basemap rendering © OpenStreetMap, CC BY-SA. Basemap data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL. Access Land polygons © Natural England, OGL3. Forestry Commission Land polygons © Forestry Commission, OGL3. Public Rights of Way © 1 0 1 2 3 4 km Norfolk CountyDRAFT Council & Suffolk County Council, OGL3.

Figure 18: Access to the countryside around Thetford. Legal rights exist on Rights of Way and Access Land. Permissive access is available on a lot of Forestry Commission managed land. Observe the gaps in access to the east and south-each of the town.

Draft 3 36 May 2018

52 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport project6 funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. The path itself is in a reasonable state for walking, but would benefit from some further improvements to widen the path and move it away from the riverbank between Thetford and Middle Stanch (Abbey Heath weir). An official signed walking link to High Lodge would also be good, though this would likely to be of greater benefit to cyclists (see section 6.1). Better access to the forest from the Sainsbury’s roundabout would also be useful, but this would require a safe crossing of the A11. It is regrettable that such a crossing was not incorporated into the dualling work, despite it being specified in [L6]. Perhaps it could be provided as part of the transport upgrades arising from the SUE.

Action 29 Ensure better pedestrian access to the Forest is provided as part of any upgrades to the A11 Sainsbury’s roundabout.

5.2 North to Croxton

The village of Croxton lies only a couple of miles from Thetford town centre, but the lack of a pavement along Croxton Road and no other direct footpaths makes the journey unpleasant and potentially dangerous. One respondent [C9] specifically tells of how he feels unable to use the road any more following a number of near misses with traffic. With the development of the SUE, Croxton village will come even closer to Thetford, so improved pedestrian access should be given serious consideration. There is a reasonably wide verge on the west side of the road for much of its length, which could potentially accommodate a dedicated footway. Together with Croxton FP 3, Thetford FP 4 and the Little Ouse Path, such a path would enable a circular route via Thetford Rugby Club, which might be popular with joggers and would allow better access to the public ‘Trim Trail’ at the Rugby Club.7

Action 30 Investigate the possibility of providing a pedestrian footway between Thetford and Brandon along Croxton Road.

5.3 East to Kilverstone, Brettenham and the Peddars Way

The only public access in this direction is Brettenham Road / Kilverstone Road, which runs along the valley of the River Thet to East Harling. The road is too busy to be safe for walking, and lacks suitable verges for much of its length. In any case, a road side footpath for such a length would not be attractive to walkers. [L2] proposes a new river valley route, which could be investigated further, but would need cooperation from land-owners,DRAFT so might be difficult to achieve. Such a “pathway along the River Thet” is also explicitly supported by the submitted draft Neighbourhood Plan parish [L11]. A potentially more feasible (though less direct) off-road option would be to create a route to link the SUE to the Access Land at Brettenham Heath running parallel to and

6http://www.breakingnewground.org.uk/ 7https://www.breckland.gov.uk/article/5793

Draft 3 37 May 2018

53 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport to the south of the A11. The Peddars way could then be accessed from Brettenham Heath.

Action 31 Investigate the possibility of a new pedestrian (and possibly cycle) link with Brettenham and the Peddars Way; either along the River Thet valley or over land immediately to the south of the A11.

Given the proximity to Thetford, a pedestrian link from Kilverstone to Thetford should be provided, whether beside the road or through the Kilverstone Estate. This would provide Kilverstone residents with safer access to the amenities of Thetford by foot.

Action 32 Investigate the creation of a safe pedestrian route from Kilverstone village to Thetford.

5.4 South-East to Rushford, Knettishall Heath and the Peddars Way

The Angles Way long-distance path8 provides a signed walking route from Thetford to Great Yarmouth, via Knettishall Heath and the Peddars Way. Unfortunately a lack of public rights of way in the area means that the Thetford to Knettishall section is not very direct (14 miles, as opposed to 6 miles by road).

5.5 South-West to Elveden

Paved footpaths exist all the way from Thetford town centre along London Road, parallel to the A11, and along the C633 into Elveden. At the Thetford end a more pleasant alternative exists via Barnham Cross Common and land managed by the Forestry Com- mission, although not all of this route is officially recorded as a Right of Way. See section 3.4.

5.6 South to Barnham and Euston

The absence of public rights of way and the lack of footways alongside the busy A134 and A1088 preclude pedestrian access in these directions. One possible solution to provide better access to Barnham would be to make use of the old railway line to create a shared cycleway andDRAFT footpath. See section 6.7.

8https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/out-and-about-in-norfolk/norfolk-trails/long-distance-trails/angles- way

Draft 3 38 May 2018

54 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

6 Connectivity outside the Town for Cyclists

Thetford is situated within the Brecks countryside9 adjacent to the large Forestry Com- mission managed area of Thetford Forest10. There is a good network of quiet country roads and off-road forest cycle paths nearby for recreational users to enjoy. However, in the immediate vicinity of Thetford, the railway, the rivers, the A11 and other major roads form barriers to cycling, making access to desirable routes by bicycle more difficult. Signed cycle routes through and near to Thetford include:

• National Cycle Network routes 13 and 30, managed by Sustrans.

• Thetford/Brandon Cycle Loop and the Peddars Way Cycle Route, managed by Norfolk Trails.

• Off-road forest cycle trails managed by the Forestry Commission and Brandon Country Park.

• The Icknield Way Cycle Route.

These routes are shown in figure 19.

