DOCSLIB.ORG

Keystone Community Profile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Keystone A Reference Document 2nd Edition Compiled by Corah Carney April 2005 Keystone Community Profile INDEX Section Page(s) Introduction by Neil Stott, Chief Executive KDT…………………… 2 Purpose of The Keystone Profile……………………………………. 3 Executive Summary Overall………………………………........................... 4 Thetford…………………………................................ 5 Brandon………………………………………………… 5-6 Keystone Development Trust………………………………………... 7-12 Section 1 – Demographics of The Keystone Area………………… 14-31 Section 2 – Indices of Deprivation…………………………………... 32-50 Section 3 – Employment……………………………………………... 51-65 Section 4 – Education & Training…………………………………… 66-79 Section 5 – Health…………………………………………………….. 80-100 Section 6 – Housing…………………………………………………... 101-115 Section 7 – Crime & Disorder………………………………………... 116-131 Section 8 – The Keystone Community……………………………… 132-153 Section 9 – The Keystone Environment……………………………. 154-172 Section 10 – Keystone’s Culture & Heritage……………………….. 173-188 Bibliography……………………………...……………………………. 190-191 Glossary......................................................................................... 192-193 Acknowledgements........................................................................ 195 Page 1 Keystone Community Profile Introduction by Neil Stott, Chief Executive of Keystone Development Trust Welcome to the updated ‘Keystone Profile’, a compendium of data drawn from a wide variety of sources to give a holistic and ‘one stop’ view of the area. The Profile is the result of a massive effort by Corah Carney, Health Development Officer (HDO) and colleagues across many partner agencies. The first edition has proved to be an immensely popular and useful resource. At Keystone we place a high value on good quality research. Such research informs the Trust and partners on the needs and issues facing local people – as well as being a means to track change over time. The Profile is a living document’; Keystone will endeavour to keep it updated with your support – primarily as an online resource within our website. If there is demand for annual ‘hard copy’ we will publish it for a small fee to cover printing costs! Again, I hope you find the profile useful – if you do, please let us know. Neil Stott April 2005 Page 2 Keystone Community Profile Purpose of The Keystone Profile The main purpose of compiling this document of current information is to provide a single source for much of the commonly required information about the Keystone Development Trust’s area. In addition it provides an opportunity to highlight the common links between data sets and allows the user access to a unique compilation of data relating to the area. When viewed as a whole it also provides a fascinating insight into the area. It can also support both proposals and decisions for improvements. As with any data however, it is a snapshot, limited to a point in time and by the data available. The data is in this document has been collated from a variety of sources, the main one being the Office of National Statistics Web-site. There are also many individuals and organisations who have contributed information and figures. It has not been possible to compare 2001 census data with the 1991 census as the ward boundaries changed in 2001 and this would lead to inaccurate assumptions. I would like to thank the many individuals and organisations who have contributed information to this reference document. The second edition has the following figures now included or updated: Demographics of the Keystone area Now includes the ethnicity of Keystone residents. Indices of Deprivation The new Indices of Deprivation 2004 have replaced the IOD 2000. Employment Average Earnings updated. Figures now include earnings for 2003. Education, Skills & Training Updated figures now include the educational attainments in Primary, Secondary schools and Sixth forms in 2004. Health Updated figures include the star Ratings for NHS Trusts for 2004. Housing Average house prices updated for 2004. Corah Carney April 2005 Page 3 Keystone Community Profile Executive Summary The Keystone Area - Overall The Keystone area has a population of around 60,000 people. The area is made up of 17 different wards split further into of 36 Super Output Areas and extends over parts of two County Councils, three Local Councils and three Primary Care NHS Trusts. The population has grown by 5% since 1991. 50% of the population live in the towns of Thetford and Brandon and 50% live in the surrounding hinterland. The majority of Keystone residents were born in the UK and classify themselves to be of a Christian faith. Overall, the Keystone area has a higher than average number of people both less than 16 years old and older than 60 years. There is a lower than average percentage of people classified as social grades A&B (Professional and higher Managerial) and a higher than average percentage of people classified as social grades C2, D&E (semi-skilled and lowest grade workers). In the Indices of Deprivation 2004, 6/36 of the Super Output Areas are in the top quintile of most deprived wards nationally for education, skills and training deprivation. 