Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) Supplementary Planning Document Draft (SPD) INITIAL STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION (Regulation 17 1)

1.0 Introduction

This document supports the Draft Landscape Character Assess Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that has been published for public consultation.

The Consultation Statement has been prepared in accordance to Reg. 17 (1) (b) of the Town and Country (Local Development) () Regulations 2004 which the Local Planning Authority is required to prepare a statement setting out how pre-consultation took place prior to preparation of Draft SPD outlined below.

2.0 Pre-production Stage Consultation

Prior to preparing the Draft Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), whilst producing the Landscape Character Review - District Council held a workshop in December 2007 with the stakeholders outlined in Section 3 to explore the stakeholder’s view on (i) what gives different places their local identity and distinctive character and (ii) key issues for the protection and landscape enhancement of character in their district in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

This information was fed into the desk study research, field survey and characterisation stages of the study to refine and validate the preliminary Draft mapping of Landscape Character Types and Areas by the consultants. It was also used to identify the issues that needed to be address by management strategies, objectives and guidelines within the evaluation stage (See SPD - Appendix A). As part of the process, Broadland District Council Tree Wardens were consulted on the Draft Landscape Typology.

A second stage of pre-consultation was undertaken in March 2008 by Broadland District Council which included a questionnaire (also made available electronically on the Council’s website) for stakeholders outlined in Section 4. The questionnaire sought views on the LCA Review, the overall approach to the Review and Landscape Character Areas. (For more info see Section. 3 below)

3.0 Pre-Consultation Questionnaire - Draft Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) Review

On the whole respondents to the questionnaire agreed that the document was understandable and they were impressed with the aspiration set out as policy to conserve the generally rural character of the Broadland district.

Specific Comments made were:

• PC is very impressed with the assessment give to Foulsham and the surrounding area and hope it remains peaceful and notice is taken of your evaluation in the future. • Pg 31 - to conserve the sense of tranquillity & peace along valley floor. The proposed re routing of Airport air traffic over this area is in direct violation of this point.

1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004) Part 4 Reg. 17

1 Pg 35 -Landscape Planning Guidelines points 2/7 isolation & tranquillity & busy roads etc. The proposed Prison is in violation with this point. • Strongly support the second policy option in Appendix D to include streetscapes and settlement morphology with the considerations. • Provided no more housing estates are built in rural areas. • Pg. 17 - Para 2.3.21 There is no mention of the large tracks of lands that were developed in this area as airfields during WWII as well as farming. Area: D3 - Pg 55. (Summary of Visual Character) Reference to an RAF Base is incorrect for Year 2008. Area D3- Inherent Landscape Sensitivities - scarce settlement pattern with general absence of busy roads? We may have a sparse roadwork around, but much of and Horstead is taken up by B roads carrying ever increasing traffic to and fro North Walsham and . • Fig. 3. Geology – ‘hard Paleozolic’ rocks is incorrect. Pleased Marshes Fringe has been retained as a distinct character area. Para 1.2.3 second bullet should incl. ‘…historic landscape character, geology, geomorphology and biodiversity’ Para 1.5.11 incl. ‘Geology and geomorphology’ . Para 2.2.5 – Fig. 2.2. is missing and amend 2nd sentence to ‘ West of Norwich and crag sediments to the east’ amend 3rd . Sentence to ‘The drift geology’..amend 4th sentence …’..overlain with glacial tills, sands and ….’Omit last sentence. Para 2.2.7 second sentence replace ‘boulder clay’ with till. Para 2.2.3 Amend to read.. ‘Prior to the Mesolithic was attached to Europe to the east and north coast lay some 60-70 km seaward of its present position.’ • Landscape area A1 - River Authority holding back water and flooding SSI land. Particularly at Ringland (NR8) also causing severe erosion to River Banks. • Landscape area E4 and . Page 97 Line 10. The Grade II listed C18th Salhouse Hall and designated Historic Parkland has been omitted and should be included in the text. Page 98 – Summary of E4 – line 6. ‘……….further east within E2 Character Area’ should read ‘west’? - Although, it has not been included, should there not be some reference to the Conservation Areas at Salhouse and • relevant sub-sections could include reference to the evidence for Scandinavian/Viking settlement in Norfolk (artefacts, place names etc), and the impact of the two World Wars and the Cold War on the landscape (defences, airfields etc). By the way, there is no evidence for Roman vineyards in Norfolk. Section 4.5.2. - One enhancement of the evidence base would be the inclusion of Historic Landscape Characterisation data. • ‘No Comments’ • Use of completed Historic Landscape Characterisation being worked on should be a key part of the approach. As mentioned at section 4.5.2 further settlement character studies, including archaeological surveys are needed to enhance the evidence base. • The conservation is semi developed and wooded river slope. It is seen clearly from the Yare and Whitlingham County Park, and merits protection. Apart from paras 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 it is difficult to find reference to this important part of Broadland area. Something more specific would be encouraging. There are many references to the Broads National Park. This is inaccurate; a statement is needed to explain the correct status of the Broads. • Pg. 97 line 10 Grade II listed, C18 Salhouse Hall and designated parkland has been omitted and should be included. P. 98 Summary of E4 – line 6, ‘further East within Character Area’…incorrect. Either ‘west’ or F2. • Agrees with overall document. No adverse comments to make on this well presented and informative document. The only concern would be if it is used to change the designation from farmland to the south of Wroxham village to an ‘Area of ‘Landscape Quality’ to commercial or housing use. We would be strongly opposed to this. • Concerned over need to reproduce work completed in 2002. • The document’s content is sound, the way it gives visual, historic and ecological descriptions for each area. The descriptions for each area are fine as is the analysis of inherent landscape sensitivities. In terms of the landscape planning guidelines, a bit more information could be given in respect of the ecological and historic aspects where they contribute to landscape character. e.g. for wooded estate landscapes it could say something about suitable tree species for new plantings and scale and shape of woodlands. This may be different from Heathland Mosaic where you may be looking for opportunities to create larger areas of Heathland and where new plantings occur the species composition could be different to reflect the differing soil types. On the historic 2 side, the guidelines could be a bit more specific about stressing the importance of understanding the context and relationship about historic features e.g. churches in relation to their villages and the great swathe of parklands around the north east of Norwich. Areas E3, E4 Other concern is the report says very little about the growth pressures which we know are going to occur on certain character areas e.g. E4 and E3. It would be helpful to have some guidelines in those area which acknowledge that large scale growth is likely to happen and to come up with some broad guidelines to help accommodate growth e.g. Conserve and enhance existing woodland belts to buffer new housing neighbourhoods or seek to conserve and restore parkland character to act a potential greenspace between new housing neighbourhoods etc.