6.1 North-West to High Lodge, Thetford Forest, and Brandon

With its cycle routes and other leisure facilities the High Lodge centre in Thetford Forest11 is an important destination for Thetford residents. Walking routes from the Town to High lodge are too far for general site use, and on-site parking (2016/17 rates: $11.50 for 5 hours or more, or $58 for an annual pass) is a significant expensive for many residents. The site would be within easy cycling distance (roughly 10km) if a suitable route was available. Possible routes are limited by the railway and needing to cross the A11 and the Little Ouse. Current officially available routes involve either a long detour (via Croxton or Elveden) or negotiating the A11/A134 roundabout and then following the B1107 (which would be too dangerous for most cyclists [C21]). However, there is a possible alternative that would involve following the riverside path to the Middle Stanch (Thetford Heath) bridge and then cutting through the forest on existing tracks. Cycling in not officially permitted on much of this route, although there is evidence from tire tracks that it is used by cyclists. The importance of developing such a route has been emphasised in a number of previous studies, including the Thetford Green Infrastructure Study [L2], the Thetford Loops report [L5] and the Thetford Area Action Plan [L6]. Improving the existing paths along the way for cyclingDRAFT was mentioned by several respondents in the public feedback for this study [C4,C25,C28,C31].

9http://www.brecks.org/ 10https://www.forestry.gov.uk/thetfordforestpark 11https://www.forestry.gov.uk/highlodge

Draft 3 39 May 2018

55 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

2 0 2 4 6 8 10 km

Key National Cycle Network Route 13 National Cycle Network Route 30 Peddars Way Cycle Route Icknield Way Cycle Route Thetford Cycle Loop Basemap rendering © OpenStreetMap, CC BY-SA. Off-Road Forest Trails Basemap data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL.

Figure 19: Local signed cycle routes in the vicinity of Thetford. See section 6.

Full details of a proposed route and the work needed to bring it to fruition can be found in [L8].

Action 33 Work to develop the cycle route between Thetford and High Lodge, as described in [L8].

6.2 North to Croxton

The route north to Croxton along Croxton Road follows National Cycle Network Route 13 and 30. Apart from the issues in town south of the A11 (see 4.1.2), this is a useful route along aDRAFT relatively quiet road.

6.3 North-East to East Wretham Heath and Great Hockham Woods

Destinations in this direction lie along the A1075, which would be considered too dan- gerous a road for most to cycle on. Even for those who would, the section inside the Traffic data?

Draft 3 40 May 2018

56 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

A11 and the A11 roundabout would still be significant barriers [C21]. An option suggested by a respondent [C4](r) would be to create a new cycling and walking route along the existing track alongside the railway line that runs from Joe Blunt’s Lane, under the A11, to the A1075 level crossing. This would allow users to bypass the worst sections of the A1075 and the A11 roundabout. A further link from this track into Forestry Commission managed land to the north-west would allow the creation of a completely off-road link to East Wretham Heath and Harling Drove Road. From here, existing off-road tracks and quiet roads allow access to Great Hockham Woods. Action 34 Investigate the creation of a new off-road cycle route following the existing track alongside the railway from Joe Blunt’s lane, under the A11, to the A1075 level crossing, with a link into Forestry Commission land to the north-west.

Action 35 Ensure that the SUE includes a cycle route running north-east from Joe Blunt’s lane to the farm track underpass of the A11 adjacent to the Railway.

6.4 East to Kilverstone, Brettenham and the Peddars Way

The route east along Kilverstone Road follows National Cycle Network Route 13 and 30, and also the Peddars Way Cycle Route as far as Bridgham. This is a useful route along a relatively quiet road, although some users are put off by the traffic [C25].

6.5 South-East to Rushford and Knettishall Heath

These destinations lie along and near the busy A1066, which is too dangerous for cycling. The lack of other parallel roads from Thetford, makes journey in this direction difficult. Currently the best access via minor roads from Euston (see section 6.7) or from Bridgham through West Harling Woods. Both involve considerable additional distance. A dedicated cycle route to Knettishall Heath was suggested by a respondent [C4](w) and is mentioned in the Thetford Green Infrastructure Study [L2]. A cycle route all the way along the A1066 or Little Ouse valley would probably be prohibitively expensive, but a shorter link alongside the A1066 from Nursery Lane in Rushford to West Harling Road (as suggested by [E2]) would provide significant benefits and a much shorter route to Knettishall Heath. Action 36 Investigate the possibility of adding a short cycle track alongside the A1066, fromDRAFT Nursery Lane in Rushford to West Harling Road. 6.6 South-West to Elveden

Once out of Thetford, there is an excellently surfaced cycle path alongside the newly dualled A11 linking the Sainsbury’s roundabout with the old A11. A shared-use pave- ment continues to the C633 junction. Thereafter the road is quiet enough to allow for comfortable on-road cycling into Elveden village.

Draft 3 41 May 2018

57 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

The main problem with this route is at the Thetford end, where there is not cycling provision along London Road (see section 4.1.1). At the Elveden end, it is a great shame that there is not a continuation of the route to the Elveden Memorial (where off-road Bridleways provide further connections) and also a link into the forest to the north along the B1106. For the former, it is unclear why the service road provided by Highways England for the Elveden Estate running parallel to to the A11 was not opened up for public use. For the latter, a shared-use cycle path along the B1106 to cross the A11 and link with forest tracks near Centre Parcs would be most useful. Such a route would also allow tourists at Centre Parcs safer access to Thetford by bicycle.

Action 37 Lobby for the private Elveden Estate road from Elveden village to the Elveden Memorial to be opened for public walking and cycling use.

Action 38 Investigate the provision of a shared-use cycle path alongside the B1106 from the Elveden cross-roads to link with Centre Parcs and forest tracks further north.

