Traffic, Parking and Walking Reports of Meetings with Area Highways Engineer and Others

New Buckenham Neighbourhood Development Plan

Traffic, Parking and Walking Reports of meetings with Area Highways Engineer and others

1. Background: Highways Infrastructure

1.1. The importance of highways infrastructure cannot be underestimated. The uniquely historic and attractive nature of the village which is greatly loved, is clearly threatened by the increasing levels of particularly industrial/cargo traffic using the B1113.

1.2. The village survey (2017), which elicited an 84% returns rate, clearly shows this clash of loves and hates.

What don’t they like? What 80do they like about the village? 70 35 60 30 50 40 25 30 20 20 10 15 0 10 5 0

“People are nice and welcoming” “Too much heavy traffic and speeding” “…it just makes me feel happy, perhaps it’s the “Traffic, parking, lack of mobile phone signal” people, the look and feel of it”

Q3 - What do you like about living in New Buckenham? Q4 - What do you dislike about living in New Buckenham? 11 12

1.3. The noise, vibration, speed, danger of the huge lorries, delivery vans, tractors and commercial vehicles of all types, alongside the lack of parking facilities, is a constant complaint and in practical terms threatens the very foundations of the houses and ability of businesses to survive.

1.4. Highways are the responsibility of the County Council. In an effort to assess possibilities the Planning Group invited Highway Engineer, David Jacklin, from the Community and Environmental Services Department of Norfolk County Council to visit the village and offer thoughts. He is Highway Engineer, South 3 covering Narborough to New Buckenham, including Thetford and Swaffham. They have recently been downsized and, instead of 12 HEs there are now only 10 HEs at NCC.

2. Meeting with Highways Engineer 20 February 2018

2.1. Charles Oxley and Janet Trewin gave DJ a guided tour of the village and then discussed issues. It was made clear from the outset that there is very little

money in the Highways budget and, whereas at one time "minor traffic issues" could be put forward as a plan to be implemented, now there is no funding and it is suggested that an approach to a local councillor or MP might be a way of bringing change.

2.2. Issues Raised

High Traffic use of the B1113.

2.2.1. This road is increasingly busy. The lorries and buses needing to use it are very wide, high and heavy. Householders complain of the noise but also of damage to their buildings (many having no foundations). It was very apparent from our expert that, since money and man-power are so short currently, the County Council would require powerful evidence of damage or danger before agreeing to implement change. Proof of accidents, especially involving injury, is classically the type of evidence that carries the most weight.

Re-routing

2.2.2. Diverting traffic is a mixed blessing since it might , if not handled carefully, take business, visitors etc. away from the village. DJ points out that it is very, very difficult to re-route a B road. The true reason for its original designation is lost in the mists of time. However, they normally fall into PMDA categories: P-Primary route, M -Main route, D – Distributor, A – Access.

2.2.3. It is possible to downgrade or re-route it, although this would require a large field study by Highways to ascertain what the alternative options might be and could involve re-designation of other routes, e.g. bi-passing New Buckenham going north via B1077 Haugh Road , Low Road and Cherry Tree Road exiting half way across the common and proceeding North on the Turnpike. Were a new route to be chosen, money would have to be spent on upgrading the new section and putting up new signs.

An alternative route around New Buckenham

Weight Restrictions

2.2.4. DJ revealed that it is possible, although very, very unusual to impose lorry weight restrictions. Much to his own surprise this is being tested in East Harling where a Highways-constructed bollard outside a shop has been frequently knocked down. It was placed there at the behest of the villagers for protection because previously lorries mounted the pavement as they turned the corner. The County Council has now agreed to restrict heavy loads in the village. Clearly this requires finding alternative routes. In this case the heaviest lorries are being re-routed via Thetford which suggests that quite drastic action can be taken where the evidence for change is compelling. The experiment is not completed and will be reviewed before final decisions are taken. It requires a change in the "route hierarchy" imposing a 7 1/2 tons weight limit. A fully laden beet lorry might weigh up to 44 tons. An alternative weight restriction is being operated in Bury so that a heavy lorry can go out of Bury to Thetford but it is illegal in the other direction. the biggest issue here is the inability of the police effectively to enforce the rule.

Route around East Harling for weight restricted vehicles

Yellow lines

2.2.5. Traffic congestion outside St Mary's is a safety issue when even ambulances are finding it difficult to park and the road is blocked to all comers, including, potentially, the emergency services. DJ reports that it is possible to find funding for yellow lines in agreed areas.

