Feasibility Study into Access Improvements in the River Hun Catchment Area

Jack Davidson National Trail Officer, and Coast Path Norfolk Trails

January 2020 - This is a redacted report due to ongoing discussions regarding the designation of a Right of Way covered within the report. Comments regarding the Right of Way in question have been redacted at the current time.

Contents 1. Background 2. Introduction to Existing Access 3. Circular Walks 4. Norfolk Coast Path National Trail 5. Other Public Rights of Way 6. Potential for New Routes 7. Open Access Land 8. Notes on Public Access in the Wider Study Area 9. General Design Specifications 10. Quantity Survey 11. Public Rights of Way Reference Maps

1. Background As management group for the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Norfolk Coast Partnership has commissioned this study to explore the feasibility of improving local access and access for tourism within the River Hun’s catchment area, with a focus on raising the standard of accessibility to walkers, cyclists and users with limited mobility. Throughout the study, as well as accessibility, focus is placed on the long-term resilience of the suggested improvements, and consideration is given to short and long term impact of suggested schemes. The Norfolk Coast Partnership has provided a brief for this study that asks for suggestions for circular walks be costed, as well as an examination of existing access to Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and open access land, and how this can be improved. While the study area is ‘the River Hun catchment area,’ the brief has specified a greater focus on the area from Old to Holme-next-the- Sea (Holme) to Thornham: the area immediately adjacent to the ‘Lower River Hun’. As Hunstanton Park is open to the public on Thursdays only, access to that land will not be considered as part of this study. Where ‘the study area’ is mentioned, then, this will refer to this tighter focus. The term ‘wider study area’ will be used to refer to the river catchment as a whole.

2. Introduction to existing access Broadly speaking, pedestrian links between Old Hunstanton and Thornham are good, with the Norfolk Coast Path linking the three villages, and Hunstanton FP10/Holme FP10 (Hunstanton/Holme FP10) forming an additional link between Old Hunstanton and Holme. Access improvements to both of these routes are considered below in greater detail. Cycling links between the villages are less attractive, with the A149 forming the only option at present.

During a review of literature on existing access, the findings of community surveys carried out in the preparation of the Holme Neighbourhood Plan (HNP) came to light. Several of these provide some direction for this study’s consideration of access improvements. The most significant of these findings are as follows: 50% of respondents in Holme stated that footpaths and walks were ‘very important,’ 55% that nearby nature reserves and wildlife were ‘very important’, and 60% stated that green and open spaces within the village are ‘very important’. 80% of respondents considered the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to be ‘very important’. The HNP also highlights a small but strong and active resident community, and a general feeling within that community that there are not enough paths or cycleways. A recent community meeting between the Norfolk Coast Partnership and residents of the parishes of Thornham and Holme highlighted this sentiment again, but specifically that there is a lack of footpaths between Holme and its two larger neighbouring villages of Thornham and Old Hunstanton.

These meetings have also raised the fact that there is a lot of visitor pressure on the Holme Dunes Nature Reserve. Indeed, the Norfolk Coast Path (NCP) counter on the site highlighted an average of 2156 visitors/month during FY17/18, with August being the most popular month with 3436 visitors, and January being the least with 1202 visitors. It should be pointed out that these numbers only reflect NCP users between Flaxley and the reserve; the total number of visitors to the site as a whole are almost definitely much higher, as anecdotally speaking, many visitors seem to park at the NWT visitor centre and head straight to the beach, never passing the NCP counter. With a combination of good promotion and access improvements, the routes suggested below could offer strong alternatives to driving to the NWT visitor centre, and act to spread visitor use of the reserve more widely across the site than at present.

The alignment of PRoWs in the area relative to the NCP lends itself well to the creation of circular walks to link the villages. There is also potential, with sufficient funding and the cooperation of local landowners, to create permissive cycling routes, or potentially dedicate such routes as Restricted Byways (RBs). This report will discuss each of these possibilities in turn, highlighting indicative costs via general design specifications, and outlining the legal mechanisms by which new public access could be created.

There is only a small amount of open access land in the wider study area at present, and access to this land is considered in this report too.

3. Circular Walks There are two circular walks that are of particular interest in the study area, one which is already in existence, and once which is proposed below. The Thornham circular walk was created with a focus on the area’s rich history in mind, and is part of a series of walks with a strong heritage focus along the coast. The proposed River Hun circular is something that that the Norfolk Coast Partnership’s brief has specifically requested be examined by this study.

Thornham

The already-signed Thornham Walk is a 21/4 mile route with a ‘spur’ along the Norfolk Coast Path leading to an interpretation point (to be installed April 2019). This spur also crosses the Hun outfall sluice, where visitors are given quite a good view upstream. Starting east from the village hall, the route passes the majority of the village’s businesses, before following the Norfolk Coast Path via Thornham FP3 and FP1, and returning inland via Thornham FP16 and Holme FP11.