6.7 South to Barnham and Euston

The only direct routes south from Thetford to the villages of Barnham and Euston are the A134 and A1088, which are both too busy for most cyclists to consider suitable. Two alternative routes are possible, but both involve significant detours and still have issues. First an off-road route involves cycling along the western side of Barnham Cross Com- mon, then heading west along the top of RAF Honington Barnham Camp, and then south along the western edge of Thetford Heath to the C633. The C633 can then be followed to Barnham. This route is a little rough, and the western leg is not officially recorded as a right of way. Secondly a smooth-surfaced route involves taking the cycle path towards Elveden and then heading east on the C633 to Barnham. The route is longer, and the lack of a cycle path in Thetford alongside the London Road (see section 4.1.1) makes this problematic. An alternative, suggested by a number of sources ([C4](y), [E2] and [L2](project 5)), would be to create a new Cycleway along the old railway line from Thetford to Bury St Edmunds, starting at the south end of Arlington Way and proceeding south to the C633 at Barnham. Once here, minor roads and a good Byway and Bridleway network provide many options for onward travel. The first part of this route is already good- surfaced track following the edge of the BTO reserve. (See figure 20.) Further south, the bridge overDRAFT the river is believed to be missing, and the sections beyond there would need reinstating.

Action 39 Investigate the use of the old railway corridor to create a new cycling and walking route from the south end of Arlington Way to the C633 at Barnham.

Draft 3 42 May 2018

58 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

Figure 20: The private track that runs along the line of the former Thetford to Bury St Edmunds Railway, following the eastern boundary of the BTO reserve. See section 6.7. DRAFT

Draft 3 43 May 2018

59 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

7 Other Miscellaneous Comments

A few other comments were received in the public call that do not fit into any of the main sections of the report:

• [C1] questioned whether the short sections of cycle path at the top of Whitehart Street continue along Norwich Road to Earls Street. They currently do not. The cycle paths there just provide short links between Whitehart Street and Norwich Road.

• [C8](2) asked for better cycle links to the Railway Station and the Healthy Living Centre from the Abbey Estate, perhaps by signing the route from Abbey Meadows up through Monksgate.

• [C22] made general comments about the dangers of cycling on roads, and advo- cated a change in the law to allow considerate cycling on pavements.

• [C23] raised various issues with the subways in the town.

• [C23] asked for better maps showing all paths and cut-throughs and better signing of routes. One possibility here is a website called OpenStreetMap, which is crowd- sourced project to map the entire world (a bit like Wikipedia but for maps). It provides a pretty good map of Thetford, including many paths missing from other maps: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.4110/0.7560.

• [C24] made general comments about littering etc on Little Ouse path to Abbey Heath weir.

• [C32] commented that the cycling restrictions in town centre were not well en- forced. The new Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) covering Thetford Town Centre12 may make enforcement easier. DRAFT

12https://www.breckland.gov.uk/pspothetford

Draft 3 44 May 2018

60 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

C Public Comments in Response to the Call for Feedback

An open call for feedback on cycling and walking routes in and around Thetford was launched at the Community Sub-Group meeting on 19th July 2017, and responses were collected until 8th September 2017. A total of 28 online and 4 hand-written responses were received, which are reproduced below.

C1 Confused and unclear cycle signs on Norwich Road near Thomas Paine hotel. Am I allowed on my bike on the Norwich Road path towards Earl Street?

C2 In Thetford town centre near Boots chemist how safe is the raised pavement as there are no signs that the path is raised

C3 Thetford has so much scope, to have some of the best cycling routes in the country, I include off and on road on that. Commuting routes through town are appalling to non existent. I love cycling and am quite passionate about the sport /hobby I love, and would love to see it thrive, if I can help further please get in touch.

C4 Proposed Footway/Cycleway improvements

(a) Cycle path alongside Croxton Road from junction with Mundford Road to Thetford Academy and beyond to Croxton. (b) Creation of steps up embankment alongside railings to underpass linking Grenville Way to Glebe Close. Currently heavily used shortcut and eroding away. (c) Creation of shared cycleway/footpath along Mundford Road from junction of Churchill Road to Croxton Road junction by moving barrier further from kerb. (d) Creation of footpath along road linking Canterbury Way to Mundford Road (e) Creation of footway/cycleway tunnel under railway at Canterbury Way junc- tion with link road above. (f) Creation of wider footpath/cycleway at edge of Recreation Ground linking Mundford Road to Brickfields Way. (g) Improvement to footway crossings at Mundford Road/ Norwich Road round- about (h) Upgrade surface of path alongside River Thet linking Thetford Garden Centre to Hurth Way (Currently path not standardised and stops short of Hurth Way although regularly used (i) Provision of crossing point at Hurth Way linking River Thet path to north sideDRAFT of River Thet. (Ideally raise Hurth Way road bridge to create underpass footpath by river!) (j) Upgrade existing overgrown footpath between Hurth Way and Melford Com- mon on north side of River Thet. (k) Provide graded entrance to the River Thet path negating need to cross Ar- lington Way twice to reach accessible path entrance.

Draft 3 45 May 2018

61 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

(l) Provide footbridge over River Thet on SW side of modern Melford Bridge road crossing, allowing those coming from Castle Street to join Arlington Way/River Thet path without crossing Castle Street twice and on bad bend. (m) Join tarmaced footpath running from Minstergate underpass to small bridge over ditch to the Blaydon Bridge. This existing path needs improved surface as is heavily used and needs smoother join with Blaydon Bridge. (n) Improve path/cycle way along Little Ouse Path to Abbey Heath weir. (o) Improve access to Abbey Heath weir Bridge. (p) Improve cycle path from Abbey Heath weir to existing forest ride which meets B1107 at bottom of dip. Also improve cycle access from bottom of dip on B1107 to existing High Lodge forest trail. (q) Improve Joe Blunts Lane surface to encourage cycle use. (r) Create cycle/footway alongside railway from Joe Blunt’s Lane under A11 bypass to access safe route to A1075. (s) Create one way cycle link against existing traffic flow along Staniforth Road from Kingsway to Charles Burrell Centre. (t) Improve surface along avenue of trees from Gentle Bridge to BTO entrance. (u) Improve footway/cycleway alongside London Road from St Martins Way to Forest Retail Park. (v) Improve existing overgrown footpath between Fulmerston Road and Hilary Road alongside Queensway school. (w) Provide cycle path to Knettishall Country Park Start of Peddars Way (x) Provide footpath cycle way north bound on Norwich Road from junction with Churchill Road to Tesco. (y) Provide traffic free cycle path to Bury/Honington using old railway line

C5 It would be great if the riverside path in Thetford could be given a hard finish, it would make accessing the river with children much easier — pushing wheelchairs and pushchairs along that bit can sometimes be difficult and gets everything filthy!