15/36 of the Super Output Areas are in the top quintile of most deprived wards nationally for barriers to housing and services deprivation and 3/36 of the Super Output Areas are in the top quintile of most deprived wards nationally for crime deprivation The Keystone area has low unemployment rates but Thetford and parts of Suffolk have a higher than average employment in manufacturing but employment in this sector is predicted to fall by 13% by 2010. Average earnings with overtime in the Thetford Travel to Work Area for full-time employees are £400 a week compared to the average in England of £484 per week. Keystone has low levels of educational achievement, low literacy skills and lower than average qualifications and skills. 29% have no qualifications. Alongside this, adults living in Breckland are the least likely in Norfolk to access the internet, providing obstacles in accessing local services, advice and training opportunities. This is also exacerbated by rural remoteness and limited transport infrastructure. Residents in the Keystone area generally have better health than average with longer than normal life expectancy. Deaths from Cancers and Coronary Heart Disease are lower than the average but accidents are a major cause of death, especially on the roads. Keystone’s location is to be envied. Set in the heart of the Breckland countryside, it has many hectares of unspoilt forest and many SSSI and nature sites. Its intriguing history, full of ancient sites and hidden treasures, could provide an excellent centre for tourists but this has yet to be developed to its full potential. Page 4 Keystone Community Profile Thetford Thetford is in many ways different from other parts of Norfolk. Significantly enlarged by migration from London, the local population increased fourfold between 1958 and 1980. This has now created a mixed identity which is quite different from its surrounding areas of Breckland. Situated some 30 miles from Cambridge and Norwich, it is said that Thetford is “an island of deprivation” which stands out starkly in its rural Norfolk setting. Its population is big enough to display some features associated with urban disadvantage but it is not big enough to have the knowledge, experience or critical mass to solve its own problems. It depends on collaboration with a host of different partners to provide a sufficient range of opportunities to meet the needs of its population. There are a number of socio-economic issues highlighted in Thetford: 25% of the population are under 16 years compared to the national average of 17%. The wards of Thetford-Abbey and Thetford-Saxon have twice the Norfolk average for the percentage of households consisting of lone parents living with dependent children. One of the Thetford Abbey Super Output Areas is in the top quintile of most deprived wards nationally for income, employment and multiple deprivation. Educational standards are very low with 12% of students in 2000 obtaining no GCSE passes at all compared to the national average of 5.4%. The 2001 census shows that only 9% of people in Thetford have achieved a level 4/5 qualification (first degree and above) compared to 20% in England. Two out of four wards have over 40% of people between 16-74 with no qualifications. Only 2% in Abbey ward are employed in higher managerial posts compared to the national average of 9% whilst 39% are employed in routine or semi-routine posts compared to the national average of 21%. Child health is a major concern as it has the highest number of children on the Child Protection Register for its size of population in the whole of Norfolk. There is a high rate of teenage pregnancy and anecdotally, there are said to be large problems associated with substance misuse. Low aspirations and low self-esteem are frequently reported in reviews about Thetford. Brandon The market town of Brandon is set on the border of Norfolk and Suffolk. The town serves the rural hinterland of both Forest Heath and Breckland, some of which is classed as a rural priority area. Page 5 Keystone Community Profile Brandon was traditionally known as the crossroads where the routes between the ancient settlements of Kings Lynn, Bury St Edmunds, Swaffham and Newmarket converge. This enviable geographical position, once the source of wealth, employment and importance is today seen as the reason for decline and loss of direction. Brandon today, has its issues, some of which are unique: It has a higher than average population of people aged 60 yrs or over and is somewhat regarded as a retirement destination. 64% of residents in a recent survey live in bungalows. It has a higher than average percentage of households consisting of one pensioner living alone. Because of the elderly population, there are a higher number of deaths than average per 1,000 residents. The majority of people who are disadvantaged through poor health feel that their needs are not adequately catered for. One Brandon Super Output Area is in the top quintile of most deprived wards nationally for education and skills deprivation.
Recommended publications
  • Parish Share Report