Speed Limits

2.2.6. The speed limit through New Buckenham is 20 miles per hour. It is often said that this is not an enforceable limit. This is incorrect. It is a legal limit and should be adhered to. DJ points out, by way of explanation for the confusion, that the police, being overworked and with limited funding, tend not to expend effort on enforcing 20 mph zones. They also take the view that a 20 mph zone, which is fairly unusual, would not have been agreed to by the authorities unless it was believed that 20 mph is a "natural " speed bearing in mind the obstructions and road geography. Rightly or wrongly, there is an assumption that the 20 mph limit polices itself.

Width restrictions

2.2.7. Designing constrictions in the road to reduce traffic speed is not a favoured solution in the Highways Department these days. There is a belief that a car wishing to move quickly will accelerate fast on approaching a contraflow in order to get through first rather than wait for the traffic in the other direction which has the right of way. The Highways Department has had complaints from residents who are aggravated by the noise of acceleration in such circumstances. Similarly they get complaints from residents who hear the acceleration immediately after a speed camera has been passed.

Speed signs

2.2.8. There has been debate over whether the repeater speed signs in New Buckenham are appropriate in an historic environment, or even whether they are necessary. If the Highways Department is correct in the belief that 20 mph is the natural speed in New Buckenham, then the warning signs are of less import. DJ confirmed that it would be possible to remove signs. All signs of this kind are supposed to be on the public highway i.e. land owned by the authorities. The signs on the Village Green are not on public land. For this reason there is a strong case that they could be removed. Norfolk County Council are proud that they have recently won an award for sign removal, so they are looking carefully at the true value of road furniture of this kind. A road sign should be removed if it is: • on private land and not on the highway • unsightly • causing pollution • not enforced • unnecessary since a higher speed is impossible in that location.

Timber bollards

2.2.9. The wooden bollards placed on the pavements e.g. along King Street, to prevent parking on the sidewalk also reduce access by pedestrians, wheelchairs, prams etc. They don't always prevent parking on pavements where a car can park in between them.

2.2.10. Alternative speed reduction ideas - A number of villages have chosen planting concepts to warn of a particularly sensitive community ahead. It has been suggested by some in New Buckenham that verges full of daffodils both south and north of the village would be effective. DJ confirms that this can be done as long as it not the Highways Dept. which is expected to pay for the flowers.

2.2.11. However, it is recognised that such schemes can cause upset since the verges will still be cut the verges in the normal way. Residents may then feel that the flowers have been taken before they were in full bloom or were not left long enough etc. etc. The Highways Department re- assesses the timetable for cutting each year dependent on the weather conditions, funding etc. It is usually three cuts a year in rural areas and 5 cuts in urban zones.

Drainage

2.2.12. Flood water and standing water on the roads has long been an issue. Large deep pools were visible on the King St/Marsh Lane junction near the Almshouses. DJ can approach the relevant personnel in NCC to repair the problem since there appears to be no drainage at all. Other locations in the village (Cuffer Lane and St. Martin's Gardens, King Street) also have flooding issues.

Footpaths

2.2.13. New Buckenham's footpaths and cycle ways are a potential source of footfall and business in the area. The village is on the widely advertised Tas Valley Way (see notes at end). Designated long distance trails are the responsibility of Trails Officer Sharon Bland. However, despite it being promoted in tourism guides as a long- distance path, the Tas Valley way, is not a long-distance trail (like the Peddars Way, Boudicca Way etc.) and therefore does not get the advertising and funding from Norfolk County Council that the other paths do. The Highways Dept. is, therefore, responsible for these "lesser" lanes and footpaths and signs.

2.2.14. The Manager of the Trails Department is Russell Wilson. He has made it clear that he is in favour of including the Tas Valley Way. They simply need funding. They have been hoping to use the Community Infrastructure Levy (which is a levy on developers), but Breckland doesn't subscribe to the system as used by NCC.

Breckland wanted the CIL to be used on the particular development for which it was paid but NCC put it into a general pot for general use. This may mean that funding for the Tas Valley Way will be harder to come by.

2.2.15. Russell Wilson wrote saying to the NP4NB Planning Group (Jan 2018) " When the trails team was established officers had to take a realistic and pragmatic view of what trails should or should not be included in the portfolio and a number of long-distance paths – the Kett and the Tas were not included. This does not mean that they will not be included in the future as we are looking to see how these routes could be re- established."

