DOCSLIB.ORG

A Profile of Thetford

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A Profile of Thetford August 2004 Compiled by Corah Carney Keystone Development Trust A Thetford Profile Introduction by Neil Stott, Chief Executive of Keystone Development Trust Welcome to the Thetford profile, a comprehensive and informative digest of local data. I hope you find the profile interesting and useful. Thetford faces many challenges, illustrated by the data contained in the profile – but numerous organisation and local people are working hard to build on Thetford’s many assets and regenerate the town, Thetford is changing. Since the 2001 Census there has been a significant amount of new housing built, investment in local infrastructure, major European investment in social and economic activity and new services and activities springing up – and a real will to make Thetford a better place to live, work, study and visit. Working together we can make a real difference. Neil Stott Chief Executive Keystone Development Trust 1 A Thetford Profile Purpose of The Thetford Profile The main purpose of compiling this document of current information is to provide a single source for much of the information about the Thetford area. In addition it provides an opportunity to highlight the common links between data sets and allows the user access to a unique compilation of data relating to the area. When viewed as a whole it also provides a fascinating insight into the area. It can also support both proposals and decisions for improvements. As with any data however, it is a snapshot, limited to a point in time and by the data available. The data is in this document has been collated from a variety of sources, the main one being the 2001 Census data from the Office of National Statistics Web-site. There are also many individuals and organisations who have contributed information and figures. Caution should be taken however, when comparing data from the 2001 census with the 1991 census as the ward boundaries changed in 2001 and this would lead to inaccurate comparisons. Corah Carney Health Development Officer August 2004 2 A Thetford Profile INDEX Section Page(s) Executive Summary. …………………………………………………. 4 - 5 Keystone Development Trust 6 -11 Section 1 – Demographics of The Thetford Area………………… 12 - 23 Section 2 – Indices of Deprivation…………………………………... 24 - 33 Section 3 – Employment……………………………………………... 34 - 44 Section 4 – Education & Training…………………………………… 45 - 51 Section 5 – Health…………………………………………………….. 52 - 70 Section 6 – Housing…………………………………………………... 71 - 78 Section 7 – Crime & Disorder………………………………………... 79 - 90 Section 8 – The Thetford Community……………………………… 91 - 99 Section 9 – The Thetford Environment……………………………. 100 - 112 Section 10 – Thetford’s Culture & Heritage……………………….. 113 - 124 Bibliography……………………………...……………………………. 125 - 127 Glossary......................................................................................... 128 - 129 Acknowledgements........................................................................ 130 3 A Thetford Profile Executive Summary Thetford is in many ways different from other parts of Norfolk. Significantly enlarged by migration from London, the local population increased fourfold between 1958 and 1980. This has now created a mixed identity which is quite different from its surrounding areas of Breckland. Situated some 30 miles from Cambridge and Norwich, it is said that Thetford is “an island of deprivation” which stands out starkly in its rural Norfolk setting. Its population is big enough to display some features associated with urban disadvantage but it is not big enough to have the knowledge, experience or critical mass to solve its own problems. It depends on collaboration with a host of different partners to provide a sufficient range of opportunities to meet the needs of its population. There are a number of socio-economic issues highlighted in Thetford: 25% of the population is under 16 years compared to the national average of 17%. The wards of Thetford-Abbey and Thetford-Saxon have twice the Norfolk average for the percentage of households consisting of lone parents living with dependent children Three out of the 4 Thetford wards are in the top quintile of most deprived wards nationally. Educational standards are very low with 12% of students in 2000 obtaining no GCSE passes at all compared to the national average of 5.4%. The 2001 census shows that only 9% of people in Thetford have achieved a level 4/5 qualification (first degree and above) compared to 20% in England. Two out of four wards have over 40% of people between 16-74 with no qualifications. Only 2% in Abbey ward are employed in higher managerial posts compared to the national average of 9% whilst 39% are employed in routine or semi-routine posts compared to the national average of 21%. Child health is a major concern as it has the highest number of children on the Child Protection Register for its size of population in the whole of Norfolk. There is a high rate of teenage pregnancy and anecdotally, there are said to be large problems associated with substance misuse. Low aspirations and low self-esteem are frequently reported in reviews about Thetford. 