    Parish Share Report

    PARISH SHARE PAYMENTS For period ended 30th September 2019 SUMMARY OF PARISH SHARE PAYMENTS BY DEANERIES Dean Amount % Deanery Share Received for 2019 % Deanery Share % No Outstanding 2018 2019 to period end 2018 Received for 2018 received £ £ £ £ £ Norwich Archdeaconry 06 Norwich East 23,500 4.41 557,186 354,184 63.57 532,380 322,654 60.61 04 Norwich North 47,317 9.36 508,577 333,671 65.61 505,697 335,854 66.41 05 Norwich South 28,950 7.21 409,212 267,621 65.40 401,270 276,984 69.03 Norfolk Archdeaconry 01 Blofield 37,303 11.04 327,284 212,276 64.86 338,033 227,711 67.36 11 Depwade 46,736 16.20 280,831 137,847 49.09 288,484 155,218 53.80 02 Great Yarmouth 44,786 9.37 467,972 283,804 60.65 478,063 278,114 58.18 13 Humbleyard 47,747 11.00 437,949 192,301 43.91 433,952 205,085 47.26 14 Loddon 62,404 19.34 335,571 165,520 49.32 322,731 174,229 53.99 15 Lothingland 21,237 3.90 562,194 381,997 67.95 545,102 401,890 73.73 16 Redenhall 55,930 17.17 339,813 183,032 53.86 325,740 187,989 57.71 09 St Benet 36,663 9.24 380,642 229,484 60.29 396,955 243,433 61.33 17 Thetford & Rockland 31,271 10.39 314,266 182,806 58.17 300,933 192,966 64.12 Lynn Archdeaconry 18 Breckland 45,799 11.97 397,811 233,505 58.70 382,462 239,714 62.68 20 Burnham & Walsingham 63,028 15.65 396,393 241,163 60.84 402,850 256,123 63.58 12 Dereham in Mitford 43,605 12.03 353,955 223,631 63.18 362,376 208,125 57.43 21 Heacham & Rising 24,243 6.74 377,375 245,242 64.99 359,790 242,156 67.30 22 Holt 28,275 8.55 327,646 207,089 63.21 330,766 214,952 64.99 23 Lynn 10,805 3.30 330,152 196,022 59.37 326,964 187,510 57.35 07 Repps 0 0.00 383,729 278,123 72.48 382,728 285,790 74.67 03 08 Ingworth & Sparham 27,983 6.66 425,260 239,965 56.43 420,215 258,960 61.63 727,583 9.28 7,913,818 4,789,282 60.52 7,837,491 4,895,456 62.46 01/10/2019 NORWICH DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE LTD DEANERY HISTORY REPORT MONTH September YEAR 2019 SUMMARY PARISH 2017 OUTST.
  • Council Tax Rates 2020 - 2021

