Breckland Local Plan 2016 - 2036 Preferred Directions Consultation

1. Breckland Local Plan 2016 - 2036Preferred Directions Consultation Great Ellingham Parish Council’s (PC) Response

2. PC’s consultation process • Working party prepared draft submission to BC • Extraordinary PC meeting • presentation of draft submission & obtain views from villagers • Preparation of final submission to BC • Submission to BC, deadline 1600hrs 22nd February

3. Introduction Breckland’s population is forecast to grow - requiring a minimum of 14,925 new dwellings. The bulk of these will be delivered in the key settlements & market towns plus the 14 Local Service Centres - Great Ellingham is an LSC. Great Ellingham is an easy target for development for BC as it believes: • it has good amenities (school; shop; PO; pub; recreation facilities) • it has easy access to Attleborough (a Key Settlement) • it has easy access to the A11 and areas of employment • it has easy access to National Rail • it has several, accessible pieces of land adjoining the village

4. Introduction (continued) All of which have resulted in BC’s proposal that 187 new properties should be built in Great Ellingham over the period 2011 – 2036. During the period 2011 - 2016 the PC has supported approx. 40 new properties – these will count toward the target. N.B. BC data show 17 only – this will be updated by BC.

5. Introduction(continued) Through its submission, the PC wishes to ensure that the inevitable growth of the village does not destroy its character. We will also deal with issues such as: settlement boundaries; homes for older people; highway safety; open spaces; cohesive development; etc.

6. Introduction (continued) The PC expanded its settlement boundary last year to include the parts of the village with a speed limit, with the exception of the Hingham Road - for highway and school safety reasons. The working party proposes that we vary this policy to include only land put forward for development which lies to the South of the B1077. The one exception being brownfield sites. This policy should help to grow the village in a sustainable & cohesive manner, whilst limiting the number of residents who live the ‘wrong’ side of the B1077. This will help the village to retain its village character & feel and aid highway and pedestrian safety.

7. Introduction (continued) N.B. This has nothing to do with CRTB Last year Breckland Council asked landowners to submit any land they would like BC to consider for potential residential development. The following map is the result of that process. On the tables there are copies of the map, a guide as to what we’d like you to do, plus copies of a form we would like you to complete.

9. Emerging Residential Site Options This map shows the pieces of land which have been submitted, by the landowners, to Breckland District Council for consideration for residential development between now and 2036. The plots coloured green are considered by Breckland Council as being potentially acceptable for development. The plots coloured pink are considered by Breckland Council not to be acceptable for development. The plots cross-hatched have already been approved for development. As part of the Consultation Process, the Parish Council has the opportunity to inform Breckland Council of its preferences. To this end, we ask that you place a tick or a cross, on the list provided, to indicate whether you would be agreeable to a residential development on each piece of land. Thank you.

10. Welcome back!

11. How to retain the village’s character Whilst the growth of the village seems inevitable, the PC wishes it to retain its character as a Norfolk village. To achieve this we believe that any development should have a mixed, traditional and haphazard style, so that overtime it might mature into its surroundings. N.B. The PC will continue to fight tooth & nail to prevent unwanted development.

12. Housing for Older People Great Ellingham contains a high number of bungalows and consequently a high number of older people. Without appropriate alternatives, these old people have little choice but to stay in their bungalows, despite finding their upkeep difficult and expensive. This situation also leads to a shortage of housing for younger people with families. The PC wishes to create a development of sheltered housing within the village. Plot No. 015, being in the centre of the village, would appear ideal for such a development.

13. Speeding Great Ellingham suffers greatly from speeding. Whilst all roads are affected, the Hingham Road (C136) is particularly blighted due to it being at the end of a long straight. The PC believes a new 40mph speed limit should commence at the junction with the Attleborough Road, Little Ellingham. Similarly the PC believes the 30mph zone should be extended should a development occur on Plot No. 019.