Improvements to this route should focus on the north-most 175m of FP11, and on FP16. The 160m boardwalk on FP16 is in an acceptable state of repair at the time of its last inspection (06.02.2019), however, its width of only 700mm means that it is that it is not wheelchair or pushchair accessible, and that it is difficult for users to pass one another. The length of FP16 is often muddy, particularly after prolonged periods of wet weather. This has caused the path to wear unevenly and form a crossfall throughout most of its length. The removal of this boardwalk, and subsequent installation of a 175m accessible piled boardwalk would allow much less restrictive access along FP11. If this were combined with the installation of 628m of Engineered Stone Path 1 and a 5x5m field crossing pad 164m south of the flood bank on the line of FP16, year-round access for most users would be possible throughout the whole length of this circular route. A replacement 7m Bridge at the junction of FP11 and FP16 would also be required to achieve this, as the current bridge is only 800mm wide, with stepped access.

It should be noted that these improvements would not only reflect the completion of a high-quality, high-accessibility circular route from the village of Thornham, but also a more direct route from the village to Holme Dunes Nature Reserve, and the NOA observatory, too. With the correct promotion, this should have the effect of reducing parking pressure on the central area of Holme Dunes Nature Reserve, by offering parking at Drove Orchards and Thornham Village Hall – if the owners of these establishments were willing to work towards this end. The combined route of Holme FP11 and Thornham FP16 is also an ideal link between the Coastliner bus stop and the reserve, and the suggested improvements would make public transport a more accessible option for visits to the reserve. The route takes in much of the same landscape as the main part of the reserve, and the flood bank section actually offers some of the best views over the saltmarsh, Broad Water and the grazing marshes too. As FP11/FP16, when linked with the NCP, is also a shorter route between Holme and Thornham than that of the NCP alone, the suggested improvements would increase the efficacy of the NCP as a local link between the two villages.

River Hun Circular Walk (proposed)

At three miles, this could be a very popular route for tourists to experience this stretch of the NCP without walking the same stretch in two directions, as well as an important pedestrian link between Old Hunstanton and Holme, if surface improvements were to be made to Hunstanton/Holme FP10. The route makes use of Hunstanton FP13 (NCP), Holme RB2 (NCP), Holme FP1 (NCP), Holme FP3, Hunstanton/Holme FP10 and Hunstanton FP3, and would also require the agreement of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) to a short section of permissive access between Broad Water Road and the NCP at the eastern tip of the route.

Improving the accessibility of this route adjacent to Holme Dunes Nature Reserve and promoting it as a good alternative to a visit to the reserve itself should prove to be an effective measure to lessen recreational impact on that site. As accessibility on the Holme Dunes site is generally quite good, this effect would rely on the accessibility of this circular route being better, placing a high importance on prospective improvements to Hunstanton/Holme FP10, as detailed below. The promotion of this route would also be key its effectiveness as a mitigation against recreational impacts on Holme Dunes Nature Reserve. For example, encouraging parking in Hunstanton and the use of the coast path to access this route and to access the reserve should also reduce parking pressure on the NWT visitor centre, and by extension, reduce financial pressure on the NWT to maintain Broad Water Road. Working with NWT to promote walking-only access to the site should be considered a high priority for relieving visitor pressures.

To enable prioritisation of works on each section of the route, they are broken down by PRoW below: Hunstanton FP13: Though this route has been mapped on the line of Hunstanton FP13, which at present is coincident with the alignment of the Norfolk Coast Path, Norfolk Trails has requested that Natural England’s coastal access team consider an alignment landward of the dunes (upon which FP13 sits). Norfolk Trails is unable to confirm what the final alignment of the Norfolk Coast Path will be following the establishment of Coastal Access in this area, but this study recommends that this circular walk follow whatever that alignment may be. Holme FP1: The 70m section shown above in red shows the transition between hard gravel walking surface and crushed limestone path, over soft sand. The implementation of a 70m engineered stone path 1 here would improve overall accessibility by removing an accessibility ‘choke point’ from the route. Holme FP3: An ideal improvement to FP3 (shown as dashed magenta line above) would be the installation of a 640m Engineered Stone Path 1 throughout, with a 30m section of Engineered Stone Path 2 between the two bridges. The replacement of the 5m ligger bridge with a 5m hardwood bridge, and a 7m single-handrail bridge with a 7m hardwood bridge (all shown at magenta point above) should be considered alongside this improvement. A more minimal improvement that would still improve the quality of the route markedly would be to install only the 30m section of Engineered Stone Path 2, the two bridges, and cut back vegetation significantly throughout. Along with signage, this should be considered the highest priority piece of work in this route’s work scheme: the path’s extreme crossfall, slippery surface and adjacency to the river mean that while the public’s right to ‘pass and repass’ over this land is not obstructed, the route is certainly not suitable for promotion. The addition of a bench to this location could enhance it as a feature on the route. Hunstanton/Holme FP10: Recent works to Hunstanton/Holme FP10 carried out by Norfolk County Council’s Highways department have moved the path away from the river’s edge and levelled the route’s surface, and will soon replace fencing between the path and the golf course. The final phase of these works will be to seed the path with grass to give the surface a natural structure. These works have improved the path’s accessibility markedly, and should continue to do so with the addition of a vegetated surface. However, the installation of 1550m of Engineered Stone Path 1 throughout would offer a high standard of ‘access for all.’ Up to 100m of Engineered Stone Path 2 would reinforce the river’s banks in several locations where, necessarily, the path’s line has had to remain very close to the edge. Though the AONB has objected to the use of sheet piling based on the presence of a water vole population, limited use of this technique in the construction of short sections of Engineered Stone Path 2 would reduce long-term impact on the species by increasing the path’s long term resilience to erosion, thereby extending the path’s maintenance window and reducing the necessity for heavy plant on-site beyond the initial construction phase. If incomplete surfacing of the route is not possible due to funding constraints, the west-most 300m of the path should be given priority for surfacing work, as this section has the highest groundwater content/lowest bearing ratio of any throughout FP10.