These points were all considered and where appropriate actions were taken and changes made to Draft SPD.

3

LCA consultees - organisations LCA consultees - organisations 1. Parish Council 48. Ringland Parish Council 2. Parish Meeting 49. Salhouse Parish Council 3. Town Council 50. Salle Parish Meeting 4. Parish Meeting 51. Parish Council 5. Beighton Parish Council 52. Parish Council 6. Parish Meeting 53. Parish Council 7. Parish Council 54. Parish Council 8. Parish Council 55. Parish Council 9. Booton Parish Meeting 56. Swannington with & Little 10. Brampton Parish Council Witchingham Parish Council 11. Parish Meeting 57. Parish Council 12. Parish Council 58. Parish Meeting 13. Burgh & Tuttington Parish Council 59. Town Council 14. Parish Council 60. Parish Council 15. Cantley Parish Council 61. Wensum Valley Project 16. Cawston Parish Council 62. Parish Council 17. Coltishall Parish Council 63. Parish Council 18. Parish Meeting 64. Woodbastwick Parish Council 19. Drayton Parish Council 65. Wroxham Parish Council 20. Parish Council 66. Aylsham Local History Society 21. Foulsham Parish Council 67. Council 22. Parish Council 68. Broads Authority 23. Parish Council 69. Brundall Society 24. Great & Little Plumstead Parish Council 70. Colliers CRE 25. Parish Council 71. Country Land & Business Association 26. Parish Meeting 72. English Heritage 27. Parish Council 73. Environment Agency 28. Parish Council 74. Foulsham Society 29. Parish Meeting 75. Borough Council 30. Parish Council 76. National Trust 31. Parish Council 77. Natural England 32. Parish Council 78. Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership 33. Heydon Parish Meeting 79. Norfolk Coast Partnership 34. Parish Council 80. Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership 35. Parish Council 81. Norfolk Landscape Archaeology 36. Horsham & Newton St Faiths Parish 82. Norfolk Ramblers Association Council 83. Norfolk Wildlife Trust 37. Horstead and Stanninghall Parish Council 84. District Council 38. and Burlingham Parish Council 85. Norwich City Council 39. Marsham Parish Council 86. Norwich Fringe Project 40. Morton-on-the-Hill Parish Meeting 87. Society 41. Old Catton Parish Council 88. RSPB 42. Oulton Parish Council 89. District Council 43. Parish Council 90. Thorpe Conservation Group / Tree wardens 44. Rackheath Parish Council 91. BDC – Conservation 45. Reedham Parish Council 92. BDC – Development Management 46. Reepham Society 47. Reepham Town Council 4