DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report of: Executive Member for Growth

To: Local Plan Working Group – 11th July 2016

Author: Stephen Ottewell, Director Capita Planning and Building Control

Subject: Settlement Boundaries and Preferred Sites

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the methodology for the settlement boundary review and the approach to the selection of preferred sites for the Local Plan.

Recommendation(s):

That Local Plan Working Group considers the settlement boundary review and approach to the selection of preferred sites and endorse the assessment

1.0 BACKGROUND – SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES

1.1 Members will be aware that the Preferred Directions consultation included Policy PD05 which set the approach to Rural Areas. Policy PD05 was subject to consultation for a six week period between January and February 2016. The policy identified the following places as rural settlements with settlement boundaries outside of service centres:

• Ashill, Beeston, Besthorpe, , Bradenham, , , , , , Croxton, East , Foulden, , , , , , , , , , , Lyng, , , , , , , , , , , Stanfield, , Thompson, Weasenham,

1.2 This was a total of 39 names settlements.

1.3 Whether or not a settlement should have a boundary depends upon the level of services and facilities within a settlement. This approach accords with the concept of thriving rural communities set out within the NPPF and PPG. The PPG states ‘a thriving rural community in a living, working countryside depends, in part, on retaining local services and community facilities such as schools, local shops, cultural venues, public houses and places of worship. Rural housing is essential to ensure viable use of these local facilities.’

1.4 Following feedback received, included at the informal working group, it is now proposed that in order for a settlement to qualify for inclusion with PD05 (A) as a settlement with a boundary that it needs to have 3 of the 5 services / facilities identified below:

• Public Transport – An assessment of the level of public transport access within the village. This has included looking at the frequency of services and whether you can reach the destination for normal working hours. • Community Facility - This can include a number of different facilities such as a village hall, public house, restaurant or café. • Employment – The assessment has looked at the level of employment available within the village. This has included whether there is a business park and also the size of the businesses within the settlement. • Shop/Post Office • School

1.5 The assessment has had regard to the distance of services and facilities from the designated settlement boundary/village core – and should only be considered to be available where they are within a recognised acceptable walking distance. Based on these criteria, an assessment has been made as to the availability of services within each village.

1.6 This has led to a total of 15 settlements being identified:

• Beeston, , Carbrooke, Caston, Gressenhall, Griston, , Ickburgh, Lyng, , North Lopham, Rocklands, , Thompson, Weasenham,

1.7 If this was lowered to 2, then an additional 17 settlements would have been included within scope, which is more equivalent to the number proposed at the preferred directions stage. Whilst the figure now proposed leads to a significantly lower number of settlement boundaries, it is considered to be more consistent with an approach to sustainable development in Breckland which seeks to direct growth towards the most sustainable locations.

1.8 As locations with a greater level of services / facilities compared to other rural areas, these areas will see a higher level of development when compared to other rural areas over the plan period. However, it will continue to be carefully managed in line with the policy requirements of PD 05A – in particular that:

• There is an identified economic and / or social local need; • It can be demonstrated that there is appropriate support by local communities; • It is of an appropriate scale and design to the settlement and no more than 5 units; • When considered alongside expected development within the settlement boundary and any other commitments, it does not lead to the number of dwellings increasing by more than 10% over the plan period (2011-2036) ; • The design contributes to enhancing the historic nature and connectivity of communities; • The exact scale and level of development supported will be dependent on individual character, the impact on environmental capacity and infrastructure provision.

1.9 For those areas where the settlement boundaries are now to be removed on the basis that they don’t have the necessary level of service provision, development will be carefully managed in line with PD05B, in a manner which is more restrictive than for those named settlements with boundaries. This will ensure that:

• The development is within a closely knit cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings adjacent to or fronting an existing highway; • It can be demonstrated that there is appropriate support by local communities; and • The scale of development developments of infilling a small undeveloped plot by up to 3 dwellings commensurate with the scale and character of existing dwellings within an otherwise continuous built up frontage; • When considered alongside expected development within the smaller village / hamlet and any other commitments, the cumulative development level is commensurate with its position outside the settlement hierarchy; • The proposal does not harm or undermine a visually important gap that contributes to the character and distinctiveness of the rural scene, or where development would have an adverse impact on the environment or highway safety;

1.10 Policy PD05 included a criteria based approach for the settlement boundary review. This included the following criteria:

• Recent planning approvals; • Infilling and rounding off opportunities; • Adjoining small scale brownfield sites; • The appropriate re-use of appropriate small scale rural buildings; and • Environmental constraints.

1.11 The settlement boundary review (Appendix 1) has made three recommendations for individual boundaries: amend boundary, retain existing boundary or delete boundary. The recommendations to delete boundaries have been based on the level of service provision within the settlement. The recommendations to amend settlement boundaries has been based on an assessment of the existing boundary against the criteria listed in paragraph 1.10 above.

1.12 It is recommended the members endorse the approach to the settlement boundary review as the basis for the forthcoming discussions at the Local Plan Working Group sessions, where feedback will be invited on the settlement boundary review document.

BACKGROUND - SELECTION OF PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SITES

1.13 The Council consulted of emerging site options for the Local Plan between January and February. That document set out a summary of the interim site assessments of potential sites, showing suggested sites as either reasonable or unreasonable alternatives, and also excluded sites. Within each settlement section there was a summary of the interim assessment, and whether at that stage the Council considered a reasonable option to be deliverable or developable.

1.14 Comments were invited on the suitability of the identified emerging site alternatives, both reasonable and unreasonable.

1.15 In advance of finalising the Local Plan for publication / submission, it is intended to undertaken further consultation on preferred sites.

1.16 The identification of preferred housing sites has been undertaken in conformity with the revised distribution of development, which is subject to a separate report. The application of these figures has allowed officers to identify which of those sites previously identified as reasonable (or any other sites which are considered reasonable which have been submitted since that time), are recommended as the preferred site(s) to deliver the housing target.

1.17 A detailed appraisal of potential options has been undertaken based on site assessment criteria which take into consideration social, economic and environmental impacts.

1.18 The criteria are as follows:

• Will the allocation for development be in accordance with the locational strategy? • Could the development have an impact on European and international environmental designations? • Planning History • Could the development allocation impact upon other environmental designations • Is the site well related to the existing settlement boundary? • Is the site deliverable? • Is the site available for the proposed used, and when could it reasonably be expected to be delivered? • Could the allocation for development have an adverse impact upon the local highways safety • Current use of land – is the site brownfield or greenfield. If greenfield – is it high grade agricultural? • What impact will the site have on infrastructure capacity? Can the impact on infrastructure be overcome • Will the development allocation have an impact upon amenity? Could the amenity of new development on the site ben affected by existing features? • Is the allocation for development in a location which has easy access to key services? • Will the development allocation have a detrimental impact on the landscape / townscape? • Could the allocation for development impact upon the historic environment • Would the allocation for development result if a loss of accessible open space? • Would the allocation of the site for development result in a loss of employment land? • Other constraints • Conclusions

1.19 The findings of this process have been captured in a site pro forma and have informed the initial identification of preferred site allocations. A further sustainability appraisal and habitats regulations assessment will also be carried out on the individual sites prior to formal consultation.