During a site visit to FP10, which was guided by a representative of the Norfolk Coast Partnership, attention was drawn to a simultaneous feasibility study into improvements to the River Hun itself. One of the key outputs suggested by that study is the reintroduction of meanders to the lower Hun, and specifically on the stretch adjacent to FP10. That study also suggests that FP10 be ‘moved’ southward away from the river, installing boardwalks to accommodate this new alignment over the boggy ground on which it would then sit. Aside from the obvious problem that this takes path users away from the landscape feature that they most want to see during a riverside walk, this raises serious long-term maintenance issues. It is very unlikely that any department of Norfolk County Council would advocate the realignment of a footpath from its current, suitable and now well- maintained, easily maintainable line, onto an unsuitable line that would require the construction of a mile of boardwalk and three bridges to accommodate it. As this would be a necessity in this scenario, the initial cost of this boardwalk (£196,500, indicative, including bridges and legal fees associated with moving a PRoW) should be considered not in comparison to the above recommendation to install an Engineered Stone Path throughout the length of FP10 – an improvement – but in comparison to the cost to install a number of bridges to accommodate the new meanders. Six 7m hardwood bridges, for example would cost around £75,000 to install, less than half the cost of realignment and construction of a mile-long boardwalk. Maintenance cost would be lower, and overall lifespan would be longer too. Simply put: maintaining 1650m of softwood timber structure costs more than maintaining 42m of hardwood timber structure. The gap between these initial costs would increase further still if lower-maintenance solutions to rerouting the path were implemented. Plastic boardwalk, while more resilient in the long-term, would almost double the installation cost, and the cost of an engineered stone path here would be much higher than the cost of the same solution on the existing alignment due to much wetter ground conditions in the area of the suggested realignment. On these terms, realignment of the path is not feasible.

The recommendation of this study is that if meanders were to be reintroduced here, the path should remain on its current alignment, with hardwood bridges being installed to cross the river where meanders intersect this line. For the sake of applying a cost to this, an estimate of Seven 7m Hardwood bridges will be used in the survey of quantities, to include replacement of the existing bridge at the eastern end of the route. Hunstanton FP3: An agreement in principle, between Hunstanton Golf Club and Norfolk County Council Highways, has been arrived at wherein the golf club will surface Hunstanton FP3 to encourage a single line of use across its land and to better define its playing boundary at this location. No date has been set for this at present, but the work is to take place at the golf club’s expense. Permissive Access: The section shown dashed in green above is currently used, but has no designation, and as such permission should be sought from the landowner, NWT, to use this as part of a promoted circular route. Information on the establishment of permissive routes can be found below, in Potential for new Routes. An improved point of access on to the bank here should also be added. This could either be formed of Steps, or a ramped access, much like the one already in place two kilometres east of this point along the NCP. Signage: New signage for all prows should be added throughout the circular route, with bespoke fingerposts at start/end points and key junctions showing destination information and trail information. Further fingerposts that highlight ‘spur’ routes to public transport should also be installed to facilitate easy access to the trail via the Coastliner bus service. 12 fingerposts should perform all of these functions to a high standard. Other: studies have highlighted the importance of information provision to the management of access on sensitive sites. The addition of four interpretation boards – one for each ‘side’ of the route – would cover information on the walk itself, the sensitive nature of the NWT site, and nature/heritage interest encompassing the area’s history, the river and interesting species associated with the landscapes visited by the walk (river, sand dune, salt marsh, sand flat etc.). Consultation with Norfolk Rivers Trust, NWT, NOA, Norfolk Trails/NCC environment team would feed into this content.

Indicative Costs, Circular Walks Thornham, works as above: £102,985 indicative A higher cost, but more resilient solution than the one costed here, would be to replace the current boardwalk with an engineered stone path 1, with sheet piling as its supporting structure. However, this would be a prohibitively expensive scheme, costing almost twice as much as the removal and replacement of the existing boardwalk. A lower cost alternative would be the installation of four passing places along the existing boardwalk and a surface regrade on FP16 followed by a period of closure to allow the regeneration of surface vegetation. These works would not create ‘access-for- all’, but would raise the standard of accessibility to meet the general National Trail standard for walkers. An indicative cost for these works is £5000, including the Traffic Regulation Order that would be necessary to close the path during works and during the vegetation recovery period. A breakdown is shown on the attached quantities sheet, and this study recommends that priority should be given to improvement of FP16 over FP11, should a choice between the two need to be made. River Hun Circular, works as above: £403,100 indicative The above cost would reflect a very high standard of access throughout the sections it improved, the reasoning for which is outlined in the scheme above. There are a number of ‘pick and mix’ schemes that could be taken from the complete scheme above, to suit any number of budgets. For example, a scheme focusing on access management through information and interpretation could cost as little as £7,500 (fingerposts and interpretation boards), but it is important to point out that this may meet with lower success than the full scheme, particularly with regard to forming a successful mitigation against visitor pressure on Holme Dunes Nature Reserve. Numerous studies have shown that visitors to sensitive sites will make use of the routes that are most accessible to them.

