Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Introduction

1 Introduction 3

Towns and Local Service Centres Consultation Outcome

2 Towns and Local Service Centres 8

Settlement Boundary Consultation Outcome

3 Rural Settlement Boundaries 20

Additional Settlement Boundary Amendments

4 Additional Boundary Changes as a Result of the Preferred Option Consultation 74

5 Beetley 76

6 Croxton 78

7 Gressenhall 80

8 Shipdham 82

9 Shropham 84

10 Watton 86

Settlement Boundary Summary

11 Settlement Boundary Summary 88

Open Space Assessment Update 2010

12 Open Space Assessment Update 2010 93

Inter relationship with Area Action Plans

13 Inter Relationship with Area Action Plans 99 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Harling Site Allocations

14 Harling Site Allocations 103 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

1 Introduction

Introduction

1.1 Settlement boundaries have been used as a policy tool in Breckland for a considerable time. The Breckland Local Plan (1999) included settlement boundaries for the towns and villages and these have remained valid through the associated policy framework during the transition from the Local Plan to the LDF Core Strategy (2004-2009). The principle Local Plan settlement boundaries have been retained on the Proposals Maps accompanying the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.

1.2 The opportunity to revisit the issue of whether a settlement boundary is delineated and subsequently how that settlement boundary is defined is a fundamental part of the Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document which has been subject of consultation from 2008 to 2010. Consultation has included debate around the new inset plans and the proposed settlement boundaries. This Topic Paper is intended to provide guidelines for how this process was undertaken so that there is a consistent and transparent approach to what may be one of the more contentious elements of the Breckland Local Development Framework.

Purpose of Settlement Boundaries

1.3 Settlement Boundaries are a policy tool which delineate in plan form coherent and established built-up areas. The purpose of the settlement boundaries is to consolidate development around existing built-up communities where there is a clearly defined settlement where further development, if properly designed and constructed, would not be incongruous or intrusive because of the size of the settlement. Many of the communities identified with settlement boundaries have a number of services which can underpin the sustainability of further development in that community. To support this approach, and explain the purpose of settlement boundaries, local planning policies have adopted the policy responses identifies below.

Policy Response to Settlement Boundaries

Presumption in favour of development within settlement boundaries subject to local detailed issues such as form & character, access etc.

Exceptionally allowing for development outside of but directly adjoining settlement boundaries where it meets a local need such as affordable housing for local people or local employment.

Strictly controlling development outside settlement boundaries (i.e. in open countryside) in order to protect the landscape and to reduce the environmental impacts of a dispersed form of development – such as carbon emissions from increased transport, coalescent of built development and sprawl.

1.4 The adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document of the LDF confirms that Settlement Boundaries remain a valid policy response in Breckland to achieve the twin objectives of focusing the majority of development towards existing settlements whilst simultaneously protecting the surrounding countryside. Core Policy 14 of the document sets out the preferred strategic planning approach for sustainable rural communities in Breckland. This approach proposes that Settlement Boundaries will be defined for rural communities where there are at least two of the following key local services; food shop, post office, pub, doctor’s surgery, primary school, and good public transport links or local employment opportunities. Core Policy 14 also commits Breckland to review Settlement Boundaries in the Site Specific Policies and Proposals Document and requires amendments in the review to result in logical and defensible Settlement Boundaries.

3 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

1.5 There are no defined criteria on how to draw up settlement boundaries in National or Regional policy planning which can be directly translated into the Local Development Framework. There are however a number of location specific policies which can be used in determining which settlements have settlement boundaries and how those boundaries are delineated.

1.6 PPS1 “Sustainable Development” encourages development plans to focus new development in existing centres. It suggests that new development must be located in places where everyone can access services by foot, cycle or public transport. PPS1 also promotes the protection of the wider countryside and landscape. In addition one of the Key Planning Objectives of the supplement to PPS1 on “Planning and Climate Change”, promotes development to be located in areas which reduce the need to travel by the private car. This point is reiterated in PPS3 “Housing”. PPS7 “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” further supports these aims and states that development in open countryside, away from settlements should be strictly controlled.

1.7 In conclusion, the purpose of settlement boundaries is to a draw a line around those areas within the District which are an established and coherent built-up area with some form of service provision which supports the sustainability of that community. Within settlement boundaries the principle of further development will be considered favourably subject to form and character, access, biodiversity and historic environment. As a consequence those areas outside of settlement boundaries will constitute “countryside” for the purposes of planning policy and in these areas development will be strictly controlled to that which is needed to specifically support the rural areas.

Policy Context

1.8 The main purpose of the Settlement Boundaries will be to identify where certain policies apply. The two principal land uses to which settlement boundaries will mainly be relevant are housing and employment. Outside of settlement boundaries planning permission will not be given unless it meets an identified local need or is connected to the rural economy of Breckland. This is consistent with national policy described in Planning Policy Statement 7 “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas”

1.9 Policy DC2 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD outlines the Council’s policy approach for assessing applications for residential development. The opening lines of policy declare that within Settlement Boundaries as defined on the Proposals Map, new housing development will, in principle, be permitted.

Historical Background

1.10 The origins of settlement boundaries go back to the 1979 Norfolk Structure Plan. That document contained at Policy 3.4.18 states the following:

“IN ALL VILLAGES PLANNING PERMISSION MAY BE GIVEN, AT THE DISCRETION OF DISTRICT COUNCILS, FOR INDIVIDUAL OR SMALL GROUPS OF HOUSES WHICH WILL ENHANCE THE FORM AND CHARACTER OF THE VILLAGE.”

1.11 To deliver this policy Breckland Council agreed a programme for the production of “Village Guidelines”. The Breckland Council determined in 1978 that the purpose of Village Guidelines was:

i. to develop the policies and general proposals of the Norfolk Structure Plan and relate them to precise areas of land; ii. to provide a detailed basis for the control of development; iii. to provide a detailed basis for co-ordinating and directing both public and private development of land iv. to bring local planning issues before the public for discussion and comment.

1.12 In drawing up early Village Guidelines a number of criteria were taken into account by Breckland Council.

i. the built form of the village itself with particular regard to its landscape setting

4 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

ii. opportunities for development within the village; and iii. existing but unimplemented planning permissions.

1.13 The 1979 Structure Plan identified Necton, Mundford, Beetley and Mattishall as villages for residential estate development. The 1988 Structure Plan continued with identifying Necton and Mundford as villages for residential estate development. In addition Breckland identified Bawdeswell, Mattishall and Saham Toney as villages for estate development.

1.14 The preparation of the Breckland Local Plan from 1993 onwards provided the first attempt to embrace all of the Village Guidelines into one document. The Consultation Draft Local Plan (1994) renamed the village guidelines – settlement boundaries in an attempt to highlight the fact that the boundaries were a policy tool to define the limits of where policies apply.

1.15 With the adoption of the Local Plan in 1999, Hockering was the only village identified for estate scale residential development. Elsewhere there was a strict policy of tightly drawn settlement boundaries to prevent the spread of development into the countryside. The Inspectors Report into objections to the Breckland District Local Plan (1998) considered a number of objections requesting individual amendments to settlement boundaries. Generally the majority of requests to amend settlement boundaries were dismissed by the Inspector due to two factors. The first issue was the Inspector’s concern that amending the settlement boundary would exacerbate the over-supply of housing. The second issue was the Inspector’s reservation that amending the settlement boundary would not enhance the form and character of the area.

1.16 In addition to cases for individual amendments to settlement boundaries, the Inspector also considered whether Fransham merited a settlement boundary. This was the only village identified where the principle of a settlement boundary was considered. The Inspector concluded that……“The various groups of dwellings, like the Council Houses at Glebe Close and the houses on the A47 are widely separated and Little Fransham is, in my view, a very small place not large or concentrated enough to justify definition, within the context of this plan, as a settlement.”

Historic Delineation of Settlement Boundaries

1.17 The individual village guideline approach originating from the early 1980s and translated into the Settlement Boundary through the preparation of the District wide Local Plan in the 1990s has provided a consistent basis for development control decision making. Settlement boundaries also clearly convey to the public and developers where future development may be permitted and where it would be refused. Importantly, settlement boundaries allow for consultation on the definition of policy.

1.18 The settlement boundaries contained in the Breckland Local Plan (1999) are largely based on the Village Guidelines of the 1980s and the boundaries defined in the Town Plans. A number were reviewed and amended through the Local Plan process but the majority were a straight replication of the Village Guidelines / Town Plans. They were generally drawn tightly around the extent of existing development with the intention of reducing the rate of development in the villages and maintaining development levels in the towns.

1.19 Monitoring has revealed that development rates in villages has remained relatively consistent in the last eight years since the Local Plan settlement boundaries were adopted.

1.20 Generally the settlement boundaries include the main built form of the settlement and are drawn along features such as roads, footpaths, drains, rivers, walls and fences that are identifiable on the ground. Occasionally more arbitrary lines have been used where there is no identifiable physical feature on the ground.

1.21 Often there are individual or small groups of buildings that are divorced from the main settlement either by countryside or a physical feature such as a railway line, river or road. Generally these buildings have been excluded from the settlement boundary.

5 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

1.22 A number of important physical features which contribute to the character of a settlement have also been excluded from the settlement boundary where they lie at the edge of the village. Such features include village churches and areas of open land such as village greens, cemeteries and playing fields. The redevelopment of these areas is prohibited in any event, however, their exclusion from the settlement boundary affords them additional protection.

1.23 The majority of farms and farm buildings lie in the open countryside. However, there are instances where they are located within or on the edge of the main built up area of a village or town. Farm buildings can often make a significant contribution to the character of the area. During the preparation of the Local Plan many farm buildings were excluded from the settlement boundary because it was considered that their inclusion would result in residential redevelopment contrary to policies which sought to secure the economic re-uses in the first instance. Many farm buildings adjoining the settlement boundary have in any event now been converted for residential uses and a review of boundaries as part of the LDF presents an opportunity to consider whether these buildings are included within a new boundary. There still remains a number of farm buildings, including large modern structures, which adjoin settlement boundaries and a consistent approach will need to be taken. The exclusion of such buildings from the settlement boundary does not preclude their conversion to suitable alternative uses where other policies permit re-use to economic, tourism or farm diversification uses.

1.24 Settlement boundaries have also been drawn taking into account various biodiversity designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNR). Where these are on the edge of a settlement they have been excluded from the settlement boundary to afford them greater protection. A similar approach has been taken to Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs).

1.25 Within the District there are approximately 30 parishes that contain largely sporadic development with occasional small concentrations of dwellings. On this basis these villages do not have a settlement boundary in the Local Plan because the District Council considered that it was important to retain the small-scale and often informal nature of these concentrations and their settings.

Method for Delineating Settlement Boundaries

1.26 The Adopted Breckland Core Strategy contains a policy on sustainable rural communities at Core Policy CP14. This policy covers a number of rural issues , including the parameters for the review of the rural settlement boundaries.

1.27 The review of settlement boundaries in line with Core Policy 14 will allow for the following;

6 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

1) Removal of settlement boundaries for small rural communities

When considering the removal of settlement boundaries, regard has been had to the following factors;

i. The form and shape of the current settlement boundary - can it be logically extended without harm to the wider landscape. ii. The capacity within the current settlement boundary - can it accommodate further infill development that would be compatible with the from and character of the settlement. iii. The level of service provision - can the settlement sustain further development; and iv. The impact of being designated countryside - can the countryside policies sufficiently address the development needs of the community.

2) Retention of settlement boundaries as they are

The retention of the settlement boundary is a reflection that there are no options to logically extend the settlement boundary in a way that would not harm the landscape or amenity or be detrimental to highway safety. Equally, this option acknowledges that there remains some limited scope for further development or that the community is of a sufficient size, shape and level of service provision that merits the retention of the existing settlement boundary.

3) Amend settlement boundaries to address anomalies, inconsistencies, the removal of back land and other inappropriate development opportunities and the inclusion of small scale sites (up to 5 units) on brownfield and other small sites adjacent to settlement boundaries.

When considering the amendment of settlement boundaries, regard has been had to the following factors;

i. The need to address anomalies and inconsistencies (i.e settlement boundary cuts through existing properties). ii. The opportunity to present tighter boundaries where this would preclude back land or other inappropriate development; and, iii. The opportunity to include small scale brownfield or other well related sites within a settlement boundary (5 units).

Policy Implications of Settlement Boundaries

1.28 There are a number of preferred policies in the Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD that have reference to Settlement Boundaries.

Core Policy CP14 sets out the criteria for the definition of settlement boundaries in rural areas. Policy DC2 states that new housing will be permitted within settlement boundaries subject to other policy considerations Policy DC5 requires affordable housing exception sites to be adjacent to the settlement boundary. Where the word ‘countryside’ is used, this refers to an area outside of the settlement boundary.

7 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

2 Towns and Local Service Centres

2.1 The Site Specific Policies and Proposed Preferred Options' consultation ran from the 16th of June till the 30th of July 2010 and generated a total of 1,775 responses and 11 responses to the Site Specific Policies and Proposals Sustainability Appraisal. Of these, approximately 240 were related to the settlement boundary changes.

2.2 Overall, there was an approximate 66% response rate to the settlement boundary consultation – 57 parishes received representations out of the 86 that were consulted upon. In summary;

22 of the Parishes received principle support for officer recommendation. 14 Parishes, whilst not objecting to officer recommendation, made reference to the location of growth within the Spatial Strategy – concern being restricted and/or no development in the smaller villages. In most instances, these representations also included site representations that were considered either non conforming or unreasonable within the 2008 and 2009 issue and options consultation. 13 of the Parishes received objections to officer recommendation, in most instances these were as a result of the settlement boundary being either proposed for deletion or amended to restrict development. 2 parishes received representations which were not directly consulted upon, Hoe and Fransham. These do not contain existing settlement boundaries and they wished for more growth. 4 Parishes received representations which were mixed support and objection.

2.3 Sections 2 and 3 provide summary of all comments made with a officer comment and recommendation of how each settlement boundary will go forward within the submission document.

8 Dereham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recomendation

Support Dereham Town Support the removal of school Comments noted. It is considered that Council land from the settlement for the purposes of boundary to protect them from consistency within the loss to other uses. document and for the protection of school Object J.R. Gillespie Do not wish to see school sites The comments from the Governors representative buildings and playing (Dereham St. removed from settlement and Norfolk County Council have misunderstood the fields, that it remains Nicolas School), boundary as they consider it purpose of settlement boundaries and their relevance appropriate to Mr S. Faulkner may prejudice future to school developments. The Council’s adopted Core exclude these (Norfolk County expansion. Strategy along with the provisions of national buildings from the Council). Mr D. planning policy would still provide a sufficiently settlement boundary. Wingate. Mr Wingate objects to the supportive policy framework to allow school settlement boundary and expansion if these were located outside the Therefore, it is wishes to see land at Dereham development boundary. A considerable number of considered that the Golf Club included in the schools have been kept out of the settlement proposals to amend boundary. boundary elsewhere in the district to help to protect the settlement them from the pressure of other commercial boundary for proposals and to ensure their long-term use as Dereham as educational facilities and in particular the associated presented in the playing fields. consultation be taken forward to the In respect of Mr Wingate’s site, this has not proposed submission previously been consulted on at previous stages in document. the process and as such should not be considered at this late stage. Furthermore, development of this NOTE: Further Settlement parcel of land would result in the loss of Open Space changes to the protected under Policy DC11 of the Adopted Core settlement boundary Strategy. There may well be access and highway to reflect the final issues as part of any future development and the housing and Boundary site and any development may impact upon the employment Dereham Conservation Area. allocations will need to be made, although T

this will depend on opic Paper 9 10 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recomendation

Comments Dereham Town Wish to see sixth form playing Comments noted. the sites agreed by Boundary Council field removed to protect it from the Council. As such, development. these are not reflected in this table. T opic

Table 2.1 Dereham Paper

Swaffham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Ian Tracey SWOS.1 Support the proposed allocation. Support noted. It is considered that (Myers Trust) despite the It is confirmed that the above field adjoins the Myers Playing representation Mr Pilcher Field which is an area given to the town for organised received that the sporting use. Due to limited space the Myers field is utilised proposed changes Mrs K Nye to full capacity. The ability to use this extra area would be to the Swaffham of great potential providing extra area for particularly football settlement pitches and training. The Myers Trust would also be boundary remain interested in taking over the area and including it within the appropriate. Myers Trust or if this is not possible at least contributing to manage the area to its full potential. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Mr & Mrs SWOS.2 is supported - inclusion of ‘The Antinghams’ as Support noted. Preferred Options Andrews public open space as being: consultation to amend the Mr & Mrs Dean An important historical open area in the town settlement Mr & Mrs Important to the setting of the Church (listed building) boundary is Donald continued to the Important for wildlife proposed Mr J Wallace Submission However, more detail on the precise future of the site would document. Mr J Griffin be welcomed from some respondents.

Mrs K Nye Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Mr N Hervey

Mr & Mrs Edwards

Object Mr R D SWOS.2 We object to this proposal. Swaffham has a shortfall of Wingate (for public open space and the Heygate We propose the development of a few dwellings at the area known as the Farms) southern end of the Antinghams (to the south of the footpath) Antinghams’ has become with access from White Cross Road. There is little an informal amenity area, opportunity for this type of individually designed dwellings adjacent to the town within the town. The site is capable of being properly centre. Additionally, the serviced, and is in a very sustainable location. We are protection of the form and aware of the proposal to allocate the Antinghams as an character of the settlement open space, and we have had discussions with the Town boundaries via the Council in this regard. prevention of infill and/or backland is expressed within PPS3 and CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Mr R D SWSB.4 The land is in the curtilage of The Manor House, The protection of the form Wingate a Listed Building, and where the Council claims that any and character of the development would have an adverse effect on the setting settlement boundaries via of that building. Our view is that low density, high quality the prevention of infill designed dwellings would make an entirely appropriate and/or backland is entrance to the town on the north side of the Norwich Road. expressed within PPS5 and Settlement CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Mrs J Jacques SWSB.2. The site is now shown as edge of 'countryside', Site [097]031 has been Boundary beyond the settlement boundary under the current previously scoped through consultation document. The land actually comprises 2008 and 2009 issues and overgrown allotment plots, immediately abutting existing options and been T

low density residential development. It is requested that discounted. opic the settlement boundary be amended to reflect the existing

built form to the north of Shouldham Lane, and extend from Paper the end building southwards, alongside the north-south 1 1 12 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

access track to Princes Street. The identified site was Boundary classified in 2008 as 'Conforming', and is well related to the existing settlement, local services and facilities, and accessible by means other than private motor vehicles; -

The limited scale of development is considered to be readily T deliverable in the short term, together with any necessary opic

associated drainage and highway requirements deemed Paper necessary; - The designation of the site as 'green amenity space' has been removed since the cessation of the use of the land as allotments. The redefining of the settlement boundary as suggested would provide a clearer and more cohesive approach to the edge of the town, meeting the Core Strategy requirements (Para.2.64) and CP.14(i) facilitating the 'inclusion of adjoining brownfield sites and small-scale sites (5 units)'.

Comments

Table 2.2 Swaffham

Watton - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations

Support

Object Mr Stephen Faulkner Objects to WAT.5 to remove school land WAT.5 is not It is considered that despite the (NCC) from the settlement boundary as this would designated as open representation received that the restrict future school space through the proposed changes to the expansion/development. Adopted Core Watton settlement boundary Strategy as a result of remain appropriate. restricted use for school only, and its It is recommended that the removal from the change as set out in the settlement boundary Preferred Options consultation would provide to amend the settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations

protection from future boundary is continued to the redevelopment if that proposed Submission should arise. This is document. also consistent with the approach taken within the Preferred Option Document.

Comment Chesterton Humberts Area of land which sits between Akrotiri This has not on behalf of Joanna Square and Breckland Business previously been Plant. Park/Breckland House should be considered consulted on at for development. previous stages in the process and as such should not be considered at this late stage. Furthermore, the site is located adjacent to an active General Employment Area which if developed may result Environmental Health/noise concerns for future residents. The site is also situated adjacent to

the grade II Rokeles Settlement Hall where future development may impact upon the setting of the Listed Boundary Building.