1.20 It is recommended the members endorse the approach to the selection of preferred sites as the basis for the forthcoming discussions at the Local Plan Working Group sessions, where feedback will be invited on the preferred sites identified.

1.21 Following the consultation on the preferred sites the publication Local Plan will be finalised. The publication document will set out the sites to be allocated and policies that any planning applications for these sites will need to be determined against

2.0 OPTIONS

2.1 There are three options available for consideration:

Option 1: Members endorse the approach to the settlement boundary review and selection of preferred sites Option 2: Members endorse one of the elements, but not the other. Option 3: Members do not endorse the approach to settlement boundaries or preferred development sites.

3.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S)

3.1 It is recommended that Local Plan Working Group endorse the approach to the review of settlement boundaries and selection of preferred sites. This will help to ensure timely progress on the Local Plan.

4.0 EXPECTED BENEFITS

4.1 The expected benefit is to allow the Local Plan to progress in accordance with the agreed timeline.

5.0 IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Carbon Footprint / Environmental Issues

5.1.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.2 Constitution & Legal

5.2.1 There are no direct legal risks resulting from the contents of this report; however Local Planning documents need to be prepared in accordance with the relevant Local Planning Regulations and Acts of Parliament, having regard to relevant considerations and case law.

5.3 Contracts

5.3.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.4 Corporate Priorities

5.4.1 This report aligns with and supports the following corporate priorities: • Supporting Breckland to develop and thrive; • Enabling effective planning and delivery of housing solutions to meet local needs.

5.5 Crime and Disorder

5.5.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.6 Equality and Diversity / Human Rights

5.6.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.7 Financial

5.7.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.8 Health & Wellbeing

5.8.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.9 Risk Management

5.9.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications. 5.10 Safeguarding

5.10.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.11 Staffing

5.11.1 It is the opinion of the Report Author that there are no implications.

5.12 Stakeholders / Consultation / Timescales

5.12.1 The expected benefit is to allow the Local Plan to progress in accordance with the agreed timeline.

6.0 WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED

6.1 All wards in Breckland are affected by the Local Plan. This report focuses on the following parishes designated as Rural Areas: Ashill, Beeston, Besthorpe, Bintree, Bradenham, Brisley, Carbrooke, Caston, Cockley Cley, Colkirk, Croxton, , Foulden, Foxley, Garvestone, Gooderstone, Great Dunham, Gressenhall, Griston, Guist, Ickburgh, Little Cressingham, Longham, Lyng, Mileham, New Buckenham, North Lopham, North Pickenham, Rocklands, Scarning, Shropham, Snetterton, Sparham, Stanfield, Stow Bedon, , Thompson, Weasenham and Whissonsett.

7.0 ACRONYMS

7.1 NPPF: National Planning Policy Framework 7.2 PPG: Planning Practice guidance

Background papers:-

Lead Contact Officer Name and Post: Steve Ottewell – Director, Capita Telephone Number: Email: [email protected].

Key Decision: Yes

Exempt Decision: No

This report refers to a Mandatory Service

Appendices attached to this report: Appendix A: Rural Area Settlement Boundary Review Appendix A

35 Review of Rural Settlement Boundaries

35.1 Settlement boundaries are a policy tool which delineate in plan form coherent and established built up areas. The purpose of settlement boundaries is to promote development around existing built-up communities where there is a clearly defined settlement where further development, if properly designed and constructed, would not be incongruous or intrusive because of the size of the settlement. In simple terms, a settlement boundary is the dividing line, or boundary between areas of built/urban development (the settlement, where development in principle is accepted) and non-urban or rural development – the open countryside, (where development, with limited exceptions, is not generally permitted). A settlement boundary does not necessarily have to cover the full extent of a village nor be limited to its built form. Within Breckland settlement boundaries are focused on areas with services and facilities.

35.2 The majority of settlement boundaries were last reviewed through the Site Specific Policies and Proposals DPD (adopted 2012). This presented the first opportunity for settlement boundaries to be reviewed since the 1999 Local Plan. As part of this review it was recommended that settlement boundaries should be reviewed on a more regular basis. The settlement boundaries of Quidenham, Besthorpe and Snetterton North End have not been reviewed since 1999, as they were to be considered through a separate area action plan.

The Development Hierarchy

35.3 The Preferred Directions Local Plan sets the context for a settlement boundary review. This review relates to the rural settlements which are located outside of the top three tiers of the settlement hierarchy. The top three tiers of the hierarchy is shown below:

35.4 Key Settlements: and

35.5 Market Towns: , and Watton

35.6 Local Service Centres: Banham, Bawdewell, Beetley, , , Harling, , Hockham, , , , Mundford, Narborough, , , , Saham Toney, , Sporle, , Weeting and

35.7 Outside of these three tiers of the development hierarchy there are 85 parishes which are classified as rural areas. Of these 85 parishes there are 40 rural parishes with a settlement boundary. The other 45 parishes do not have settlement boundaries. The rural settlement boundary review is focused on the 40 parishes with a settlement boundary. It is not possible or desirable to draw development boundaries for all rural settlements in Breckland. Development in the smaller villages and hamlets is often more sporadic in nature and is of a small scale. No development boundaries will be identified for the smaller more sporadic villages and hamlets.

35.8 The following rural areas have settlement boundaries and will form part of the review:

Ashill, Beeston, Besthorpe, Bintree, Bradenham, Brisley, Carbrooke, Caston, Cockley Cley, Colkirk, Croxton, East Tuddenham, Foulden, Foxley, Garvestone, Gooderstone, Great Dunham, Gressenhall, Griston, Guist, Ickburgh, Little Cressingham, Longham, Lyng, Mileham, New Buckenham, North Lopham, North Pickenham, Rocklands, Scarning, Shropham, Snetterton, Sparham, Stanfield, Stow Bedon, Tittleshall, Thompson, Weasenham and Whissonsett.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 1 35

Methodology for Settlement Boundary Review

35.9 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not provide defined criteria for how to draw up settlement boundaries. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that ‘ to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities…. Local planning authorities should avoid isolated new homes in the countryside.’