C6 THETFORD Abbey Meadows Please put a properly constructed path along the river part opposite haling path. Many people use this as a walkway to blaydon bridge when walking to & from the town centre,DRAFT but it is dangerous when muddy.

Draft 3 46 May 2018

62 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

C7 There is an urgent need to install a dedicated cycle path in Croxton Road, Thetford. This should run from the junction with the Mundford road at the south of Croxton Road to at least as far as the Thetford Academy in the North. (Ideally running at least as far as Joe Blunt’s Lane would also cover the entry point to the Thetford Skateboard Park). Very large numbers of Academy pupils use the Croxton Road as their access to the Academy and as these children are drawn from across the entire town many would benefit by being able to cycle safely to the school. There is already a cycle route within the town which ends at the extreme south end of Croxton Road. The current mix of pedestrians, cycles and very heavy school time traffic is a recipe for a serious accident to occur.

C8 My husband and I are both retired and walk/cycle in and around Thetford regu- larly, rarely driving. Generally routes are few and poorly maintained in respect of marking/remarking and trimming of overhead foliage and grass/nettles both sides of walkways. No-one seems to check/trim regularly. I can think of only a few cycle areas, namely:-

(1) From Forest Retail Park to Elevedon (2) Minstergate to Abbey Estate (3) Newtown to St Martins (4) No. 13 Cycle Route from Hurth Way to Kilverstone Lane.

No. 2 above — would be much improved by better marking and it would be useful to have it extended through Monksgate allowing easier access to the Railway Station, and, via Ben Culey to the Healthy Living Centre, Breckland Leisure Centre and the Academy. No. 3 above — from just before Jubilee Close there is overhanging foliage and the cycles route runs out here — many would find it useful to continue on either side up to Forest Retail Park or Lidl/Screwfix etc. No. 4 above — No. 13 Cycle Route (no. 4 above) has washed away sand/soil to expose tree roots which are quite hazardous and far from easy to see! Also, if wet, there are many puddles and muddy areas — difficult for both pedestrians and cyclists and the grass/nettles encroach. Joe Blunts Lane could be vastly improved and provide an excellent off-road route as a superb shortcut through to Norwich Road and housing estates for Academy pupils, and all! Station Lane — a pavement would be useful Canterbury Way to Mundford Road. There are 3 businesses along here and it is a high usage shortcut for all. Mundford Road is 40mph and no cycling route from Wyatt Way industrial estate to HLC, LeisureDRAFT Centre or town. This could be extended to include through Norwich Road estate to Tesco and Garden Centre. Outside Thetford Football club there is regularly a huge puddle (on this side of road). Lastly, but importantly, there is an obvious gap in walking/cycling route which is quite short alongside the Little Ouse river. From Minstergate there is a tarmac walk/cycleway to Abbey Estate (south), but where the Old Priory remains land

Draft 3 47 May 2018

63 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

finishes the path here turns right towards Monksgate and Abbey Estate (north). Instead of following the path here, many, parkrunners included on Saturdays (and privately during the week), have worn a soil route. This extends alongside the river down to Blaydon Bridge, where a tarmac footpath from here already exists to Canterbury Way (south) and Bishops Primary School. It is very puddly and muddy, even dangerous in wet weather. It would be great to enjoy this as a pushchair friendly and safe off-road access to town for all. Canons Close hard surface walkway to town has low points and is puddly in wet weather. People are encouraged to walk and cycle for health and pleasure any help with options would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

C9 I have lived in Thetford for over 40 years, residing in Highlands and now the ladies estate. I am a keen runner and have always used the route from my house, along the Croxton Road, through the village and around the Devils Punchbowl, then back into town. This was up until last year. as the town has developed and traffic on the Croton Road increased, it has become more and more hazardous to run this route. Even wearing high visibility clothing is not enough to keep drivers away from you. Twice I have been clipped by wing mirrors of cars along this route. The second time was to me the last straw! I have now invested in a treadmill and run at home in safety. I did speak to Croxton Council about having a pathway put in from the Academy to the Village but was told this is not a priority route. Someone should carry out a census of traffic on this road, and I am sure most users would describe it as a priority to get to the Academy and local estates from the bypass! I miss running through our wonderful forest. I can still remember the deer run- ning along the forest edge with me in the early mornings, and the fresh feel of oxygenated air coming from the trees. A pathway would encourage dog walkers and families to leave their cars at home and walk the 2.5km to the forest, rather than park there adding to air pollution and congestion.

C10 Creating the facilities alone is not sufficient. As a regular walker/cyclist my con- cern is not larger commercial vehicles it is other vehicles travelling too fast, not signalling and passing other road users regardless of limited space. This causes dangerous situations. Also cyclists riding on/off pavements in random fashion, ignoring traffic lights and wearing dark clothing. General Maintenance — existing pavements and paths poor, uneven surfaces and tree roots pushing up the tarmac in many places. One bad area is Abbey foot- path, behindDRAFT Monksgate, alongside the ditch. Also, pavements/path edges suffer encroaching undergrowth and trees branches hang low which need trimming. Trim- ming overhead would be good at the start of Abbey footpath from Minstergate, also the pavements from Jubilee Close to Forest Retail Park. Green Lane nature area pathway Cycle Route No. 13 has a poor surface, not helped by any rain washing down the sand/soil and exposing tree roots. Opposite side to Busy Bees Nursery, for the first 50/100 yards gets very muddy and is almost