15. Proposed Link Road - Bunn’s Bank to London Roadits effect upon Wroo Road; Long Street; Chequers Lane; Hingham & Watton Roads The PC is very concerned about the effect this proposed link road will have upon Long Street; Chequers Lane & Hingham Road. None of these roads is capable of taking an increase in its current volume of traffic; indeed they struggle already. It seems inevitable, unless measures are taken, that much of the traffic coming from the West of Attleborough and taking the Link road, will be tempted to take the route described above rather than turn onto the A11 and then take the B1077 to access West & North Norfolk.

16. Proposed Link Road - Bunn’s Bank to London Roadits effect upon Wroo Road; Long Street; Chequers Lane; Hingham & Watton Roads (continued) Presently this route is signed “Gravel Pits Only” off the A11 but locals know this only works to put-off strangers. Added to this the fact that the weight restriction, which only becomes effective after the turning to the gravel pits (Swangey Lane), results in many overweight vehicles taking the route mistakenly. However, by the time they see the weight restriction signs, they are at the point of no return and plough on down inappropriate roads until they reach the infamous staggered junction at the Great Ellingham Primary School.

17. Proposed Link Road - Bunn’s Bank to London Roadits effect upon Wroo Road; Long Street; Chequers Lane; Hingham & Watton Roads (continued) The PC believes further measures must be taken to prevent an increase in the usage of these roads, if the Link Road is developed as feared.

18. Preferred Policy Directions Breckland Council has published a number of PPDs and asked for public responses. The following is a sample of the PC’s responses to the more important policies.

19. PD 01 Sustainable Development in Breckland We agree with this policy. Whilst we agree with this policy, it is in direct conflict with BC’s proposal to build 170 new properties in Great Ellingham 2016 – 2036. Great Ellingham has a very limited bus service; limited health care availability & primary school capacity. This strengthens the argument that, for Breckland’s settlements to become more sustainable, the bulk of the new houses must be located in and around the Key Settlements and Market Towns. When one considers the lack of public transport and dangerous country roads, without footpaths or cycle-ways, the idea of major development in Local Service Centres becomes less tenable.

20. PD 02 Development Requirements (Minimum) We agree with this policy. However it strengthens the argument that, for Breckland’s settlements to become more sustainable, the bulk of the new houses should be located in and around the Key Settlements and Market Towns. When one considers the lack of public transport and dangerous country roads without footpaths or cycle-ways, the idea of major development in Local Service Centres becomes less tenable.

21. PD 03 Locational Strategy We agree with this policy. However the infrastructure of Attleborough must be transformed urgently or the town centre will become untenable. All amenities are under extreme pressure or are lacking. e.g. Traffic - a nightmare. Rail crossing must be via a bridge. Link road must be installed but its effect on Wroo Road; Long Street; Chequers Lane must be mitigated. Parking - a free hour followed by sensible fees for extended stays must be introduced otherwise the retail outlets in the town centre will continue to die. Health Care - both surgeries are full, taking no more patients and failing those they have. Hingham Surgery has reduced its catchment area to preclude the village South of the Pyghtle. ie most of Long Street! Dentist - the practice in Attleborough is private patients only.

22. PD 03 Locational Strategy(continued) We have supported 40 new home applications in the last two years. These have been mainly through small (<12 houses) developments on land within the village where speed controls are in place. No development has been supported on the Hingham Road to prevent further highway safety issues for GE Primary School and the adjacent infamous staggered junction. Limited opportunities exist for further development of this sort, so a larger site will need to be developed if BC insists upon Great Ellingham accepting more housing. PC believes such a development must be located South of the B1077 so as not to add to the highways and pedestrian safety issues and to ensure that any development is cohesive to the rest of the village.

23. PD 03 Locational Strategy(continued) The Residential Site Option Ref. LP(037)019 is therefore the PC’s preferred option. However, the PC would require a large area of Open Space to be donated to the village to enable the creation of an informal games area. This would need to be to the Western edge of the field, where it has access to Church Street; thus allowing safe pedestrian access to the Open Space from the heart of the village. No vehicular access to Church Street should be allowed from the Residential Site Option Ref. LP(037)019. We have Open Space to the North of the B1077 but it is inaccessible safely to village children.