35.10 The overarching aims of the settlement boundary review are:

To ensure that those lower order settlements identified in the Local Plan that have settlement boundaries remain logical and easy to identify on the ground; and

To identify what parts of the settlement should and should not be included within a settlement boundary in order to provide some flexibility and appropriate infill development opportunities

35.11 The Local Plan Preferred Directions Policy PD05 Rural Areas provides the context for the settlement boundary review. The preferred directions Local Plan was consulted on for a six week period between 11th January and 22nd February 2016. Policy PD05 provides five criteria for the settlement boundary review, stating that they should reflect:

1. Recent planning approvals; 2. Infill and rounding off opportunities; 3. Adjoining small scale brownfield sites; 4. The appropriate re-use of small scale rural buildings; and 5. Environmental Constraints.

35.12 In relation to environmental constraints this will include consideration of: flood risk, open space, listed buildings, conservations areas, scheduled monuments and designated sites such as County Wildlife Sites, Ancient Woodlands, Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area and Special Areas of Conservation. In addition to the five criteria, the assessment has also considered the level of services and facilities within the village. The approach has required three key services and facilities in the form of either a school, shop, community facility, employment or public transport to see the retention of the settlement boundary.

35.13 Any changes that occur to settlement boundaries as a result of the settlement boundary review will be formalised through the Local Plan process, involving public consultation and then examination by an independent inspector before being adopted by the Council in the Local Plan.

2 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 3 35

Beeston

35.14 Beeston contains a number of services and facilities including a primary school and Beeston Pavillion (Beeston Village Hall). There is also an employment area at Beeston on Herne Lane. The village does not however meet the criteria to be a Local Service Village. The settlement boundary was last reviewed in 2012 when a number of amendments were made to it. This included an extension to the settlement boundary to the rear of Beeston village stores. The boundary remains logical. The sites submitted through the Local Plan call for sites would have an impact on the character of the village if they were included.

Figure 35.1 Beeston Existing Settlement Boundary

4 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.15 The settlement boundary remains logical. The sites submitted through the Local Plan call for sites would have an impact on the character of the village if they were included. The preferred option is therefore to retain the existing settlement boundary

Alternative Option:

35.16 The alternative option is to make amendments the settlement boundary

Question 1

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Beeston settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 5 35

Beetley

35.17 Beetley is located to the north of Dereham. The village contains a number of services and facilities, and is only short of a shop and post office which prevents its designation as a Local Service Centre village. The village includes St Mary's Community Primary School, Beetley Village Hall & The New Inn pub. Public Transport: Number 21 bus has a frequent Monday-Saturday service between and Dereham. Employment: The Inter-Departmental Business Register (2013) shows 44 businesses within the parish. Larger employers within the parish include East Bilney Coachworks and garage, Healthcare Homes Ltd and Freestones Coaches. The settlement boundary was previously reviewed through the Site Specifics Policies and Proposals DPD.

6 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Figure 35.2 Beetley Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.18 The settlement boundary remains logical. The sites submitted through the Local Plan call for sites would have an impact on the character of the village if they were included. The preferred option is therefore to retain the existing settlement boundary

Alternative Option:

35.19 The alternative option is to make amendments the settlement boundary

Question 2

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Beetley settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 7 35

Besthorpe

35.20 Besthorpe parish includes Besthorpe village and also land within the urban area of Attleborough. This assessment relates to Besthorpe village settlement boundary which directly adjoins the village of Morley St Peter, which falls within South Council's area. The settlement boundary was not reviewed as part of the Site Specific Policies and Proposals DPD. Within the village there are two employment areas, Besthorpe Trading Estate and Rookery Business Park. Neither of these are designated as a GEA however, they do provide employment opportunities. Shops comprise Besthorpe Plant Centre & Farmshop which is distant from the settlement boundary (and so does not satisfy criteria for a convenience store within a short walking distance within the village .There are no community facilities. Public transport comprises a regular service to Attleborough.

Figure 35.3 Besthorpe Existing Settlement Boundary

8 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.21 The existing settlement boundary lacks the three services and facilities required to retain a settlement boundary. Whilst there are employment opportunities within the parish and a regular bus service to Attleborough there is a lack of other services. The preferred approach is therefore to remove the settlement boundary.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.22 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary

Question 3

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Besthorpe settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 9 35

Bintree

35.23 Bintree is located to the north-east of Breckland, with access from the A1067 to Fakenham Road. The existing settlement boundary was reviewed through the Site Specific Policies and Proposals DPD in 2012. The village contains limited services and facilities, however this does include the Royal Oak public house and Algys Farm Shop (not within the settlement boundary). There is no identified employment in the parish, however, there is a requent bus service X29 Norwich to Fakenham. There are also a number of areas of protected open space within the village.

Figure 35.4 Bintree Existing Settlement Boundary

10 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.24 Bintree's settlement boundary is located to the west of the A1067. The settlement boundary follows a logical pattern around existing dwellings. There are limited opportunities to expand the settlement boundary without harm to the form and character of the village, furthermore the village does not include the three services and facilities required to retain a settlement boundary. The preferred approach is therefore to delete the settlement boundary.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.25 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 4

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Bintree settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 11 35

Bradenham

35.26 Bradenham is located centrally within Breckland. The village contains three individual settlement boundaries which are focused around groupings of dwellings within the village. The settlement boundary was reviewed in through the site specific policies and proposals DPD in 2012, however at this stage the settlement boundary was retained in its existing form. The village contains a public house, the Lord Nelson, and a village hall. In addition to this George Tufts building supplies is centrally located within the village. There are limited other services and facilities available within the village.

Figure 35.5 Bradenham Existing Settlement Boundary

12 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.27 Bradenham contains a public house, village hall and limited employment opportunities through the George Tufts Building Supplies which is located within the village. There is a lack of other services and facilities to support the retention of a settlement boundary in accordance with the rural areas policy. The preferred approach is therefore to delete the settlement boundaries.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.28 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundaries without amendment. This approach is not considered as favourably as it is not in accordance with the criteria set out in policy PD05.

Question 5

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Bradenham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 13 35

Brisley

35.29 Brisley is located to the north of Breckland. The settlement boundary was last reviewed in 2012 and at this time one of the settlement boundaries (around St Bartholemew's Church) was removed. The village contains Briseley CE VA Primary School and a public house (Beetley Bell Inn). The primary school is located within the settlement boundary, whilst the public house is located on the green, which is located approximately 1km from the southern part of the settlement boundary.

Figure 35.6 Brisley Existing Settlement Boundary

14 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.30 The existing settlement boundary is tightly drawn around properties on School Road. Within the settlement boundary there are no opportunities for further development, without harm to the form and character of the village. Whilst the settlement does contain a level of services and facilities the preferred option is to remove the settlement boundary. This would mean that any applications would be determined having regard to the criteria based approach set out within policy PD05.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.31 The alternative approach is to retain the existing settlement boundary.