    Council Tax Rates 2020 - 2021

    BRECKLAND COUNCIL NOTICE OF SETTING OF COUNCIL TAX Notice is hereby given that on the twenty seventh day of February 2020 Breckland Council, in accordance with Section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, approved and duly set for the financial year beginning 1st April 2020 and ending on 31st March 2021 the amounts as set out below as the amount of Council Tax for each category of dwelling in the parts of its area listed below. The amounts below for each parish will be the Council Tax payable for the forthcoming year. COUNCIL TAX RATES 2020 - 2021 A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H NORFOLK COUNTY 944.34 1101.73 1259.12 1416.51 1731.29 2046.07 2360.85 2833.02 KENNINGHALL 1194.35 1393.40 1592.46 1791.52 2189.63 2587.75 2985.86 3583.04 NORFOLK POLICE & LEXHAM 1182.24 1379.28 1576.32 1773.36 2167.44 2561.52 2955.60 3546.72 175.38 204.61 233.84 263.07 321.53 379.99 438.45 526.14 CRIME COMMISSIONER BRECKLAND 62.52 72.94 83.36 93.78 114.62 135.46 156.30 187.56 LITCHAM 1214.50 1416.91 1619.33 1821.75 2226.58 2631.41 3036.25 3643.49 LONGHAM 1229.13 1433.99 1638.84 1843.70 2253.41 2663.12 3072.83 3687.40 ASHILL 1212.28 1414.33 1616.37 1818.42 2222.51 2626.61 3030.70 3636.84 LOPHAM NORTH 1192.57 1391.33 1590.09 1788.85 2186.37 2583.90 2981.42 3577.70 ATTLEBOROUGH 1284.23 1498.27 1712.31 1926.35 2354.42 2782.50 3210.58 3852.69 LOPHAM SOUTH 1197.11 1396.63 1596.15 1795.67 2194.71 2593.74 2992.78 3591.34 BANHAM 1204.41 1405.14 1605.87 1806.61 2208.08 2609.55 3011.01 3613.22 LYNFORD 1182.24 1379.28 1576.32 1773.36 2167.44 2561.52 2955.60 3546.72
  • Little Ouse and Waveney Project

    Little Ouse and Waveney Project

    Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Mott MacDonald Norfolk County Council Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Little Ouse and Waveney Project May 2006 214980-UA02/01/B - 12th May 2006 Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Mott MacDonald Norfolk County Council Transnational Ecological Network (TEN3) Little Ouse and Waveney Project Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description 13 th Jan J. For January TEN A E. Lunt 2006 Purseglove workshop 24 th May E. Lunt J. B Draft for Comment 2006 Purseglove This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any o ther project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a pur pose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage re sulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald and used by Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.
  • Contents of Volume 14 Norwich Marriages 1813-37 (Are Distinguished by Letter Code, Given Below) Those from 1801-13 Have Also Been Transcribed and Have No Code

    Contents of Volume 14 Norwich Marriages 1813-37 (Are Distinguished by Letter Code, Given Below) Those from 1801-13 Have Also Been Transcribed and Have No Code

    Norfolk Family History Society Norfolk Marriages 1801-1837 The contents of Volume 14 Norwich Marriages 1813-37 (are distinguished by letter code, given below) those from 1801-13 have also been transcribed and have no code. ASt All Saints Hel St. Helen’s MyM St. Mary in the S&J St. Simon & St. And St. Andrew’s Jam St. James’ Marsh Jude Aug St. Augustine’s Jma St. John McC St. Michael Coslany Ste St. Stephen’s Ben St. Benedict’s Maddermarket McP St. Michael at Plea Swi St. Swithen’s JSe St. John Sepulchre McT St. Michael at Thorn Cle St. Clement’s Erh Earlham St. Mary’s Edm St. Edmund’s JTi St. John Timberhill Pau St. Paul’s Etn Eaton St. Andrew’s Eth St. Etheldreda’s Jul St. Julian’s PHu St. Peter Hungate GCo St. George Colegate Law St. Lawrence’s PMa St. Peter Mancroft Hei Heigham St. GTo St. George Mgt St. Margaret’s PpM St. Peter per Bartholomew Tombland MtO St. Martin at Oak Mountergate Lak Lakenham St. John Gil St. Giles’ MtP St. Martin at Palace PSo St. Peter Southgate the Baptist and All Grg St. Gregory’s MyC St. Mary Coslany Sav St. Saviour’s Saints The 25 Suffolk parishes Ashby Burgh Castle (Nfk 1974) Gisleham Kessingland Mutford Barnby Carlton Colville Gorleston (Nfk 1889) Kirkley Oulton Belton (Nfk 1974) Corton Gunton Knettishall Pakefield Blundeston Cove, North Herringfleet Lound Rushmere Bradwell (Nfk 1974) Fritton (Nfk 1974) Hopton (Nfk 1974) Lowestoft Somerleyton The Norfolk parishes 1 Acle 36 Barton Bendish St Andrew 71 Bodham 106 Burlingham St Edmond 141 Colney 2 Alburgh 37 Barton Bendish St Mary 72 Bodney 107 Burlingham
  • Forest Heath District Council