Table 2.3 Watton T opic Paper 13 14 Settlement Harling - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations Boundary

Support Mr M Liebrick HAR.2 This site was designated as a conformity site, Support noted. It is considered that subsequently excluded after a planning application was refused. despite the

Main reason stated would set a precedent as outside current representation T settlement boundary. (Precedent already set with the approval received that the opic of 10 units on Lopham Road 3PL/2009/1066/F and a further 15 proposed changes to Paper units pending a decision). 2, This site has the support of residents the Harling immediately opposite and the full support of the Parish Council. settlement boundary 3, LDF task and finish group recommended this site to be remain appropriate. included in the amended guidelines. 4, This site has had a full wildlife assessment that confirms the proposed development It is recommended would be acceptable, also the site has been the subject of a tree that the change as preservation order. BDC confirms that the TPO will shape the set out in the development rather than preclude development. 5, The site Preferred Options would be the subject of a minor fill project with inert material. consultation to Inert material would not cause any ground gases this would be amend the subject to an engineers report. Would expect 600 - 800 loads to settlement boundary fill as and when inert material is available. Not figures that have is continued to the been quoted by others. 6, This site would be a small development proposed of 4-5 units which from various meetings attended seems to be Submission what the residents of Harling would prefer. The plots would look document. to be sold as individual plots for selfbuild for local residents.

Object Mr D Taylor HAR.2 Harling has a problem with large HGV vehicles driving CP14 of the Adopted through the village, the Parish Council has had a long campaign Core Strategy allows for to reduce this safety problem. This site is a former quarry site the inclusion of sites about 20 feet below road level that will require in filling to develop which could (estimates of 1000-2000 HGV movements) and all for about 5 accommodate up to 5 homes when many hectares of more suitable land has been units on the edge of made available in the village requiring no such HGV movements. settlements. Site Breckland’s officers rejected the site at LDF level and under a allocation and recent planning application as "unsafe". The LDf committee settlement boundary accepted these recommendations at its meeting on 22.9.09. It changes will be has only been included due to Parish Council support. The illustrated on new people of Harling especially West Harling road and close settlement boundary maps upon adoption of Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations

neighbours do not need these lorry movements, nearly every the document. The final child in the village has to cross West Harling road to get to the settlement boundary will recreation ground. reflect those planning permissions which will The proposed boundary does not include the developments at add to the cohesive built Lopham road given permission under 3PL/2009/1066F and up extent of the village. 3PL/2010/0374F for 25 homes in total which are about to be built, clearly the village boundary must include these new sites.

Comment Mr M Hustler Under the current round of proposals, HAR.2 which is adjacent Site [020]021 has been to these sites is proposed to be included in the Settlement previously scoped Boundary in order to continue housing adjacent to existing through 2008 and 2009 houses. We hereby promote sites 020 and 021 for inclusion in issues and options and the Settlement Boundary for the following reasons. The sites been discounted. make a logical extension adjacent to site HAR.2 as they wrap around an existing dwelling and continue the back boundary of HAR.2. They finish the Village logically along this road, as there are houses opposite which are in the Settlement Boundary. They offer the opportunity for additional small-scale development which is needed as an alternative to the large developments otherwise proposed for East Harling. The two sites could be considered separately as [042]020 could be included in an over-all or joint development with HAR.2. There are no issues with Highways access to both sites, no effect on Listed Buildings and will not harm the character of the surroundings. Settlement

Table 2.4 Harling

Narborough - Amend Settlement Boundary Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations

Support Mr D Burchell (Parish Support change NAR/SB.1 Comments noted. It is recommended that the T Council) proposed amendments as set out opic in the Preferred Options Object consultation are continued to the Paper proposed Submission document. 15 16 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations

Comment Boundary Table 2.5 Narborough

Shipdham - Amend Settlement Boundary T opic Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer

Recommendations Paper

Support Cllr P Hewitt (Ward SHP.1 – support for this change. Support noted. Whilst a number of Representative) representations have been raised in Mrs Synnock regards to the Shipdham settlement boundary, Cllr P Hewitt (Ward SHP.2 – the amendment would be Support noted. it is not considered representative) logical. that the materially Mr. Keith Wood Site is currently an eyesore and could alter the preferred do with being tidied up. options. Therefore, it Mrs Margaret is proposed that the Synnock preferred options are carried forward to the proposed Wood Support for SHP3 and 4. Support noted. submission document. Mr Synnock

Object Mr Wood SHP.1 – this is encroachment into the This site offers the opportunity to include a countryside. small area of brownfield land. The site is currently in an unkempt condition, with the change to the boundary creating a defensible and logical edge to this part of the settlement.

Mr P Took SHP.4 – This site is well located to This site was considered previously, and existing facilities within Shipdham and has been deemed to be unreasonable, due is within single ownership which could to poor highways access. The highways be developed quickly. Any development Authority has stated that Letton Road would Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations

could provide a clear landscape edge not be suitable for increased vehicular to the settlement, and be in keeping with access. Therefore it is proposed that the the current form and character of the boundary should be tightened in this area. village.

Mr Faulkner NCC The settlement boundary has not been Once the preferred sites are formally extended around preferred sites. adopted, the settlement boundary will be extended around each of the sites to include there full extent.

Comment Mr Dadd (Parish The changes SHP1-4 were considered Comments noted. Council) to be minor alterations, which the parish council accept.

Cllr P Hewitt (Ward SHP.3 and SHP.4 no distinct view, Comments noted. Representative) however would seem logical and defensible.

D Larwood Request for land at Bradenham Road Part of this site has previously been to be reconsidered. considered as land rep [085]009. The site has previously been considered to be unreasonable.

Mr Tufts Restricting housing growth to the main Breckland’s housing policy has been set towns is a retrograde step. More growth through the adoption of the Core Strategy. should be considered in all of the This aims to allocate the majority of houses villages. in areas with good access to services and Settlement facilities. This is in accordance with PPS1.

Table 2.6 Shipdham Boundary T opic Paper 17 18 Settlement Swanton Morley - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendations Boundary

Support Mrs Le Bon The parish council support the four Comments noted. Swanton Morley is (Parish changes to the settlement boundary. one of the four local

Council) service centres T which will see opic Object Mrs Le Bon The parish Council object to the Comments noted. growth as a result of Paper (Parish alternative option to retain the existing the Site Specifics. Council) boundary at Woodgate. The comments raised relate directly Mrs Walden Objects to the removal of the Woodgate is a small hamlet adjacent to Swanton to the village Woodgate settlement boundary. Morley, which looks to Swanton Morley to provide settlement boundary, for all of its services. The existing settlement and not the boundary leaves limited opportunities for proposed housing expansion which would not harm the form and sites. character of the settlement. Additionally, the landscape character assessment, notes the high Whilst comments sensitivity of the area between Swanton Morley have been raised and Woodgate, stating that the villages should not against the proposed coalesce due to harm to the landscape character. changes to Swanton Morley and Mr Kleen Comments relating to Freshfields, Comments noted. Whilst this area of land was Woodgate’s Harkers Lane. Changes to the initially included, the proposal was not taken settlement boundary where initially put forward in forward to the preferred options stage. The boundaries it is a report to the LDF Task and Finish expansion of the site at Freshfields Barn, would thought that the group, but were not included in the be a small extension, however the Parish Council proposal made in the final preferred options documented. had raised access concerns to this site which are preferred options Would like to see this land re-included. not unreasonable. document are still appropriate and Comment should be taken forward to the proposed submission document.

Table 2.7 Swanton Morley Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

19 20 Settlement 3 Rural Settlement Boundaries

Ashill - Retain Existing Settlement Boundary Boundary Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is proposed that the T opic existing settlement Object boundary is carried Paper forward to the proposed Comments Mr Evans for Mr Wish to see greater housing Comments noted – the Housing submission document. Tufts growth in villages. strategy has been agreed through the Core Strategy in line with local evidence and national policy.

Table 3.1 Ashill

Banham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Careful consideration was Object Banham Parish Object to settlement boundary change Mr Pardue’s site was assessed as part of the given to the sites Council BAN.1 as it does not include land owned preparation of the previous consultation and suggested by the by Mr B. Pardue at Greyhound Lane, and discounted. Parish Council and another parcel owned by Mr Blythe. other respondents Part of Mr Blythes land has been included as as part of the a proposed change to the settlement preparation of the boundary. recent Preferred Options consultation. Mrs H. Handoll Object to proposal as she wishes her Mrs Handoll’s site was assessed as part of land at Crown Street to be included in the preparation of the previous consultation However, it is still the settlement boundary. and discounted. considered that these additional Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Mr E. Cole (Pike Objects to the proposed changes as The sites put forward were assessed as part sites demonstrate Associates) considers that additional sites on Heath of the preparation of the previous consultation unfavourable Road should be included within the and discounted due to loss of important gap constraints and settlement boundary. between the village and Heath Road, and should not be other sites due to poor access. included in the settlement Comments Mr B Pardue, Concern about the lack of growth This comment relates to the development boundary. identified to villages through the LDF. strategy rather than a specific site. Therefore, it is recommended that the changes as put forward at the last stage are continued to the proposed Submission document.

Table 3.2 Banham

Bawdeswell - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is considered that

despite the Settlement Object Mr R. Taylor Objects, as wishes to see his land Mr Taylor’s land was assessed as part of representations at Paradise Lane included in preparation of previous consultation and received, the proposed settlement boundary. subsequently discounted. changes to the Bawdeswell settlement Boundary Mrs A. Weller Objects as she wishes her site to Mrs Weller’s land was assessed as part boundary remain be included in the settlement of preparation of previous consultation and appropriate. boundary. subsequently discounted. It is recommended that T the changes as set out opic in the Preferred Paper 21 22 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Comments Mrs A. Weller, Mr Wish to see additional growth in These comments relate to the Options consultation to Boundary Simon Thompson, Mr villages. development strategy rather than a amend the settlement M. Sayer. specific site. boundary are continued to the proposed

Submission document. T opic Paper Table 3.3 Bawdeswell

Beachamwell - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support

Object Cllr. Ian Wish to retain No additional new evidence has been It is considered that despite the Monson, Mrs E settlement provided to consider the alternative representations received, the proposed Powell (PC). boundary. approach which is to retain the settlement deletion of the Beachamwell settlement boundary. boundary remains appropriate.

Beachamwell is a small isolated village It is recommended that the change as set out and contains only one facility. Deletion in the Preferred Options consultation to delete is consistent with CP 14 of the Adopted the settlement boundary is continued to the Core Strategy. proposed Submission document.

Comments

Table 3.4 Beachamwell Beeston - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Beeston Parish Syers lane was identified as an area that should have Support noted. It is considered that Council no further development and the change is supported. despite the representation Beeston Parish Support the amendment at BEE.2 as previously Support noted. received that the Council requested. proposed changes to the Beeston Beeston Parish Support the amendment at BEE.3. Support noted. settlement Council boundary remain appropriate. Beeston Parish Support the amendment at BEE.4. Support noted. Council It is recommended that the change as Beeston Parish This area was identified by the Parish Council as a Support noted. set out in the Council possible site for development without harming the Preferred Options character of the village and supports the change. consultation to amend the Object Beeston Parish BEE.1 The Parish Council wishes to see no change to The proposed amendment at settlement Council this settlement boundary at this Location area also BEE.1 is in accordance with boundary is includes barns and open space which it would not wish CP14 of the Adopted Core continued to the to see developed. Strategy which seeks to proposed regularise existing development Submission outside of the settlement document. boundary.

Mr C Griffin We strongly object to the amendment proposed to the Any future application for Settlement settlement boundary at BEE.5. This site constitutes a housing on this site would have Mrs Suzie backland site that is close to a bend in the road along highway and environmental Scott Chapel Lane and it is considered that significant health (if required) involvement

highway issues could arise if this site were to be in order to mitigate any potential Boundary developed. In addition there would be added pressure impacts. Policies are in place for the existing shop/ post office to be redeveloped, to protect key services and which would result in the loss of existing village services facilities.

and facilities. In light of the above we would request T opic that further consideration be given to the alternative

allocation of sites in Beeston for residential development Paper such as our client’s site to the west of Dereham Road. 23 24 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Further objection to this site being developed for Boundary housing has been raised in light of the proximity of the farm yard opposite which is operational all year round. This would be a source of annoyance with noise etc for

any villagers living on BEE.5. There is concern that T despite being an existing business, any enforcement opic

would be against the farm and not the new residents Paper having to tolerate the farm.

Mr Garner On the original proposed new guidelines, BEE7 Syers The proposed housing growth Lane was added to the guide lines. After consultation in the five main towns relate to it has been removed and the other side of Syers Lane the development strategy rather included. This seems illogical as BEE7 is infill between than a specific site. The two properties. Beeston parish council has always proposed amendment at BEE.6 supported the planning permission, now they have is in accordance with CP14 of collectively banded together to support BEE.5 behind the Adopted Core Strategy the shop, which I see has now been amended, which which seeks to protect the form is logical and fair. I would like BEE7 reinstated. and character of villages.

Comments

Table 3.5 Beeston

Beetley - Retain Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support George Hayes The village is not big enough to Comments noted. It is recommended that the sustain any further development. change as set out in the Preferred Options Object consultation to retain the settlement boundary is Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Comments John Hiskett Concern over impact upon CWS site A small cul-de-sac, Beetley Meadows continued to the proposed (Norfolk Wildlife to the east which is situated within gained planning permission in 1998 Submission document - Trust), Bryan Leigh the existing SB. within the CWS. WT may as to re-visit including an additional (PC). their designation in this area. amendment. This would be Removal of school playing field and to remove the school pub car park from SB to provide Policy DC18 of the Adopted Core playing field. This is not protection from future protection. Strategy offers protection for the designated as protected Public House from future open space within the development. Adopted Core Strategy and its removal would provide additional protection from development.

Table 3.6 Beetley

Old Beetley - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Bryan Leigh (PC). Support the deletion of the Comments noted. It is recommended that the change SB. as set out in the Preferred Options consultation to delete the settlement Object boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document. Comments

Table 3.7 Old Beetley Settlement

Billingford - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Boundary Comments

Support No representations received. No comments were received during the

preferred options consultation. T Object opic Paper 25 26 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Comments Therefore, it is recommended that the Boundary proposal to delete the Billingford settlement boundary be taken forward to the proposed Submission document. T opic

Table 3.8 Billingford Paper

Bintree - Retain Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support No comments received. The officer recommendation of Bintree is that it should retain its Object existing settlement boundary.

Comments

Table 3.9 Bintree

Blo Norton - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Michelle Collins (PC). Support the deletion of the Comments noted. It is recommended that the change SB. as set out in the Preferred Options consultation to delete the settlement Object boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document. Comments

Table 3.10 Blo Norton Bradenham - Retain Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support No comments were received on any alternative approaches for the Object Bradenham settlement boundary.

Comments Mr M. Tufts Wishes to see additional The comment relates to the Therefore, it is recommended that the growth in villages. development strategy rather than proposal to continue with the a specific site. settlement boundary as drawn in the Local Plan (1999) be taken forward to the proposed submission document.

Table 3.11 Bradenham

Bridgham - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No representations were received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Object to delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission Comments document. Settlement Table 3.12 Bridgham

3.1 Brisley - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Boundary

Support Brisley Parish Parish Council supports the proposal to The comments endorse No comments were received on Council remove the part of the settlement the preferred approach. any alternative approaches for T boundary around the Church, but retain the Brisley settlement boundary. opic the component at School Road. Paper 27 28 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Object Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal as set out in Boundary Comments the preferred options consultation be taken forward into the proposed submission

document. T opic Paper Table 3.13 Brisley Carbrooke - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is considered that despite the Object Mr P Took Land at Church St. (North of The Rectory) Site [017]007 It is Site [017]007 has been representations disappointing that the settlement boundary proposed change previously scoped through received that the has not included the above site. It is suggested that the 2008 and 2009 issues and proposed changes proposed change to the Settlement Boundary does not options and been to the Carbrooke sufficiently address the potential of allowing additional discounted. settlement dwellings that will assist in maintaining a healthy sustainable boundary remain community. The boundary should therefore take into account appropriate. this parcel of land to allow the development of a modest scale of development that will provide accommodation that is It is recommended currently unavailable at an affordable level. Any development that the change as will only be possible on the provision of a Flood Risk set out in the Assessment that demonstrates development is possible. Preferred Options consultation to Comments Mrs A Neave Further to your recent Site Specific Policies and Proposals The proposed housing amend the we note that the Council’s preferred option is to put the growth in the five main settlement Mr J Ripper majority of its requirement within the five main towns and the towns relate to the boundary is four main designated growth villages which we feel is a development strategy continued to the Mr D Watts retrograde step. By restricting the building within the villages rather than a specific site. proposed the Council is putting extra pressure on local schools, shops Submission and pubs, along with forcing the younger generation to leave Site [017]005 & 7 has document. villages to move to the five towns thus again creating older been previously scoped generation villages and pushing house prices up within the through 2008 and 2009 Settlement villages. It is essential that a more regulated growth within issues and options and villages is allowed. I note from your document that no further been discounted. expansion of the village guideline for additional residential development is envisaged, which is totally unacceptable for the housing needed for the next 16 years and the Council Boundary should give further consideration to extend the guidelines to include further development land and would ask them to reconsider our sites (017/005 & 017/007) T opic Table 3.14 Carbrooke Paper 29 30 Settlement Caston - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments Boundary

Support No representations received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Object

to amend the settlement boundary is T continued to the proposed Submission opic Comments document. Paper

Table 3.15 Caston

Cockley Cley - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Comments Comments

Support No representations received. No comments were received on either the preferred or any alternative approaches for the Cockley Cley Object settlement boundary.

Comments The original Officer recommendation was to delete the Cockley Cley settlement boundary due to a lack of services and facilities and the conflict between potential future infilling and the Breckland SPA.

It is recommended that the Cockley Cley settlement boundary be put forward to the proposed submission document for deletion.

Table 3.16 Cockley Cley

Colkirk - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support The officer recommendation for Colkirk Object settlement boundary is that Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Comments Mr Lusty for the Would like to see an Comments noted – whilst Colkirk does have the four changes proposed Diocese of Norwich extension to settlement a certain level of service provision expansion in the preferred options boundary. at this time is not considered suitable. This document should be carried could be reconsider through further reviews forward into the proposed of settlement boundaries. submission document.

Table 3.17 Colkirk

Cranworth (Shipdham Airfield) - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No representations were received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Object to amend the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission Comments document.

Table 3.18 Cranworth

Croxton - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No comments received. As per Officer recommendation apart from Settlement CRO.6. Since recommendation a planning Object permission has been granted to the back of Ty Cae. It is recommended that the boundary Comments is drawn to include this permission. Boundary

Table 3.19 Croxton T opic Paper 31 32 Settlement East Tuddenham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Boundary

Support It is recommended that the change as Object Mrs Gillian Hickling (PC) Disagree with village The service and facility provision in East

set out in the T sustainability assessment Tuddenham does not accord with the level and Preferred Options opic of and level of service type as identified in the Adopted Core Strategy. consultation to Paper provision in and near CP14 allows for the assessment of the form and amend the village. character of the village. settlement boundary is Suggest alternative continued to the amendments to include proposed land north of Mattishall Submission Road (026)004 and one document. dwelling on (026)003.

Mr N Alston Object to ET.1 as this part The amendment (ET.1) took account of Parish of the SB offers Council initial comments and the protection of redevelopment opportunity. the form and character of the village which is accordance with CP14 of the Adopted Core Reference to the localism Strategy. agenda.

Comments Mrs Gillian Hickling (PC) Reference to the localism The service and facility provision in East agenda and emphasises Tuddenham does not accord with the level and the vitality of the village type as identified in the Adopted Core Strategy. hall, transport links and services and facilities in nearby towns.

Table 3.20 East Tuddenham Elsing - Delete Settlement boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support

Object Mr P Dilloway Object to the deletion of the Elsing settlement boundary was amended during the It is considered that (PC). settlement boundary and adoption of the 1999 Local Plan where an area of land despite the propose one extension back was removed from the settlement along Heath Road. representation to pre 1999 level and an The parcel of land in question contains significant tree received that the additional extension along coverage and lies adjacent to an area of woodland proposed changes to Heath Road. covered by a TPO. the Elsing settlement boundary remain Consider the retention of the Elsing does not contain any essential services or appropriate. settlement boundary will retain facilities and through and the approach taken, community identity. consistent with CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy is It is recommended the the settlement boundary should be deleted. If this that the change as area were to be included and development permissible, set out in the it may result in the loss of substantial trees which in turn Preferred Options would impact upon the wider landscape consultation to delete the settlement No additional new evidence has been provided to boundary is consider the alternative approach which is to retain the continued to the settlement boundary. proposed Submission document. Comments

Table 3.21 Elsing Settlement

Foulden - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Boundary Comments

Support No representations received. It is recommended that the change as set T

out in the Preferred Options consultation opic Object to amend the settlement boundary is

continued to the proposed Submission Paper document. 33 34 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Comments Boundary

Table 3.22 Foulden

Foxley - Delete Existing Settlement Boundary T opic

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Paper Comments Comments

Support No comments received. Whilst the proposal within the preferred options document is to retain the existing boundary. It is considered that the deletion of Object this settlement boundary would be a more appropriate option. There is only very limited services available within the village, Comments meaning that most residents would need to travel further afield for essential facilities. As such any further expansion of this settlement boundary is likely to be unsustainable. Additionally, there is not space within the existing settlement boundary for further growth or infilling.