Public Transport to Circular Routes Local consultation has raised concerns about ‘increased traffic’ in the village of Holme, and the fact that during peak visitor season (April-October) parking on verges within the village is becoming problematic for residents.

At present, Norfolk Trails promotes public transport access to all of its walking routes under the guise of ‘car free journeys,’ encouraging users to make use of public transport via its print and digital promotional materials. Where available, these materials also highlight access to the routes from existing car parks. Prior to the establishment of new routes, Norfolk Trails undergoes a local consultation process, engaging with parish councils, landowners and other stakeholder groups and organisations where appropriate. Where local concerns such as those noted above are raised during the consultation process that precedes the establishment of a new route, these concerns can be highlighted in the promotional materials. For example, during the consultation process that preceded the establishment of the Thornham route, the trustees responsible for the village hall car park drew attention to the fact that the car park was under pressure from increased traffic during peak times and asked that Norfolk Trails not promote it as an option. Drove Orchards on the other hand was quite open to the promotion of its car parks, recognising the value of visitors to the countryside to its businesses. Therefore, the literature that accompanies the walk highlights parking at Drove Orchards, and close to the coal barn at Thornham Old Harbour, Staithe Lane. The village’s two main bus stops, one being opposite and adjacent to Thornham Deli on the a149, and one being opposite and adjacent to the Orange Tree on the a149, at its junction with Church Street are also shown on the maps that accompany literature on the route, as well as a simplified description of the bus service itself in ‘getting there’ information associated with the route. Subsequent conversations with trustees of the village hall concluded that parking at the village hall car park could be promoted, provided that the literature suggested a donation to be made on-site when doing so. In this case, signage to and from all of these points of access to the route has been installed.

Holme and Old Hunstanton also benefit from good links to the Coastliner bus service, (as do the other circular routes mentioned in the wider study area). The bus stops in Holme at the a149’s junction with Beach Road are an ideal point of access to the east end of the River Hun circular route proposed above, and therefore to the NCP. Similarly, stops in Old Hunstanton at the a149’s Junction with Waterworks Road are an ideal point of access to the proposed circular route’s west end, and again to the NCP.

On a local level, this study recommends the addition of signage along ‘spur’ routes between these bus stops and to junctions with the route itself to be implemented at the time of the route’s establishment. Norfolk Trails always recommends access to its routes via public transport, but this study recommends the establishment a mixed media campaign to promote the message of accessing the countryside via public transport to a wider audience. The Norfolk Coast Partnership would be an ideal organisation to take the lead on such a campaign, but there is certainly an opportunity to look beyond this study area to promote public-transport for access to the countryside. The opportunity lies in working in conjunction with other stakeholders throughout the AONB such as district councils, Norfolk Trails, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, the RSPB, the National Trust, NOA, the Norfolk Naturalists Trust and many more to deliver a clear and unified message of access to their countryside visitor assets via public transport.

Adoption of circular walks by Norfolk Trails The Norfolk Coast Partnership has asked specifically for comment on Norfolk Trails’ capacity to adopt the proposed River Hun circular walk as a National Trail Circular Walk. Norfolk Trails was not able to commit to taking on this route as part of the Coastal Treasures project due to concerns about the long term maintenance costs of Hunstanton/Holme FP10 and Holme FP3 in in light of a diminishing National Trail maintenance grant. However, Norfolk Trails would be willing to adopt this circular walk and its constituent PRoWs on the basis that works to Hunstanton/Holme FP10 are carried out as specified above, and at least the minimal works to Holme FP3 specified above are carried out as specified above.

4. Norfolk Coast Path National Trail The Norfolk Coast Path currently runs from Hunstanton to Hopton-on-Sea, a distance of 84 miles/135km. Most relevant to this study though is the fact, already highlighted above, that the route connects the villages of Old Hunstanton, Holme/Flaxley and Thornham. The third stretch of coastal access in Norfolk (Hunstanton to Weybourne, CA3) has been published by Natural England, and that organisation is responding to representations on and objections to the proposed route and its associated coastal margin (the margin, and its likely effects are described below in Open Access Land). The route is not likely to be confirmed and established until 2020, but the likelihood is that the main change in the study area will be a realignment of the path between Thornham and ; where the route currently runs inland to climb the chalk scarp, it is likely that after establishment of CA3 it will be aligned north of the a149, which should offer an easier and more direct route between these two villages, with less road walking. Norfolk Trails has asked Natural England to adopt an alignment immediately landward of the dunes between Old Hunstanton and Flaxley, rather than its current difficult-to-manage route on the dune top, with its extensive buckthorn growth. The Norfolk Coast Path and the (created by the establishment of CA3) will be considered to be one and the same, and where the alignment of CA3 differs from that of the current National Trail, the existing National Trail will be realigned to form a single National Trail, that for the purposes of signage and promotion will be called the ‘Norfolk Coast Path’. The sub- heading ‘Part of the England Coast Path,’ will appear at key junctions on the ground, and in certain texts, to highlight its wider legal context.