Map of official Norfolk Trails (excludes Tas Valley Way)

Futureproofing

2.2.16. The Plan must, by law, consider and prepare for the future of the village area up to 2036. Consequently, we must anticipate the many huge changes that are already upon us including for example, electric cars, how and where to charge them (supermarkets are already installing charging points as a matter of course) and what facilities might be expected to be provided by local authorities etc. DJ admitted that, to his knowledge, there is no department considering the options, planning regulations or provision of infrastructure to allow for these revolutionary changes. This does not absolve us of responsibility for such preparations - it simply makes it more complex!

3. Meeting with Highways Engineer 28 February 2019

3.1. Present: David Jacklin NCC Highway Engineer Area 3. From NP4NB : Charles Oxley, Mary Dowson PC, Don Crossman PC, Trish Mallett, Janet Trewin

3.2. Parking/emergency access outside St Mary's Care Home

3.2.1. The top priority problem for the village. Emergency vehicles often unable to park outside the home due to cars on the east side of street, opposite the building. These cars may be those of the care workers, visitors to the home, the local residents, tourists or shoppers who wish to go to the general store, pub or coffee shop. Arguably there is already enough space for local residents to park outside their own houses on the west side of the street, since the white line outside the St Mary's does not extend as far as the neighbouring houses.

County Council Highways' initial response 6.2.19

• There used to be a "minor traffic management" fund for this kind of alteration. The fund has been decreased & now does not exist at all. • Traffic Regulation Orders are required for such changes which are costly because they require legal input. • Such changes are not considered to be a priority. The County's priority currently is "maintaining the existing network" • The cost of the yellow line change could be as much as £5,000. It could easily exceed that. If there is any objection e.g. from residents/publicans/retailers the legal costs mount swiftly.

• The County Council is wary of yellow line changes like this, due to opposition from householders anxious at a reduction in property value. • Merely pushing the parking issue to pinch points elsewhere. "It just moves the problem along the road". • Lack of enforcement so people won't obey the markings. • There are two ways of funding such a change. Either the Parish Council pays entirely or it applies for Parish Partnership Funding. This is a fund of £300,000. Letters of invitation to bid for 2019/20 were sent to Parish Clerks in June 2018. The closing date was 7th December 2018.

Outcome 28.2.19

• David Jacklin re-iterated that, financial cut-backs being what they are, such matters are not a priority with the Highways Department. The general advice is to seek alternative answers e.g. putting out traffic cones, leafletting villagers, putting signs on offending cars, and setting notices warning that the space outside the Home is required for Emergency vehicles.

• The white line, known as an "H bar", is advisory only, so there is no way to "enforce" it.

• Yellow lines can be enforced but we are warned that the practicality of police action is very limited due to cost cutting, even although we are concerned with emergency vehicles etc.

• Placing yellow lines could technically be done, but it has to be paid for (anything between £5,000 - £15,000) and, since Norfolk County Council doesn't have the funds to do it, the only way is to seek Parish Partnership Funding - 50% : 50%. The next round of funding should be in April but there is no certainty that the scheme will be renewed this year (2019). The Parish Council should receive warning of any re-opening of the funding scheme.

• It is emphasised that a major portion of costs, in the experience of the Highways Dept. is objections from local people and/ or local businesses who would have their parking restricted e.g. King's Head.

An alternative route for HGVs?

3.2.2. The problem is that the village has four very tight, ninety-degree blind bends which often require large vehicles to go onto the opposite side of the road. Passing can mean cars going onto the pavement. Reversing in such tight confines is dangerous. New Buckenham’s houses, 42 of which are listed, are directly on the street (no front gardens) and some have no pavements in front. They do not have modern foundations. The vibrations of large HGVs passing can be felt. Village streets are narrower than E Harling where a diversion has been tested. Arguably ours is a much more severe congestion problem.

County Council Highways Initial Response 6.2.19

• Alternative routes demand equivalent or higher grade roads. • Re-routing requires a large field study by Highways. It could also involve re- designating other roads, upgrading sections of the route and putting up new signs. The obvious short routes avoiding NB do not meet legal requirements. (see below) • East Harling detour is 16 miles. (c.f. 5 miles N-S) The experiment will end in April 2019. The County Council imposed an 18 tonne weight limit (A fully laden beet lorry might weigh up to 44 tonne). To be successful, the assessment must show that lorries & agricultural vehicles have been reduced by 40-50%. • There has been one incident in New Buckenham, in King Street, October 2014.