Question 6

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Brisley settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 15 35

Carbrooke

35.32 Carbrooke parish contains two settlement boundaries within the main village of Carbrooke. There are also properties located along Norwich Road, Carbrooke which fall within the Watton settlement boundary. This settlement boundary review refers to the two boundaries within Carbrooke village. Within Carbrooke village there is St Peter and Paul CE VC Primary School which is centrally located, however there are no other services and facilities. Carbrooke village is located approximately 1.5km from the edge of the Watton settlement boundary, where there are other services and facilities.

Figure 35.7 Carbrooke Existing Settlement Boundary

16 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.33 The settlement boundary remains relatively logical and follows natural features on the ground. The preferred approach is to retain the existing settlement boundary with amendments to reflect planning approvals in accordance with the criteria in PD05. The following amendments are proposed:

CAR.1 - Amend settlement boundary along Mill Lane to include properties known as Toad Hall and The Bungalow

Figure 35.8 Carbrooke Revised Settlement Boundary

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.34 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendments

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 17 35

Question 7

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Carbrooke settlement boundary?

18 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Caston

35.35 Caston village has two settlement boundaries which are located around The Street and The Green. There is further development at Northacre, however this is not included within a setllement boundary. The village has a level of service provision with a school, community facility and public house. The village lacks a shop or post office or employment opportunities, which has been taken into consideration in determining not to designate the village as a Local Service Centre. A number of amendments were made to the village settlement boundary in 2012 through the Site Specifics policies and Proposals DPD.

Figure 35.9 Caston Existing Settlement Boundary

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 19 35

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.36 Due to the level of service provision within Caston, it is recommended that a settlement boundary should be retained within the village. However due to recent planning approvals it is recommended that the boundary should be amended to reflect these. This approach would be in accordance with the criteria set out within policy PD05. The following amendments are proposed:

CAS.1 - Extend the settlement boundary at Dukes Lane to incorporate planning application 3PL/2015/0613/F which has been approved. CAS.2 - Extend the settlement boundary at The Street to incorporate Floxmoor Cottage CAS.3 - Amend the settlement boundary at The Green to incorporate planning application 3PL/2015/0147/F

Figure 35.10 Caston Revised Settlement Boundary

20 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.37 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 8

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Caston settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 21 35

Cockley Cley

35.38 Cockley Cley is located to the west of Breckland, directly to the south of Swaffham. There are limited services and facilities within the village, with only a public house, Twenty Churchwardens. The village lies completely within the 1,500m SPA buffer zone of land which is supporting or capable of supporting Stone Curlew. Further residential development is not supported unless it is screen by existing development from the SPA. To the south of the village is an area of flood risk.

Figure 35.11 Cockley Cley Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.39 The existing settlement boundary is tightly drawn and there are limited opportunities for further development inside the boundary, which would not impact upon the form and character of the village. The village is entirely located within the Stone Curlew buffer zone and is located to the north of the Special Protection Area for the

22 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 protection of Stone Curlew. Land to the north of the village is also designated as a special protection area for the preservation of Woodlark and Nightjar. Due to the environmental constraints within the village and the limited opportunities for further expansion inside the existing settlement boundary, the preferred option is for the boundary to be deleted.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.40 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendments. This option is not preferred, as due to the environmental constraints within there are not opportunities for further expansion within the village.

Question 9

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Cockley Cley settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 23 35

Colkirk

35.41 Colkirk is located to the very north of Breckland. The settlement boundary was reviewed previously in 2012, when a number of amendments were made to the boundary, including the removal of a settlement boundary from Market Hill. The village contains a small primary school, a nursery within the village hall and a public house, however this is currently closed.

Figure 35.12 Colkirk Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.42 The existing settlement boundary in Colkirk is logical and follows defensible boundaries. The village however only contains limited services and facilities in the form of the primary school and the public house. The preferred approach is therefore to delete the settlement boundary.

24 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.43 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 10

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Colkirk settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 25 35

Croxton

35.44 Croxton contains a settlement boundary surrounding the village of Croxton located to the north of the A11. Part of Croxton parish is also included within the Thetford settlement boundary, this includes land within the Sustainable Urban Extension. Croxton parish council are currently preparing a joint neighbourhood plan with Brettenham and parish councils.

35.45 The Croxton settlement boundary was amended in 2012 through the Site Specifics Policies and Proposals DPD. The village has a shop and a village hall, however it is lacking in other services and facilities to support development.

Figure 35.13 Croxton Existing Settlement Boundary

26 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.46 Croxton contains limited services and facilities in the form of a village hall and shop. There is a lack of other services and facilities. The preferred approach in accordance with the criteria of requiring three services or facilities to retain a settlement boundary, is to delete the boundary.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.47 The alternative option would be to retain the existing boundary.

Question 11

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Croxton settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 27 35

East Tuddenham

35.48 East Tuddenham is located to the north east of Breckland. The village has good public transport access, being located close to the A47 and there is also a village hall incorporating a social club. There are no other services or facilities within the village. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 as part of the Site Specifics. A number of changes were made to the settlement boundary at this time, including extensions to the settlement boundary at The Baynings on Mattishall Road and The Beeches on Common Road, which have led to the development of new dwellings within the village.

Figure 35.14 East Tuddenham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.49 The village only contains two services or facilities. The preferred approach in accordance with the policy is therefore to delete East Tuddenham's settlement boundary,

28 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Settlement Boundary

35.50 The alternative option is to retain the settlement boundary without amendment. This is not the preferred approach due to the limited services and facilities within the village.

Question 12

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the East Tuddenham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 29 35

Foulden

35.51 Foulden is located to the west of the district. The village is entirely contained within 1500m buffer zone from the Special Protection Area for land which is supporting or capable of supporting Stone Curlew. The village contains limited services and facilities, however this does include a public house. A number of changes were made to the settlement boundary through the Site Specifics, this predominantly focused on tightening the settlement boundary to exclude gardens from the settlement boundary in order to limit the potential for backland development causing harm to the qualifying features of the Breckland Special Protection Area.

Figure 35.15 Foulden Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.52 Significant changes to the settlement boundary were made in 2012, which predominantly led to the tightening of the settlement boundary. Whilst the village does contain some services and facilities these are limited and in accordance with the policy the preferred approach is to delete the settlement boundary.

30 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.53 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the limited services and facilities within the village.