The establishment of CA3 should bring funding for a full signage package for the stretch, as well as some small access improvements. It is unlikely that it will fund large-scale infrastructure works such as those proposed above, and certainly not anywhere other than on the line of CA3 itself. The new signage will itself be an improvement to the accessibility of the route, and signage from Holme and Flaxley to the path, with distances shown to Old Hunstanton and Thornham are likely to be part of this package.

The greatest barrier to access on the current route where it passes through the study area is the 800m Boardwalk that runs just north and east of broad water (shown on plan below). At face value, in spite of some unevenness and steep gradients, this section of the path offers great access: the line is good and views across several different types of landscape are wonderful. However, this structure is now approximately twenty-two years old, and failing at an alarming rate. For reference, Norfolk Trails expects boardwalks built to its current standards to last up to twenty years; these standards call for much larger timber members than were used in the construction of this boardwalk, and those members have better timber treatments than were available twenty-two years ago. In short: this boardwalk has reached the end of maintainable lifespan. At present, this boardwalk is inspected 400% more often than footpath inspection regulations set out in the Norfolk County Council Traffic Action Management Plan, with inspections and repairs carried out quarterly. Unfortunately, this frequency of repair and inspection is starting to show itself as almost unable to keep up with the rate of the structure’s decay. Soon, the only alternative to a complete replacement of this boardwalk will be the closure of this section of Norfolk Coast Path, followed by diverting it onto the unmade surface of Holme FP1, along the toe of the dune. For visitor experience, the health of the dunes and overall accessibility in this area, including pedestrian communication between the three villages in the study area, this will have a hugely negative impact.

Norfolk Trails is seeking funding for full replacement with a stone path that would be less challenging to maintain, and would offer a permanent access improvement with maintenance comprising small- scale redressing at approximately 5 year intervals. Based on the difficulty of site access, and the importance of mitigating against construction impact on the natterjack toad population and the dune system itself, the current project plan for replacement could be implemented at a cost of £113,600, alongside a £24,000 scheme of mitigation works to relocate toad populations away from the path and protect key points in the dune system. This scheme would help to reduce recreational visitor pressure on the nature reserve site by offering a high standard of accessibility along this stretch of the coast path. This should work alongside access improvements listed above with regard to the River Hun and Thornham Circular walks to bring in a higher proportion of visitors to the site on foot. The mitigation scheme could also be tailored towards keeping visitors away from key areas of the site by prohibiting access to these with fencing, whilst offering information on these restrictions and directing them to low-impact, high-accessibility routes.

Holme Dunes Boardwalk East replacement works, total cost: £137,600 indicative.

5. Other PRoWs There are a number of PRoWs in the study area not covered by the circular walks, and this study has given consideration to several of these based on their potential to improve access between Holme and the coast path, as the main route between Holme and its neighbouring villages.

Holme-Next-The-Sea RB5:

Local consultees have asked about the possibilities for ‘extending Holme RB5,’ (highlighted above in yellow) and the feasibility of this has been considered. Desktop study showed that extending this PRoW to meet Broad Water Road wouldn’t really achieve much that isn’t already accomplished by the Nearby RB4, which also runs from the village, approximately 400m west, to meet Broad Water Road. A subsequent site visit revealed that raising the standard of the existing stretch of RB5 would be costly, due to its continual use by agricultural traffic – the landowner has a private right of access over this line by any means. The extension of the route northwards over low-lying grazing fields, a reed bed and the River Hun would entail major engineering works to achieve, as well as incurring the legal and mapping costs associated with a dedication as PRoW. Further inquiry with NCC coleagues into possible historic use of the route revealed that research had been carried out into this in recent years. This research showed that in all likelihood, RB5, as well as RB6 and RB7 were wrongly recorded in the first place, and as such no historic use beyond their current extents was found. It is possible that FP9 also falls into this category. Please note that these findings in no way indicate an intention to close or extinguish the existing routes.

Holme-next-the-Sea RB4:

RB4, shown above highlighted in yellow forms an excellent link between the village and Broad Water Road, and the NCP, too. On a site visit during very wet weather, the route was found to be very well drained throughout, with a good naturally-vegetated walking surface. The Bridge over the River Hun is in good repair, as is the rambler gate at the south end of the path. However, while the classification of the path allows for all non-motorised vehicular use, these structures do not. A field gate adjacent to the rambler gate was found to be locked. A definitive map and statement investigation into these structures showed no authorised structures at this point, meaning that both gates are currently illegal obstructions. However, the necessity of stock retention here means that Norfolk County Council would, in all likelihood, authorise the installation of a gate suitable to a Restricted Byway under section 147 of the Highways act 1980. Such a structure would be required to be kept unlocked at all times.