Draft 3 48 May 2018

64 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

unusable. Likewise, this path from here to Tesco suffers many puddles and mud. Added concern is the path side nettles almost meet when wet! The Minstergate underpass regularly suffers flooding a concern as it is the only non-road access to town for pushchairs, pedestrians and cyclists. Station Lane is a busy cut through, cycling and walking from Canterbury Way underpass to Mundford road needs consideration. Mundford Road industrial area is not accessible by cycle unless the pavements are used — the road is hazardous and many hgv’s use it constantly. The existing pavements do not support cycling. Blaydon Bridge, riverside walkway exists towards town (Minstergate) — grass worn to mud by multiple use — this requires hard surfacing. C11 I would like to support the campaign to get the muddy path alongside the river a hard finish. I also cycle to work every weekday and think it would be great if there could be cycle lanes put on the main road through town. The existing path that runs along the grammar school playing field doesn’t work. Pedestrians walk in the cycle lane. I understand why as the cycle lane is closer to the grass than the road! I know there could be problem areas due to the size of the road width but maybe something could be done that’s better than what is there at the moment. C12 The undergrowth on Green lane is encroaching onto the path/cycle route. This path is not only a national cycle way but also a major walk route from Thetford town centre to Tescos. People with puschairs are being restricted in using the path as the nettles are encroaching into the babies / toddlers in the pram. C13 We are writing to request that it is considered that a hard finish is given to the riverside path in Thetford where each week Thetford Parkrun takes place. The area turns to mud so quickly and makes it very dangerous and messy to run, walk or cycle along. It is a much used area and it would be wonderful to have some hardcore put down. Parkrun is great, free community event with approximately 200 people attending each week, so it would benefit a lot of people. We thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. C14 My route is a walking route from my house to the Town Centre of Thetford. To be safe I use the pedestrian alleyway and footpath from Hill House Lane into Harriet Martineau Close. This pathway includes the playpark, where the footpath has numerous tree roots lifting the tarmac, where debris, mud, leaves, grass cuttings and sticks collect in the dipsDRAFT and cover the surface so that the uneven surface cannot be seen. This is very dangerous, twisted ankles, trips and falls are common. Along this pathway there are also weeds, bushes some with sharp spikes and tree seedlings growing through the wire netting fence, another hazard. The alternative route is to walk along the main Croxton Road where there is no footpath between Hill House Lane and the Academy car park. This is a busy road and not safe for pedestrians.

Draft 3 49 May 2018

65 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

The next difficult area on my route is between Ann Bartholomew road and the Church of the Nazarene. Another footpath where tree routes have raised the tarmac, same dangers, and there is an overgrown shrubbery beside the path, which was once maintained, but in recent years has been left to grow wild. Elder bushes have taken over the whole path and are dense and tall. In this area only about one third width of the path is useable. Anyone or anything could hide in those bushes and not be seen. It is not safe to walk through here in the dark. Lastly on my hazardous journey, is the ongoing problem of stinging nettles on Croxton Road beside the pavement between Woodlands Drive and the post box. These nettles now cover almost half the width of the pavement and as this is the main route to the Academy it is used twice daily by school children. An accident is waiting to happen if someone is stung and jumps out into the road. Surely there should be a programme for regular maintenance of all these areas mentioned, or must pedestrians suffer because they choose to walk?

C15 Reference, “muddy Riverside Path” We (The Parkrunners) would like to see an improvment to the surface of the pathway for a long time now, we have to put-up with pools of water of which there are many whenever It rains. It is not only parkrunners that have to put up with this situation, but many people use this pathway to enter the town to get to places like “Iceland store” there are mothers who use prams who find it dificult to traverse along this path, also of course the elderly people who are perhaps not to steady on there feet. I know the town looks a better place, but I would question the area outside Boots the Chemist. which as you probably know is not a popular place. So i’m sure that most people would rather have graveled path. on which to walk to town than have these wacky Ideas. that cost a fortune......

C16 May I make the following suggestion re cycling / walking , could a pathway be provided from Joe Blunts lane (Norwich road end) to the entrance to Churchill Road , this would provide a safe entrance to the town for the incoming residents of the new estate , also for the residents of the care home (Red House)

C17 Generally, I feel the provision of walking and cycling routes in Thetford is good and I generally use them when I can. I feel the foot/cycle path along Green Lane could do with more regular mainte- nance — the section between Cloverfields Church and Tesco is often narrowed significantly by vegetation, particularly stinging nettles overhanging the pathway. Could these be cut back more regularly? The path is well used and many people would benefit. C18 The cyclingDRAFT provision in Thetford could be described as woeful at best. Most of the “cycle lanes” lead to nowhere. Some are downright dangerous such as being directed into oncoming traffic on a sharp bend round St Martins Way. One other surprising omission is the lack of a Cycle Lane to Thetford Academy along the Croxton Road. How a new High School was approved and built without a Sustainable Transport link beggars belief.

Draft 3 50 May 2018

66 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

C19 Over the last month or so I have submitted various complaints to the “report it” site on TTC web site and Norfolk county council. Concerning the poor state of Green Lane, Joe Blunts Lane and the path between the rear of cloverfields and the river. None have been cut this year although I have been told all sorts of rubbish about cutting being carried out 3 times a year, and how it is now imminent. I even spotted a man with a measuring wheel in green lane about five weeks ago, though why he needed to measure a lane which has been on the map for centuries I can’t imagine. Even the tarmac path between woodlands and fairfields is impossible with a pushchair. On a separate issue there is a stand of invasive Himalayan bean or Japanese knot weed (not sure which) close to nuns bridges I have again been assured that the matter is in hand though I have little confidence that anything will be done until it’s too late.