Outcome 28.2.19

• There is no money at County Hall. David Jacklin's judgement is that, currently, there is no way that the NCC will act to relieve the problem. • If there were injuries/fatalities this would serve merely to push the issue up the agenda - not to force any action. • There is no easily defined alternative route (B-grade or higher), nor would there appear to be any enthusiasm to find an alternative solution however serious the structural problems and historic significance is perceived to be.

3.3. Possible actions

• Clear signage clutter and reinforce 20 mph speed restriction. Highways have put 20 mph signs on the Market Place, owned by the High Bailiff's Trust. They are perceived as adding to "street clutter". • The flashing speed sign on the Turnpike warning of a 20 mph zone ahead begins to flash quite a distance from the restricted area. On the south side of the village a 40 mph sign is almost immediately followed by the warning of a 20 mph limit. It's suggested this 40 mph sign is unnecessary. A better option would be a flashing 20 mph sign. • Concern that people are not obeying the 20 mph limit on King Street or on Chapel St where they speed to beat the traffic using King Street.

County Council Highways Initial Response 6.2.19

• NCC which recently won a national award for reducing sign clutter, are willing to reduce signage where it's safe. • Signs cannot be put onto telegraph poles or telecoms structures although lamp posts are possible. • Posts reaching the end of their life can be removed. • The flashing sign on the turnpike is a Vehicle Activated Sign (V.A.S.). They are normally triggered by radar at 100 metres. It can be adjusted down to 70 m. although it may be beneficial to warn well in advance to slow down. • A SAM 2 sign, which is also flashing but portable could be installed. It must be moved through three different locations. (Who does this?) A SAM 2 could be paid for by matched funding with the Parish Council.

Outcome 28.2.19

• Removing the 20mph signs means there can be no enforcement by police. The speed limit is governed by a traffic regulation order AND signs. • Police do not prioritise enforcement of 20mph limit because it is regarded as being a "self-enforcing" limit. i.e. it's placed in locations where it is a "natural limit" e.g. where there are double bends, narrow roads, lots of parked cars. • 20mph signs cannot be put on telegraph poles.

• A second Vehicle Activated Sign (stationery sign like the one on the common) could be erected at the south of the village but at the village's expense with Breckland match funding. • The Highway Department could adjust the VAS speed reader on the Common so that it doesn't flash so early although it may be beneficial to give early warning of a much lower speed limit ahead in the village. • VARs can also be designed with SID(speed Indicator device) which alerts drivers to their actual speed. Other design features include captions: "Thankyou"," Slow down", smiley emoji etc. • A SAM2 (movable speed sign) can be more effective. We can move it ourselves to any of three locations. We take advice from NCC as to which locations are suitable (i.e. where it won't block visibility from private driveways or the road and where the speed radar won't be inhibited by parked cars.) The sign can be bought with extra clamps and fittings so it can be put on posts, trees etc • The cost of a SAM2 can be approximately £3,500-4,000 and can be bought using matched funding. • NCC use Wescotec based in Dereham. Their web site illustrates the possibilities https://www.westcotec.co.uk/

3.3.1. Gateway Treatments on entering New Buckenham Gateway concepts can be successful in slowing traffic. There are many "gateway" ideas : reducing road width, changing the colour of the road surface, planting schemes on verges, altering the nature of the road surface.

County Council Highways Initial Response 6.2.19

• The Highways Department is sympathetic to gateway options but they must be paid for by matched funding or by Parish Council alone. • The 20 mph speed sign above the village name could be changed to a gate appearance, with planting. Wood not used as it's dangerous if hit, instead it's moulded/coloured plastic.

Outcome 28.2.19

• Gateways can cost around £1,000 each, would need one for each side of road. Made from plastic for safety reasons but looks like wood. • They can be bought through Parish Partnership money although there's no guarantee the scheme will continue throughout 2019. • The location for gateways needs to be checked with NCC. • Planting flowers or shrubs technically requires a "cultivation licence" where the flowers are on Council land. • In our circumstances, along the common and where there are large areas of meadow, it would regarded as unnecessary. • The disadvantage of planting is that council verge cutters might cut down the flowers, although it was admitted that cutting happens increasingly infrequently due to cost reductions.

3.4. Flooding problems

3.4.1. Flooding is a constant problem at a number of locations: on King Street, Dambrigg and at the junction of St Martins Gardens and Cuffer Lane. Is this problem long term or can something be done? Note that Dambrigg is mainly Banham and Old Buckenham but flooding there causes significant access problems to New Buckenham.