24. PD 04 Level and Location of Growth We agree that new development should be provided by Key Settlements; Market Towns and Local Service Centres but the number of developments should be in proportion to the size and amenities. i.e. Thetford should provide more than Market Towns, which should provide more than LSCs. Therefore, we do not agree that Thetford should have a zero allocation of New Builds. Dereham& Swaffham should both provide more developments than LSCs.

25. PD 04 Level and Location of Growth (continued) All LSCs should provide developments commensurate with their current size; amenities and location. Therefore the PC questions the following: • Great Ellingham 187 - too many • Kenninghall 37 - too few • Mundford 23 - too few • Old Buckenham17 - incredible as, when compared to GE, it has more amenities and is equidistant from Attleborough / Snetterton / Norwich. Furthermore, Great Ellingham has provided approx. 40 Completions & Commitments (April 11- Dec 15); therefore the New Allocation should be fewer than 170 before a further reduction consequent to the comments regarding the skewed distribution above.

26. PD 05 Rural Areas We agree with this policy. However, we would remind BC that Great Ellingham is, and wishes to remain, a village not a dormitory for commuting workers, which would be the result if large developments were allowed to occur unrestrained. PC has supported proposals for 40 new homes in the last two years without major complaint. This has been achieved via small (<12 houses) developments within the central area of the village i.e. South of the B1077. We wish to restrict any new development to land which lies to the South of the B1077 and lies adjacent to the village boundary to promote sustainability and cohesiveness.

27. PD 06 Economic Development We agree with this policy. However we are concerned about the effect the Attleborough Link Road will have upon Long Street & Chequers Lane. This Link Road plus the Employment Areas in Attleborough & Snetterton are likely to result in an increase in traffic along these roads, which are completely inadequate to accommodate the resulting traffic. N.B. the weight restriction only comes into effect at Swangey Lane, which is past the point of no-return for HGVs. Add to this the fact that use of the above roads would result in all such traffic arriving at the infamous staggered junction beside the Great Ellingham Primary School. N.B. this was described as the worst school crossing point in Norfolk by NCC’s School Safety Officer.

28. PD 07 Town Centre and Retail Strategy We agree with this policy. However in the case of Attleborough, BC needs to take an holistic approach to the development of the town. The infrastructure of Attleborough must be transformed urgently or the town centre will become untenable. All amenities are under extreme pressure or are lacking. E.g. • Traffic - a nightmare. Rail crossing should be via a bridge. Link road must be installed but its effect on Wroo Road; Long Street; Chequers Lane must be mitigated. • Parking - a free hour, followed by sensible fees for extended stays should be introduced otherwise the retail outlets in the town centre will continue to die. • Health Care - both surgeries are at capacity and failing patients. PC supports the policy to support existing shops in LSCs.

29. PD 08 Affordable Housing We agree with this policy, with the exception of the number of houses at which the provision requirement is triggered. We would prefer to see this set at 10, as we believe the trigger of 5 houses will be off-putting to smaller developers. Between 5 & 10 a commuted sum could be paid. If we are to retain ‘village life’ in villages, we must promote small developments which are more easily assimilated into the landscape; community and ambience.

30. ENV 05 Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape We agree with this policy. This is in line with our objections to the following Site Residential Site Options: LP(037)006; 016; 017 & 020. These tracts of land give the village its Brecks Landscape Character of openness and rolling vistas.

31. ENV 08 Non-Statutory Heritage Assets We agree with this policy. The PC is particularly concerned about proposals LP(037)009; 016; 017 & 020 as they are very close to the site where 85 graves were discovered in 2011 - the largest excavated Anglo Roman burial site in Norfolk. The archaeologist who undertook the work believes the find is indicative of a major Anglo Roman settlement somewhere near.

32. ENV 09 Flood Risk & Surface Water Drainage We agree with this policy. This was one of the reasons we do not support the Emerging Residential Site Option LP(037)013.

33. ENV 10 Renewable Energy Development We agree with this policy. However we believe more regard should be taken to the affect Biogas installations have on the surrounding settlements. e.g. Great Ellingham is blighted by heavy tractors and trailers hammering though the surrounding roads and lanes feeding the Biogas Plant located between the village and Attleborough. Many of the roads are completely inadequate for such huge vehicles travelling at high speed and failing to respect verges or the frontages of residential properties.