C20 I would like to see much better provision for cyclists in and around Thetford. For example, better cycle routes from the fairfields estate area down into the town centre which currently requires negotiating the bottom end of croxton road with all its parked cars. Cycling with children around the town is much more difficult than it should be. It would also be great to have better kept access to the forest from town and the housing estates. The path from Thetford to Brandon seems to stop at the power station, it would be brilliant if you could walk and cycle all the way from Thetford to Brandon.

C21 I think that there should be a cycle route the whole length of London Road and Norwich Road as these are main arteries through the town. It should also be easier to get onto the main roads out of town such as those to Watton and Brandon as presently the busy roundabouts make this difficult. I think that Thetford is poorly served for safe cycle routes and I would definitely drive less if it were improved.

C22 Here are my views as a regular cyclist in Thetford. You may use any or all of it if you think it is useful. On Feb 4th a couple of years ago, I narrowly avoided being squished by a drunk driver on Norwich Road. Police and courts seem to be unable to stop drink driving. The only thing that stopped this one was a lamppost. Looking at the damage done to this lamppost was a graphic illustration of what this car would have done to me if it had passed a few inches nearer. I now avoid cycling on main roads. I now cycle on pavements often, and frequently have near misses with pedestrians. These near misses never happen when I am on the pavement as it is my responsi- bility to avoid pedestrians, and to dismount whenever it is necessary. Pedestrians walk out into the road in front of me when I am on side roads without looking, they cannotDRAFT hear me coming. What I would like to see is a change in the law that allows cycling on the pavement, but puts the responsibility of safety firmly on the cyclist. (If you hit a pedestrian, it is your fault). I think there is a similar scheme in France where ’if a car hits a cyclist, it is the car drivers fault. Something needs to be done about country lanes also. If you see a walker on a counrty road walking with the traffic, they are regarded as idiots. Cyclists however

Draft 3 51 May 2018

67 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

must do that by law.

C23 SUBWAYS The subway (under the A1075) at Minstergate leading from Monksgate to the town centre floods badly. The subway (under the A1066) from Churchill Road/Grenville Way to Glebe Close is hard to find and very unpleasant to use — its invariably dingy, dark and slippy with the build up of slimy leaves, earth etc which have not been cleared. actually coming out into Glebe Close isn’t ideal either — it’s a very circuitous route into town. The Croxton Road subway is the ideal — well lit, usually tidy and a straightforward link — although this one also floods at times. The Footbridge over the railway line leading from Woodlands to Admirals is treach- erously slippy in the cold weather. Considering the number of children who use this walkway, a more suitable surface is essential — it would prevent many a sad start on wintry days. It would be good if a map showing ALL the footpaths, shortcuts and ‘twitchells’ which are available to use in Thetford, the ones currently available are good but do not cover the wide range of shortcuts which can only be discovered with per- severance! More signs indicating the various paths/subways would also be appreciated

C24 We are invited to comment about the walking routes around Thetford. The Little Ouse Path and the walk around Abbey Heath is a very unpleasant experience now. The Little Ouse Path is overgrown and full of litter. There are beer and drink cans, rubbish, fly tipping, old mattresses etc and people seem to be sleeping out amongst the shrubs and trees. Fallen trees also make the route difficult at times. Used hypodermic needles have been seen. The Abbey Heath Weir still has the upturned mattress that has been there for years that acts as a refuse bin but the rubbish is never cleared away. Refuse bins would be good along the route and the odd bench or two for older people would be a bonus but I expect this is asking too much. Similarly the Abbey Heath circular route is strewn with litter. Who is responsible ? Does no one care ?

C25 The main routes out of Thetford (Hurth Way, Mundford Road, London Road, Norwich Road) are all 40 mile an hour speed limited. It would be much pleasanter, safer, andDRAFT more agreeable to residents if the speed limit was lowered to 30 miles an hour. Mundford Road needs a pedestrian crossing, as residents take their lives in their hands trying to cross at the roundabout — even a central island further along the road would be an improvement. The existing crossing on Hurth Way (very well used) is not responsive to pedestrians, and makes them wait until the road is clear or 30 seconds have elapsed, whichever is sooner. A 15 second wait would be

Draft 3 52 May 2018

68 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

more appropriate, and would encourage journeys on foot from Cloverfields to the town centre. Walking over the three Nun’s bridges is a frightening experience, which is unfor- tunate as this is one of the prettiest parts of town. Could the road be made one way or closed to traffic? Cycling: I would like to cycle more, but the only ways to get out of Thetford seem to be along 60 mile an hour roads. Even the Sustrans National Cycle route along Kilverstone Road is subject to a 60 mile an hour limit, which on a narrow and winding road is not safe for cyclists. Some cycle paths leading out of Thetford would be welcomed,particularly as the forest itself is so cycle friendly.

C26 Living in Thetford, specifically at Anne Bartholomew, and working in town I use both the number 13 and 30 Cycle routes. This cycle route goes along Croxton road onto old Croxton road continuing into White Heart street. It allows me to take a healthy alternative and reduce congestion on our roads busy roads into town. There is a daily safety danger during the academic year traveling south. There’s is no dedicated cycle path along this road and the bumper to bumper traffic on the entirety of Croxton road. All rushing and paying little regard to the high way code, parking on junctions, parking on yellow zig zag lines outside of Thetford Academy is a daily occurrence. Once you’re at the end of Croxton road you have to cross the road to the cycle path to cross the A134. See picture Cycling Feedback 1. This junction isn’t great at the best with nowhere to safely stop, see picture Cycling Feedback 2. Cars passing on the left-hand side quickly pass and waiting for gaps in oncoming traffic can be quite scary. Further down the 13/30 routes, there is a great junction which would be really helpful is implemented in the same way. See picture Cycling Feedback 3. This site it self often have incidents with one being quite serious in April — http: //www.edp24.co.uk/news/pedestrian-injured-after-collision-with-car- on-croxton-road-in-thetford-1-4972613 Another early in the year during rush hour — http://www.thetfordandbrandontimes. co.uk/news/woman-hurt-in-three-vehicle-collision-in-thetford-1-4386198 The building of new homes will, of course, increase traffic at these busy times, therefore, increasing the danger to all users of the road. luckily, traveling North bound on my return leg of the day is much safer a cyclist can comeDRAFT off the traffic free cycle routes onto the road.