Holme-next-the-Sea RB7:

At present, RB7 is obstructed by overgrowth and garden waste from the adjoining properties, and its clearance is not a priority, as the route goes nowhere. As mentioned above, it is very unlikely that there is any historic use of this route beyond its current mapped extent, however, several local consultees have mentioned that there is a desire for better cycling access between Holme and Thornham. For the sake of discussion, it would be worth identifying landowners on a line due east from the eastern end of the eastern end of RB7, and consulting with them on the possibility of creating cycle route from this location as far as Drove Orchards, from where where a permissive route already exists leading into the village of Thornham. Such a route could either be created as a permissive route, or via dedication as a PRoW. The legal mechanisms by which both of these could be achieved are outlined below in Potential for New Routes. This study will not identify the infrastructure costs that would be associated with such a route, but Norfolk Trails would be happy to consult on this if consultation with the relevant landowners showed that they would be receptive to the idea.

If there is no possibility of extending the route in a useful way, an alternative use for RB7 would be to clear it and turn it into a ‘linear park,’ a miniature nature reserve or other green space for the Holme’s ‘small but strong’ volunteering community to manage and enjoy.

6. Potential for New Routes As mentioned above, the HNP states that there is a feeling locally that there are not enough footpaths in the parish, but that the paths that do exist are of good quality. There is always the potential to establish new public access in the countryside, but this is largely contingent on the goodwill of landowners. Local consultation has revealed aspirations to join the three villages in the study area via paths adjacent to the a149 on its south side. Because of these aspirations and a potential for the creation of new paths, this study will not recommend any further specific routes, but rather provide information on how this could be achieved. There are two main types of public route that could be established in the area: permissive routes and PRoWs. Some suggestions for both options have been highlighted elsewhere in the report, and a number of different mechanisms for establishing each outlined below.

Permissive Paths: Though it is now Norfolk County Council’s policy not to enter into permissive path/concessionary path agreements, section 30 of the highways act 1980 makes provision for parish councils to enter into such agreements with landowners. Parish councils may carry out works or make contributions to maintenance that are ‘incidental to or consequential on’ such agreements, and combine with the councils of other parishes to share or contribute to such agreements. The key thing here is that having an agreement and clearly labelling a route as permissive on-site, ‘protects’ the land owner from that route being claimed as a PRoW by ‘presumed dedication,’ as described below. Another way for a landowner to gain this protection (and therefore enable the signing and use of permissive paths on his or her land) would be for a landowner to submit a section 31(6) deposit to the highway authority (Norfolk County Council). Section 31 (6) of the highways act 1980 allows landowners to deposit a statement with NCC to confirm what ways (if any) he or she admits have been dedicated as highways over his/her land. Submitting a confirmatory statement within every 10 year period thereafter will continue this ‘protection’ against presumed statutory dedication of new PRoWs.

Public Rights of Way: Public rights of way can come into existence through creation (either by legal order or by an agreement made with the landowner) or dedication by the landowner (either expressly, by presumption or by deemed dedication following 20 years of public use). These are outlined in more detail below • Creation orders - Highways authorities and the Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have the power to make an order creating any type of right of way over a piece of land where they think it would add to the public’s convenience or enjoyment. This sounds like a means by which footpaths could be created anywhere, but such orders can obviously be objected to, and so it is not a mechanism that is used as often one might think, as such orders must be reasonable to landowners. Such orders can be used to establish higher rights on existing PRoWs, too. • Creation agreements - Highway authorities can enter into agreements with landowners to create a PRoW. Such agreements are signed by both parties. Unlike the procedure for creation orders, there’s no period for objections to creation agreements, but notice of a creation agreement must be published by the highway authority in a local newspaper. • Express dedication A landowner may expressly dedicate a right of way over his or her land, but perhaps obviously, this doesn’t happen very often. The dedication of a PRoW by this mechanism depends on evidence that the freehold landowner has intended to dedicate the right of way and evidence that the public has accepted the dedication through use. • Presumed dedication – This is the mechanism by which most PRoWs have come into existence. It refers to the principle that long use by the public, without challenge, constitutes sufficient evidence that the landowner intended to dedicate a used route as PRoW. Such a dedication can take place under common or statute law, and each has a slightly different mechanism. Evidence that a PRoW has come into existence in this way can be used to apply for it to be recorded on the definitive map.

7. Open Access Land Thee Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) gives the public a right of access to land mapped as 'open country,’ (mountain, moor, heath and down), as well as to registered common land. These areas are known collectively as 'open access land'. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCA) added a third type of open access land: coastal margin. This constitutes all land seaward (that is, as far seaward as the mean high tide line) of the England Coast Path following its establishment, as detailed above in Norfolk Coast Path National Trail. The forthcoming third stretch of coastal access in Norfolk will add a significant amount of coastal margin access land to the area which will be roughly the same as, but in this area at least, greater than the area currently available as Registered Common Land under the Countryside Rights of Way act 2000. This land (shown below in green/cream) represents the extent of open access land in the wider study area at present. The detached area in the southeast of the map is Barrow Common, which is discussed in more detail below.