County Council Highways Initial Response 6.2.19

• The NCC noted the complaint and cleared gulleys/offlets as a result of initial discussions, the work being done on 8.2.19 • If there is a likelihood that further action needs to be taken the area can be added to the County Council Wet Weather Inspection List.

Outcome 28.2.19

• NCC Highways will keep an eye on flooding at the Dambrigg location. we can alert in cases of high rainfall. • The flooding at St Martin's Gardens/Cuffer Lane is to be investigated to see if there is a blockage underneath the road, resulting in no water flow into the moat opposite the village hall.

4. Breckland Match fundingi

4.1. Applications can be made at any time while the Fund is open. Please note, this funding programme is currently available up until and including June 30th 2019. The following levels of Match Funding grants are currently available:

4.1.1. Breckland Council Match Funding Small Grants Funding of between £500 and £5,000. With this funding stream applicants can expect a maximum of 50% of the total project cost therefore match funding is required which can be from your own funds or other external funders.

4.1.2. Breckland Council Match: Funding Large Grants Funding of between £5,001 and £20,000. With this funding stream there is a maximum of 30% of the total project cost available, therefore match funding is required which can be from your own funds or other external funders.

4.1.3. Parish Partnership Scheme: Under the Parish Partnership Scheme, bidders must co- fund scheme bids with us. This co-funding is usually raised through parish/town council precepts. However, bidders can obtain scheme funding (in whole or part) from other suitable sources, or in partnership with other bidders.

4.1.4. Some alternative potential funding sources you may wish to consider are: • Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Where a district council has an adopted CIL Charging Schedule in place, the town or parish council will be entitled to 15% of the CIL receipt collected within their area. This figure rises to 25% where the town or parish council has an adopted Neighbourhood Plan in place. • Developer funding in those districts where CIL has not been introduced, developer funding will be secured through agreement between the respective developer and local authorities, which may include the county, district and/or town/parish council. The County Council may still hold relevant, residual Section 106 funds received from developers prior to CIL, which could be applied for highway improvement purposes. However, this will be subject to strict caveats regarding its use and will be site specific. When you submit a bid, we'll automatically review available S106 funding to check whether it may be applied to your scheme either wholly or in partly as your contribution. If it can be, we'll advise you. • Recycling credits: Norfolk County Council pays recycling credits to organisations who collect recyclable materials from our residents. Find out more about recycling credits. • Drainage Funding Our Flood and Water Management Team can help identify funding opportunities which will reduce flood risk across the county. Email [email protected] with details of your potential proposal and they can advise you about possible options. • Norfolk Community Foundation: Norfolk Community Foundation encourages charitable giving and connects donors with communities across Norfolk. An independent registered charity, they are part of a national movement of community foundations that manages funds for its donors, undertakes strategic grant making and contributes to achieving social change in the local area for the long term. • Big Lottery Fund: Big Lottery Fund offers grants from £300 to more than £500,000 to community and voluntary groups and charities. • Local businesses: Supportive local businesses may also be willing to help fund/ sponsor schemes benefitting local communities.

5. Notes on Tas Valley Way (comes through New Buckenham) https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/business/business-services/cool-rural-tourism-business-toolkit

Tas Valley Way Statistics and Files Start: Cringleford Distance: 25 miles (40 km) Grid Ref: TG200059

Climbing: 211 metres Walk time: 9-12 hours Days: 1-2 Ordnance Survey Explorer Map (1:25,000) Bus: 237 Norwich, Wymondham, Attleborough and Watton

5.1.1. The Tas Valley Way is a long-distance footpath in Norfolk, eastern England. It roughly follows the course of the River Tas upstream from where it flows into the River Yare at Cringleford, West Norwich to beyond its source near to New Buckenham in the nearby market town of Attleborough. During the walking of the Tas Valley Way numerous towns and villages are visited, many of which have sites of historical interest. From the start these, in order of the route, include Intwood, Lower East Carleton, Mulbarton, Bracon Ash, Flordon, Hapton, Forncett St Mary, Forncett St Peter, Cargate Common, Hargate, New Buckenham and Old Buckenham (including the new and old castles) and finally Attleborough.

5.1.2. The path runs between Eaton and Attleborough and links with both Kett's Country Walk and the Yare Valley Walk.

5.1.3. The walk passes through a landscape shaped by the Enclosure Acts, and where public access is now generally restricted to roads and public rights of way. Notable exceptions are New Buckenham and Old Buckenham Commons, where free access may be enjoyed.

i Breckland Website February 28.2.19