4 A Thetford Profile However, Residents in the Southern Norfolk area generally have better health than average with longer than normal life expectancy. Deaths from Cancers and Coronary Heart Disease are lower than the average but accidents are a major cause of death, especially on the roads. Thetford’s location is to be envied. Set in the heart of the Breckland countryside, it has many hectares of unspoilt forest and many SSSI and nature sites. Thetford’s intriguing history, full of ancient sites and hidden treasures, is set to provide an excellent centre for tourists. 5 A Thetford Profile KEYSTONE DEVELOPMENT TRUST (KDT) Keystone became a Development Trust on the 1st April 2003. It is a Charity and Company Limited by Guarantee. Keystone has an active web-site on www.keystonetrust.org.uk. Keystone also has a trading social enterprise– Keystone Development Services. KDT was established to provide long term regeneration work in a community controlled legal entity, which had the ability to own and manage assets and trading companies. This will ensure long term sustainable investment to complement public funded regeneration programmes and grants from Trusts, local authorities and fundraising. KDT has a growing membership of over 500 partner organisations and individual members who elect a Board of 8 elected members and 7 appointed Trustees making a total of 15. KDT has a Trust Management Team consisting of a Chief Executive, Director of Finance and Business Development and five senior managers. KDT is the accountable and implementation body for the SRB6 scheme until completion in 2006. It is also the implementation body for the Keystone element of the European Objective 2 scheme (2003 – 2008) and the delivery agent for a number of partnership projects. The Vision Keystone Development Trust’s vision is; ‘To improve the quality of life and opportunities for people who live, study and work in the Keystone area through sustainable, community led regeneration. Working closely with partner organisations and communities, Keystone aims to ensure that the area is safe, healthy, inclusive, socially and economically vibrant.’ The vision is underpinned by the following key principles; We will invest in community capital; the collective skills, knowledge, experience, facilities and organisations which ensure greater returns in the quality of life for all. We will encourage economic self-sufficiency, local ownership and economic growth. We will encourage all communities to participate in local civic life We will prioritise those individuals, groups and communities who experience disadvantage or social exclusion We will always try to achieve value for money, maintain and develop the best management and planning practises, and ensure all Keystones’ projects are monitored and evaluated. 6 A Thetford Profile Trust Aims Keystone Development Trust’s aims are built around a community capital model. Community capital is a key concept for the Trust. Many communities experience the positive and negative consequences of social, economic and technological change and often feel powerless to address global economic forces which are driving change – particularly communities which have been worst hit. Building community capital is about ‘empowering’ individuals, groups and communities to tackle their own needs and issues, create their own solutions, organisations or enterprises. Anchoring community capital is about creating sustainable opportunities (i.e. training, jobs) in social (or commonly owned and managed) assets or enterprises. Keystone’s aims are; ‘To build community capital, the collective skills, knowledge, experience, facilities and organisations which ensure greater returns in the quality of life for all, and to anchor community capital locally to ensure sustainable returns. To build social capital by assisting individuals, groups, communities and networks to identify their own needs, assets, issues and develop sustainable strategies. To build human/personal capital by developing opportunities to learn and apply new skills and knowledge. To build financial capital by maximising individual, group and community income and assets, and investing in local social enterprises To build environmental capital by sustaining and utilising environmental assets To build physical capital by investing in facilities amenities and infrastructure To build cultural capital by developing
Recommended publications
  • Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

    Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

    Appendix A Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Consultation Draft March 2015 1 Blank 2 Part One - Flooding and Flood Risk Management Contents PART ONE – FLOODING AND FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ..................... 5 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 5 2 What Is Flooding? ........................................................................... 8 3. What is Flood Risk? ...................................................................... 10 4. What are the sources of flooding? ................................................ 13 5. Sources of Local Flood Risk ......................................................... 14 6. Sources of Strategic Flood Risk .................................................... 17 7. Flood Risk Management ............................................................... 19 8. Flood Risk Management Authorities ............................................. 22 PART TWO – FLOOD RISK IN NORFOLK .................................................. 30 9. Flood Risk in Norfolk ..................................................................... 30 Flood Risk in Your Area ................................................................ 39 10. Broadland District .......................................................................... 39 11. Breckland District .......................................................................... 45 12. Great Yarmouth Borough .............................................................. 51 13. Borough of King’s
  • Parish Share Report

    Parish Share Report

    PARISH SHARE PAYMENTS For period ended 30th September 2019 SUMMARY OF PARISH SHARE PAYMENTS BY DEANERIES Dean Amount % Deanery Share Received for 2019 % Deanery Share % No Outstanding 2018 2019 to period end 2018 Received for 2018 received £ £ £ £ £ Norwich Archdeaconry 06 Norwich East 23,500 4.41 557,186 354,184 63.57 532,380 322,654 60.61 04 Norwich North 47,317 9.36 508,577 333,671 65.61 505,697 335,854 66.41 05 Norwich South 28,950 7.21 409,212 267,621 65.40 401,270 276,984 69.03 Norfolk Archdeaconry 01 Blofield 37,303 11.04 327,284 212,276 64.86 338,033 227,711 67.36 11 Depwade 46,736 16.20 280,831 137,847 49.09 288,484 155,218 53.80 02 Great Yarmouth 44,786 9.37 467,972 283,804 60.65 478,063 278,114 58.18 13 Humbleyard 47,747 11.00 437,949 192,301 43.91 433,952 205,085 47.26 14 Loddon 62,404 19.34 335,571 165,520 49.32 322,731 174,229 53.99 15 Lothingland 21,237 3.90 562,194 381,997 67.95 545,102 401,890 73.73 16 Redenhall 55,930 17.17 339,813 183,032 53.86 325,740 187,989 57.71 09 St Benet 36,663 9.24 380,642 229,484 60.29 396,955 243,433 61.33 17 Thetford & Rockland 31,271 10.39 314,266 182,806 58.17 300,933 192,966 64.12 Lynn Archdeaconry 18 Breckland 45,799 11.97 397,811 233,505 58.70 382,462 239,714 62.68 20 Burnham & Walsingham 63,028 15.65 396,393 241,163 60.84 402,850 256,123 63.58 12 Dereham in Mitford 43,605 12.03 353,955 223,631 63.18 362,376 208,125 57.43 21 Heacham & Rising 24,243 6.74 377,375 245,242 64.99 359,790 242,156 67.30 22 Holt 28,275 8.55 327,646 207,089 63.21 330,766 214,952 64.99 23 Lynn 10,805 3.30 330,152 196,022 59.37 326,964 187,510 57.35 07 Repps 0 0.00 383,729 278,123 72.48 382,728 285,790 74.67 03 08 Ingworth & Sparham 27,983 6.66 425,260 239,965 56.43 420,215 258,960 61.63 727,583 9.28 7,913,818 4,789,282 60.52 7,837,491 4,895,456 62.46 01/10/2019 NORWICH DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE LTD DEANERY HISTORY REPORT MONTH September YEAR 2019 SUMMARY PARISH 2017 OUTST.
  • ASHAAP Issues and Options

    ASHAAP Issues and Options

    ASHAAP Issues and Options Introduction 1 Welcome to this Area Action Plan 4 2 What is the Area Action Plan 5 3 How to Comment 7 4 What are the Next Stages of the AAP 8 Context 5 Location and Boundary 9 6 Overview of the AAP Area 12 7 Core Strategy Requirements 15 8 Key Issues for the AAP to Address 20 Vision and Objectives 9 Vision 23 10 Spatial Objectives 25 Attleborough: Housing 11 Meeting Attleborough's Housing Requirement 27 12 Principles of New Housing 33 13 Providing a permanent Gypsy & Traveller Site 35 Attleborough: Economy 14 Meeting Attleborough's Employment Needs 38 15 Diversifying Employment Opportunities 45 16 Determining the Approach to the Former Gaymers Site 47 17 Determining the Approach to the Hamilton-Acorn Brush Factory Site 49 18 Meeting Attleborough's Retail Requirements 51 ASHAAP Issues and Options Attleborough: Transport 19 Transport 56 20 Routing Options for a New Distributor Road from the A11 to the B1077 64 Attleborough: Infrastructure 21 Upgrading the Water Infrastructure 71 22 Enhancing the Energy Supply Network (electricity) 77 23 Expanding Education Provision 81 24 Providing new Health and Social Care Facilities 83 Attleborough: Natural Environment 25 Protecting and Enhancing Sites of Local & Strategic Environmental Importance 84 26 Minimising Flood Risk 92 27 Increasing the Provision of Green Spaces 97 Attleborough: Built & Historic Environment 28 Requiring High Standards of Design 108 29 Protecting Areas of Particular Historic Importance 109 Snetterton Heath: Economy 30 Meeting Snetterton Heath's Reqirements
  • Forest Heath District Council