Draft 3 53 May 2018

69 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

C27 A high priority path for hard surfacing is the riverside path between the priory ruins entrance near the Norwich Road and the first footbridge to the south. This path frequently gets muddy in winter, but is (as well as being a pleasant path by the river for its own sake) a critical part of the Thetford Parkrun route. The Parkrun must be one of the most successful community initiatives in the town in recent years and it should be given every support, including preventing erosion issues along the route, and I think this stretch of path is the element where this potential problem is greatest.

C28 A key area for focus given the proposed Thetford expansion should be improved cycle paths on Croxton Road, in particular around Thetford Academy. In addition, there would be a massive benefit to residents if you were able to cycle out into Thetford forest, without crossing a major road. From a walking point of view, there is a short stretch along the river used by people walking into town and also by Thetford parkrun which needs improvement. This is along the river between Blayden bridge and the priory. Finally, improved lighting along Green Lane would make itDRAFT a lot more useable in the winter months — short low level lights might be an option here.

C29 From west side of playing field Elm road end going south — nettles. Further south, how about a wider path going east–west at bottom of Elm road playing field as this links up with the felled forestry (open) and unfelled. If Elm road grass cut more, dog walkers could avoid each other on way to woods.

Draft 3 54 May 2018

70 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

C30 Over grown bushes blocking path off St Johns Way to Caxton Way. Off this path heading North North West, parallel to Danepak site is also overgrown.

C31 Difficult access to forest, crossing the A11 Dual Road from Brandon Road and Sainsburys Roundabout. The underpass at Elveden is too far out and doesn’t lead anywhere only onto Elveden Estate which you are not allowed on. Also from Kingfisher Lake’s on right track that leads to Two Mile Bottom could be signed as a route but is overgrown with braken on last section beside railway — you can get to Santon Downham + scouts camp bridge.

C32 Walking/Cycling options from Nunnery Drive into the town centre espcially via Nuns Bridges) are difficult especially for families/elderly making their way over the bridges inbetween traffic. Cycling in town centre prohibition not enforced!

DRAFT

Draft 3 55 May 2018

71 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

E Other Evidence

E1 Map of Cycling and Walking issues in Thetford identified by the Sustrans Volunteer Group Coordinator, available online at http://robert.mathmos.net/cycling/ThetfordIssues.pdf

OSM data ©2011 CC-BY-SA Openstreetmap.org contributors. Suggested Improvements to CyclingHelp and improve OpenStreetMap by drawing on this map, then visit Walking Papers http://walkingpapers.org/print.php?id=qpxc34ch Pedestrian Infrastructure in Thetford

Gap in Thetford Connect Loop. Awkward crossing between Needs cycle path and crossing Kilverston Road and Joe point to negotiate A1066. Off-road cycle path needed Blunt's Lane could be improved along Croxton Road for safe access to School, and Sustrans routes out of town. Joe Blunt's Lane should be upgraded from a Public Footpath and Permissive Main access route to Thetford Forest. Muddy track needs Bridleway to a Public surface improvements. Bridleway or combined footway and Cycle Track.

Main access route to Thetford Forest. Riverside path needs some surface and width improvement in places.

Dropped curb needed to access cycle path. Crossings on A1066 and C587 difficult for Raised table needed where Thetford Connect south-bound cyclists cycle path crosses Road. on NCN to access.

A crossing point should be provided here to help pedestrians across the A134.

Well-used paths Pavement here should be on Cloverfields widened and converted estate should be to a shared-use cycle recorded as path to link to new estate. Rights of Way.

Two short sections of Green Lane liable to become muddy when wet. Work to improve surface needed. Zebra crossing needed Lighting should be provided on Minstergate opposite along Green Lane, at least Pound Stretcher, on along the south-western pedestrian route from Bus section, for safety in the winter Station to town centre. Missing link in cycle network. Path across Melford common and crossing of Castle street needed to connect Green Lane to Arlington Way. Underpass would benefit from lighting Pavement should be for users after dark. Infrastructure needed to allow converted to Shared- Cycling should be west-bound cyclists to safely use cycle path to permitted in the the leave roundabout and access provide safe access pedestrianised town King Street on NCN 13 and 30. to newcycleway to centre outside main Elveden along A11. shopping hours.

Better access to Well-used path through Thetford Forest Redcastle plantation needed here: either needs surface work a crossing at the and officially recording roundabout, or a as a Public Footpath Map Data (c) OpenStreetMap bridge further north. and Contributors, ODbL Course or old railway would Map Tiles (c) OpenStreetMap, make an excellent cycle link CC-By-SA IssuesDRAFT compiled by Robert Whittaker to Barnham and the south. https://thetfordranger.wordpress.com/