Question 13

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Foulden settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 31 35

Foxley

35.54 Foxley is located to the north east of Breckland. The village is located on either side of the A1067, the main Fakenham to Norwich Road and has two settlement boundaries. Due to the villages location it has a good public transport network, between the two destinations, however it is lacking in other services and facilities. There is very small scale local employment at the nursery and Davis Farm. The village is located to the north of which is proposed as a Local Service Centre. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 through the Site Specifics, when it was proposed to retain the existing boundary.

Figure 35.16 Foxley Existing Settlement Boundary

32 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.55 The existing settlement boundaries are tightly drawn around the settlement and there are no further opportunities for development within the existing settlement limit. Further to this, there are limited services available within the village which would support development. The preferred approach is to remove the settlement boundary. This will mean that any application will need to be determined in accordance with the criteria based approach set out in Policy PD05.

Alternative Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.56 The alternative option would be to retain the existing settlement boundary with amendments. The existing boundary does not follow logical features on the ground, and any amendments would draw the boundary to follow natural features. Due to the lack of facilities available within the village, it would not be supported to expand the settlement boundary.

Question 14

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Foxley settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 33 35

Garvestone

35.57 Garvestone contains three individual settlement boundaries which are located along Dereham Road and Town Lane. The village contains a primary school and an active village hall, however it does not contain other services or facilities. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 when a number of changes were proposed to the boundary. These predominately related to the exclusion of rear gardens from the boundary which may have seen backland development which could have harmed the form and character of the village.

35.58 Garvestone parish also contains the hamlets of and . There are not settlement boundaries in this area.

Figure 35.17 Garvestone Existing Settlement Boundary

34 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.59 Garvestone village contains two key services and facilities in the form of the primary school and village hall. There are no other services or facilities within the village and therefore in accordance with the policy the preferred option is to delete the settlement boundaries.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.60 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary as adopted in 2012. This approach is not preferred, as the village contains limited services or facilities.

Question 15

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Garvestone settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 35 35

Gooderstone

35.61 Gooderstone is located to the west of Breckland. The village contains a primary school and The Swan Public House, however there are no other services and facilities The village lies entirely within the 1500m buffer zone from the Special Protection Area for land supporting or capable of supporting Stone Curlews. In some instances the SPA directly adjoins the village settlement boundary. In addition to this there are large areas of flood risk located to the north of the village following the path of the River Gadder.

35.62 The Gooderstone settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 through the Site Specifics Policies and Proposals DPD. At this time a number of changes were made to the boundary, which predominantly focused on tightening the boundary due to its proximity to the SPA.

Figure 35.18 Gooderstone Existing Settllement Boundary

36 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.63 Gooderstone contains two key services in the form of the primary school and public house. The previous review of the settlement boundary included several changes to tighten the boundary due to the proximity of the SPA. Due to the level of services and facilities within the village the preferred option is to delete the settlement boundary.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.64 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the limited services and facilities within the village.

Question 16

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Gooderstone settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 37 35

Great Dunham

35.65 Great Dunham is located to the north-west of Breckland, the village contains a primary school and a village hall, however there are limited other services and facilities within the village. The existing settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 through the Site Specifics, where it was proposed to retain the existing boundary.

Figure 35.19 Great Dunham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.66 There are limited services and facilities within the village beyond the primary school and village hall. In accordance with the policy the preferred option is therefore to delete the settlement boundary.

38 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.67 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This is not the preferred option due to the limited services and facilities within the village.

Question 17

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Great Dunham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 39 35

Gressenhall

35.68 Gressenhall is one of the larger villages in Breckland which is not designated as a Local Service Centre village. The village has a good range of services and facilities, including a public house, shop and post office and employment opportunities. The village does not however contain a primary school, which is located in the nearby village of Beetley. Gressenhall also contains the Norfolk Museum of Rural Life within the former workhouse. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 where it was subject to amendment.

Figure 35.20 Gressenhall Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.69 Due to the level of services and facilities within the village, it is considered appropriate to retain a settlement boundary. The preferred approach is to amend the existing boundary to ensure it reflects the existing development pattern. The following amendments are proposed:

40 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 GRE.1 - Extend the settlement boundary around 2 Chequers Drift and properties 85-91 Bittering Street. The settlement boundary currently runs through the property 2 Chequers drift and does not follow any natural boundary features. Redrawing the settlement boundary will create a logical defensible settlement boundary. GRE.2 - Extend the settlement boundary around Stable Conversion and Porch Cottage on Bittering Street. These are existing properties, and extending the settlement boundary will create a logical boundary. GRE.3 - Extend the settlement boundary around Woodstock Rectory. The settlement boundary currently divides the property, redrawing the settlement boundary will ensure it follows features on the ground. GRE.4 - Amend the settlement boundary to remove The Swan Inn Public House. The existing settlement boundary does not follow existing features on the ground. Removal of the public house will help to ensure that development does not occur in close proximity to it, which may undermine its value as a community asset.

Figure 35.21 Gressenhall Revised Settlement Boundary

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 41 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.70 The alternative approach is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred as it would not be in accordance with the settlement boundary methodology which seeks to ensure boundaries are logical and follow existing features.

Question 18

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Gressenhall settlement boundary?

42 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Griston

35.71 Griston is centrally located within Breckland directly to the south-east of Watton. The village contains a public house (The Waggon and Horses) and employment opportunities. The village is also home to HMP Wayland. The settlement boundary was subject to review in 2012, when amendments were proposed to it.

Figure 35.22 Griston Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.72 Due to the level of services and facilities within the village it is proposed to retain the settlement boundary within Griston with amendments. The following amendments are proposed:

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 43 35

GRI.1 - Extend settlement boundary to the rear of Hipkins Cottage and Hideaway. The settlement boundary does not currently follow any defined features. Extending the settlement boundary will create a logical boundary which follows features on the ground. GRI.2 - Extend the settlement boundary around the property to the rear of the Waggon and Horses public house. This will ensure the creation of a logical settlement boundary, which will follow existing features on the ground.

Figure 35.23 Griston Revised Settlement Boundary

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.73 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without modification. This approach is not preferred as it does not reflect recent planning approvals.

44 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Question 19

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Griston settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 45 35

Guist

35.74 Guist is located to the north of Breckland. The village has a distinctive vernacular with many of the properties within the ownership of the Sennowe Estate, the centre of the village is covered by a conservation area. The village contains Guist General Store, which includes a shop, post office and café. There are no other services and facilities within the village.

35.75 Guist includes four individual settlement boundaries, with other sporadic development located outside these areas. The runs to the south of Guist which is a designated Special Area of Conservation.