    Forest Heath District Council

    Forest Heath District Council Single Issue Review Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy Document Habitats Regulations Assessment, (HRA), Screening Stage July 2012 Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the process to date 1.2 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment 1.3 Outline of Habitats Regulations Assessment process 1.4 Introduction to the HRA screening process 2. European sites potentially affected by the Single Issue Review 3. Baseline conditions affecting European sites 4. Is it necessary to proceed to the next HRA stage? Which aspects of the document require further assessment? 4.1 Screening of the Single Issue Review 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the process to date: In order to ensure that the Single Issue Review is compliant with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Forest Heath District Council has embarked upon an assessment of the ‘Reviews’ implications for European wildlife sites, i.e. a Habitats Regulations Assessment of the plan. This report sets out the first stage of the HRA process for the Single Issue Review, the Screening Stage. To establish if the ‘Review’ is likely to have a significant adverse effect on any European sites it is necessary to consider evidence contained in the original HRA of the Forest Heath Core Strategy DPD that was produced in March 2009. For a number of policies within the Core Strategy, including the original Policy CS7, it was considered either that significant effects would be likely, or that a precautionary approach would need to be taken as it could not be determined that those particular plan policies would not be likely to have a significant effect upon any European Site.
  • Landscape Character Assessment Documents 2

    Landscape Character Assessment Documents 2

    Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Farm Landscape Character Assessment Documents 2. Breckland District Part 1 of 5 Applicant: Norfolk Vanguard Limited Document Reference: ExA; ISH; 10.D3.1E 2.1 Deadline 3 Date: February 2019 Photo: Kentish Flats Offshore Wind Farm May 2007 Breckland District Landscape Character Assessment Final Report for Breckland District Council by Land Use Consultants LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT OF BRECKLAND DISTRICT Final Report Prepared for Breckland Council by Land Use Consultants May 2007 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD Tel: 020 7383 5784 Fax: 020 7383 4798 [email protected] CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 PART 1: OVERVIEW 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 The landscape of Breckland...................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the report................................................................................................................................ 1 Structure of the report ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Method Statement.............................................................................. 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Data collation
  • Habitats Regulation Assessment East Cambridgeshire Local Plan

    Habitats Regulation Assessment East Cambridgeshire Local Plan

    Habitats Regulation Assessment East Cambridgeshire Local Plan June 2018 (Supersedes the November 2017 Screening Report) Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 1 Non-Technical Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Background to the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan ..................................................................... 1 Key Components of the Emerging East Cambridgeshire Local Plan ............................................. 2 Potential Impacts Arising from the Local Plan ............................................................................... 5 Report Purpose and Overview ...................................................................................................... 6 2. Habitats Regulation Assessment - Legislation and Requirements ................................................ 8 HRA Guidance and Best Practice ................................................................................................. 8 Main Stages of HRA ..................................................................................................................... 9 Consultation with Natural England .............................................................................................
  • East Harling, Norfolk, NR16 2AD STEP INSIDE

    East Harling, Norfolk, NR16 2AD STEP INSIDE

    ‘Full Of Surprises’ East Harling, Norfolk, NR16 2AD STEP INSIDE Hidden behind the quaint and charming exterior of this Grade ll Listed cottage is a surprisingly spacious home, with four reception rooms and a wonderful kitchen/breakfast room with a vaulted ceiling. The cottage also benefits from two bedrooms and a delightful garden, tucked away in the corner of the Market Place at the heart of East Harling. • Very Pretty Grade II Listed Cottage • Excellent Location in Centre of Well Served Village • Many Original Features • Four Reception Rooms • Wonderful Kitchen Breakfast Room with Vaulted Ceiling • Garden Room and Useful Store Room • Two First Floor Bedrooms • Substantial Gardens • Off Road Parking To the Front and Rear When the current owner first saw the cottage seven years ago, they were instantly impressed by its charm and character, ‘I just fell in love with it, it is a very pretty house.’ They have looked after the property with love and care and generally updated the cottage over the years, ‘We have put in new windows and doors, decorated throughout, laid a new patio in the garden and added a parking area behind the house. The cottage is deceptively spacious but there is just too much space for me now so it is time to move on.’ Thought to have been built in the 1600’s, the cottage is Grade II Listed, partly timber framed and has a pretty brick frontage. As you enter the property, there is a traditional cottage sitting room with exposed beams that cross the ceiling and an inglenook fireplace with a wood burning stove, perfect for creating a warm and cosy atmosphere on a cold winter’s night.
  • David Tyldesley and Associates Planning, Landscape and Environmental Consultants