Other open country: The only other open access land at present nearby is Ringstead Downs Nature Reserve (highlighted below in cream). However, it is not part of even the wider area of the River Hun catchment covered by this study. Visitor facilities here are limited to basic parking, and there is no signage from the road to advertise the presence of the reserve, and no signage to indicate that this is open access land. The access authority (Norfolk County Council) has the authority to erect signage indicating points of ingress and egress onto the access land, however, it would not seek to do so without consultation with the owner, Norfolk Naturalists Trust. More could be made of this lovely area, mainly by means of better links to nearby villages and promotion of this nature reserve as an alternative visit to Holme Dunes, but this study recommends consultation with Norfolk Naturalists Trust to ensure that such measures would not place undue visitor stress on the reserve’s special features.

8. Notes on Public Access in the Wider Study Area Norfolk Trails manage three further circular walks in the wider study area. It should be noted that all three routes offer long views over the Hun catchment area, as they all feature sections that climb the chalk scarp south of the northern coastline. Consultation undertaken by Holme parish council has highlighted the importance of such views to the popularity of footpaths. A suite of promotional resources covering each of these routes, as well as the Thornham route mentioned above, is currently being produced with a focus on the area’s heritage. Each of the routes also has a lot to offer many of the visitor groups that apply pressure Holme Dunes: dog-walkers and birders to name but two. With this in mind, this study recommends cross-organisational partnership working between the AONB, National Trail and Norfolk Wildlife Trust to promote these routes as alternatives to visiting Holme Dunes Nature Reserve. The Norfolk National Trail Partnership would be the ideal forum for this, as representatives of each organisation are already present amongst its membership.

As already alluded to, a recent project has drawn together these routes and the Thornham route, along with twelve other walking and cycling routes into a Project called Coastal Treasures, which focuses on the heritage and history of West Norfolk. The key to linking the heritage and historic assets of the area to the routes themselves has been a body of research carried out by Norfolk Museums team members which has formed the main content for both the project’s print and digital promotional resources. With funding, and the willingness of an organisation such as NWT to lead on content generation, a similar, nature-focused project could be constructed.

Brancaster Staithe:

The Brancaster Staithe Route (shown above) is particularly important as it crosses Barrow Common, a parcel of registered common land with open access rights. Registered common land is shown in green on the map above, and for reference, the lettered labels show signage placements along the route. The east-west aligned stretch along the north of the route follows the Norfolk Coast Path.

Brancaster:

The Brancaster circular walk follows part of the inland stretch of the Norfolk Coast Path between Thornham and Brancaster, with its northern stretch extending out towards Brancaster Golf Club and the sea via flood banks.

Ringstead:

The Ringstead circular walk makes use of ‘Green Bank,’ an unclassified road that is popular with local consultees and is easily reached from Holme by following the Peddars Way National Trail southwards. The route extends almost as far as , via Peddars Way, before returning to Ringstead via a series of more unclassified roads.

General Design Specification

The overriding design principle throughout the schemes detailed in this study is that of ‘least restrictive access.’ This is not a directive to ‘tarmac the countryside,’ but a suggestion that the least restrictive solution to all access problems should be sought. This could assume least restrictive based on a given budget, least restrictive based on the landscape, or even taken at face-value as the absolute least restrictive access possible.

1. Accessible Piled Boardwalk • Accessible boardwalks of 1.5m width or greater, with bumper rails installed along the sides, allow standard-sized wheelchairs, mobility scooters and pushchairs to pass one another side-by-side, or even for wheelchair users to use the boardwalk two- abreast. Designs should be tailored to the ground and tidal conditions that they are being installed in, but a general detail drawing for a 1.5m wide piled boardwalk is shown below. This design has been used adjacent to a tidal reedbed at the confluence of the rivers Yare and Waveney, and has proven itself able to resist the lifting forces placed on it by a tidal surge – unlikely as such an event is at the one location specified for this design in the study. Passing places/turning points should be added at approximately 200m intervals, and these should offer an area of at least 2m2 (including the boardwalk itself) to accommodate the minimum turning circle of wheelchair and mobility scooter users.

2. Engineered Stone Path 1 • 1.5m width path, with type 1 sub base to 150mm (contingent upon soil surveys) and a surface of ‘fines,’ to 50mm. The fines used on the surface will dictate the colour of the path, and thus its effect on the surrounding landscape. • The path can either be entrenched, or installed within a timber siding, depending on location, soil surveys and contractor discretion. As a preference, the path should be crowned, or as an alternative to crowning, the path could camber (1:55 indicative gradient) in an appropriate direction for drainage. • As an example, the path below is an entrenched ‘Breedon golden amber’ gravel path. Breedon aggregates specialises in high quality finish surfacing fines, and the company’s website has one of the best selections of colours in Norfolk for this type of material.