Figure 35.24 Guist Existing Settlement Boundary

46 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundaries

35.76 Guist contains four settlement boundaries of varying sizes, the smallest of which contains four properties. Properties along both Norwich Road and Holt Road are semi-detached estate cottages, there are higher densities particularly along Malthouse Lane and Blacksmiths Yard. The settlement boundaries are relatively tightly drawn around existing dwellings, with no space for additional dwellings without harm to the form and character of the area. Furthermore there are limited services and facilities within the village to support development. The preferred approach is to delete the settlement boundaries. The removal of the boundaries would mean that any planning applications would be determined against the criteria based policy.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundaries

35.77 The alternative approach would be to retain the existing settlement boundaries. For the reasons set out above, this approach is not preferred.

Question 20

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Guist settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 47 35

Hockham

35.78 Hockham is located to the south of Breckland. The village contains a primary school, community facility and no frequent public transport service (The Parish Council operates a community car scheme with Breckland Council). The centre of the village is covered by a conservation area.

Figure 35.25 Hockham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.79 There are limited services and facilities within the village beyond the primary school, public house and village hall. In accordance with the policy the preferred option is therefore to delete the settlement boundary.

48 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.80 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This is not the preferred option due to the limited services and facilities within the village.

Question 21

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Hockham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 49 35

Ickburgh

35.81 Ickburgh is located to the south-west of Breckland, the village is accessed via the A1065, with the settlement boundary focused around Ashburton Road. Directly to the north of the settlement boundary is Naturediet Pet Foods factory. There is a lack of services and facilities within the village.

35.82 There are a number of environmental designations which impact upon Ickburgh, the most significant of which is the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) which is located both to the north and south of the village. The settlement boundary entirely falls within the 1500m Stone Curlew buffer zone. Further residential development is not supported in this area unless it is screened from the SPA by other development. To the south of the village there are large areas of flood risk associated with the .

Figure 35.26 Ickburgh Existing Settlement Boundary

50 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.83 The preferred approach is to delete the settlement boundary. The settlement boundary is tightly drawn around the existing development with little space for further development without harm to the form and character of the area. There is a lack of services and facilities within the village and the presence of the SPA buffer zone restricts the area where development could occur.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.84 The alternative approach to the deletion of the settlement boundary is to retain the existing boundary without modification. This approach isn't preferred due to the environmental constraints and lack of services and facilities.

Question 22

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Ickburgh settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 51 35

Little Cressingham

35.85 Little Cressingham is a small village located directly west of Watton. The village is located to the north of the Breckland Special Protection Area and is entirely located within the 1500m buffer zone for land supporting or capable of supporting. There is a lack of services and and facilities within the village with some employment at STV International.

Figure 35.27 Little Cressingham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.86 Little Cressingham's settlement boundary is one of the smallest in Breckland. It is tightly drawn around existing development and does not allow any opportunity for expansion. This combined with the lack of services and facilities and the 1500m buffer zone, mean that new development inside the settlement boundary is highly unlikely. It is therefore proposed to delete the settlement boundary.

52 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.87 The alternative approach for Little Cressingham's settlement boundary, is to retain the existing boundary without modification.

Question 23

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Little Cressingham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 53 35

Longham

35.88 Longham is located to the west of Dereham. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 when two changes to tighten the boundary were made. The village contains a village hall and The White Horse public house, there are no other services or facilities. The settlement boundary is focused around Chapel Road and Wendling Road, with other development along Hoe Road being located outside of the boundary.

Figure 35.28 Longham Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.89 The preferred option is to delete the settlement boundary. Longham contains a public house and a village hall lacks any other services or facilities to support the retention of a settlement boundary.

54 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.90 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This is not the preferred option due to the limited services and facilities within the village.

Question 24

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Longham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 55 35

Lyng

35.91 Lyng is one of the larger villages within Breckland which is not designated as a Local Service Centre village. The village has a school, shop and community facility, however it is lacking in employment and public transport. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012, when properties along Road were removed from the boundary tpo avoid infill which could harm the form and character of the village in this area.

Figure 35.29 Lyng Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.92 Due to the good level of service provision within Lyng it is proposed to retain a settlement boundary with amendments. The amendments will ensure that the development incorporates recent planning approvals and ensure the boundary follows natural features. The following amendments are proposed:

56 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 LY.1 - Extend the settlement boundary around planning application 3PL/2014/0471/D LY.2 - Extend the settlement boundary around existing dwellings on Hill Paddocks. The settlement boundary currently cuts through the properties, extending it will enbsure that it follows defined features on the ground.

Figure 35.30 Lyng Revised Settlement Boundary

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.93 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 25

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Lyng settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 57 35

Mileham

35.94 The village is located along the B1145 and contains two settlement boundaries. The settlement boundaries are separated by Mileham Castle Scheduled Monument, which is also designated open space. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012, when minor amendments were proposed. Since the last review of settlement boundaries, the primary school has closed. The village does have a shop, incorporating post office and café, and also a village hall. A number of sites have come forward within the village settlement boundary for housing development in recent years.

Figure 35.31 Mileham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.95 Mileham contains limited services and facilities in the form of a post office and village hall. Due to the lack of services the preferred option is to delete the settlement boundaries.

58 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.96 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the lack of services and facilities within the village.

Question 26

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Mileham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 59 35

Mundford

35.97 Mundford is located to the south-west of Breckland. The village was previously designated as a Local Service Centre village through the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, however the village does not fully meet the criteria of services and facilities to retain this designation.

35.98 There are a number of environmental designations which impact upon the village. It is located to the north of the Special Protection Area (SPA) which is designated for Woodlark and Nightjar, whilst a further SPA is located to the north of the village for Stone Curlew. The village falls entirely within the 1500m buffer zone for the protection of Stone Curlew.

60 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Figure 35.32 Mundford Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.99 The settlement boundary remains logical. The sites submitted through the Local Plan call for sites would have an impact on the character of the village if they were included. The preferred option is therefore to retain the existing settlement boundary

Alternative Option:

35.100 The alternative option is to make amendments the settlement boundary

Question 27

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Mundford settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 61 35

New Buckenham

35.101 New Buckenham is located to the south-east of Breckland, to the south of Attleborough. The village contains a good range of service provision including two public houses and shops. Buckenham Castle Scheduled Monument is located to the west of the village, and the whole village is located inside a conservation area. New Buckenham Common is located to the east of the village and there are areas of flood risk to the south of the village.

35.102 The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 when a minor amendment was made to it along Marsh Lane. Significant comments were made in regards to the New Buckenham settlement boundary during the preferred directions consultation, particularly in regard to sites put forward on Moat Lane

Figure 35.33 New Buckenham Existing Settlement Boundary

62 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.103 New Buckenham contains limited services and facilities in the form of two public houses and a village hall. It does not contain any other services and facilities within the village to support the retention of a settlement boundary and therefore the preferred approach is to delete the boundary.

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.104 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the limited range of services and facilities within the village.