    David Tyldesley and Associates Planning, Landscape and Environmental Consultants

    DAVID TYLDESLEY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNING, LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document Durwyn Liley, Rachel Hoskin, John Underhill-Day & David Tyldesley 1 DRAFT Date: 7th November 2008 Version: Draft Recommended Citation: Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Underhill-Day, J. & Tyldesley, D. (2008). Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document. Footprint Ecology, Wareham, Dorset. Report for Breckland District Council. 2 Summary This document records the results of a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of Breckland District Council’s Core Strategy. The Breckland District lies in an area of considerable importance for nature conservation with a number of European Sites located within and just outside the District. The range of sites, habitats and designations is complex. Taking an area of search of 20km around the District boundary as an initial screening for relevant protected sites the assessment identified five different SPAs, ten different SACs and eight different Ramsar sites. Following on from this initial screening the assessment identifies the following potential adverse effects which are addressed within the appropriate assessment: • Reduction in the density of Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark) near to new housing. • Increased levels of recreational activity resulting in increased disturbance to Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark). • Increased levels of people on and around the heaths, resulting in an increase in urban effects such as increased fire risk, fly-tipping, trampling. • Increased levels of recreation to the Norfolk Coast (including the Wash), potentially resulting in disturbance to interest features and other recreational impacts.
  • 233 08 SD50 Environment Permitting Decision Document

    233 08 SD50 Environment Permitting Decision Document

    Environment Agency permitting decisions Bespoke permit We have decided to grant the permit for Didlington Farm Poultry Unit operated by Mr Robert Anderson, Mrs Rosamond Anderson and Mr Marcus Anderson. The permit number is EPR/EP3937EP. We consider in reaching that decision we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the permit will ensure that the appropriate level of environmental protection is provided. Purpose of this document This decision document: • explains how the application has been determined • provides a record of the decision-making process • shows how all relevant factors have been taken into account • justifies the specific conditions in the permit other than those in our generic permit template. Unless the decision document specifies otherwise we have accepted the applicant’s proposals. Structure of this document • Key issues • Annex 1 the decision checklist • Annex 2 the consultation, web publicising responses. EPR/EP3937EP/A001 Page 1 of 12 Key Issues 1) Ammonia Impacts There are two Special Areas for Conservation (SAC) within 3.4km, one Special Protection Area (SPA) within 850m, seven Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 4.9km and six Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 1.4km of the facility, one of which is within 250m. Assessment of SAC and SPA If the Process Contribution (PC) is below 4% of the relevant critical level (CLe) or critical load (CLo) then the farm can be permitted with no further assessment. Initial screening using Ammonia Screening Tool (AST) v4.4 has indicated that the PC for Breckland SAC, Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and Breckland SPA is predicted to be greater than 4% of the CLe for ammonia.
  • Norfolk Newsletter Spring 2018

    Norfolk Newsletter Spring 2018

    NORFOLK BRANCH Newsletter ISSUE 95 | SPRING 2018 NORFOLK BRANCH - OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE Chairman Judy Dunmore Treasurer Walter Sadler Deputy Treasurer Roland Rogers MBE Membership Secretary Jennifer Griffiths Conservation Officer & Catfield Fen Liaison Mike Gasson County Recorder Andy Brazil Transect Co-ordinator Alan Dawson Field Trip Organisers Ann and Bob Carpenter Events Organiser Vacant Publicity Kiri Stuart-Clarke Newsletter Editor Mike Gasson Secretary Derek Longe Moth Officer Greg Bond Webmaster & Twitter Co-ordinator Neil Saunders WCBS Co-ordinator Christian King Catfield Parish Liaison Dr. Keith Bacon Committee Members Dr. Bernard Watts Jane Uglow Heather Goody Norfolk Branch web-site www.norfolk-butterflies.org.uk National web-site www.butterfly-conservation.org Facebook: Butterfly Conservation Norfolk Twitter: @BC_Norfolk Part of the cost of printing this newsletter has very kindly been donated in memory of Mr John Edgar Mallett, originally of Stiffkey. The extra costs incurred to print colour pages have once again been kindly donated by Roland Rogers. The opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Society Front Cover: Brimstone – see page 22 for Andy Brazil’s report on the timing of emerging hibernators and the new brood in 2017. Photo by Mike Gasson Inside Front Cover: Norfolk’s contribution to the BC Conservation Day of Action. Clearing scrub (bottom) on the Cut-off Channel to create better habitat for the Dingy Skipper (top). Photos by Peter Lindsley (top) and Mike Gasson (bottom). 3 Chairman’s Thoughts Judy Dunmore As I write this over the Easter weekend, the weather has once again turned very wet.
  • Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group Cycling and Walking Report