The deletion of this settlement boundary would limit further expansion into the countryside. The proposal would also be consistent with both higher order policy contained within the adopted Core Strategy and other parishes within Breckland, which have a similar level of service provision.

Recommendation – Delete Settlement Boundary

Table 3.23 Foxley Garboldisham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is recommended that the settlement Object Mr D. Taylor Wishes to see more housing This comment principally related to the boundary as proposed development to help keep the Pub development strategy rather than a specific in the preferred options open. site or part of the settlement boundary. consultation be taken forward to the proposed Comments Mr M. Lambert Wishes to see his site included The site was considered as part of the submission document. within the settlement boundary. preparation of the previous consultation and was subsequently discounted.

Table 3.24 Garboldisham

Garvestone - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Officer Recommendation Comments

Support Garvestone The Parish Council support all of the proposed Support noted. It is recommended that the Parish Council changes. However, should the proposed proposed changes to the development at ‘Greenfields’ not come forward, settlement boundary in the then the Parish Council would wish to see this previous consultation be taken area (GV.6) excluded from the settlement forward to the proposed boundary. submission document.

Object *Note – Area of concern regarding Settlement GV.6 has recently been granted Comments an extended time limit and as such it is considered that specific change to the boundary be Boundary maintained. T

Table 3.25 Garvestone opic Paper 35 36 Settlement Reymerston - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments Boundary

Support No comments received. No comments were received in respect of the preferred or alternative options for Reymerston. Object T Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal opic Comments to delete the settlement boundary be taken forward to the proposed submission document. Paper

Table 3.26 Reymerston

Gooderstone - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is considered that despite the Object Gooderstone The Parish Council’s proposed amendment to the Gooderstone lies completely within representation Parish Council settlement boundary included the majority of the 1,500m of SPA supporting or received that the housing, employment and services development in capable of supporting Stone Curlew proposed changes the parish. We included in our proposed boundary which is one of a number of to the Gooderstone all of the present and planned developments, and internationally important habitats settlement the site formerly known as Knights, now Bartletts. and species which are protected by boundary remain We included all existing properties and their gardens. European Directives – therefore the appropriate. As a parish we wish to continue and grow and amendments limit the potential develop in manner sympathetic to the existing impact upon the SPA. This is It is recommended village. Particularly we wish to encourage younger specified in Policy CP14 of the that the change as people to move in to the village to help support our Adopted Core Strategy and set out in the local facilities, including the school. The issue of endorsed by the RSPB. Preferred Options the nearby SSSI/SPA is not relevant to the consultation to establishment of the settlement boundary. It is amend the suggested that each development proposal in the settlement village should be considered on its own merits boundary is against planning requirements in force at that time continued to the Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

of applications. We do not feel that using the proposed establishment of a new settlement boundary as a Submission method of enforcing the current Stone Curlew document. regulations, and as a blanket method of, effectively, barring backland developments., should be incorporated in the settlement boundary. With regards to the Bartlett's site, we would be prepared to consider that this be outside the settlement boundary provided that we can be assured that the village would have no lesser say in its development were it outside the settlement boundary and this would not reduce the likelihood of planning approval being achieved.

Cator Family GOOD.5 To re-draw the settlement boundary to limit Gooderstone lies completely within the potential for infill or backland development to the 1,500m of SPA supporting or cause harm to qualifying features of the Breckland capable of supporting Stone Curlew Special Protection Area is fundamentally wrong. The which is one of a number of Breckland Special protection Area is for the internationally important habitats protection of the Stone Curlew. I believe that the and species which are protected by area was drawn incorrectly in the first place because European Directives – therefore the Stone Curlew do not nest/breed in this type of area. amendments limit the potential The first fact is the Stone Curlew do not breed on impact upon the SPA. This is heavy land and the second fact is that these birds specified in Policy CP14 of the like solitude and will only be found breeding in open Adopted Core Strategy and

light land away from any humans. endorsed by the RSPB. Settlement

Peter Hall GOOD.3 The Property on The Street, The Hollies, Gooderstone lies completely within has been part of the settlement since the late 1700's. the 1,500m of SPA supporting or Now it is being removed. There is no mention of this capable of supporting Stone Curlew Boundary in the document as a change in boundary. It has which is one of a number of been changed therefore without the approval of the internationally important habitats planning committee. No reason is given for this and species which are protected by T change as it is not mentioned in the above European Directives – therefore the opic document. The change should be withdrawn pending amendments limit the potential Paper 37 38 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

a decision by the committee. There is no reason to impact upon the SPA. CP14 of the Boundary remove a property which is contiguous with its Adopted Core Strategy provides a neighbour and presently in the settlement boundary. policy approach for rationalising settlement boundaries. All

amendments were endorsed by T Cabinet prior to going out to wider opic

consultation. Paper

Comments Bartletts The settlement boundary for Gooderstone should Gooderstone lies completely within be amended to include the developed part of the the 1,500m of SPA supporting or Alan Bartlett and Sons premises (Crow Hall Farm). capable of supporting Stone Curlew The site is currently vacant and can be considered which is one of a number of suitable for residential and mixed use development. internationally important habitats Additional residential units would help to feed the and species which are protected by primary school and introduce a more varied European Directives – therefore the demographic to the village. The existing built-up amendments limit the potential part of the site can be developed without conflicting impact upon the SPA. This is with Policy CP10 of the Core Strategy as specified in Policy CP10 of the development can be contained within the area of Adopted Core Strategy and the existing buildings. As the site is currently endorsed by the RSPB. The developed further development if it involved the development of the industrial estate removal of existing buildings would comply with to the east of Gooderstone would Policy CP10 of the Core Strategy. A sensitive conflict with part a of Policy CP14 redevelopment of Crow Hall Farm has the support under protection of species. of local residents (village survey carried out) and the Parish Council. The owners of the site will continue to liaise with local residents and the Parish Council to ensure that the local community are directly involved in the possible redevelopment of the site.

Table 3.27 Gooderstone Great Cressingham - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support Only one response was received on the proposal for Object Cllr Ian Objects as wishes to Great Cressingham lies completely within the 1,500m Great Cressingham settlement Monson see the settlement of SPA supporting or capable of supporting Stone boundary. It is considered that boundary retained. Curlew which is one of a number of internationally no new planning reasons have important habitats and species which are protected been presented to warrant a by European Directives. CP14 of the Adopted Core change from the approach set Strategy provides a policy approach for rationalising out in the previous settlement boundaries including deletions, in consultation. particular with Parishes containing limited services facilities. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal to delete the Comments settlement boundary be taken forward to the proposed submission document.

Table 3.28 Great Cressingham

Great Dunham - Retain Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Despite Settlement representations made Object through the preferred options consultation, it Comments Mr Gathercole Supports the retention of the The five sites promoted by the parish council have is proposed that the Boundary (Parish boundary, however, would like been assessed through earlier iterations. The three existing settlement Council) to see further growth. The sites along North Street, are distance from the boundary is carried Parish Council have promoted village centre and its services, and would need to forward into the T

a number of sites. see a large increase in the settlement boundary to proposed submission opic accommodate them. document. Paper 39 40 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

The two sites on Litcham Road, would see an Boundary increase much greater than the five houses specified within CP14. T Table 3.29 Great Dunham opic

Great Ellingham - Amend Settlement Boundary Paper

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Sarah Roberts of behalf of Support of amendment to Comments noted. It is considered that Mrs Angela Brown include small scale brownfield despite the land. representation received that the Object Dennis Leech, Mr J Roberts Concern over GE5 and potential proposed changes loss of future development to the Great opportunity as a result of the In June of 2010 a revision to PPS3 Ellingham amendment. removed garden land from the definition settlement boundary of brownfield land – giving extra weight remain appropriate. to the control of backland development and protection to the form and character It is recommended of settlements. that the change as set out in the Preferred Options Comments Mr Price, Savills on behalf of GE.1 could extend to include 80 All sites presented have been previously consultation to Diocese of Norwich, Paul and 97 Long Street. scoped through 2008 and 2009 issues amend the Took on behalf of Paul and options and have been discounted. settlement boundary Sites 037/006, 007, 009, 015, Dunning and Mrs Hall, Paul is continued to the 018, 022, 024, & 025 have been Extension to include 80 and 97 Long Took, Roger Whitehouse on proposed represented. Street would not be consistent with CP14 behalf of Michael Clements. Submission of the Adopted Core Strategy. document.

Table 3.30 Great Ellingham Gressenhall - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support

Object It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Comments Mrs Joanne Should be more distribution of Distribution of housing is consistent Options consultation to amend Allen, A Evans housing in villages. with National Planning Policy and the settlement boundary is CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy. continued to the proposed The rear boundary of 18 Bittering Submission document. Street should match that of the Further amendment is proposed to the rear boundary of 14-16 Bittering rear of 14-16 Bittering Street – see Including a further amendment to Street. Officer Recommendation. the rear of 14 and 16 Bittering Street. The revision would reduce provide consistency with the rear boundary of number 18 Bittering Street and reduce the pressures of backland development consistent with PPS3 and CP 14 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Table 3.31 Gressenhall

Griston - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Settlement Comments

Support No representations received. It is recommended that the change as set

out in the Preferred Options consultation Boundary Object to amend the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission Comments document. T opic Table 3.32 Griston Paper 41 42 Settlement Guist - Delete Existing Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Comments Comments Boundary

Support No representations received. The proposal within the preferred options document was for the retention of the existing settlement boundary within Guist, Object

with the alternative option being for its removal. T opic Comments There is a small level of service provision remaining within the village with a post office and village store. Guist’s settlement Paper boundary is made up of four individual components, and there are limited opportunities for expansion within them. Any extension to the village settlement boundary would therefore be contrary to the aims of CP14.

Maintaining the existing settlement boundary’s is unlikely to allow for any further growth within the village and therefore the consistent approach with CP14 would be to delete the boundaries.

Recommendation: Delete settlement boundary

Table 3.33 Guist

Hilborough - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No representations received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Object to delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission Comments document.

Table 3.34 Hilborough Hockering - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Officer Comments Recommendation

Support Savills on behalf of HKG.2 We support this amendment to the boundary. This Support noted. It is recommended that Norwich Diocese site has existing access potential and is situated in a suitable the change as set out in residential context. Despite the settlement’s classification the Preferred Options as a rural settlement, Hockering has sufficient services to consultation to amend contribute to sustainability objectives of the plan. The site the settlement boundary is located in a suitable physical and planning policy context, is continued to the outside of any major constraints; and is immediately proposed Submission available. document.

Object

Comments

Table 3.35 Hockering

Hockham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support

Object Alan Irvine on Consider that the amendment Whilst Hockham contains a level of It is considered that despite the behalf of Mr R GTH.1 could extend further west services (school and pub), representations received that Malabar to include increased area of Hockham is not a designated local the proposed changes to the agricultural land for future service centre to receive a positive Hockham settlement boundary Settlement development. housing allocation. remain appropriate. Boundary T opic Paper 43 44 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Comments It is recommended that the change as set out in the Boundary Preferred Options consultation to amend the settlement boundary is continued to the

proposed Submission T document. opic Paper

Table 3.36

Holme Hale - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support The Officer recommendation for Object the village was for the deletion of the Comments Mr Evans on Concerns over the spatial The allocation of housing numbers has been set settlement boundary, behalf of Mr strategy and limited allocation via higher order policy contained within the adopted this is still considered Khan of land within the villages. Site Core Strategy. The site referred to, has been to be the representations have been considered in previous iterations of the document. recommendation. made [047]010. However, it is considered that at the current time further expansion of the village would not be appropriate due to the lack of essential services and facilities.

Table 3.37 Ickburgh - Delete Existing Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Whilst the Site Specifics Polices and Proposals Object Preferred Options consultation Comments Mrs Long There is a parcel of land between This has not previously been consulted on at recommended that the No 44 Ashburton Road and No.50 previous stages in the process and as such settlement boundary for Ashburton Road (Former Factory should not be considered at this late stage. Ickburgh be retained, the Site) which ought to be considered village is in fact devoid of for inclusion within the settlement Furthermore, Ickburgh lies completely within services or facilities and boundary and possible subsequent the 1,500m of SPA supporting or capable of can be considered an development as this would tidy up supporting Stone Curlew which is one of a unsustainable location for the village and provide affordable number of internationally important habitats further development. housing necessary to maintain a and species which are protected by European natural balance of growth. Directives. CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy The deletion of this provides a policy approach for rationalising settlement boundary settlement boundaries including deletions, in would be consistent with particular with Parishes containing limited both higher order policy services facilities and situated within the Stone contained within the Curlew buffer zone. Adopted Core Strategy and it is recommended that the proposed recommendation within the submission document is for the deletion of the Settlement settlement boundary.

Table 3.38 Ickburgh Boundary Kenninghall - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation T Comments opic

Support No comments received No comments have been received during Paper the consultation on the settlement 45 46 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Object boundary. Therefore the recommendation Boundary for the village is per the preferred options Comments document.

Table 3.39 Kenninghall T opic

Litcham - Amend Settlement Boundary Paper

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mr Bryan Leigh Support the five recommended Comments noted. Whilst a number of (Parish Council), changes to the settlement comments have been Mr David Gurney boundary. raised against the proposed changes to Object Mr D Holland Objection to LIT.1 – stating that The existing settlement boundary, does not follow the settlement the extension could see new any recognisable features. The changes boundary. These are houses being built on garden surrounding LIT.1 would create a logical and generally supportive land. defensible boundary. of the approach which has been taken. Comments Mr Bryan Leigh Would like to see some level Whilst there is a reasonable level of service (Parish Council) of future growth within the provision within Litcham, the existing boundary, Requests have been village. does offer the opportunity for some small scale made for further growth. If there is a need for further housing expansion to the growth within the village, this could be addressed settlement boundary through the settlement boundary review process, over the Core which is recommended to occur on an Strategies plan period approximately three year cycle. to 2026. It is considered that future Mr D Holland Request for land at [054]004 This site has been assessed previously through reviews of the to be reconsidered. the issues and options document. The site is settlement boundaries situated on protected open space and as such, it is likely to be the appropriate time to consider this growth. Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

is not considered to be a suitable area for future The Officer growth. recommendation is that the boundary should be amended as per the five changes noted within the preferred options document.

Table 3.40 Litcham

Little Cressingham - Retain Existing Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mr M. Kay, Mrs S. Kay, Wish the settlement boundary be Comments noted. The original Officer Mr P. Hickman retained as it is. recommendation was to delete the Little Cressingham Object Mr T. Abel (as Parish Object and consider the settlement Comments noted, however settlement boundary. Other Council Chairman) boundary should be extended. extending the boundary was not than from site promoters, consulted on as an option in there appears no public previous consultation. support for an extended boundary. The lack of any Comments Mr T. Abel, Mrs M. Object to the proposal to retain the The site was considered as part of services, public transport Abel settlement boundary and consider the preparation of the previous along with the potential Settlement it should be extended to include consultation and subsequently impact of infilling on the additional land. discounted. Breckland SPA remain.

It is considered that the alternative option put forward Boundary in the previous consultation to delete the boundary go forward to the proposed T submission document. opic Paper

Table 3.41 Little Cressingham 47 48 Settlement Little Dunham - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mr M Tufts Should be more distribution Distribution of housing is consistent with It is considered that despite the Boundary of housing in villages. National Planning Policy and CP14 of the representations received that Adopted Core Strategy. the proposed changes to the Site 085/029 has been

Little Dunham settlement T represented. The site has been previously scoped boundary remain appropriate. opic through 2008 and 2009 issues and options and was discounted. It is recommended that the Paper change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Object to delete the settlement boundary is continued to the Comments proposed Submission document.

Table 3.42 Little Dunham

Little Ellingham - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No representations were received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Object to delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission Comments document.

Table 3.43 Little Ellingham

Longham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No representations were received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Object to amend the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission Comments document.

Table 3.44 Longham

Lyng - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is considered that despite the representation received Object Mr A Irvine on Request for land at This site has been considered during previous that the proposed changes behalf of Mr M [060]001 to be iterations of the document. Large parts of the site to the Lyng settlement Sayer reconsidered and included lie within flood zones 3a and b, constraining the boundary remain within the settlement development potential of the site. An exception test appropriate. boundary. would be needed, in accordance with PPS25, to demonstrate the suitability of this site. An extension It is recommended that the to the settlement boundary in this area would not change as set out in the be in line with the aims of the Core Strategy. Preferred Options consultation to amend the Comments settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document. Settlement Table 3.45 Lyng

Mattishall - Amend Settlement Boundary Boundary Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Paul Took on Support the inclusion of small scale Mattishall has been identified as a Local Service It is considered that T behalf of Mr & growth at Thynne’s Lane – MA.2 Centre, however will not receive a positive housing despite the opic Mrs Booth and land adjacent to MA.2 should allocation. Policy CP 14 of the Adopted Core representations Paper also be included. Strategy does however allows for small scale growth received that the 49 50 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

up to 5 dwellings – additional provision of this land proposed changes Boundary amendment at MA.4 would exceed this number. to the Mattishall settlement Object Roger Cole Concerned with the amendment of In June of 2010 a revision to PPS3 removed garden boundary remain

the settlement boundary as this may land from the definition of brownfield land – giving appropriate. T result on back land development. extra weight to the control of backland development opic and protection to the form and character of It is recommended Paper settlements. that the change as set out in the Comments Paul Took. Supports the amendments of MA.3 Community consultation deemed that Mattishall has Preferred Options for small scale growth, consider that had sufficient development over the preceding years consultation to the village should have received a and did not want to see further significant growth amend the housing allocation as a result of its through this LDF. This was taken forward through settlement level of services and facilities. the Core Strategy consultations and further boundary is examination in public in 2009. continued to the Site 061/016 has been presented. proposed The site has been previously scoped through 2008 Submission and 2009 issues and options and was discounted. document.

Table 3.46 Mattishall

Mileham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No comments received. It is recommended that the proposed amendments as set out in the Preferred Object Options consultation are continued to the proposed Submission document. Comments

Table 3.47 Mileham Mundford - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mundford Parish Support the proposed changes Comments noted. It is recommended that the Council outlined in the preferred options proposed changes put forward consultation. in the previous consultation go forward to the proposed Object submission document.

Comments

Table 3.48 Mundford Settlement Boundary T opic Paper 51 52 Settlement Narborough - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mr D Burchell (Parish Support change NAR/SB.1 Comments noted. It is recommended that the Boundary Council) proposed amendments as set out in the Preferred Options Object

consultation are continued to the T proposed Submission document. opic Comments Paper

Table 3.49 Narborough

Necton - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is recommended that the proposed Object amendments as set out in the Preferred Comments Mr Lusty on Whilst Necton has a housing The extant permissions referred to within the Options consultation behalf of the allocation of 140 houses this is due comments are still live, and therefore could are continued to the Diocese of to extant permissions. The come forward at any moment. To allocate proposed Norwich permissions have been slow to come further growth to Necton at this time could Submission forward, and as such it is therefore lead to the village seeing much document. recommended that new land be higher levels of growth than those proposed allocated. within policy SS1 of the Core Strategy.

Table 3.50 Necton

New Buckenham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No comments received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation Object to amend the settlement boundary is Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Comments continued to the proposed Submission document.

Table 3.51 New Buckenham

North Elmham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is recommended that the proposed Object Simon Objects as he considers The two parcels of land were represented to the Local changes put Thompson two parcels of land at Authority at a late stage and therefore can be discounted. forward in the Eastgate Street should be Additionally, North Elmham is a Local Service Centre but is previous included in the settlement not identified for any additional housing growth. The parcels consultation go boundary. of land would not conform to Core Policy CP14 of the forward to the adopted Core Strategy where small scale site of up to 5 may proposed be considered - these sites are much larger is size. submission Furthermore, this area is the last strategic open space with document. views to and through the Wensum Valley. Development of this area may impact upon the setting of the adjacent listed building and the wider Conservation Area.

Comments Settlement Table 3.52 North Elmham

North Lopham - Amend Settlement Boundary Boundary Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is considered that T despite the opic representations Paper 53 54 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Object Mrs Sarah Roberts Object to the removal of site [071]001 Site [071]001 has been previously scoped received that the Boundary of behalf Mr J from the SB proposals as it is through 2008 and 2009 issues and options proposed changes to Alston considered to be a small scale and was deemed unreasonable and the North Lopham development which would have a discounted. North Lopham has seen a settlement boundary

positive impact upon the street scene. relatively large amount of new development remain appropriate. T between 2001-2009 and this piece of and opic It is recommended

is the only remaining vista through to the Paper wider landscape. that the change as set out in the Preferred Comments Mrs Sarah Roberts [071]016 should be reconsidered as Site [071]016 has been previously scoped Options consultation of behalf of (Mr E a bownfield site for inclusion within the through 2008 and 2009 issues and options to amend the Baskerville). settlement boundary as it is and was deemed unreasonable and settlement boundary considered not to be harmful to the discounted. is continued to the village character and appearance. proposed Submission document.