Draft 3 56 May 2018

72 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

E2 Map of cycle-friendly routes barriers to Cycling in the area around Thetford iden- tified by the Sustrans Volunteer Group Coordinator, available online at http://robert.mathmos.net/cycling/ThetfordCyclable.pdf East Harling h tracks h Road Harling Public footpath Public track. alonga goodbeif Would couldbeat this permissivea least bridlewaytoo. Key Quiet road Quiet Off-road (paved) Off-road (surfaceok) Off-road (poor surface)Off-road Cycling not legalCycling not (dismountandpush) Busy road Busy Mediumroad 30 Bridgham Poor surface heresurfacePoor discourages underpassA11 of use south. to Knettishall Coney Weston Coney 13 Stonebridge 13 Brettenham Rushford East Trunkroad unsuitablefor Addingcycle cycling. a wouldallowmoretrack loopsthetford. from Wretham Euston Public footpath alonga footpath Public goodbeif Would track. a least couldbeat this permissivebridleway too. Kilverstone Key access routeto accessKey narrow andbut Forest, places.inpoor surface Old railway wouldlineOld make increase to routegoodcycle a thetford.loopoptionsfrom routeis of Northern half track.alreadyfarmprivate a Issues compiled RobertIssues by https://thetfordranger.wordpress.com/ Whittaker Croxton There are two key problemskey areTheretwo from cyclists facing Thetford: loopsshorter of lack A along1. Town the from roadsreasonablyand quiet smoot convenientand safe of lacknumerous A the 2. to links inroutes cycle Forest Thetford Barnham Thetford Roadcrossing staggered trackCreatinga240m. by alongverge andcrossing improvementswouldallow Forest. the to access better A new bridgenewAacross the pointsthese oneof at A11 wouldprovide excellentan Forest. the to link Elveden High LodgeHigh Cylists heading SW onheading SW Cylists rejoin cyclewayforcedto narrowcarriageway here loop.oppositeturning Brandon Key access route to forest, routeto access Key path of section short but duecycleimpossbile to to andovergrowth,fallenmud, trees. Weeting Crossingneeded at restoreroundabout to Forest Thetford to access throughA11duallling. lost Elveden Memorial Barriers to Cycling around Cycling Thetford to Barriers Could do with Coulddo linkcycle better Brandonfrom Forest the to DRAFT30

Draft 3 57 May 2018

73 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

E3 A chart from the Sustrans Handbook for Cycle-Friendly Design [N3] showing the type of cycle infrastructure recommended for roads with different traffic speed and volume characteristics.

E4 Toucan Crossing timings for location Y93123 Green Lane / Hurth Way, provided by Norfolk County Council. Signal Shown Timings To Pedestrian To Vehicles Period 1 RED MAN GREEN 7–30 seconds (a) Period 2 RED MAN AMBER 3 seconds Period 3 RED MAN RED 1 or 3 seconds (b) Period 4 GREEN MAN RED 5 seconds Period 5 RED MAN RED 3 seconds Period 6 RED MAN RED 0–9 seconds (c) Period 7 RED MAN RED 1 second Period 8 RED MAN RED/AMBER 2 seconds

Notes:

(a) Green indefinite if no push button demand. Period ends at 30s or when no vehicles detected approaching the crossing. (b) Longer time occurs if a vehicle is detected travelling over 40mph at the furtherDRAFT most road loop. (c) Period ends as soon as no pedestrians are detected on the crossing.

Draft 3 58 May 2018

74 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

L Relevant Local Studies, Reports & Policies

L1 Norfolk Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007–2017 Norfolk County Council, 2007. https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/-/media/norfolk/downloads/out-and-about/public- rights-of-way/rights-of-way-improvement-plan-2007-2017.pdf

L2 Thetford Green Infrastructure Study Land Use Consultants for Breckland District Council, 2007. http://goo.gl/t91ERS, http://goo.gl/ceiMVk

L3 Discovering Thetford: A Feasibility Study & Business Case Norwich Heritage and Economic and Regeneration Trust for Thetford Town Coun- cil and Moving Thetford Forward, 2010. http://goo.gl/EXXCzj

L4 Thetford Town Centre Masterplan Allies and Morrison Urban Practitioners for Breckland District Council, 2013. http://goo.gl/e6aqxY

L5 Thetford Loops Stage 2 Transport Initiatives & JMP Consultants for Breckland Council, 2010. https://bit.ly/2jqf8H7, https://bit.ly/2rmsd7R

L6 Thetford Area Action Plan Breckland District Council, 2012. http://goo.gl/RvwLUU

L7 Little Ouse Valley Waterspace Study Richard Glen Associates for Thetford Town Council, 2016. http://www.thetfordtowncouncil.gov.uk/download/20177/

L8 A Potential New Cycle Route Linking Thetford to High Lodge Robert Whittaker, 2017. http://robert.mathmos.net/cycling/thetford-high-lodge-link-2017-02.pdf

L9 Norfolk Cycling and Walking Strategy Norfolk County Council, 2017. https://goo.gl/57xByW

L10 Norfolk’s Transport Asset Management Plan 2017/18 – 2021/22 Norfolk County Council, 2017. https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-and-how-we-work/policy-performance- and-partnerships/policies-and-strategies/roads-and-travel-policies/transport- asset-management-planDRAFT L11 Croxton and Brettenham & Kilverstone Joint Neighbourhood Plan (Draft) Croxton and Brettenham & Kilverstone Parish Councils, 2018. https://goo.gl/hQs51p

Draft 3 59 May 2018

75 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

N National Guidelines, Advice and Regulations

N1 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Vol 2, Sec 2, Part 8: Design Criteria for Footbridges Highways England, 2017. http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol2/section2/BD2917_ May.pdf

N2 Building Regulations Approved Document M: Access to and use of Buildings Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/access-to-and-use-of-buildings- approved-document-m

N3 Handbook for Cycle Friendly Design Sustrans, 2014. https://goo.gl/JoJQAV

N4 Rights of Way Law in England and Wales The Ramblers Association, 2018. http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales. aspx

DRAFT

Draft 3 60 May 2018

76 GTDPCommunitySub-Group Cycling&WalkingReport

V Version History

Draft 1 January 2018. Initial version presented at GTDP Community Sub-Group meeting on 17th January 2018.

Draft 2 March 2018. Several minor improvements and addition of a few new issues. Numerous pho- tographs added to illustrate issues. Custom maps added. Clickable hyperlinks added to aid navigation through the document.

Draft 3 May 2018. Further actions added to cover remaining issues. Addition of Summary and Rec- ommendations section.

DRAFT

Draft 3 61 May 2018

77