3. Field Crossing Pad • At points where gates allow for crossing of well-surfaced trails, a concrete pad should be installed to form the surface of both the trail and the field crossing to ensure that heavy farm machinery will not damage the trail surface as it crosses. This should be constructed from a sub-base of Type-1 material to a depth of 150mm with a poured concrete slab of no less than 150mm thickness on top – timber shuttering can be removed post-pour.

4. Hardwood Bridge • The bridge below is a constructed from a hardwood called ekki. It has a very long lifespan, and can be provided in a variety of lengths, in kit form. This makes it ideal for installation in remote, or difficult to access locations, such as the meadows surrounding the lower Hun. All bridges of 4m span or greater installed on PRoWs must be authorised by Norfolk County Council’s bridges team, as this team would need to accept maintenance responsibility for such bridges.

5. Concrete Bridge Abutments • The drawing below shows the abutment design for the bridge specified above. This design assumes nothing of the ground conditions, which in the locations this study specifies or assumes, are of poor bearing ratio. In the event of bridges being placed along the alignment of PRoWs, engineers from Norfolk County Council’s bridges team would have design authority over the structure of the additional support for such abutments.

6. Engineered Stone Path 2 • As Engineered Stone Path 1, but with the addition of sheet piling to support the path. In this study, this is advised for sections of path that are very close to river or ditch edges, and to repair paths with severe cross-falls. The high cost of this specification reflects the costs of sheet piling itself, as well as the specialised equipment required for driving it.

7. Bench • There is only one location in which a bench has been specifically mentioned in this study, but in general, benches should be specified as frequently as every 200m on ‘access for all’ trails. Following the principle of least restrictive access, solutions such as wheelchair-accessible picnic benches should be considered where possible, to allow wheelchair users to use the same table as their friends and family. The picture below shows such a bench, in this case, made from recycled plastic.

8. Steps • The costing sheet provides a cost for the installation of steps as well as ramped access. Steps would be cheaper than ramped access, and have less of a visual impact on the landscape, but are accessible to a lower percentage of the population than ramped access. However, in locations where a small footprint is required, steps can be the least restrictive option for access. A ramp steeper than a gradient of 1:12 is undesirable, and greater than 1:8 is potentially dangerous, whilst generally not being accessible to even the most adventurous of wheelchair users. 9. Ramped Access • Ramped access can be constructed using timber or steel sub-structures to support surfaces that descend and ascend at a lesser gradient than the landscape would allow a ground-borne surface to. 1:12 should be considered the maximum gradient at which to build a structure such as this, as the cost/benefit ratio diminishes with steeper gradients due to the reducing percentage of the population able to gain advantage from the ramp. • Landings of at least two linear metres should be installed for every metre of vertical fall/gain, and ideally, should be accompanied by turning points/passing places as described in the specification for piled boardwalk. • As with piled boardwalk, the ground and tidal conditions determine the ultimate design, but generally, the design is the same as for a piled boardwalk. Additional features are handrails/guardrails throughout at heights of 450 and 900mm. Larger piles should be used where the walking surface is at a greater elevation than 1.2m, and 1.4m should be considered the highest safe surface elevation for ramped access with a timber sub-structure. Beyond this, steel should be used.

10. Fingerpost • Fingerposts are used to show the direction of linear trails, highlight points where PRoWs and circular walks diverge from these and (as a statutory requirement) where PRoWs have a junction with metalled highways. They can also be used to show distances to destinations along the trail. Public feedback on the Norfolk Trails network has shown this last to be particularly important to trail users.

11. Interpretation board • Interpretation boards are a great way of providing visitors with information on trails, wildlife, heritage and more. Good provision of information and educational resources on sensitive sites can help to manage access by presenting codes of conduct, as well as driving visitors toward more in-depth digital resources via web links and QR codes.

9. Quantity Survey The quantities and their associated costs have been broken down into several modules that could potentially be funded from different streams, and/or at different times. Indicative costs are attached on a separate sheet, and this can be used to calculate schemes on a ‘pick and mix’ basis, in combination with the General Design Specifications. It is important to note that the site-access to most of the sites where improvements have been suggested by this study is difficult, and so indicative costs have been inflated slightly to reflect this. Finally, the indicative costs in the costing sheet should be considered as ‘all in’ costs, with the assumption that projects may be carried out one-by-one, over time. However, some contractors that would be capable of carrying out very large work schemes may incur additional costs, such as workforce accommodation and specialised project management requirements. These additional costs should be factored in to funding considerations for any schemes of over the £10,000 mark, and possibly lower, dependent on the specialism-level of specified works. An indicative cost for this would be project total plus an additional 20% of project total.

10. Public Rights of Way Reference Maps

This study contains many references to PRoWs by reference number. The maps below show all PRoWs mentioned in the study, by area. An interactive map of PRoWs throughout Norfolk is viewable at maps.norfolk.gov.uk/highways, and this provides links to Norfolk County Council’s definitive map and statement of Public Rights of Way.

Hunstanton

Holme-next-the-Sea, west

Holme-next-the-sea, east

Thornham, northwest (encompassing Holme Dunes Nature Reserve)

Thornham, southeast