    Forest Heath District Council

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

    Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan

    Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report May 2021 Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report LC- 654 Document Control Box Client South Norfolk Council Habitats Regulations Assessment Report Title Regulation 18 – HRA Report Status FINAL Filename LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Date May 2021 Author SC Reviewed ND Approved ND Photo: Female broad bodied chaser by Shutterstock Regulation 18 – HRA Report May 2021 LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this report ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 The South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................... 3 2.1 Greater Norwich Local Plan .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................................ 3 2.3 Village Clusters ..........................................................................................................................................................
  • Landscape Character Assessment Documents 2

    Landscape Character Assessment Documents 2

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

    Habitats Regulation Assessment East Cambridgeshire Local Plan

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

    Parish Registers and Transcripts in the Norfolk Record Office

    Parish Registers and Transcripts in the Norfolk Record Office This list summarises the Norfolk Record Office’s (NRO’s) holdings of parish (Church of England) registers and of transcripts and other copies of them. Parish Registers The NRO holds registers of baptisms, marriages, burials and banns of marriage for most parishes in the Diocese of Norwich (including Suffolk parishes in and near Lowestoft in the deanery of Lothingland) and part of the Diocese of Ely in south-west Norfolk (parishes in the deanery of Fincham and Feltwell). Some Norfolk parish records remain in the churches, especially more recent registers, which may be still in use. In the extreme west of the county, records for parishes in the deanery of Wisbech Lynn Marshland are deposited in the Wisbech and Fenland Museum, whilst Welney parish records are at the Cambridgeshire Record Office. The covering dates of registers in the following list do not conceal any gaps of more than ten years; for the populous urban parishes (such as Great Yarmouth) smaller gaps are indicated. Whenever microfiche or microfilm copies are available they must be used in place of the original registers, some of which are unfit for production. A few parish registers have been digitally photographed and the images are available on computers in the NRO's searchroom. The digital images were produced as a result of partnership projects with other groups and organizations, so we are not able to supply copies of whole registers (either as hard copies or on CD or in any other digital format), although in most cases we have permission to provide printout copies of individual entries.
  • David Tyldesley and Associates Planning, Landscape and Environmental Consultants

    David Tyldesley and Associates Planning, Landscape and Environmental Consultants

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

    233 08 SD50 Environment Permitting Decision Document

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

    Coarse Fishing Close Season on English Rivers

    Coarse fishing close season on English rivers Appendix 1 – Current coarse fish close season arrangements The close season on different waters In England, there is a coarse fish close season on all rivers, some canals and some stillwaters. This has not always been the case. In the 1990s, only around 60% of the canal network had a close season and in some regions, the close season had been dispensed with on all stillwaters. Stillwaters In 1995, following consultation, government confirmed a national byelaw which retained the coarse fish close season on rivers, streams, drains and canals, but dispensed with it on most stillwaters. The rationale was twofold: • Most stillwaters are discrete waterbodies in single ownership. Fishery owners can apply bespoke angling restrictions to protect their stocks, including non-statutory close times. • The close season had been dispensed with on many stillwaters prior to 1995 without apparent detriment to those fisheries. This presented strong evidence in favour of removing it. The close season is retained on some Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, as a precaution against possible damage to sensitive wildlife - see Appendix 1. This consultation is not seeking views on whether the close season should be retained on these stillwaters While most stillwater fishery managers have not re-imposed their own close season rules, some have, either adopting the same dates as apply to rivers or tailoring them to their waters' specific needs. Canals The Environment Agency commissioned a research project in 1997 to examine the evidence around the close season on canals to identify whether or not angling during the close season was detrimental to canal fisheries.