Table 3.53 North Lopham

North Pickenham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No comments received. It is recommended that the proposed amendments as set out in the Preferred Object Options consultation are continued to the proposed Submission document. Comments

Table 3.54 North Pickenham

North Tuddenham - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mrs P W Baldwin (PC) Support the deletion of the Comments noted. It is recommended that the change SB. as set out in the Preferred Options Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Object consultation to delete the settlement boundary is continued to the Comments proposed Submission document.

Table 3.55 North Tuddenham

Old Buckenham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is considered that despite the Object Andy Nicholls, Colin Object to OB.3 and consider 074[010] has been previously scoped through representations Arksey, D B Miles, Darren that part of the site rep 2008 and 2009 issues and options and was received that the and Elena Butler, David 074[010] to the north side deemed unreasonable and discounted. Further proposed changes Francis, Ingram John Bray, of Harlingwood Lane should site assessment considers that this part of the to the Old Janet Wood, John Monk, be considered from small village is detached from facilities and services Buckenham Julie Derges, Karen scale growth. This area of to encourage further growth in this area. settlement Butters, Meredyth land is untidy development Furthermore, highways constraints may be boundary remain Limberg, , Mr & Mrs would enhance this area. raised as a result of the access and highway appropriate. Taylor, Mr Nigel Warnes, safety along Harlingwood Lane. Mrs Pauline Cattermole, It is recommended Rachel Podmere, Sally that the change as Bishop, Valerie Rix, set out in the Wiebke Clarke. Preferred Options

consultation to Settlement Mr & Mrs Greenacre on Considers that small scale 074[020] has been previously scoped through amend the behalf of Paul Took, growth should be provided 2008 and 2009 issues and options and was settlement Dooley, in the village. – Land rep deemed unreasonable and discounted. boundary is 070 [020]. continued to the Boundary Furthermore, lack of support came forward as proposed a result of community consultation on future Submission growth for Old Buckenham in early rounds of document. consultation. T opic Paper 55 56 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Mr Stephen Ellis. Object to OB.6 & OB.7 and Lack of support came forward as a result of Boundary would like to see a positive community consultation on future growth for Old housing allocation for the Buckenham in early rounds of consultation. village.

Additionally, the protection of the form and T character of the settlement boundaries via the opic prevention of infill and/or backland is expressed Paper within PPS3 and CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Mr Roy Dickinson Objects to OB.8. The protection of the form and character of the settlement boundaries via the prevention of infill and/or backland is expressed within PPS3 and CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Comments

Table 3.56 Old Buckenham

Ovington - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation to Object delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document. Comments

Table 3.57 Ovington Oxborough - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support National Trust The National Trust supports the proposed Support noted. It is recommended deletion of the settlement boundary at that the change as Oxburgh. set out in the Preferred Options Object Ian Monson Settlement boundary should be retained to No additional new evidence has been consultation to delete highlight core village. Site suitability in all provided to consider the alternative the settlement three villages should not be prejudged and approach which is to retain the settlement boundary is ruled out for any future development still boundary. continued to the possible in spite of Core Strategy. proposed Oxborough contains only one essential Submission services or facilities. Its Deletion is document. consistent with CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Comments

Table 3.58 Oxborough Settlement Boundary T opic Paper 57 58 Settlement Rocklands - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Boundary

Support It is considered that despite the Object

representation T received that the opic Comments Mr Evans on Request for a number of parcels The housing strategy has been set through the proposed changes to Paper behalf of Mr & of land to be included within the Core Strategy, which has looked to allocate the the Rocklands Mrs Leeder village settlement boundary. majority of the housing to the five main towns settlement boundary and four local service centre villages. remain appropriate. Mrs Annison Also, Mr Evans questions the housing strategy, and whether the Whilst Rocklands does have a level of service It is recommended that Mrs Gibbons strategy should a greater provision greater than other villages with a pub the change as set out proportion of houses being and school, the current recommendation is for in the Preferred distributed into the smaller a number of small changes to the boundary. The Options consultation to villages. comments raised for Rocklands, do not object amend the settlement to any of the proposed amendments, but wish boundary is continued to see further land included within the boundary. to the proposed Submission document.

Table 3.59 Rocklands

Roudham - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support

Object Mr Howard Settlement boundary should Site [080]001 has been It is considered that despite the representation be retained as per 1999 Local previously scoped through received that the proposed changes to the Plan. States that site rep 2008 and 2009 issues and Roudham settlement boundary remain [080]001 should be considered options and was deemed appropriate. for development unreasonable and discounted. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation to delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document. Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Comments

Table 3.60

Rougham - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No comments received. No comments have been received during the consultation on the settlement Object boundary. Therefore the recommendation for the village is per the preferred options Comments document.

Table 3.61 Rougham

Saham Toney - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is recommended that the change as Object Mr & Mrs A ST.4 - We wish to see greater housing growth in The proposed housing growth in the set out in the Rawnsley villages. five main towns relate to the Preferred Options

development strategy rather than a consultation to Settlement specific site. amend the settlement Comments Mr & Mrs ST.5 We note that within the recent issue Site The service centres to receive a boundary is Avory Specific Issues and Options Consultations positive growth allocation have been continued to the Boundary Document that Breckland Council remain of the determined through the Adopted proposed opinion that Saham Toney is a service centre that Core Strategy. CP14 does however Submission will not see residential growth in the future. We note allow for the inclusion of small sites document.

that Saham Toney has a good level of services up o 5 units in settlements adjacent T opic Paper 59 60 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

(bus, shop, pub, leisure facilities) We also note that to eh settlement boundary or Boundary the Saham Toney Local Parish Council would be adjoining brownfield sites. in favour of ribbon development on several sites in the village. At the moment the land is overgrown

with self seeded trees, brambles and weeds and T used by the local residents to dump their rubbish. opic

Saham Toney should be identified as a Second Paper Tier Local Service Centre for 20-50 houses.

Table 3.62 Saham Toney

Scarning - Retain Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mr Nick Hartley (PC) Support the retention of the Comments noted. It is considered that despite the settlement boundary. representations received that the proposed changes to the Scarning Object settlement boundary remain appropriate.

Comments It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation to retain the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document.

Table 3.63 Scarning

Scoulton - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No comments received. No comments have been received during the consultation on the settlement Object boundary. Therefore the recommendation Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Comments for the village is per the preferred options document.

Table 3.64 Scoulton

Shropham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Officer Recommendation Comments

Support Shropham SHR.1 Reconfirm that this should be included. As regards access Support The Preferred Options Parish Council the local intelligence is that this would best be served by an noted. consultation generated a extension of the northern edge of the proposed Settlement positive response to the Cllr P. Cowen Boundary with the proviso that this should be only for access to proposed changes to the the new dwellings. The parcel of land (SHR1) wraps around the village Settlement Mr A. Thornton playing field and provides an opportunity for development to cluster Boundary. Additional around the open space and to allow the open space to become requests were made to more of a village green. Similarly it is felt that there should be two include land adjoining Red points of access which should not be linked to create a rat run but Lodge and land between 1 serve to parts of potential development. Hargham Road and Homefields. The first area Shropham SHR.2 Reconfirm that Faraway and Four Winds should be Support is part of a wider arable field Parish Council included. noted. with the potential to be an incongruous intrusion into Cllr P. Cowen the wider landscape. The

second area has not been Settlement presented as part of the LDF Object process and therefore it is Comments Shropham Land adjoining Red Lodge - Agreed that this should be omitted. recommended not to include

Parish Council Land between 1 Hargham Road and Homefields. - The absence land where the landowner Boundary of request by the landowner to include this is much regretted. As intention is not known. development of this site would have a negligible impact in terms Notwithstanding the support of landscape and character it is very much hoped that an exception

for the proposed changes to T

to the LDF process can be made and this site be included. Land opic Shropham’s settlement opposite Land House site (086) 011 - Agreed that this should be boundary it is important that omitted. Paper the scale of change secures 61 62 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Officer Recommendation Comments

the outcomes which the Boundary local community has clearly identified. The considerable consultation in Shropham

has identified that the T community is keen to see opic

small-scale, sensitive Paper enclosure of the village playing field to create a ‘village green’. This could be secured by two small-scale developments of 5 units which would be in accordance with Policy CP14 of the Core Strategy. Therefore it is proposed that a further change to the settlement boundary is required to define the two areas for development and limit the scope for large scale development with the potential for rat-running from Rocklands Road to Hargham Road. Therefore, it is proposed to remove the corner of the site outside of the proposed settlement boundary to create two settlement boundary changes – SHR.1 (land north of the garage) and SHR.3 (land east of the Terrace). The area presented in SHR.3 can be accessed to the rear of Land Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Officer Recommendation Comments

House through an informal upgrade to the existing access.

Cllr P Cowen Land Adjoining Red Lodge - I am in agreement with your assessment and notwithstanding the fact that the Parish had originally considered this may be suitable for development I believe that there are other more suitable sites within the heart of the village. Land between 1 Hargham Road and Homefields - I acknowledge your points re this parcel of land however it does seem somewhat incongruous to exclude as a potential development site particularly given the form and character of this part of the village. The streetscape would be maintained and development upon, what is to most people’s view, a perfectly acceptable plot of land sandwiched between residential properties would not detract from the form and character of this particular setting. I would therefore urge you to reconsider this as a special case and include it as a potential development site. Land opposite Land House (site (086) 011) - On the face of it there is no justification for extending the settlement boundary in this location and thus I would support its exclusion.

Table 3.65 Shropham

South Lopham - Delete Settlement Boundary Settlement

Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is considered that Boundary despite the Object Mrs Sarah Roberts [089]002 should be reconsidered Site [089]002 has been previously scoped representations on behalf of JD fro inclusion in the SB to through 2008 and 2009 issues and options

received that the T Alston Estates encourage growth within the and was deemed unreasonable and proposed changes to opic village. discounted. Paper 63 64 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Comments Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Comments Mr Robert McCaw Consider that the settlement No additional new evidence has been the South Lopham Boundary (PC) boundary be retained and there provided to consider the alternative approach settlement boundary be a small inclusion of land to the which is to retain the SB. remain appropriate. west of Church Road [089] 002.

South Lopham contain no other essential It is recommended that T services other than a pub and its proposed the change as set out in opic deletion is consistent with CP 14 of the the Preferred Options Paper Adopted Core Strategy. consultation to delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document.

Table 3.66 South Lopham

Sparham - Delete Existing Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Comments Comments

Support No comments received. Within the preferred options document, the settlement boundary at Sparham was proposed for retention, with its alternative option being Object for deletion. No comments were received during the consultation to support or object either the preferred or alternative options. Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Comments Comments

Comments Sparham lacks the essential services and facilities that policy CP14 of the adopted Core Strategy would look for in the expansion or retention of a settlement boundary. Currently a number of houses within the village are located outside of the settlement boundary, and in planning terms would be classified as countryside. Whilst the settlement boundary is focused around the core of the village. Within the existing settlement boundary, there are no opportunities for further development, and therefore it’s retention rather than deletion will not facilitate further growth within the village.

The officer recommendation for Sparham is that the preferred option is reconsidered, and that the proposed submission document should recommend that the boundary is deleted. This approach would be consistent with both CP14 and other settlement boundaries across Breckland, which have a similar level of service provision.

Recommendation: Delete settlement boundary

Table 3.67 Sparham

Sporle - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Comments

Support No representations received. No comments were received in respect of the Settlement preferred or alternative options for Sporle. Object Therefore, it is recommended that the

Comments proposals to amend the settlement boundary Boundary be taken forward to the proposed submission document. T opic Table 3.68 Sporle Paper 65 66 Settlement Stanfield - Delete Existing Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Comments Comments Boundary

Support No comments received. Within the preferred options document, this settlement boundary was proposed for retention, with the alternative option being for Object

deletion. T opic Comments Stanfield is one of the smaller villages within Breckland to still retain a settlement boundary, and the village is bereft of any of the Paper essential services and facilities which would normally be required to maintain the settlement boundary. Future expansion of the settlement boundary would therefore not be considered to appropriate. In addition to this, the existing settlement boundary, leaves no opportunity for further development, within it’s existing limits.

Given the limitations mentioned above it is recommended that the alternative option for the deletion of the settlement boundary to be taken forward within the proposed submission document. The deletion of the settlement boundary would be in line with policy CP14 of the Core Strategy, and consistent with other settlement across the village which have a similar level of service provision.

Recommendation: Delete settlement boundary

Table 3.69 Stanfield

Stow Bedon = Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Comments Comments

Support No comments received. Whilst the Site Specifics Polices and Proposals Preferred Options consultation recommended that the settlement Object boundary for Stow Bedon be retained, the village is in fact devoid of services or facilities and can be considered an unsustainable location for further development. Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Comments Comments

Comments The deletion of this settlement boundary would be consistent with both higher order policy contained within the Adopted Core Strategy and it is recommended that the proposed recommendation within the submission document is for the deletion of the settlement boundary.

Recommendation:

Delete settlement boundary.

Table 3.70 Stow Bedon Settlement Boundary T opic Paper 67 68 Settlement Thompson - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Boundary

Support Thompson THO.3 The suggestion to amend the settlement boundary Support noted. It is recommended Parish Council to incorporate all buildings within the curtilage of Millfield, that the change as

Watton Road, Thompson is logical and the change is set out in the T supported. Preferred Options opic consultation to Paper Object Thompson THO.1 & THO.2 The Council feels that changes to the Thompson lies completely amend the Parish Council boundary to the north and south of Pockthorpe lane are within the 1,500m of SPA settlement unnecessary as sufficient safeguards are already in place supporting or capable of boundary is to control development in these areas. In particular you supporting Stone Curlew continued to the suggest that the changes are to limit the potential for infill which is one of a number of proposed or backland development to cause harm to qualifying internationally important Submission features of the Breckland Special Protection Area. Whereas habitats and species which document. our understanding of the situation is that because of the SPA are protected by European any development within the settlement boundary is only Directives – therefore the likely to be allowed when the site is surrounded on all sides amendments limit the by existing properties - clearly not the situation here. In potential impact upon the addition changes may restrict the use of these gardens for SPA. This is specified in personal use; i.e. the erection of say garage or even a Policy CP10 of the Adopted summer house where under some circumstance planning Core Strategy and endorsed permission is required. Such use of the land is not likely to by the RSPB. impinge on the SPA any more than the area currently does. Additionally the proposed changes are worrying some residents of Pockthorpe Lane, who feel that the changes will affect their rights to extend their property. As a Council we do our best to reassure them that is not so but Government/Local Government credibility is not high and retaining the status quo would be far more reassuring to them. Thus Thompson Parish Council is opposed to these changes.

Comment Thompson Thompson Parish Council feels that these changes are, on Comments noted. Parish Council the whole, unnecessary and that the changes are tinkering for the sake of tinkering. It is not always necessary for legislators to legislate.

Table 3.71 Thompson Tittleshall - Delete Existing Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Contents Comments

Support No comments received. Within the preferred options document, the settlement boundary at Tittleshall was proposed for retention, with its alternative option Object being for deletion. No comments were received during the consultation to support or object either the preferred or alternative Comment options.

Tittleshall lacks any of the essential services and facilities which would normally be needed to justify the retention of the settlement boundary in accordance with the principles set out within CP14. Future expansion of the settlement boundary would also not be consistent with the aims of CP14.

The officer recommendation for Tittleshall is that the proposal should be reconsidered, and that the alternative option, to delete the settlement boundary should be taken forward to the proposed submission document. If this approach is taken, it would be consistent with both CP14 and similar villages across the district, which lack all essential services and facilities.

Recommendation: Delete settlement boundary

Table 3.72 Tittleshall

Weasenaham all Saints & St Peter - Retain Existing Settlement Boundary Settlement

Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Contents Comments Boundary Support No comments received. The village supports a number of key facilities, including a school, public house and post office, which Object justifies retaining its settlement boundary. The existing T

boundary is logical and defensible, whilst still offering opic the opportunity for some modest growth. Paper 69 70 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Officer Officer Recommendation Contents Comments

Comment It is considered that the proposal put forward within Boundary the preferred options document should be carried forward to proposed submission. T Table 3.73 Weasenham all Saints opic

Weeting - Amend Settlement Boundary Paper

Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is recommended that the change as set out in the Object Preferred Options consultation to amend the settlement Comment Wijma Uk Ltd Wish to see greater housing The proposed housing growth in the boundary is continued to the growth in villages. five main towns relate to the proposed Submission development strategy rather than a document. specific site.

Table 3.74 Weeting

Wendling - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support No additional new evidence has been provided to consider Object the alternative approach which is to retain the SB. Comment Robert Keron Object to the deletion of the No additional new evidence has (PC) settlement boundary. Reference is been provided to consider the Wendling is a small village which is devoid of essential services or facilities. Deletion is consistent with CP 14 of the Adopted Core Strategy. Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

made to the active village hall and alternative approach which is to bus route network. retain the SB.

Table 3.75 Wendling

Whinburgh - Delete Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support No comments received. It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation to Object delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document. Comment

Table 3.76 Whinburgh

Whissonsett - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support

Object Mrs Rand Objection to the inclusion of The inclusion or removal of a property from The inclusion of the Paddocks in WHI.1 within the settlement a settlement boundary does not affect WHI.1 is consistent with other boundary, with concerns planning permissions for extensions, as approaches taken across the about possible future such this property could still be extended district. It is considered that despite Settlement extensions to the property even though it is outside of the boundary. representations raised against the and inconsistencies in changes to the settlement boundary, relation to her land at The extension to the boundary at WHI.1 the proposal should still be carried Sunnyside. does not offer the opportunity for more land forward to the proposed submission to be included within the boundary, instead document. Boundary it regularises the boundary around an existing property, creating a logical and defensible boundary. T opic Paper 71 72 Settlement Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Comment Boundary Table 3.77 Whissonsett

Wretham - Delete Settlement Boundary T opic Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation Paper Support It is recommended that the change as set out in the Preferred Options consultation to Object delete the settlement boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document. Comment

Table 3.78 Wretham

Yaxham - Amend Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support Mrs Elizabeth Support amendments Comments noted. It is considered that despite the Stallion (PC). proposed to the settlement representations received that boundaries. the proposed changes to the Yaxham settlement boundary Object remain appropriate.

Comment Mrs Louise Gale. Inclusion of 113[001] and 113 Site 113 [001] and 113 [002] has been It is recommended that the [002]. previously scoped through 2008 and change as set out in the 2009 issues and options and was Preferred Options consultation deemed unreasonable and to amend the settlement discounted. boundary is continued to the proposed Submission document.

Table 3.79 Yaxham Yaxham (Clint Green) - Retain Settlement Boundary

Category Respondents Summary of Contents Officer Comments Officer Recommendation

Support It is recommended that the change as set out in the Object Preferred Options consultation to retain the Comment Mr Roland This village no longer has a Whilst there has been a reduction in settlement boundary is Terry Public House or a Post Office services, Clint Green shares services with continued to the proposed as both have now closed. Yaxham and contains a primary School. Submission document. There are opportunities for business to re-open or redevelop.

Table 3.80 Yaxham (Clint Green) Settlement Boundary T opic Paper 73 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

4 Additional Boundary Changes as a Result of the Preferred Option Consultation

4.1 Additional amendments have been made to the settlements of Beetley, Croxton, Gressenhall, Shipdham, Shropham and Watton as a result of the consultation responses. The analysis can be seen below and illustrated on map 5.1 to 5.3.

Beetley

B.1

Amend the settlement boundary to remove the playing field from St Mary's Primary School. This is to limit the potential for future residential development which could prejudice the ability for the school to expand to meet its own needs.

Croxton

CRO.6

4.2 CRO.6 within the Preferred Options Consultation proposed to tighten the settlement boundary to the back of the properties between 99-The Street and Tye Cottage. Subsequently a planning permission has been granted to the back of Ty Cae, therefore It is recommended that the boundary is re-drawn to include this permission.

Gressenhall

GR.3

4.3 Amend settlement boundary to exclude land to the 14-16 Bittering Street. This is to limit the potential for backland development which would harm the from and character of this part of the settlement. The revision would provide consistency with the rear boundary of number 18 Bittering Street and reduce the pressures of backland development consistent with PPS3 and CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy.