Question 28

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the New Buckenham settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 63 35

North Lopham

35.105 North Lopham is located to the south of Breckland, close to the border with . The village shares a number of services and facilities with which does not have a settlement boundary. The village includes a primary school, village hall and post office, however it does not meet the full level of services and facilities to be designated a Local Service Centre village. A number of amendments were made to the North Lopham settlement boundary when it was last reviewed in 2012.

Figure 35.34 North Lopham Existing Settlement Boundary

64 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.106 Due to the level of services and facilities within North Lopham it is considered appropriate that North Lopham retains a settlement boundary. In accordance with the criteria set out within policy PD05 it is proposed to make amendments to the boundary, to ensure that it reflects natural features on the ground and has regard to planning approvals. The following amendments are proposed:

NL.1 - Move settlement boundary to the rear boundary of properties on Kenninghall Road. The boundary does not currently follow any natural features, the amendments will create a logical settlement boundary. NL.2 - Extend settlement boundary around 3PL/2013/0579/F. This will include a recent planning approval. NL.3 - Extend settlement boundary around Meadow Farm. The settlement boundary currently runs through the property, the amendment will move the boundary to include all of the property and create a more logical settlement boundary. NL.4 - Extend the settlement boundary to include Elmfield House and eden House. These properties are currently located outside of the boundary, directly adjacent to it. The extension to the settlement boundary will mean that it follows existing features on the ground. NL.5 - Extend the settlement boundary to include Church Farm Stables. The amendment to the settlement boundary will ensure it follows existing features. NL.6 - Amend settlement boundary to incorporate planning application 3PL/2014/1212/F for a single dwelling to the rear of Kings Head Lane. NL.7 - Extend settlement boundary around Mayflower Cottage. The boundary currently runs through the property.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 65 35

Figure 35.35 North Lopham Revised Settlement Boundary

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.107 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendments.

Question 29

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the North Lopham settlement boundary?

66 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 North Pickenham

35.108 North Pickenham is located to the south-west of Swaffham. The village includes a primary school and village hall but no other services or facilities. There is the Blue Lion Public House, but it is unclear if the pub is currently open. It has been listed as an asset of community value but has a change of use).The village contains two settlement boundaries which were reviewed in 2012 when a number of amendments were made to it.

Figure 35.36 North Pickenham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundaries

35.109 There are limited services and facilities available in North Pickenham in the form of a primary school and village hall. There is a lack of other facilities and the preferred approach in accordance with the policy is to remove the settlement boundaries.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 67 35

Alternative Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.110 The alternative option would be to retain the settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the lack of services and facilities within the village.

Question 30

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the North Pickenham settlement boundary?

68 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Quidenham

35.111 Quidenham parish includes the hamlets of Eccles Road, Hargham, Wilby and Quidenham. Eccles Road is the only area within the parish with a settlement boundary. The boundary was last reviewed through the 1999 Local Plan as it was not included within the 2012 Site Specifics document. In 2014 the village primary school closed, however the village does contain a public house and village hall. The village is also well related to the Snetterton Heath employment area.

Figure 35.37 Eccles Road (Quidenham) Existing Settlement Boundary

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 69 35

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.112 Eccles Road is a relatively small village, however it has a reasonable range of services and facilities. It is considered appropriate that the village should retain a settlement boundary. Furthermore since the settlement boundary was last reviewed in 1999 a number of applications have come forward outside of the settlement boundary. The following amendments are proposed to the settlement boundary:

ER.1 - Extend the settlement boundary along Gallows Lane to include properties granted under planning applications 3PL/2014/0474/F and 3PL/2013/0051/F. ER.2 - Re-draw the settlement boundary to exclude Garnier Hall and its associated open space. Removing the hall and open space from the settlement boundary will reduce pressure from redevelopment. ER.3 - Extend the settlement boundary to include planning application 3PL/2013/1123/O and properties along Wilby Road. The planning application was granted in 2015 and is for 24 dwellings. The application joins the two areas of the village.

70 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Figure 35.38 Eccles Road Revised Settlement Boundary

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary.

35.113 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without modification.

Question 31

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Eccles Road (Quidenham) settlement boundary?

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 71 35

Rocklands

35.114 Rocklands is located to the north-west of Attleborough. The parish includes both Rockland All Saints and and there is a settlement boundary within each. The parish contains a good range of services and facilities, including primary school, public house and shop. The village does not however meet the full criteria to be designated as a Local Service Centre village. Rocklands parish council is currently in the preparing a neighbourhood plan.

Figure 35.39 Rocklands Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundaries

35.115 Due to the level of services and facilities within Rocklands, it is considered appropriate that the village should retain a settlement boundary. The settlement boundary has been reviewed in line with the criteria set out within policy PD05 the preferred approach is to amend the boundaries. The following amendments are proposed:

72 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 ROC.1 - Re-draw the settlement boundary to remove the village hall and its associated open space. The site is designated open space, removing it from the settlement boundary will help to increase the protection on the site from development. ROC.2 - Extend the settlement boundary to accommodate land granted planning permission under 3PL/2015/0640/F for a single dwelling.

Figure 35.40 Rocklands Revised Settlement Boundary

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundaries

35.116 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundaries without modification.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 73 35

Question 32

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Rocklands settlement boundary?

74 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Saham Toney

35.117 Saham Toney is located directly to the north of Watton. The village was previously designated as a Local Service Centre village through the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, however the village no longer contains all the services and facilities for designation as a local service centre. The village does however retain a primary school, community facility and public transport. Saham Toney has four settlement boundaries which are focused on the roads surrounding Saham Mere.

Figure 35.41 Saham Toney Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.118 Due to the level of services and facilities within Saham Toney it is considered appropriate to retain a settlement boundary within the village. The following amendment is proposed to the boundary:

ST.1 - Extend the settlement boundary at Cley Lane around existing development.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 75 35

Figure 35.42 Saham Toney Revised Settlement Boundary

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.119 The alternative option would be to retain the existing settlement boundary without modification.

Question 33

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Saham Toney settlement boundary?

76 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Scarning

35.120 Scarning parish includes land which forms part of the Dereham settlement boundary and also two settlement boundaries within the village. This review looks specifically at the settlement boundaries within Scarning village. Whilst there are a number of services and facilities within Scarning parish, these are not particularly well related to the village settlement boundaries. Scarning has a primary school, however this is over 2km from the village settlement boundaries.

Figure 35.43 Scarning Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.121 Due to the distance of Scarning village from services and facilities the preferred approach is to delete the settlement boundary. Furthermore there is no land within the settlement boundary which could be developed without harm to the form and character of the village. The preferred approach to delete the settlement boundary would mean that any applications would therefore need to be determined against the criteria based policy.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 77 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.122 The alternative option would be to retain the existing settlement boundary without modification.