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

    Greater Thetford Development Partnership Community Sub-Group Cycling and Walking Report Robert J Whittaker 9 January 2018 DRAFT GTDP Community Sub-Group Cycling & Walking Report Executive Summary [To be written once the report has been finalised.] DRAFT 1 GTDP Community Sub-Group Cycling & Walking Report Contents 1 Background 4 2 Other Relevant Local Studies & Reports 4 3 Recommendations 4 4 Routes within the Town for Pedestrians 5 4.1 Condition of Paved Routes . .5 4.2 Condition of Unpaved Routes . .5 4.3 Unrecorded Paths . .7 4.4 Unrecorded Public Open Space . .8 4.5 Junction / Crossing Issues . .9 4.6 Missing Links . 10 4.7 Riverside Route Through the Town . 11 5 Routes within the Town for Cyclists 12 5.1 Major Roads . 12 5.2 Problematic Road Junctions . 14 5.3 Existing Off-Road Routes . 15 5.4 Missing Links . 17 6 Connectivity outside the Town for Pedestrians 19 6.1 North-West along the Little Ouse Valley to High Lodge, Thetford Forest, and Brandon . 19 6.2 North to Croxton . 19 6.3 East to Kilverstone, Brettenham and the Peddars Way . 20 6.4 South-East to Rushford, Knettishall Heath and the Peddars Way . 20 6.5 South-West to Elveden . 20 6.6 South to Barnham and Euston . 20 7 ConnectivityDRAFT outside the Town for Cyclists 21 7.1 North-West to High Lodge, Thetford Forest, and Brandon . 21 7.2 North to Croxton . 22 7.3 North-East to East Wretham Heath and Great Hockham Woods . 22 7.4 East to Kilverstone, Brettenham and the Peddars Way .
  • Cambridgeshire & Essex Butterfly Conservation

    Cambridgeshire & Essex Butterfly Conservation

    Butterfly Conservation Regional Action Plan For Anglia (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Suffolk & Norfolk) This action plan was produced in response to the Action for Butterflies project funded by WWF, EN, SNH and CCW This regional project has been supported by Action for Biodiversity Cambridgeshire and Essex Branch Suffolk branch BC Norfolk branch BC Acknowledgements The Cambridgeshire and Essex branch, Norfolk branch and Suffolk branch constitute Butterfly Conservation’s Anglia region. This regional plan has been compiled from individual branch plans which are initially drawn up from 1997-1999. As the majority of the information included in this action plan has been directly lifted from these original plans, credit for this material should go to the authors of these reports. They were John Dawson (Cambridgeshire & Essex Plan, 1997), James Mann and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Plan, 1998), and Jane Harris (Norfolk Plan, 1999). County butterfly updates have largely been provided by Iris Newbery and Dr Val Perrin (Cambridgeshire and Essex), Roland Rogers and Brian Mcllwrath (Norfolk) and Richard Stewart (Suffolk). Some of the moth information included in the plan has been provided by Dr Paul Waring, David Green and Mark Parsons (BC Moth Conservation Officers) with additional county moth data obtained from John Dawson (Cambridgeshire), Brian Goodey and Robin Field (Essex), Barry Dickerson (Huntingdon Moth and Butterfly Group), Michael Hall and Ken Saul (Norfolk Moth Survey) and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Moth Group). Some of the micro-moth information included in the plan was kindly provided by A. M. Emmet. Other individuals targeted with specific requests include Graham Bailey (BC Cambs. & Essex), Ruth Edwards, Dr Chris Gibson (EN), Dr Andrew Pullin (Birmingham University), Estella Roberts (BC, Assistant Conservation Officer, Wareham), Matthew Shardlow (RSPB) and Ken Ulrich (BC Cambs.