Shipdham

4.4 Sh.2 was consulted upon within the preferred options as one of the preferred residential allocation for 30 dwellings within Shipdham. A large number of representations were received in relation to this site, showing a depth of feeling within the village to any proposed development. The highways authority also raised concerns regarding this site, stating that it should only be developed in conjunction with site SH1. The feasibility of these two applications coming forward in conjunction with each other creates further complications. Therefore, due to the level of local objection to this site and the highways complications, it is recommended that this site should in fact be removed from the list of preferred options and become an alternative option.

4.5 This site is though located within the Shipdham settlement boundary. Shipdham currently has a deficit of open space, and it is considered that this site could go someway to meeting this deficit. It is therefore recommended that this site is zoned as open space.

SHP.5

4.6 Amend settlement boundary to include site given planning approval under 3PL/2001/0221/D. This would result in a logical and defensible settlement boundary reflecting features on the ground.

74 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Shropham

SHR.3

4.7 Removal of the north east corner of SHR.2 to create two settlement boundary changes – SHR.1 (land north of the garage) and SHR.3 (land east of the Terrace). To encourage small scale development of 5 houses in line with Core Strategy Policy.

4.8 The considerable consultation in Shropham has identified that the community is keen to see small-scale, sensitive enclosure of the village playing field to create a ‘village green’. This could be secured by two small-scale developments of 5 units which would be in accordance with Policy CP14 of the Core Strategy. Therefore it is proposed that a further change to the settlement boundary is required to define the two areas for development and limit the scope for large scale development with the potential for rat-running from Rocklands Road to Hargham Road. Therefore, it is proposed to remove the corner of the site outside of the proposed settlement boundary to create two settlement boundary changes – SHR.1 (land north of the garage) and SHR.3 (land east of the Terrace). The area presented in SHR.3 can be accessed to the rear of Land House through an informal upgrade to the existing access.

Watton

WAT.16

4.9 Extend settlement boundary to include land behind 115 - 125 Norwich Road in Watton. Land behind 115-121 Norwich Road received planning approval in August 2010 for 14 dwelling outside of the existing settlement boundary. This area has been included to ensure that the settlement boundary reflects existing development. Land behind number 123-125 is also been included to provide a logical settlement boundary that reflects features on the ground.

75 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

5 Beetley

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

GP Pond Pond

NE LA EL AP CH

43.1m

L E P A H C

94.2m E N A L L E P A H C

High View

York Glen

D Beetle A y Methodist Church O HOUSE ROAD 49.7m 1 R 6 M A H M L E 48.1m Silos Posts High House

Village Hall ila HIGH Jame HOU Pavilion SE R OAD 26 High House Farm 48.5m 36 Nursery 46 Playing Field Alpha 56 Jungfrau

Workshop 8 2 Path (um) Well 46.2m 8 GP 0 9 G 5 RE EN LA NE LB

52 7 8 a 50 B 1 1 4 6 B 1 New Plantaion Court e 1 g 4 ) 4 ) 5 a G 6 t R m t m E u o u 45.0m e E ( N ( d C i LA h s h N t e t y E

a e 4 a k Woodland r n Brae

5 3 P c n 1 P a T r k u T S IFT 1 a R 5 O 4 D 7 a Lodge 49 4 1

5

43.2m 7

4 a 40

2 TH E 40 3 P 45.5m 5 1 A Pond D AD D O O R C M K A S H M 5 1 L 4 4 E

New Inn

Pond 2 7 9 35 2 4 8

5 Beetley 2 4 6

1 30 4 5 0 2 k 2 c 2 3 ra 7 T E a S 28 4 LO 2 C E 8 1 N S 1 R O 1 VE L 11 A C G 0 T 2 2 E 3 9 O V 1 5 7 I R R 5 D 2 S O E W 3 T 6 3 5 1 Pond North 11 1 43.8m 1 1 1 3 End 4 6 20 1

Farm 4 6 W 4 4 P IL 3 L 8 a 9 O 9 1 th 11 W 1 9 ( St Mary's 4 10 u C m 2 E 1 O 1 ) CP School U U 1 a N R ck 2 E a 1 Sub E 2 V T r 2 5 S A A T 1 O N S L E 8 H C 8 K L 8 1 1 C E 3 11 W 7 A 1 O 3 R Y D B 1 A H 2 2 E 2 o 21 6 M 1 u 7 s B 1 F e C EE 1 A a 4 TL K tb 3 1 EY E 1 e 4 N lls 1 H 1 .2 6 4 2 A m M 2 12 8 28 R R O H O akw 22 A ood D The E 20 L 10 P 1 Pond A 5 1 M 2 9 TCB 5 14 0 1 3 R 1 7 4 H

3

2 4 1 40.7m 18 1 R W 6 o a s rd 1 e B R d 2 e d 7 0 H n GP y BEETLEY MEADOWS T e h 26

e 2 5 1

Merryweather 3 G C 3

il LO 2 c S re E s ts Issues 3 1 12 3 Shrublands 8a D 1 4 0 A 3 O 1 R .2 C 2 20 m R Depot 6 E R IV 5 H R D 7 1 H D R O 1 m O 2 W Mast 2 1 B . .2 IR 1 2 C m 3 D 2 8 H R A 2 A Pond H O V 5 R E H N 1 3 C U Highfield 1 E E E 1 B 0 1 16 1 a 18 El

6 Sta 16 1 1 1 12 4 4 1 37.9m 9 V 2 IE W 1 4 Pond 1

Spring dy B rd D 6 Playground a W A 5 O & Pond Union House R ED E S LB N C O T 1 S 0 4 Pumping 1 12 Well 3 1 B

11 Pond 4 Vine Cottage 6

B 11 Chapel 46 4 Hillside 2

Pond (Rural Life Museum)

CR 30.1m W S ar C d B dy

28.7m

39.8m Pond Hoe Rough FB Nature Reserve

Ram FB Car Mill

t o o F Birch Grove Union Farm ef D Whitewaters

Pond The Rough

Stables Copsewood

39.4m in Dra B 37.8m 11 46 D ra in 1 B 11 2 Cottages 46 Woodgate

Sewage Station Eelsfoot Beck Farm Pinewood 31.4m AD O Woodview Lodge R M HA D C FB ra LIT in S C Gorgate Chambers FB

9 37 3

in ra Lavender H ouse D Topfields

D ra FB Greencroft i y n d B D d r r a a i Bramble Farm n W & D Cottage E T ra ck

D D r r a a i i n n C O C Pond S

H m R .22 T 1 ra ck

1 . 2 2 in m Dra FB Pond Pit Mast Tank Sluice Pump House Pump House Water Water

0 95 190 380 570 760 / Meters Map 5.1 Beetley Existing Settlement Boundary (as per 1999 Adopted Local Plan)

76 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

GP Pond

Pond

NE LA EL AP CH

43.1m

L E P A H C

94.2m E N A L L E P A H C

High View

York Glen

D Beetle A y Methodist Church O HOUSE ROAD 49.7m 1 R 6 M A H M L E 48.1m Silos Posts High House

Village Hall ila HIGH Jame HOU Pavilion SE R OAD 26 High House Farm 48.5m 36 Nursery 46 Playing Field Alpha 56 Jungfrau

Workshop 8 2 Path (um) Well 46.2m 8 GP 0 9 G 5 RE EN LA NE LB

52 7 8 a 50 B 1 1 4 6 B 1 New Plantaion Court e 1 g 4 ) 4 ) 5 a G 6 t R m t m E u o u 45.0m e E ( N ( d C i LA h s h N t e t y E

a e 4 a k Woodland r n Brae

5 3 P c n 1 P a T r k u T S IFT 1 a R 5 O 4 D 7 a Lodge 49 4 1

5

43.2m 7

4 a 40

2 TH E 40 3 P 45.5m 5 1 A Pond D AD D O O R C M K A S H M 5 1 L 4 4 E

New Inn

Pond 2 B.1 5 7 9 3 2 4 8

5 Beetley 2 4 6

1 30 4 5 0 2 k 2 c 2 3 ra 7 T E a S 28 4 LO 2 C E 8 1 N S 1 R O 1 VE L 11 A C G 0 T 2 2 E 3 9 O V 1 5 7 I R R 5 D 2 S O E W 3 T 6 3 5 1 Pond North 11 1 43.8m 1 1 1 3 End 4 6 20 1

Farm 4 6 W 4 4 P IL 3 L 8 a 9 O 9 1 th 11 W 1 9 ( St Mary's 4 10 u C m 2 E 1 O 1 ) CP School U U 1 a N R ck 2 E a 1 Sub E 2 V T r 2 5 S A A T 1 O N S L E 8 H C 8 K L 8 1 1 C E 3 11 W 7 A 1 O 3 R Y D B 1 A H 2 2 E 2 o 21 6 M 1 u 7 s B 1 F e C EE 1 A a 4 TL K tb 3 1 EY E 1 e 4 N lls 1 H 1 .2 6 4 2 A m M 2 12 8 28 R R O H O akw 22 A ood D The E 20 L 10 P 1 Pond A 5 1 M 2 9 TCB 5 14 0 1 3 R 1 7 4 H

3

2 4 1 40.7m 18 1 R W 6 o a s rd 1 e B R d 2 e d 7 0 H n GP y BEETLEY MEADOWS T e h 26

e 2 5 1

Merryweather 3 G C 3

il LO 2 c S re E s ts Issues 3 1 12 3 Shrublands 8a D 1 4 0 A 3 O 1 R .2 C 2 20 m R Depot 6 E R IV 5 H R D 7 1 H D R O 1 m O 2 W Mast 2 1 B . .2 IR 1 2 C m 3 D 2 8 H R A 2 A Pond H O V 5 R E H N 1 3 C U Highfield 1 E E E 1 B 0 1 16 1 a 18 El

6 Sta 16 1 1 1 12 4 4 1 37.9m 9 V 2 IE W 1 4 Pond 1

Spring dy B rd D 6 Playground a W A 5 O & Pond Union House R ED E S LB N C O T 1 S 0 4 Pumping 1 12 Well 3 1 B

11 Pond 4 Vine Cottage 6

B 11 Chapel 46 4 Hillside 2

Pond (Rural Life Museum)

CR 30.1m W S ar C d B dy

28.7m

39.8m Pond Hoe Rough FB Nature Reserve

Ram FB Car Mill

t o o F Birch Grove Union Farm ef D Whitewaters

Pond The Rough

Stables Copsewood

39.4m in Dra B 37.8m 11 46 D ra in 1 B 11 2 Cottages 46 Woodgate

Sewage Station Eelsfoot Beck Farm Pinewood 31.4m AD O Woodview Lodge R M HA D C FB ra LIT in S C Gorgate Chambers FB

9 37 3

in ra Lavender H ouse D Topfields

D ra FB Greencroft i y n d B D d r r a a i Bramble Farm n W & D Cottage E T ra ck

D D r r a a i i n n C O C Pond S

H m R .22 T 1 ra ck

1 . 2 2 in m Dra FB Pond Pit Mast Tank Sluice Pump House Pump House Water Water

0 95 190 380 570 760 / Meters Map 5.2 Beetley proposed Settlement Boundary for Submission Document

77 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

6 Croxton

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

GP

Pond

Bretwick House

T H

E

S

T R

E

E

T

Chapel Farm

noa Ge

Croxton Lodge

Old Bell House Hall

4 9 4 Club 9

4 3

4 The Old School House 1

Ty-Cae Cottage Chimneys

Bats Belfry 4 T T r r 2 a a 1 c c 4 Deva k k

N

E 1 R 8 R

A

4 W 7 0

3 L 9 R 1 A E

3 7

3 6

29.6m

Hall Farm 35.0m

3 3 TCB 36.5m

1 URT 5 Croxton CO to TS 1 IN 7 SA ALL 34.4m PO 1 UE EN 1a AV CH UR CH 12 14 4 Hill 15 7 Farm Wyndham Lodge Cottage

3

Loudoun T 2

H

n i

E

a r

S D

T

R

E All 4

E

D k T Saints' rac 1 T A 2

Church O 1

R 40.1m L A El E W L 1 L 4 1 S I O Sta V Thaec N L E R 5 M O 7 A 9 D D OA D R IEL 3 EF R 1 HA 1 1

1

5

2 14

SE 4 LO High Meadow LAS C DOUG

2 47.8m 9 8 1 3

2 1

Valles s dland Woo

Vicarage

51.9m

0 45 90 180 270 360 / Meters Map 6.1 Croxton Existing Settlement Boundary (as per 1999 Adopted Local Plan)

78 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

GP

Pond

Bretwick House

T H

E

S

T R

E

E

T

Chapel Farm

noa Ge

Croxton Lodge

Old Bell House Hall CRO.6

4 9 4 Club 9

4 3

4 The Old School House 1

Ty-Cae Cottage Chimneys

Bats Belfry 4 T T r r 2 a a 1 c c 4 Deva k k

N CRO.5 E 1 R 8 R

A

4 W 7 0

3 L 9 R 1 A E

3 CRO.1 7

3 6

29.6m

Hall Farm 35.0m

3 3 TCB CRO.736.5m

1 URT 5 Croxton CO to TS 1 IN 7 SA ALL 34.4m PO 1 UE EN 1a AV CH UR CH 12 14 CRO.3 4 Hill 15 7 Farm Wyndham Lodge Cottage

3

Loudoun T 2

H

n i

E

a r

S D

T

R

E All 4

E

D k T Saints' rac 1 T A 2

Church O 1

R 40.1m L A El E W L 1 L 4 1 S I O Sta V Thaec N L E R 5 M O 7 A 9 D D OA D R IEL 3 EF R 1 HA 1 1

1

5

CRO.4 2 14

SE 4 LO High Meadow LAS C DOUG

2 47.8m 9 8 1 3

2 1

Valles s dland Woo

Vicarage

51.9m CRO.2

0 45 90 180 270 360 / Meters Map 6.2 Croxton Proposed Settlement Boundary for Submission Document

79 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

7 Gressenhall

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

ef D 1 . 2 2 m

R T IF H R D ON MM CO CR Und

Sunninghill CH D e Pond f Def Und RH CH B .22m 1 I T

T

E

R

I

N

G

H S R 2m T 1.2 Well R 109 E E

T

Well 42.3m Woodfields Farm

White Ladies

0 10

2 G R E A S L L 43.8m S E 1 B ER Y 10 I U 7 L Q C N L HE O E C S Y E

R 2 O 8 A 9 D 9

2 2 2 6 90 2 6 a

2 1 8 1 4 9 2 9 C H

E C Q H 4 E U 8 Q E Well Mast 1 U R 4 E 2 R Well Well S 2 S 1 D in 1 a R 83 r Pond 7 1 D I F 1 T 3 1 0 1 38.5m

6 4

2 1 4 4 8 2 RM FA 1 1 0 H 3 1 8 A 1 8 L 6 1 L 1 5 ' S 5 Pond

3 SWEETBRIAR 2 se u o 8 H 7 1 ss d 1 e o 4 B n o h tw I s if High House L A r N D D Pond R E

Farm 0 IF Y 1 T

R The Gables L O A N A 1 7 E D 9 2 in 69 ra Pond Orchard D P 2 8 6 A 7 2 R K 65 3 A R 6 U 4 5 2 N D E 0 l E 7 S 2 L u C b B 2 1 a L S High House Farm I L ta Heathfield N T E E 63 E Y R T 5 2 S 6 6 1 Pond 0

4 D 6 r a Church 40.2m in GP 6 1 2 2 3 M D 2 E r 1 a Snowberry 1 A D in D 29 R E O I N 1 1 F LA 1 W T a L M A D A H N 1 R G 5 E N I 5 V O 5 5 3 L 8 E 2 P 21 in A ra R D K RO AD 2 2 5 7 34 2 2 Manor a Farm 1 2 D 4 5 e 2 8 1 0 s b 2 r lo a C 4 in

24

Kalandra Manor Farm Drain Collects

P a th

(u 36 m )

32 Club 1 B 3 Farm House IT P 1 T E a 2 t R 8 h IN 2 G 4 ( u S m 2 6 T 0 CL R ) E ZER in E EE ra T FR D

9

1 6 Allotment 2 Gressenhall Gardens 1 1 1 4 2 8 KS A Playing Field 1 E O 6 El TH 3 4 38.7m 1 E 2 LOS 1 C 11 2 E 1 OLM 1 GH 7 OU 27 1 R 26 0 8 30 1 Camomile E 0 1 V

5 I

R 1 House D 1 1 12 E 5 IV 1 R 2 N 2b D 35 A 14 1 N 29 Bowling 6 SW E 39 K 37 Green O 1 Court S 1 1 11 9 2 3 4 11 34.3m 30 OAD LITCHAM R 8 2 34 3 1 Tennis Court 1 2 22 8 GP 14 GP 35.7m 4 Yew Tree Farm 2 The PO Stepping Pond (PH) T C LB

B Tuppence Smithy Silos tage Room Cot ee 44.6m r Tr Pea

Dunfer Hill age 35.7m Cott The Elms Dunfer Hill Gable End Works The Bungalow

51.6m

es ag ott Swallow Lodge C The Green P Woodstock Rectory a r k

H o Pond Anvilyn u s e

Conkers A Trevia n w im a Farm Pond in Dra

Orchard Dentford M a l la rd G s E re L G e im n Dentford Heights The Whare D I e V i R T e r w B e Westfield e s T A Y ain L Dr O Shoes R 34.4m 'S

L Ivy House FB A Walnut Lodge N Chilterns End E Whitbatch

Kisakura Holly Lodge

Tilsammen Willow Cottage Workshop The Lawns Pond ine o-N Benson ur- Fo Builder's in Ford ra Pond D Burnside Bridge House

Spring

D r a 33.5m in

GP

D Rectory Farm r a i n n ai Dr Pond in Dra R O Ponds A E D N CS A Pond D & D L E rain

in ra D

0 75 150 300 450 600 / Meters

Map 7.1 Gressenhall Existing Settlement Boundary (as per 1999 Adopted Local Plan)

80 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

ef D 1 . 2 2 m

R T IF H R D ON MM CO CR Und

Sunninghill CH D e Pond f Def Und RH CH B 22m 1. I T

T

E

R

I

N

G

H S R 2m T 1.2 Well R 109 E E

T

Well 42.3m Woodfields Farm

White Ladies

0 10

2 G R E A S L L 43.8m S E 1 B ER Y 10 I U 7 L Q C N E L H O E C S Y E

R 2 O 8 A 9 D 9

2 2 2 6 90 2 6 a

2 1 8 1 4 9 2 9 C H

E C Q H 4 E U 8 Q E Mast 1 U R Well 4 E S 2 R Well Well 2 S 1 D in 1 a R 83 r Pond 7 1 GR.2 D I F 1 T 3 1 0 1 38.5m

6 4

2 1 4 4 8 2 RM FA 1 1 H 3 0 A 1 8 L 1 8 6 1 L 1 5 ' S 5 Pond

3 SWEETBRIAR 2 se u o 8 H 7 1 ss d 1 e oo 4 B n h tw I s if High House L A r N D D Pond R E Farm 0 I

1 F Y T

R The Gables L O A 1 N A 7 E D 9 2 in 69 ra Pond Orchard D P 72 8 6 A 2 R K 65 3 A R 6 4 U 5 2 N E D 0 l E 7 S 2 L u C b B 2 1 High House Farm a L S I L ta Heathfield N T E E 63 E Y TR S 5 2 6 6 1 Pond 0

4 D 6 r a Church 40.2m in GP 6 1 2 2 M D 3 2 E r 1 a Snowberry 1 A i D n D 29 R E O I N 1 1 F A W L 1 T a L M A D A H 1 R N G 5 E N I 5 V O 5 5 L 8 E 23 P 21 in A ra R D K RO AD 2 2 5 7 34 2 2 Manor a Farm 1 4 2 D 1 5 e 2 8 0 s b 2 r lo a C 4 in

24

Kalandra Manor Farm GR.3 Drain Collects

P a th

(u 36 m )

32 Club 1 B 3 Farm House IT P 1 T E a R 2 t I 8 h N 2 G 4 ( u S 2 6 T m 0 L R C E ) ZER in E EE ra T FR D

9

1 6 Allotment 2 Gardens Gressenhall

1 1 1 4 2 8 S AK Playing Field 1 E O 6 El TH 3 4 38.7m 1 E 2 LOS 1 C 11 2 ME 1 OL 1 GH 7 OU 7 1 R 2 26 0 8 30 1 Camomile E 0 1 V

5 I

R 1 D House 1 1 12 E 5 IV 1 R 2 2b D 35 AN 4 1 N 29 Bowling 6 SW 1 E 39 K 37 Green O 1 Court S 1 1 11 9 2 3 4 11 34.3m 30 LITCHAM ROAD 8 2 34 3 Tennis Court 1 2 1 22 8 GP 14 GP 35.7m 4 Yew Tree Farm 2 The PO Stepping Pond T (PH) C LB

B Tuppence Smithy Silos tage Room Cot ee 44.6m r Tr Pea

Dunfer Hill age 35.7m Cott The Elms Dunfer Hill Gable End Works The Bungalow 51.6m

es ag ott Swallow Lodge C The Green P Woodstock Rectory a r k

H o Pond Anvilyn u s e

Conkers A Trevia n w im a Farm Pond in GR.2 Dra Orchard M Dentford a l la rd G s E re L G e The Whare im n Dentford Heights D I e V i R T e r w B e Westfield e s T A Y ain L Dr O Shoes R 34.4m 'S

L Ivy House FB A Walnut Lodge N Chilterns End E Whitbatch

Kisakura Holly Lodge

Willow Cottage Tilsammen Workshop The Lawns Pond ine o-N Benson ur- Fo Builder's in Ford ra Pond D Burnside Bridge House

Spring

D r a 33.5m in

GP

D Rectory Farm r a i n n ai Dr Pond in Dra R O Ponds A E D N CS A Pond D & D L E rain

in ra D

0 75 150 300 450 600 / Meters Map 7.2 Gressenhall Proposed Setlement Boundary for Submission Document

81 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

8 Shipdham

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

Mead Gardens

70.1m Linden

Valhaven

n i

a r D House

E

N

A

L Scains Rest Fieldview N

A

W 7 S 4

Lodge

Croft k ic a ew 41 The Cottage B

1 4 66 West 62 Field 8a T 5 33 E E R T 58 S T E K R A M 54 31 5 71.0m 2 b 3 1 Longfields Sunnyside

6 o4 in 27 0t ra 4 D

71.6m 38

28 21

26 11 Pond 24

20

a Pond 14 18 18

The Haybarn

1 The Granary

9 Pond

0 25 50 100 150 200 / Meters Map 8.1 Shipdham Existing Settlement Boundary (as per 1999 Local Plan)

82 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

Mead Gardens

70.1m Linden

Valhaven

n i

a r D House

E

N

A

L Scains Rest Fieldview N

A

W 7 S 4

Lodge

Croft k ic a ew 41 The Cottage B

1 4 66 West 62 Field 8a T 5 33 E E R SHP.5 T 58 S T E K R A M 54 31 5 71.0m 2 b 3 1 Longfields Sunnyside

6 o4 in 27 0t ra 4 D

71.6m 38

28 21

26 11 Pond 24

20

a Pond 14 18 18

The Haybarn

1 The Granary

9 Pond

0 25 50 100 150 200 / Meters Map 8.2 Shipdham Proposed Settlement Boundary as per Submission Document

83 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

9 Shropham m r a F

d r D e a

A g h d

c O o k r R c L

O a M r d

T A e k R

r H

a G

P R A s

s H e n i s u B

e 1 e r T

k a t a S

O b

u 6 S

l E 7

s e g a t t o C

e e r t 1 k a

O

s

d

l s

e i

f e d

m

o n i H

W

s

y r

e

L

u

r

e o v l i S F

d

w

e

n i V

o h

t

P u

o S

e

e

r

T

y

a y M a

w

d a

n r E

e a

b

e

l F m G 2

D .