34. E 01 General Employment Areas We agree with this policy. However we are fearful of the effect the Employment Areas in Attleborough & Snetterton are likely to have upon the traffic along Long Street and Chequers Lane, which are completely inadequate to accommodate the resulting traffic. Add to this the fact that their use would result in all such traffic arriving at the infamous staggered junction beside the Great Ellingham Primary School. N.B. this was described as the worst school crossing point in Norfolk by NCC’s School Safety Officer.

35. E 06 Developer Contributions We agree with this policy. However we believe S106 agreements should be formally agreed before planning permission is granted and PCs should be signatories to these agreements to ensure that that which has been promised is indeed delivered to the village. We believe that, where large developments (>12 houses) are approved, a phased approach to their delivery should be considered, as this would help the assimilation of the development into the village.

36. TR 01 Sustainable Transport Network We agree with this policy. The consequence, however, means that development should be concentrated upon Key Settlements; Market Towns & Local Service Centres with good Transport links. This is not the case with Great Ellingham. There are two morning and two evening ‘commuter’ buses, which may or may not stop. This is in direct conflict with the 170 New Developments earmarked for the village. Plus, whilst the village is only two miles from Attleborough, the B1077 is a very dangerous road for pedestrians and cyclists; there being no cycle-way or pedestrian paths.

37. COM 01 Design We agree with this policy. The Breckland Astronomical Society has achieved the status of “Dark Sky Discovery site, Milky Way class”. It is crucial that this status is maintained; therefore all developments should be designed to shed the minimum amount of light skyward and no street lights should be installed.

38. COM 03 Principle of New Housing We agree with this policy. We further believe that this policy precludes large developments in a village such as Great Ellingham. The PC has supported a number of small developments (<12 houses) which will provide approx. 40 additional homes without major disquiet from villagers. The PC wishes the future development of the village to continue on similar lines even if the plot of land identified for development is large.

39. COM 03 Principle of New Housing (continued) A staggered process of development should be achieved through phased development rather than ‘shock’ building of 10s of houses. This will ease assimilation and the creation or expanding of amenities to service the development. It should be remembered that this Local Plan is for the period 2011 - 2036; not every house has to be built tomorrow. We would be happy for developers to be granted commitments for future development but such development should be introduced gradually. The inclusion of plots for Self-build projects should be considered.

40. COM 04 Community Facilities We agree with this policy. Great Ellingham has limited open space and the PC wishes any major development to be linked to the provision of a piece of open space near to the centre of the village. See response to PD 03. As stated there, the PC would require a large area of Open Space to be donated to the village to enable the creation of an informal games area.

41. COM 04 Community Facilities (continued) This would need to be to the Western edge of the field where it has access to Church Street; thus allowing safe pedestrian access to the Open Space from the heart of the village. It is therefore crucial that no vehicular access to Church Street is obtained from the Residential Site Option Ref. LP(037)019. We have Open Space to the North of the B1077 but it is inaccessible with safety to village children.

42. COM 05 Specialist Housing We agree with this policy. The PC has identified site LP(037)015 ideal for the development of sheltered housing for older or disabled people. It should be noted that Great Ellingham contains a high number of bungalows and consequently a high number of older people. Without appropriate alternatives, these old people have little choice but to stay in their bungalows despite finding their upkeep difficult and expensive. This situation also leads to a shortage of housing for younger and middle aged people, especially those with young families; the PC wishes to create a development of sheltered houses within the village and LP(037)015, being in the centre of the village, would appear ideal for such a development.

43. COM 10 Affordable Housing Exceptions We agree with this policy. However as previously stated, we believe the number of houses at which the affordable housing provision requirement is triggered should be set at 10, as we believe the trigger of 5 houses will be off-putting to smaller developers. On developments between 5 & 10 houses a commuted sum should be paid. If we are to retain ‘village life’ in villages, we must promote small developments which are more easily assimilated into the landscape; community and ambience.

44. Thank you

45. and Goodnight!