Question 34

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Scarning settlement boundary?

78 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Shropham

35.123 Shropham is located to the west of Attleborough. The village contains a number of key services including employment. The settlement boundary was amended in 2012 and extensions to the boundary were included around the playing field, following comments from the parish council.

Figure 35.44 Shropham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.124 As noted above, the settlement boundary was subject to modification in 2012. The village contains limited services and facilities and therefore the preferred approach in accordance with the policy is to delete the settlement boundary.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 79 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.125 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the limited services and facilities within the village.

Question 35

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Shropham settlement boundary?

80 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Snetterton North End

35.126 Snetterton contains hamlets known as North End and South End. Snetterton North End is the only settlement boundary within the parish. The settlement boundary hasn't been reviewed since the 1999 Local Plan as it was not included within the 2012 Site Specifics Policies and Proposals DPD, as it was going to be reviewed through the Attleborough and Snetteron Heath Area Action Plan.

35.127 Snetterton contains two general employment areas located on either side of the A11, these are located over a kilometre from the village. The village is lacking other services and facilities. Furthermore, Snetterton North End is one of the smallest settlement boundaries within Breckland.

Figure 35.45 Snetterton North End Existing Settlement Boundary

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 81 35

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.128 Due to the limited services and facilities available within Snetterton North End, the size of the settlement boundary and the lack of further opportunities to develop within it without harm to the form and character of the area, the preferred option is to delete the settlement boundary. Any planning application would therefore need to be determined against the criteria based approach set out within the preferred directions Policy PD05.

Alternative Option: Retains Existing Settlement Boundary

35.129 The alternation approach would be to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the lack of services and facilities to support sustainable development.

Question 36

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Snetterton North End settlement boundary?

82 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Sparham

35.130 Sparham is located to the north-east of Breckland, just of the A1067 Fakenham to Norwich road. The Sparham settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 as part of the Site Specifics. There is a lack of essential services and facilities within Sparham.

Figure 35.46 Sparham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.131 The existing settlement boundary is tightly drawn around the dwellings within Sparham, and there are no further opportunities for infilling without harm to the form and character of the area. Furthermore, due to the lack of services and facilities within the village the preferred option is to remove the settlement boundary. This would mean that any planning application for residential use would need to be determined using the criteria based approach.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 83 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.132 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 37

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Sparham settlement boundary?

84 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Stanfield

35.133 Stanfield is a small village to the north of Breckland. The settlement boundary was last reviewed in 2012 through the Site Specifics. The village lacks any services and facilities which would normally be considered for the retention of a settlement boundary.

Figure 35.47 Stanfield Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.134 The existing settlement boundary is tightly drawn around dwellings within Stanfield and there is no space for further expansion inside the existing boundary. There is a lack of services and facilities within Stanfield to support development. The preferred approach is therefore to delete the settlement boundary.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 85 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.135 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 38

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Stanfield settlement boundary?

86 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Stow Bedon

35.136 Stow Bedon includes a settlement boundary along Mere Road, other parts of Stow Bedon including Lower Stow Bedon and Breckles do not have a settlement boundary. The settlement boundary is closely drawn around the properties on Mere Road and is predominantly to the north of the road To the south is the Stow Bedon Mere County Wildlife Site. In the area with the settlement boundary there is a lack of services and facilities.

Figure 35.48 Stow Bedon Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.137 The preferred option is to delete the settlement boundary due to the lack of services and facilities to support development. Any planning application would therefore need to be determined using the criteria based approach set out within PD05.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 87 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.138 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 39

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Stow Bedon settlement boundary?

88 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Thompson

35.139 Thompson is located to the south of Watton. The village has a number of services and facilities including primary school, shop and The Chequers Inn public house, however it does not meet the criteria to be designated as a Local Service Centre village.. Thompson is located within the 1500m buffer zone for land which supports or is capable of supporting Stone Curlew. Whilst a settlement boundary does allow for the principle of new housing, there are other restrictions due to the buffer zone. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 and amendments to the boundary were made to tighten the boundary amd exclude rear gardens,

Figure 35.49 Thompson Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.140 The preferred approach is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment. Thompson contains a number of services and facilities which justifies the retention of the settlement boundary. The existing settlement boundary follows existing features on the ground and is logical and defensible.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 89 35

Alternative Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.141 The alternative approach is to delete the settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the level of services and facilities within Thompson.

Question 40

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Thompson settlement boundary?

90 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Tittleshall

35.142 Tittleshall contains a village hall, but lacks any other services or facilities. The village is closely related to Litcham which is a designated Local Service Centre village and has a good range of services and facilities. The settlement boundary was last reviewed in 2012 through the Site Specifics. Tiitleshall includes a conservation within the centre if the village.

Figure 35.50 Tittleshall Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.143 The lack of services and facilities within the village to support new residential development. Furthermore there are only limited opportunities for further development inside the settlement boundary without harm to the form and character. The preferred option is to delete the settlement boundary.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 91 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.144 The alternative option is to retain the existing settlement boundary without amendment.

Question 41

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Tittleshall settlement boundary?

92 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Weasenham

35.145 Weasenham contains two settlement boundaries which are focused around The Green and Massingham Road. The parish covers a large area and there are a number of dwellings located outside of the settlement boundary including at Rougham End. Weasenham includes a number of services and facilities including a primary school, post office and The Fox and Horses public house. It should be noted that the primary school is located outside of the settlement boundary.

Figure 35.51 Weasenham Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.146 The existing settlement boundaries are logical and follow natural boundaries. There is limited space within the settlement boundary which would allow for some infill. Due to the level of services within the village the preferred option is to retain the existing settlement boundary.

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 93 35

Alternative Option: Amend Settlement Boundary

35.147 The alternative option would be to amend the settlement boundary tighter around existing dwellings.

Question 42

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Weasenham settlement boundary?

94 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 Whissonsett

35.148 Whissonsett is a large village in the north of Breckland. The village contains a village hall and a post office two mornings a week, however there are no other services or facilities. The settlement boundary was reviewed in 2012 when minor amendments to it occurred.

Figure 35.52 Whissonsett Existing Settlement Boundary

Preferred Option: Delete Settlement Boundary

35.149 As the village only has limited services and facilities, the preferred option is to delete the settlement boundary

Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016 95 35

Alternative Option: Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

35.150 The alternative option would be to retain the existing settlement boundary. This approach is not preferred due to the lack of services and facilities beyond the village hall, in the village.

Question 43

Do you agree with the preferred approach to the Whissonsett settlement boundary?

96 Breckland Local Plan Emerging Alternative Site Options Interim Consultation 2016