A 7

O 3 R

M A

e H

g G n

i a

a R r r D a A H G

. d l t e e g i h d F

e

o g

c i g L m

a r n a

r i

r h y y

e p a

T l p o r r P e o h t l l c l S e

a . h

e

H

g S 5 n 4 a

g

t

n

t

0

n

B s i e

w l b

e a l o G 3

e h 0 T

C e o

C w r

T r 2 2 o G e

B

h

C d T 1

e P © h

G s e i l c i b f f u

O P

6 m 1 e

2 y . s . m r r 7 5 1 o 5

2 3 .

e 1 H 4 3 1 4 4 n 3 d e 1 5 r n o s i i e o e

9 r t e

h s P n m w r e 1 s

u e a i s T 9 e g f .

t i

k S g 0 t a

r

g 6 m t 1 V a

u

t

t n 0 o S 3 0

2 3

9 t i n . o d 2 2

l o K W 0 6 n C a

s C 3 o ' 1 W

P . e y l t p e o s p h n a l T A e t

j E

S 0 e

a 1 c 1 n M

e r

E c e i T 9 l A

H l s

G i f

T r c 8

o S n E e

r 4 u

W 7 t 1 e l o l e 5 C o

r 5 t t 0 2 M c n

i 1 r 0 o t d s C l 4 i

1 O 1

D e e

h h e d t T g ta n f ot s a o C k d

l l

o r o ri f o w p k l g

lin A W

c S l a

o

0 C s e 1 e W h e g r O h a e 1 D c B

w e b A e

e . E

S B s n M e g o E h

T n H N i y T

O s d e T l i

v T e A r a n e t

i 5 W e u a c s e r u S o 0 D o

r D H

e

p 0 /

c

m l t i a 3 n h c v i a p e o d c n j r

n h r d o o S r r P o

O P n

e t f i o h i o t

W

u n

c e s

o u o

e

H

g

a

i t

t

o

C

e

d

e

h

c s t

a

h

s T

s e s

u

i o

o H

n

a

r w o t R n m p s e r

r w a e o l d t o l t t p

e R d

i k

A f

n c d h

e a E

g r a i

h T m d l t

r H

e 0

e l

a i n i a r D F F h 0

y t d i a o 2 o w

w m l

n i m a L d i 1

.

r

n

5 e g a t t o C

d o o w n i e L 3 a t

t a

h

C h a l e m t g

i r y

y

e

s d n i w h t r o p N v r o u c

S

n 1 n

e i

w a

c r

o r D n a C

n 0 s

d 4 r e 0 g O 1

n i r m f o n r i f

n d o i e t c c u u 0 d d o 5 o r r p w p o s ' e d e x r a r

o

e F

s i M

d p e a s i r m o

s h 0 i t h u T a

n T U H G I R Y P O / C

Map 9.1 Shropham Existing Settlement Boundary (as per 1999 Adopted Local Plan)

84 Map

COPYRIGHT This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.

9.2 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

in ra D Shropham

Drain

n

i

a

r

D Proposed

34.1m Pond View

Pond Pond Pond The Cottage

Sunrise

1 Field End Cottages

e Sewage Works 1 SHR.1 s

u 2 Kingfisher 3 o 2 4 H 5 Settlement THE Walnut Tree

4 rain White ME D 35.1m Attlarst ADO Cottage Terrace WS 11 1 12 1 Horse Rowen 4

1 e 4 e

g Bowling s 0 1 a 2 u 1 t W

t Green o A o T W H T

t E O s 2 C ST N

e n G 2

d l AT d Highfield a E

n a

i o w h 5 o e w o

C g h

w

6 t R a

r n t

i t

o

L o C N Linwood Farm o SHR.3 C l li d Shropham House n e g w Hall h

c o t o 1 a d h The Old T 7 El 8 A Playing Field

Boundary p Sta r 0 il 3 C o t ta 9 g T e 1 Shropham he B 5 eec hes 10 15 14 El Sub Sta GP

Track 36.9m Shelter 37.2m TCB

d Fox's n E

Meadow e 7 b e l e w e for G r ie T V y s Garage h y a t Factory u e s M o L d s l S r e Lodge e l H e i A v f b R G il e Oak Tree Business Park a H AM S m G o R O H Submission e AD h

T 1 37.2m

1

Oa kt ree 6 Orchard Farm Four Winds C Settlement Faraway ot tag es SHR.2

H AR GH The AM RO Works AD Project / Details Apple

Document Red Lodge

36.9m Boundary

0 50 100 200 300 400 / Meters T opic Paper 85 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

10 Watton

9 9 9

6

1

2 5 4 5

2 9

0 5 1

d

7 7

E S 7 O L C n

D N A L R E 7 D N U o S

6

P

6

4 3 2

3 4

7

E V I R

D

k N O T G N I H S A W 6 8 5 r 4

d

a

n

5

P 2 a 5 3 l k s

l 5

l s c

6

5

a 1 e e

0

r

5

n 4

9 1 H 4 i 5 7 7 B 4

4 s t s u E s e l B a

S

1 e M k O o L

5 R

C

0

3

3 2

Drain

K 0 o t

e

1

2

1

0 4 R s 1 u 1 4

O o

Y

2 E H LOS

1 C

D Y

- E

d R L

7 E A 1 V n BE

a O l

k

R

c

e H

r C

B I

W R

t O

s N a

E M

S

O

L

C

Y

H

T

R

O

W

L

E

y

d

B

d

r a

W

f e D s d B L

n y

o b

P

-

y

a L

4

T

5

g 7

N

n a 3 4 3 4 E i

d 2

C

l

7 S o 5 h

E s l

i l

R

n a

9

14 6

C n

E

R

A m

U

Q

S e I

R

I T O S R K A D T

41 R 3

A

0

1

7

SE 1

O H L 5

1

C 1

4 8

7

a

4

3 C 1 2 6

2

n i

2 a 3 r N D

5 E

1

R

T

a 4

a D

t

3

9 A

S 3

1

O

9 b

a

u R 2 1

S

l 0

E 1

E U N E V

A

L A T R O 4 P b l 1

l 8

3 e

W 1

3 3 3

a 2 2 1 1

6 6

7

2 4

1

7

4 2 4 9 2

3 8

T

E

R

A

U R

Q

S

I b

R D I A

O T R

G O N I D R W O K D

A 4 U

4

O

7 3 1

a

C

7

6 5 1 2

1 3

3 1 A 1 1 4

I 5

2

5

1

S 2

2 1 5

O 9 3

T

R U O

C

S ' 4 Y R N E

C 2 H I

1 n N i a r D 2

2

2

3

3

2

1

3

6 9

5

2

1 2

E

E S

S 8 S

M

4 O 2 O

L

L 6

C 2

C

7

R

1 2

8

L R

1 2 1 S

3 L O

4 E

9 N

2

E S

5 D

n

E 2

i

V

4 S

0 0

0 3 2 D

a D

2 2 e r

O E 0

E

h L

D L R 2

T T S A

G

9

2 3 6

7 241

L

L

E

V

2

O

5

L

1

6

2

2

2 1 1 n 1 n o e t

t y e a r

b 229 -

n G

W y 3 e

n a r e o

L 235 217 e t r t w G

6 a 221 213 7

1 o

1 W T l

l 8 r

a 0 e

L t

H 1

n EL i V

LO 6

a 1

m

a 222 9

r r 1

W B 223

a D

F

9 1

n r 8

5

1

i a

7 1 228 4

t

2 e 0 27

2 9

a 0

1

t 1 r 1

2 1 S

B

1 a

D 1

L

b

W

B

u

L L E V O L 5 S

20 s

1 7 l 70 k r E 3 o 2 W e B e r 65

C 60

g 23

c 1 0 r T a a

t 2

e 9 t

n

1 5 o w e e o e C g

r

T

8 0 a

n 4 G

r 6

0 4 3

e

2 1

a 8 8

1 1 e

r G 5 2

E G 5 0 l

6 l

9

2 S e

n 4

O w w 5 31

l 1

L r o 8 9

T S a

C S 8

8

h

N

N 6 9

1 N 1

R

4

4

E C

E

E 9 134 4 3

E 4 E

D

5

D

0 0

D

R 9

R 6

0

5

8 R

D 9

G 1

1

A 1

1 A 6

E

4 3 4

N G

1

5 T

G

1

5

3

L 4

. W

L

1 L

O L

t E

T 7

E

6

a 142

V

8 8 2 V 5 4

1 5

1

1

0

h O

3

O

1 3

L

1

1

L

0 0

1

1 1

g 4 8

e

4 0 i

8 0

g 1 3 5

8 6

d 2 1 r 2 7 1 o

8 8 n

2 L

n 8 3

7 y

e 1

e 4 6

d 0 e

l

2 1

3 1 e

r 1 r e 3 i p G

0 G F

9 9 E 5

n 4

n

S 1

o 5 1

0 8 o E

t 1

w 1

t 1 2 O

S 1 0

o 8

a 2

L

1

O 7

T 1 6 2

c L C 3

W

C 3 2

1 L 1

R 2 L

.

0

E 153 E 1 B

D E

U D 4

5

3 n

L 6 9

4

8

E

1 7 B

6 1

2 T

7

1 6

0

6

1 1 w v

8 o

3 9 0

G 0 2

o

3

d

s

14 1 2 0 4 n 4 r a 2 o G

P

5

176 2 C d m r

m

a r

F 6

a e

8 F n

8 n 8

© i e n

b h a e

e

r r u

e 0

D

S r 7 G 2

s

l g e 6 n i E n w o l

t 1 t 3 o

c 7 5

T 2

a

i 0 b 8 W f

f

0 6

u 1

E S 7

m 6

8 O

. L

O

4 P C

4

D 4

4 R

A R 5

O U y B R . r N Y

E A 5

E 8 e

W 3 R 3 G M

I n 1

N E 6 5 W H o

N

O 0 6 i

7

T E 2 5 9

3 L

t 2

B 3 1 a t 0

7 5 S 0 s d a l 5 4 e 0 d

i 5 8 f n s t o

s

' 8 2 P 1 e

9

K 2

. y

3

3 4 t 7 2 3 o

s 11 5

0 2 3

n 1 6 7 4 a 7 e

3

j 2

n

e

D 0 v E

6 4

o t

2 2 3

A

e 3

5

1 5 7

a 0 1 O

8 2

3 2

3 R

2 4 1 1

c

9 1 2 2 4 E 2 L

W 1 0 a 7

n P M

5 8 9 1 6 O 1

A 1

1 0

7 L

a

0 M

3 m L

I

e 2 r 1

r 7 1

3 2

7 1 D D a

4 1 4

1 1

W

2 2 A L 3

F 13 1 c

1 2 O 7 6 E

e I

3 d 6 i R F o

l N

3

o O

8 w T 6 8

H

l 1 l

l S l 7

i I l k

i 1 6 2 i r

H R

8 3

3 h 1 a

f G 2 5

d

s P 3

c m

e 6 1

5 5

R

o 6 m

.

r 1 r

8 1 8

n 8

7 a 9

6 5 6 1

1 F 6

T

13 5 N

E

C

a S

E 1

R

C

r 1 M

A

E

B

E T

2 I d H 2 W 4

9

6 6 E u 5 s 1

n S e

5 4 3

d 1 O

l 7 E D

e 5 4 L

a

e

A C

l 8 i y 12 1 t o

7 1

f 7 9 2 6 a l

2 O 2

l a n D

1 1 8 9

3 c L e 4 2 R 6 3 I

r

1 1 5 e 6 W

C 9 a

o r H

E e B 8 G

C S 9 6 r I 4

O 3

t

E N A L

L L I H D E

R L t

W 8 m

8 C

R 7

6

c

. n i a r N D O n i

3 E 0

m M N 5 D 7 r .

R a o t 9 t A 4 G S

9 3 6

b

n 1 s i C

1 u

i a r S

D 2 l

1 7 E D e

n 1 5 e 4 3

k 1 d

3 s h r

t 1 n a s a d t o T G

) P rack ANE (T

n L f D 15 12a OO s W t t a 12 l s s t E o a S

a

o 8

P

6

l 7 M s

s

k k

r r f

9 8 o

o

k 1 l 2

1 2 e

6 W

1 g W a c a t a t t

n D i o

S 1 A a

l

e r 1 2 C

O b E h 1 1

D

R u r

S

1 H e

7 t C

1 o

B R d

p

r

b

U n e i

a r s a

D k H D r Y . o

C W 0 s

n 1

1

0 8

0

7

7 9

1 7 g o t

o

p

3 n 4 c e

7 i

y K D

a A

8 7 s

2 O

d e l s 2 i

k v 7

r

2

e 1 6 o

r 3 a

W

3 e

2 t

2 1 T

u

1 N c 6

1

E e

e

t

C

S a

9 t

o 8 S

6 s

E E

r

l D

1

R

a 0

9 i

r 2 C

e t 4

p s

u /

7

m 5 d

1 1

5 9 c

n 4

0 I 7 4 1 . l

4 t 9 i

5 n

1 d

c r v 1

5

a 9 3

i

a

5

5 Y

6

a 8 3 e s

7 2

' 1

c

4

n 2

r

8 j

s 8 3 b 8 a 3 2 e t n S d 1 l d b i r d u o

S u

G

1 l B c r 8 B 3 t 3 E r 5 L o o l

l

1 2

A

8 5 O P

R T 6

n

U

0

O 3 6 0 C 2 f S d

N T 38

o A 15 a H 2

9 C

i o 7 24 R

9 E 7 M t

19 4

1 3 m g

u 40 n 4 7 . 7 21

9 0 D

c A

5

o 6 O 7

R 2 D

i

Y A 5

h 1 e

1 1 R 1 c 52 IO O

r

y

s R

2 R

6 P 8 u

n i a r a

s D a 1

h Y

1 c 1

W E

s 7 C

7 B

i

4 o

n

B

7 S o A

i ' a k

r

t 5 r

Y 6 a 7 29

a 5

R t 5 m P

A S

p

1

r 2

r M 5

1 2 1 1 1

a 31 2 T 2 C S 1

m 5 e

o 3

m 5

7 . 9

t 47 39

e

. 8

D

A

g O p R 5 T

U N 7 T

S E H

2 C a 0 5 1

a l

r

B t m

E 1 7 E 1 a S 7

C 3 d . c 2 B

i T 2 6

e 1 E OAD V D P 5 H R

CHU RC 4

L 1 4

B a A G

5 1 1 G L h O 4

2 t 13 R e 1

n e l

a E 5 0 1 o t g

E

g a 5 3

17 r

n R

h 42 i a

r T 5

y 7 r c t

i 1 8

5

H 1 o 6 i

21 V S 1

D 32 a

A d 1

l

1 6

2

a O 4 2 2 0 3

w

K 4 2 s 0 6

5 3 L m w

E A 9 l 1

e

0

5

S

W 2 V I C A R A G E

W A L a K

M O

2 a L

H 5 5

d 3

i 1

C

C

6

4 R 5

r

N 2 7 9 E 3 2 1

n U 6

5 O

V 6

1

I

H 1

2 N

e R

C 3 a A

t

D

E C

S O L

C

E L

A

9 D

S 4 t 5

4

1 a

M

0

1 5 A 8

9

h 0 H

6

1 K

1 m d 1 a l

1 N t g

n 6 E

B

S

O

o 7 i 1

P

M r a y

8

5

4

2 k

r a

P

t s a y L

1 e

1

1 p 1

v

1

7

2

7

3

e

3

e

5 r 3

T

r y

r

2 r

e 1 4 h

o C 1 t

2 r u c

1 0 9

u

4 3

T 3

o

e 0 C r 1 g

e l

L A 1

C A S 4 1 5

G 1 6 E n

n R 2

33 e

34 7 6 d

4 3

n E e i 0 w L

2 V I

7 1

7

2

c R

3

5

b

o

2

D 2

2

u 7

3 r S S n

s t 4 3

4 7 4 M

2 s 4 0 A o

a 3

P

H

C E

d

E K U U

N n n E N

AV N o

S 6

O

P

E E 0 0 L

s R

2 A 4 M 5 V

d H

C 3

1 A 53 2 r

e

S 2

9

E

L

g 9

8 9 5 7

3 m

R

O 1

1 1 1 1

7 4

3 A

3 .

4

1

n 6 4 H

5 3

i C

K L

r 49

7 a m 5 A 35

f 1 47

45 W

7

l 6

l 4

o 1

2 E

n

1 3

K e a

1 4 E

r i L g

38 H

R

a

A f 7

5 r

4

T

4 2

a 1 7 W a

2

7

E

1 G

k 4 a n H n a 0 B

M 3

2

I

1

C 2

d 1 L

c R

o 38 U

i

e

9 H t a t 8a C

c 3 S m

7

c D b

A . 2 4 1

5 3 O

5 1 E u R 6 u 2 D 1 5

S R V 2 O

u TF

O E

H T

5

d 6 T

R

C

d

G

b 8

3 21 A

1

T

o 9 I

U

s R o

9

t e 4

r

N

s 0

5 O

s 1

r L L

2

u

o T

A 1

o

C

1 P

C

p 2 3

W

I 5

5 H

L l 5

2

p 6

8 l V L a

a l E e

t H

E 5 e T S ll r

Ha T

I

r S 0 5 7

0

1

A 5 a

K 0

A

1

0 5 7

a 5 N

Y

A

W

1 L

A 1 I R O

8 M 2 E

M 5 D

s 40

G

6 2 2 2 i

0 B 20 AY

4 L 1 52 W E

N d DM A

CA 0 R

1 1

k

34 O a

6 l

3 r c p 3 8 8

i

27 t e 5 O E 7 a

10 r e A r 3 S

e

d 3 a M

W i

d 8 a s s 3 1 C

e 28 D e

i

r m n L k m F

6 32 o . A r a t m

0 0

1 4 3

. 3 2 L 3 N

a 0 3 23 7 l

m 3 . 3

9 5 AD e 3 O O

1 R E

5 1 1 4

0 5 D

7 R o

r

l FO B T D N

5 HE

T 8 e

e

L 2

t 1 2 7

h 3

w 1 2 2 o s c

h 2

18 2 to 4 o

H 0 i 1 T o e 16 2 6

t 2 L

61 12 to s 6

u 2 7 o h

u 1 H 1

1 T

COU R 5

LE n 9

r B D A 2 T G a 3 1 o

3 k

1 8 1 o A r

x 2

1

o

n E

1

5 t a

O a

1 0

1 S

a

1 P

n R 1 S 2 7 1 4 O o

1 t

1

h 1

t 2 L

M

a 1 4

P 0 r T

M

1 3 C 1

2

s 1

w

1 o e M

e h L 9 A

4 T

1 4 L

8 n

o 1

1 I

t 2

U H 1

l

a H

l Y 1 E

7 A

H 1 C

a

h 4

C a u W

R M R

1

9

0

3 g 3

5 n 6

1

E

S

o B 2 U

E 9 1 1 1

C S

e K H

N D

e O

h 8 5 C L

A

7 9 1

4

C

h H

T

G 3 7

S

2 S 1 m 7

T 2

0

8 2 K

3 R

1

10 1 I 7 b 2

N

1 O

.

A

5 2 G

H

6 2 E

1 y

S a

5 R

r

3 G

Y

1

5

e R

T

E

1 8 R 7 9

s A

g 1

S 4

6 6

M

0 R 3

r 4

2

e 1

1 m O

3

U .0 u h 9 3 0

g 5 6 T

L 2

S 2 2

n 2

c n O Y

t

i 1

E

i 9

e

l C

C

a

1

3

e E 0 P

9

w a

r 2

1 3

b N 4

s 0 0

l

1 R

N 7

t 2

l 7

o 1 9

9 1 1 G 1 7

P 8 r

T

1 O

a 1 B

O 1 1

u 0 T

S 2

b

S 2

t

o L

3

I N 5

L

o 0 6

C E 2

2

1

2 b

o M E 3 1

L O a O 6

l

u t 1 6

F

A N

D T 2

E 1 2

S S

/

1

3 H T

H D

a I 2 A

P 7

C d

M nk

1 Ba

1 W

n

69 4

4

o 2 P

Map 10.1 Watton Existing Settlement Boundary (as per 1999 Adopted Local Plan)

86 Map

10.2 COPYRIGHT This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

Stone Cottage House d View D n r o Track a P i n Dr 7 ai 8 n P Loch Neaton Pond a

t h Football Pitches 44.8m Drain 55 53 50

7

4

W 16 36 37 Town Green Cottage 14

12 Moat House 12a 33 atton 4 1 3 Lakeside 1 9

3 8 31 Pond 7

2

6 4 1 1 Bowling 49.7m n 7 28 i a Green r

D

n

i 6 a Redhill r

3 50.0m D Park

n

Sports i

a 4

r

Centre D 4 1 2 8 3

n i

a E

r N 18 20 D Smallholding A Greenfields

L Town Green

L

5 4

b 5 L 6 2 I 1 Proposed 8

H 3 1 LB

D 17 2

E R Ponds 22 7

5

8

3 8 3 Well 8 9a Courts 9 3 a

6

1

3 7 8

c 4

40 SE Watton 3 1 CLO 2 3 ON 6 ILT 8 3 HAM 11 8 19 4

0 9 2 4 Green WAT.13 0 Rokeles Hall Pond

9 41 6

6 12 5 5 14 1 6 8 71 21 1 5b 15a 1 Kestfields 16

7b 3 7 1 6 6 7a 3 rain 53.6m 2 1 4 D 4 TOW Wattongreen Farm 2 AD N G 11 10 1 R O Pond RE 7 1 CH EN 10 R Barclay End Farm R 53.0m U O C VE CH AD 1a GRO 13 7 L The O 5 UT 3 LN S WA Hillwood Farm E 1 3 in 1 a r 1 1 3 Greenacre D 0 20 4 3

1 2 37 0 8 A

4 4 5

1 1

1 0 43 Farm 1 7 8 1 4 36 2 5 6 0 1 2 Settlement El 3 ain 3 r 47 4 D 2 9 LB 51 WAT.12 77 6 00 T 37a 1 Sta 3 Car Park OW Watton 9 5 3 N 1 1 GR n 103 2 1 WALK EE rai Green ME TR EE Field Lodge N D 7 3 LI WAT.16 3 T COUR 7 SON Hall NEL 1 5 21 1 17 30 a

6 3 12a 14 24 27 Town Green Farm Charlwell 2 2 3 1 14 9 2 a 119 3 3 56.7m 3 2 24 K 4 63 H WAL 1 31 6 18 20 26 31 CHUR C 5 25 2 12 Church 6 3 2 19 New Green 10 4 C 5 1 Posts H 1 El Su o 4 b St 2 a a 6

n 0 53.6m l g l

5 2 10

2 7 1 C 2 15 17 h R CH WALK 3 CHU Watton Green E 4 E 1 1 1 R C R n ROAD i 5 A A O 5 a r U U D 1 U

9 D A Q Q a R O 15 2 a S R S T 9 1 1 9 M 8 I I 6 7 A D rain 7 H R 9 11 R 1 I 5 E El Sub I R 2 2 3 T a E C T 3 8 7-12 D 1 1 1 A 1 O t 0 3 O o 4 5

D 6 R 2 R 2 2 2 M 16 K Linden Court K 2 2 Manor 40 4 C A 2 7 8 A A 3

3 8 H 1 Park N Allot Gdns 1 5 U 3 D 5 3 W 1 2 1 R a L 1 23 4 Breckland House C 7 1 37 . LL 9a 21 a 25 v A E 2 0 T KIT C 1 e 1 m Y 3 a a G 2

H y 2 1 2 The Manor 3 3 2 A 2 4 P 3 3 R 9 1 S 1 B T 2 l 5 2 6 o a 0 t Posts O M 8 3 L BL 2 a A c PH T EN 4 E 2 E A E R 1 H e R Y EI T 10 Mews 1 M

S s 5 D 'S WAY LE C a 1 D 6 2 1 0 w 28 D 8 4 I 0 4 9 M 1 O 8 4b 4 17 17 4 5 a 3 e 1 20 6 7 5 E 7 3 U 45 44 3 7

1 4

1 Breckland M S 1 2 Hotel o R 2 Hall t 52 OAK O 20 e T L Business Park

1 1 5 h to

28 2 C 7

T 26 22a 6 L 1

0 L 18 5 1 13 8 6 1 69 E 2

8 1 6 1 B 0 5 65 38 A Hall 3 4 E 1 3 52.7m 0 U 6 7 L Garage 9 1 B 38a 7 17a 15 3 57.9m 19 1 8 3 B 2 131 5 a 1 a NOR WICH ROAD n 1 8 3 The Bull 12 7 1 Lay-by k 77 1a 9 y-by

1 La 127 1 32 NICOSIA COURT

9 6 5 2 1 2 129 1 5 Sub 11 0 62 5 9 6 El 2 B 1108 9 115 B 1108 MS Sub 2 4 8 Sta 10 111 Mast

Boundary y

5 LB 2 2 LB 2 1 2 3 58.5m 4 f d

El 2 2 OAD 6 Surgery 7 7 1 WICH R 3 8 9 3 10 NOR e B 8 3 4 0 5 2

Sub Sta 2 D d 1 37 r 5 2 A 10 a 9a 1 2 k 7 Pond 1 20 W 22 9 1 7 4 Saxon House n 47 02 2 1 1 1 a Durrants T 88 100

2 L 2 B to H 57 14 TCB L E D Yard 61 67 orrington Station Way 1 E T 8 56.4m 78 V F 1 79 2

O Y 8 O 1

Y L A 34 3 5 0 Gas Gov R 7 A B 7 77c 77g 7 2 110 59.4m 2 W 8 NS W 1 D 62 LOVELL GARDE 6 4 2 4 1 7

L Car 4 D S 3 R 1 9 5 59.4m 1 6 t A 1 K o A O I R 4 8 0 N 58.5m E 1 O 1 A R A LB 8 7 1 9 G 1 R 2 D O 1 52 2 H 50 4 A 52a GP 2 3 S 54a 1 N M 1 4 L 3 6 3 1 4 2 E 7 2 O R Frederick C 3 7a 3 5 6 9 12 15 4 8 9

2 T O M T 57

60 1 2 42 2 2 G 7 5 G 5 c 6 1 2 9 5 1 2 E 6a 16 5 2 1 5 N

1 2 0 6 S I R N 4 War TRENC 1 E H A L 2 R D G D C RESC EN T 8 9 R L 1 Garden 54 GA 9 YORK C L Old Vicarage 50 OSE E E 7 5 1 4 Works 2

S 7 W 2 E WATTON 2 O 3 L S 55 59

22 5 2 29 O G 2 8 C 1 3 1 3 4 4 21 7 7 7 A 2 L 4 R 8 0

1 S D 265 2 C 49 K E 39 N 1 N E C 5 A L 8 L 4 1 7 10 O 38 9 H A 1 9 2 1 M S e 3 S 1 9 t 2 E D E a Y t 2 2 46 80 12 R s 1 9 71 R 3 4 E E Depot 75 0 C l l 37 A 1 a 30 5 Vicarage H S i 101 1 r 2

t E M u s 100 26 1 A u 205 21 b V 7 1 N d I 6 S n 1 T I 103 4 63 t 84 R S a

Posts D B 1 08 1 2 1 1 7 107 2 E 2 9 C 5 3 0

Yard El Sub Sta N 5 1 1 04 1 1 V O 161

O 2 E U 96

1 T R

R 3 5 El T 7 3 N S 3 E G C 90 L 3 1 T S 111 T 114 6 6 E N R 68 E N 5 1 C 1 2 R I 8 E 95 27 32 Y

U H 4

4 1 4 D C 3 3 S 2 7 2 r 8 1 O 9 e 2 R 6 L w 5 2 o A 1 T C A O 3 49 3 1 E 4 W 9 G 7 S 2 48 1 S 1 ' U 9 0 1 W W 4 67 2 E 1 1 3 1 19 Y N 14 2 1 1 o 9 2 O 2

r a R E

0 k D 3 O 3 N V 12 s 4 A 3 8 4 24 1 A D 1 E 1 2

O

L 2 C H L 33 R H A

A 54 141 38 1 T A 3 A 0 N 2 8 1 203 2 s 1 R

4 R for R 1 k 168 5 E r El 3 L 12 o 2 O 5 1 R

1 7 3 1 E ( W P 23 4 4 E 9 T 5 4 S 17 6 5 r B 2 3 0 a 1 2 Sta El Sub Sta 1 1 A GARDENS 6 S N c 3 N 3 130 LL D V 5a VE 5 G 1 2 k A E 4 4 LO R E O 0 ) MO C 7 D N AL 3 Depot Works 173 160 135 1 6 U 1 N 2 4 O 2 2 9 2 6 D 1 2 0 E 4 5 5 195 196 2

5 S 2 3 LOVELL GARDEN 4 1 4 2 Posts G 6 56 R 66 70 74 1 1 7 1 I 2 S 7 189 26 4 186 El Builder's Yard T 6 6

O 7 5 7 3 1 N 5 4 181 7 1 R 5 O 3 Tank 188 65 E 9 A 187 1 73 75

2 0 8 D S

Cottage 9 1 2 O 3 o 5

L Submission 2 t G 8 2 L 0 1 EBE C 0 6 2

6 8 W 1

6 D P I 7 2 L R 5 N 9 b 2 9 5 Works c D 2 a

A 8 12 I o O 8 9 3 SLESSOR C t 2 3 LO 4 SE L

3 3 25 D R 0 1 3 Mast 1 0 7 6 33 R Y 8 8 1 A 56 41 8 E d E 4 R O 20 U 1 a Water N D VE O 5 Water 10 A 8 7 R

S N

6 1 LE 3 2 5 AR A C 2 4 9 G 1 H TEDDER U C D L 1 6 CLOSE Water Tower O 1 S N S E I 2 5 1 S

5 E D 0 7 0 6 O 2 S El L 3 7 u b W 7 44 4 8 C 50

2 O 7 3 R 2

D

6 4 Sta

61 R 4

2

2 1 1 5 3 U 2 7a 5 9 0 1 B 1 Mast

0 a T

4 1

4

5 3 N 1 2 5 2 1 E 1 ASHTREE ROAD 3 84 2 C

4 S 3 3 T

9 K C 5 2 H E 0 F 4 1 H a L IE 8 E 3 R U 21 A LD 17 T 7 8 R C 1 M

W A C F

P 38 O L H 5 M 12 E 28 I E 15 12 R 26 20 16 L e R A O 3 L ous 17 G A D E 8

3 H 0 D

A

1 C 2 2 T 3 B 6

R 1 R L C VE 1 IA RI E 7 O R O D 1 2 O S A 2 3 S T AM T 0 IC H I TEDDE V A K C R CLO N 0 SE E 5

O I TCB M LB H

2 D 1 7 4 V TEDDE 2 R CLOSE 1 W 3 14 16 1 ELW ORT HY 1 Sub C 1 4 1 IVE 1 LOSE 4 3 1 DR 7 AMS 6 1 KH 1 3 23 MON 2 1 9 1

1

1 9

1 9 2 21

4 Settlement 3 2 3 17

0 2 1 5

1 0 1 1 56.7m 2 1 3 4 3 WILLOW

D

A

O n Tennis e R

7

v

3

T

E

6

U

6

N

4

4

T 5 2 3 o t

S 1 6 1

E

4 2

D 7 3 H

r 4 2 C 2 a Garage i 8 n

6 3 4 2 4

9 D 15 ROA Y E B 1 B A

12 11 4 11

1 0 1 2

Document 9 Pond 5 Project / Details 1 5

0 1

1 1 CAN ON CLOSE

9 16 2 20 3

e e 2 e 4 r 7 r

g k T r WAT.12 e l Wayland Community High School a y A r A P r D 2 L e 3 t A ND 21 s h RO a 1 C A L D T ra 9 c 5 WAT.3 k Pond Boundary 0 100 200 400 600 800 / Meters T opic Paper 87 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

11 Settlement Boundary Summary

11.1 Table 8.1 illustrates the settlement boundary changes from the 1999 Adopted Local Plan to that of what will go through to the submission document.

Parish Settlement Boundary Settlement Boundary Within 1999 Local Plan Within 2010 Site Specifics

Submission

Ashill Yes Yes

Attleborough Considered under the ASHAAP

Banham Yes Yes

Bawdeswell Yes Yes

Beachamwell Yes No

Beeston Yes Yes

Beetley Yes Yes

Old Beetley Yes No

Besthorpe Considered under the ASHAAP

Billingford Yes No

Bintree Yes Yes

Blo Norton Yes No

Bradenham Yes Yes

Brettenham No No

Bridgham Yes No

Brisley Yes Yes

Bylaugh No No

Carbrooke Yes Yes

Caston Yes Yes

Cockley Cley Yes No

Colkirk Yes Yes

88 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Settlement Boundary Settlement Boundary Within 1999 Local Plan Within 2010 Site Specifics

Submission

Cranwich No No

Cranworth Yes Yes

Croxton Yes Yes

Didlington No No

Dereham Yes Yes

East Tuddenham Yes Yes

Elsing Yes No

Foulden Yes Yes

Foxley Yes No

Fransham No No

Garboldisham Yes Yes

Garvestone Yes Yes

Garvestone (Reymerston) Yes No

Gateley No No

Gooderstone Yes Yes

Great Cressingham Yes No

Great Dunham Yes Yes

Great Ellingham Yes Yes

Gressenhall Yes Yes

Griston Yes Yes

Guist Yes No

Hardingham No No

Harling Yes Yes

Hilborough Yes Yes

89 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Settlement Boundary Settlement Boundary Within 1999 Local Plan Within 2010 Site Specifics

Submission

Hockering Yes Yes

Hockham Yes Yes

Hoe No No

Holme Hale Yes No

Horningtoft No No

Ickburgh Yes No

Kempstone No No

Kenninghall Yes Yes

Kilverstone No No

Lexham No No

Litcham Yes Yes

Little Cressingham Yes Yes

Little Dunham Yes No

Little Ellingham Yes No

Longham Yes Yes

Lynford No No

Lyng Yes Yes

Mattishall Yes Yes

Merton No No

Mileham Yes Yes

Mundford Yes Yes

Narborough Yes Yes

Narford No No

Necton Yes Yes

90 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Settlement Boundary Settlement Boundary Within 1999 Local Plan Within 2010 Site Specifics

Submission

New Buckenham Yes Yes

Newton No No

North Elmham Yes Yes

North Lopham Yes Yes

North Pickenham Yes Yes

North Tuddenham Yes No

Old Buckenham Yes Yes

Ovington Yes No

Oxborough Yes No

Quidenham Considered under the ASHAAP

Riddlesworth No No

Rocklands Yes Yes

Roudham No No

Rougham Yes No

Saham Toney Yes Yes

Scarning Yes Yes

Scoulton Yes No

Shipdham Yes Yes

Shropham Yes

Snetterton Considered under the ASHAAP

South Acre No No

South Lopham Yes No

South Pickenham No No

Sparham Yes No

91 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Settlement Boundary Settlement Boundary Within 1999 Local Plan Within 2010 Site Specifics

Submission

Sporle Yes Yes

Stanfield Yes No

Stanford No No

Stow Bedon Yes No

Swaffham Yes Yes

Swanton Morley Yes Yes

Thetford Considered under the TAAP

Thomspon Yes Yes

Tittleshall Yes No

Twyford No No

Watton Yes Yes

Weasenham All Saints Yes Yes

Weasenaham St Peter Yes Yes

Weeting Yes Yes

Wellingham No No

Wendling Yes No

Whinburgh Yes No

Whissonsett Yes Yes

Wretham Yes No

Yaxham Yes Yes

Table 11.1 Settlement Boundary Summary

92 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

12 Open Space Assessment Update 2010

12.1 An update of the 2007 Open Space Assessment and Parish Schedule has been completed and refreshed in 2010 to;

• Adopted LDF policy • Latest population figures • Recent developments • Factual update of anomalies and changes in outdoor open space provision – the 542 records.

Updates within the 2010 Open Space Assessment

Parish Updates

Ashill No change.

Attleborough Site A34 was previously classified as children's play, however it is now amenity green space. Site A32 children's play area has been reduced in size, due to part of site being granted planning permission. Site A37 site is subject to a planning decision for 21 houses, currently awaiting a s106 agreement. Therefore, the site is no longer public open space.

Banham No change.

Bawdeswell The play area at BA3 has been improved through Play builder funding.

Beachamwell A children's play area has been created on The Green, from Big Lottery funding.

Beeston St Peter's and St Mary's have now been included as open space.

Beetley The churchyard of St Mary has been included as amenity open space.

Besthorpe The churchyard at All Saints Church has been included as amenity open space.

Billingford No change.

Bintree The classification for BIN5 has been changed from outdoor sports to amenity green space. The secondary use of children's play on BIN5 has been removed.

Blo Norton No change.

Bradenham No change.

Brettenham The churchyard as St John the Evangelist has been included as amenity open space.

93 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Updates

Bridgham Planning permission for 3 dwellings has been granted on open space previously identified as BR2, the site is therefore no longer designated as open space.

Brisley No change.

Bylaugh The cemetery at the Church of St Mary has been included as amenity open space.

Carbrooke No change

Caston No change.

Cockley Cley No change.

Colkirk The bowls club CO8 has been designated as open space under the category outdoor sports facility.

Cranwich The cemetery at St Mary's Church has been included as open space CRA1.

Cranworth No change.

Croxton No change

Didlington No change.

Dereham D53 has been extended to include additional allotment land at Greenfields Road. D5 has gained planning permission resulting in the removal of open space allocation on this site. D7 has been reclassified from outdoor sport to golf course. This is due to restricted access to the facility, and the distortion of the outdoor sports figure.

East Tuddenham No change.

Elsing No change.

Foulden F4 has been reclassified to include outdoor sports facility as its primary use.

Foxley No change.

Fransham The village hall and playing field at Great Fransham have been included as public open space.

Garbldisham The area of open space, previously known as G3 has been de-classified. This site formed part of the playing field to the primary school. To create a consistent approach across the District school playing fields are not

94 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Updates

being classified as open space, predominantly due to their limited public access.

Garvestone GA1 has been changed from outdoor sports to children's play.

Gateley St Helens churchyard has been included as open space with reference GAT1

Gooderstone No change.

Great Cressingham No change.

Great Dunham No change.

Great Ellingham No change.

Gressenhall No change.

Griston Site GR3 now has planning permission for 3 houses, therefore the open space classification is no longer applicable. GR4 is proposed for a new area of amenity area.

Guist Site GU3 is no longer used as a children's play area, it is just amenity green space.

Hardingham The churchyards at St Georges has been included as open space.

Harling No change.

Hilborough The cemetery of the Church of St Mary at Bodney has been included as open space

Hockering No change.

Hockham The green has been included as GH7 amenity space, this was missed from previous survey. GH2 Hockham Hall, is no longer classified as open space as it is not publicly accessible.

Hoe The cemeteries HOE1 and HOE2 have been included as open space.

Holme Hale No change.

Horningtoft No change.

Ickburgh No change.

Kempstone No change.

Kenninghall A planning application on KE4 means that the size of the site has been reduced.

95 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Updates

Kilverstone The Cemetery at St Andrews has been included as open space.

Lexham The churches reference LEX.1 and 2 have been included as open space.

Litcham No change.

Little Cressingham No change.

Little Dunham No change.

Little Ellingham No change

Longham The churchyard at LO4 has been included as open space

Lynford No change.

Lyng A children's play area has been built on the playing field, through Playbuilder funding.

Mattishall No change.

Merton The churchyard at St Peters has been included as open space.

Mileham No change.

Mundford No change.

Narborough No change.

Narford The church of St Mary's has been included as open space.

Necton No change.

New Buckenham No change.

Newton No change.

North Elmham No change.

North Lopham No change.

North Pickenham No change.

North Tuddenham The cemetery at St Mary's church has been included as open space.

Old Buckenham Old Buckenham Cricket Club has been included as an area of outdoor sport.

Ovington Amenity green space at The Street has been included as open space.

96 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Updates

Oxborough There is no longer an area of outdoor sports adjacent to the village hall, this is now grazing land.

Quidenham No change.

Riddlesworth The churchyard at St Peter's has been included as open space

Rocklands No change.

Roudham No change.

Rougham No change.

Saham Toney No change.

Scarning No change - it should be noted that Scarning shares open space with Dereham, with the majority of the houses in Scarning forming part of the built up extent of Dereham.

Scoulton No change.

Shipdham There is no longer a children's play area on the playing field.

Shropham No change.

Snetterton No change.

South Acre No change.

South Lopham No change.

South Pickenham No change.

Sparham No change.

Sporle No Change

Stanfield No change.

Stanford No change.

Stow Bedon Sandwade Mere is no longer classified as open space. The church if St Bardolph's and St Margaret's have been included as open space.

Swaffham The bowls club at the Conservative Club is no longer open space, and has planning permission for 11 dwellings. SW31at Tumblers Hill is no longer allocated as open space for allotments.

97 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Parish Updates

Swanton Morley No change.

Thetford T77, T27/1 and T27/3 have all been included as amenity green space. T3 is no longer children's play it is amenity green space. T38 has been reduced in size, as part of the site now has the benefit of planning permission.

T66 and T88 both form school playing fields, so in accordance with other parts of the district, these are no

longer classified as open space, as they do not have public access.

Thomspon No change.

Tittleshall No change.

Twyford The churchyard at St Nicholas' has been included as open space.

Watton No change.

Weasenham All Saints No change.

Weasenaham St Peter No change.

Weeting No change.

Wellingham St Andrews churchyard has been included as open space.

Wendling No change.

Whinburgh The children's play area on the playing field has been included as a secondary use.

Whissonsett No change.

Wretham The churchyards at St Ethlebert's and St Andrew's have been included as open space. The amenity space surrounding the village hall has been included at WRE.3.

Yaxham The area or natural/semi-natural grassland Y1 has been built on, so is no longer open space.

Table 12.1 Open Space Assessment Updates

98 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

13 Inter Relationship with Area Action Plans

13.1 Thetford and Attleborough and Snetterton Heath are the major focus for residential and employment growth in the district and therefore will be subject to separate Area Action Plans (AAP). Area Action Plans are used when there is a need to provide the planning framework for areas where significant change is needed and to help deliver planned growth areas. The Thetford and Attleborough and Snetterton Heath Area Action Plan (TAAP & ASHAAP) will provide a spatial planning framework and set out detailed proposals to ensure that the growth in Thetford and Attleborough and Snetterton Heath is delivered in a comprehensive and co-ordinated way, in order to guide investment and support planning decisions.

13.2 The settlement boundaries for Besthorpe, Snetterton (North End) and Eccles Road in Quidenham will represented within the ASHAAP. It is a requirement of AAP to set a boundary, although this boundary is indicative at this stage and will be subject to the forthcoming issues and options consultation of the ASHAAP.

13.3 Consistent with the Core Policy 14 of the Adopted Core Strategy, the settlement boundaries of Besthorpe, Snetterton (North End) and Eccles Road in Quidenham will be reviewed in line with CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy and will allow for the following;

Deletion of settlement boundaries for small rural communities – (small rural communities that have less than key rural services or where there is limited or no capacity within the boundary for further development). Retention of settlement boundaries as per the Breckland Local Plan Maps (1999) - whilst there may be no scope to logically extend the settlement boundary in a way that would not harm the landscape or amenity or be detrimental to highway safety, this option acknowledges that there remains some limited scope for further development or that the community is of a sufficient size, shape and level of service provision to merit its retention. The amendment of settlement boundaries is to address anomalies, inconsistencies and the removal of back land and other inappropriate development opportunities consistent with CP14. Amendment does allow for development in appropriate locations, including the inclusion of small scale sites (up to 5 dwellings) on brownfield and other small sites adjacent to existing settlement boundaries. This may result in both loosening and/or tightening of the settlement boundary.

13.4 Preferred and alternative options for these settlement boundaries which will be consulted upon in the ASHAAP are identified below;

Besthorpe

13.5 Besthorpe is a rural parish with a population of 561 according the 2001 census. Parts of the settlement physically adjoin Attleborough in the Mill Street and Silver Street area. There are additional parts of the parish situated north and south of the railway approximately 1 mile east of Attleborough and adjacent to the South Norfolk boundary. A small historic core to the parish is located on the Bunwell Road containing the Church, Hall and old Village School. More recent Victorian and Twentieth Century development has clustered on the former A11 Norwich Road. The parish contains limited key essential services such as a Public House, Post Office or garage which contribute to the day to day vitality of a village although there are a small number of industrial units are located north of the settlement boundary and at the Rookery Business Park.

99 100 the employment village 13.6 Snetterton Settlement Site Snetterton is Specifics close Boundary North growth, to is the Policies a

s the

r

h n e T i a

rural g v i k s A1

t 1.2 a 2m RH e o

l opic a Birchfield e Peteina Pond y R C The Laurels a W

K village 1 Sewage D Oak House Works OA R and

Parish H 2 C and I Pond 6 Ashcroft Paper 1 RW NO Map

2 1 a 1

is Pretoria Factory Proposals itself 5 St Judes with one 3 4 13.1 6 8 1 Cameo D P H

lacks i r o a i m m l H a A mile r e o v o

Besthorpe B u s o C y s A e n r D o e

population m o d u C t t 38.4m n a S b n o -by l Lay H l e o le o t u o t d r L W t o u Burley h o J a w s H o Preferred v r r any e n r i n o K B r House from e j e a l a w A l i u n y l m D d s The Haven r d i r h H o m Old Methodist Chapel e u m o o a n m u i J n e l s H m l a e s e s o D y m u o H s local H r i l n o e e e Portwood e m l y the e e ri G n L D S Thorpe House n- o s o o b t G n P d e u - l g R a a D S r e Existing

of d g e c r h h d e i a l n e C k a Snetterton

services h l v

Option a in 208 e s s li n e

rain D Sunnyside D according S a t i o s n y

e B S H H C a Westside Settlement n I Consultation u o o Tullymore L l m t k V v t The Rowans a e a E or C le g R o ig e S t h T ta g R motor e E facilities. Decoy Farm E Meadow View T

to in Dra the racing Boundary mid which Snetterton

circuit COPYRIGHT

2007 This map is reproduced from Besthorpe Existing Settlement Ordnance Survey material with Legend the permission of Ordnance ceased Survey on behalf of the Boundary Controller of Her Majesty's Settlement Boundary Stationery Office © Crown estimates. - copyright. Unauthorised

(North reproduction infringes Crown an copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Meters Breckland District Council on area 0 20 40 80 120 160 licence no.100019535. / Published 2005. the End) which Whilst 30th formed will July Snetterton receive part 2010, of Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

where Breckland Council preferred option was to retain the existing settlement boundary. However, the village falls within the ASHAAP boundary which will go out to the forthcoming issues and options consultation and therefore will be re-consulted within this document.

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

Kalamalka

s ge ta Birchdale 1 ot C 2 m ow View ar Mead F th or N

25.0m Old School House Oldhall Chevelu Plantation LB Berry House

Jasmine Cottage

Pond Paddock Cottage North End House Four Winds 3 Filter Bed

Tra ck 6 Sears Cottage

8 Russell Cottage 7 6 7

Council Houses 5 TCB

8 1

4 0

H o E Houses n i P C d s e l g t a e e e r r f v e i e e n l l e c d e y 1 H H o o u u s s e e

Pond 29.6m

Snetterton Existing Legend Settlement Boundary Settlement Boundary Open Space Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3a / 0 20 40 80 Meters Map 13.2 Snetterton Existing Settlement Boundary

101 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

Eccles Road Quidenham

13.7 The Parish of Quidenham contains the Hamlets of Hargham, Eccles, Wilby and Quidenham. The only settlement boundary within the Parish is situated at Eccles Road, close to Snetterton. This part of the Parish contains a school and railway Station an dis adjacent to the General Employment Area (GEA) at Snetterton. Eccles Road (Quidenham) formed part of the Site Specifics Policies and Proposals Preferred Option Consultation which ceased on the 30th July 2010, where Breckland Council preferred option was to retain the existing settlement boundary. However, the village falls within the ASHAAP boundary which will go out to the forthcoming issues and options consultation and therefore will be re-consulted within this document.

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

Pond in Pond ra D

South Farm Plantation

31.7m

Pond

Lorraine House

Dr ain Willow in a r D Ponds The Beeches Southfork MP 104.75

D Lodge Kenwood House ra in Boundary Beetwood

The Bungalow Cariche

1 2

E N A L New House S Cottages W O L L A G Hall

RIVE Shangri-La RYS D ST MA 4

3

8 E V k 4 I c a R r D T

5 1

34.1m

S

T The House A

T

I O

N

R

O

A

D

1 B S

Eccles Road Crossing

LB 1 Denver Cottage TCB

T Station ra c k

MP 104.5 3

1 Eccles Road Pond Station

The

7 House

Granary Tsalta

Old Railway The Pond

The Old

Station Farm

Eccles Road

SP Well

S

T

A

T

I

O k c N a r T R

O

A

D

35.7m

Eccles Road Legend (Quidenham) Existing Settlement Boundary General Employment Area Settlement Boundary Flood Zone 2 Open Space Flood Zone 3a / 0 35 70 140 Meters Picture 13.1 Eccles Road Quidenham Existing Settlement Boundary

102 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

14 Harling Site Allocations

No Site Allocation through the Site Specific Development Plan Document

14.1 Harling has been identified as one of four larger villages in the District which will accommodate modest estate scale growth. The Core Strategy states that Harling will receive an allocation of 50 new homes. The Core Strategy requires that sites are well integrated with the established built up area of the village in order to minimise the impact on the countryside. This figure has since been achieved by decisions of the Local Planning Authority to approve planning applications for residential development in Harling in advance of this Site Specifics document being submitted. A total of 65 homes have been approved in Harling since early 2009. This has been achieved in part through the grant of permission on the preferred site for residential development at Kenninghall Road for 40 dwellings in 2010. However, prior to this decision the Local Planning Authority had granted planning permissions on two separate but adjoining schemes (10 and 15 dwellings) at Lopham Road on a site identified at the Preferred Options stage as a reasonable alternative site. All of these proposals were outside the existing settlement boundary and approved under provisions in PPS3 'Housing' which required the favourable consideration of residential proposals in the absence of a five year land supply. As a consequence there is technically no need to allocate land through this Development Plan Document to meet the requirements of the Core Strategy for Harling. However, the settlement boundary will be amended to reflect these permissions, consistent with CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy which allows for the rationalisation of settlement boundaries which includes the capture of extant permissions in order to ensure logical boundary demarcations.

14.2 Settlement boundary amendments will include;

Preferred residential allocation known as H1 which gained planning consent for 40 dwellings on land north of Kenninghall Road. Part of alternative residential allocation known as H2 which gained planning consent for 10 dwellings (the 15 dwellings is excluded from the settlement boundary as the site was permitted at a time of acute shortage of housing land which will be addressed by the progression of this Site Specifics document and by the decision to permit).

14.3 These amendments are shown on the accompanying Proposals Map. Further reviews of this document will reflect any further changes at Lopham Road should the site for 15 dwellings be implemented. However, the site for 15 dwellings occupies a peripheral location, distant from services and facilities. Amending the settlement boundary to include this site will limit the Local Planning Authority's ability to reconsider the site against any improvements to the housing land supply position in Breckland.

103 Settlement Boundary Topic Paper

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Breckland District Council licence no.100019535. Published 2005.

D ra in Drain Drain

D Drain

r

a

i

n

D

r a

i n

T r a

c k n i D

a r r Drain a

D i n Willow Tree Track D

r a

D i n

r D a

FB r i Drain a n D

i

n r a

i n The Carr FB FB

Drain FB FB

D

r

a

i

n

n

i

a FB r

D Drain

20.4m

Drain

White Bird Farm Drain rain D T

r FB a

c

k n

i

a

r

D

Guide Post Drain

FB Drain Pp FB FB FB D rain Drain Fen Farm Pond D

e D f r a

i n

Pond The Cottage

Well

n Drain i n i

a r a r

D D

F

E Fen O

N L Cottage Sluice D Tank L

H C A D A O rai N C n L E

S L Waterways Farm

L 21.6m

A

N Pond

E

D ra in Sluice Track

D e Pond f

FB FB

The Old Rose Marie M A H 18 EN Quiet ID Eastfield Ways U Q 16 Drain L ych G Half Moon 7 ate St Paul's Church 1 S 15 C 1 14 Lake View Lodge 1

Pump House 4 1

a

r B t O The Cot s 11 F

1 o Youth Centre 1 l e d 1 7 n Crescent N 2 5 D

s W 5

n a d a s Fairfold o i i n l 1 a r d 3 y l a o l n C E

w k M y S c 23.8m e M O W e Rectory Bowling Green 7 15 L Club House r n Claxton w 51a 22.3m 1 e e B C s CH d w UR E s 53 Pavilion CH 2 RO 1 AD F Sta 31 41 51 LB 1 23 49 4 2 y Corner Cottage Sub Sta r 2 F e 1a air e s 0 5 s 5 1 GP te g u ad r C o 5 otta Tel Ex u 44 g S H 2 e Harvest Eagle 1 d Long 8 n REET ST a 1 21 a 38 40 l 15a 18 y 14 Pol Ho 7 a 6 32 2 34 3 W 26 Swallowtail C ottage Tennis Courts Crossw ays 10 's d 4 1 Church n e Abeli e i s Tree Playing F ield r u 2 F o 24.4m Meml 1 4 Crimond Cottage y Ro-Dema d H r l C 28 o Che s t ese Hill H Green O EE d c S 6 E 2 1 e n e HI 3 h e L GP i R 1 L E M n T r on 35 d F d Acorn tg l ome 39 O ry 45 B Beechcroft 10

1 1 Cottage 677 1 9 1 K a 1 e IC 2 1 W 6 White LI 0 5 D g 5 I 1 A B 1 A e a Oak Yard h t 7 O t s T o r 2 R e Sunset Cottage 5 9 4 e 2 Chudleigh House 7 s C G h u 27 d c Oak Cottage N o l I 1 a L H Alstra House O e 3 R T Redlands 'S e 8 A T 7 7 h e Little Tuscany 2 H h urt 3 N T Yard Co 7 T T ick 1 A iliw L S Ba 3 L The Swan 2 19 E 4 SCH Gables 1 A 25 51 W OOL G 5 LAN El 5 E 4 S 2 G 1 S 3 8 ub ARLON ome S DES 1 rset 2 B ta 6 3 Ho ank 8 1 e e us Dov 6 l e 1 Y e 5 l a 4 i s rd 1 v u o

t m 1 d o 4 2 4 2 2 o se 1 H u . M o The Old Hall Flats p H o tep 3 e S G ll 3 A 2 Barn Cottage RI W n 2 GS a 1 R ng 6 ON r lddi 8 1 S u H e G W K OO l n TCB 4 D b o s Claret Co E 8 e d ttages 1 E o d l 1 h r T 2 7 c e 6 58 A i Market Place b 14 12 S f 1 8 e a Berwick Cottage ld (PH) 5 1 1 8 9 5 O m 1 S o 56 D 1 H L The Barn Tymoras 1 Sunflower 1 IE 40

F 2 N 1 PYG 42 E . H 2 3 TL E 20.6m E 6 m R Blackbird 10 G 1 Owl Allotment Gardens 8 9 T he Cottage 2 1 9 East Harling 6 The Poplars Playing Field PO Telegraph 6 Playground Walnut Close Primary School 7 Ambergate LB Cedars 7 6 Hanworth t 6 r 8 1 u 5 T 4 2 H 1 o E 4 C 4 P A t R n 1 K The Limes e 5 g 7 Pp u 1 a 1 1 h 1 6 N t 24 5 9 1b a 1 Allotment Gardens GP 4 2 P 6 21 Surgery 6 KIN 1 G ST REE 22.6m El Close T 17 RK PA 1 1 The 11 0 2 Cott 3 0 Ashfield El Sub Sta K

R 2 Lodge 3 A H1 P The Croft 3 Kellan E 1 Westfield E Mount Pleasant Farm H East Harling Old N T 0 3 A 24.7m Agricola 4 2 1 L 1 2 New House Head L 1 8 Shamrock L 4 KE 2 E NN er Cottage INGH HI Junip W A 6 39 LL LL

2 0 E 7 S l I B 1 10 E 1 3 L 1 H 4 B C G 1 ARN

E 5 1 H 18 T TIMBER ROAD Flint Cottage WOODYARD 1 7 2 8 2 Pond 1 12 7 3 D 3 1

A 2

O 3 5 R 4 2 0 4 E 2 Papaver G 1 0 5 U N 1 I N

1 L E R 4 3 A V A 7 H Kemps 12 T 1 Pond E S 1 E 26 1 L 23.3m E I W B 5 R FOX U

O 5 J 1 A 20.7m 32 D 70 7 6 44 1 5 Field View 7 8 n i GES Cottages 3 ra Woodbine KERRID Windmill 2 D 11

8 2 n i S R 2 a 3 S E r T 1 4 1 E S 2 D Well 5 EW Pear Tree 6 G BR 7 D 1 Pp I 1 4 R 3 5 R Pump Cott Mayfield E K 0 8 2 4 3 Redwood 1 Wits End 5 Willows 1 2

3 Meadow View 1 5 Crown 2 2 24 2 El Sub Sta BRE 22 1 6 WSTE 1 RS

Cott Millstone 60 5 7 1 9 2 1 5 1 7 1 2 8 4 B 1 54

9 Ree 1 d C ott age 34 0 5 4 4 Ol 2 d W 5 or ld C ott 1 ag 3 e 39

4 2 49 K 2 Mauley's Carr ER 3 RID GE n S i Saffron 6 a r 24 30 D Copperfield House CRES CENT 1 12 1 34 GP 1 14 in Drain 25 Dra D ra i d d t n l o e e o i e Highview House f w g w 1 2 d s 1 1 in n FB i r w r p o 6 B S d 1 a t Tank The Elms e a M e r E 2 t C 8 e E PI R 0 3 e Woodstock h 7 T LB 46

Fieldview E E Chase C C LO E P I E HA k I M a P P Nilo O S D S 5 ' ' s r r G a Southerly G 34 e N a i N

n p I Little Rowley i I L L P -La B B 5 M 1 M 3 A 5 A H H Penryn

Tamarisk 2 5 D Fen View

r a in 1 i 4 n ra Shephall D La Ronda Sunr s ays d n i

W

r u n o a F d Pegasus i Beech Oak Cottage r 0 B 4

D rain Leveretts

10 Spring Cloverfield Cloverfield Estate 1 9 D 3 rain 5

8

Drai D 6 n r

a

i

n

Drain in ra D

D

A

O

R

M

A

H

S I

D

L

O

B

R

A

G D rain

Drain

Chapel

Cemetery

n

i

a

r

D

Drain

29.6m

0 100 200 400 600 800 Meters

Map 14.1 Proposed Settlement Boundary for Harling

104