APPENDIX A
Fakenham Draft Masterplan Consultation
Land North of Rudham Stile Lane
Responses to Public Consultation
26 March - 21 May 2012
Report of Representations
Fakenham Draft Masterplan Consultation, Land North of Rudham Stile Lane
The Draft Masterplan for Land North of Rudham Stile Lane was published for 6 weeks public consultation from 26 March to
21 May 2012. A total of 59 representations were received during this period. This document is a complete report of all
representations received and duly made.
The tables in this document display the content of each representation, showing the representation number and the name of
the person or organisation making the comment. It shows the nature of their representation (support, comment or object).
Please note that this is an officer’s interpretation of the representation.
This report will be made available to Council Members for discussion in relevant Committee meetings and will be publically
available.
North Norfolk District Council
Planning Policy Team
Telephone: 01263 516318
E-Mail: planningpolicy@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Write to: Planning Policy Manager,
North Norfolk District Council,
Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9EN
www.northnorfolk.org/ldf
All documents can be made available in
Braille, audio, large print or in other languages.
Please contact 01263 516318 to discuss your requirements.
Page 2 of 39
Report of Representations
Fakenham Draft Masterplan Consultation, Land North of Rudham Stile Lane
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
FAK001
Sally Anne Longden
Member of Public
Comment
There is far too much insensitive, ugly, 'tickytack' money-grubbing development in Norfolk,
and I desperately hope this one will not follow those footsteps, although from the initial
viewing of the papers it all looks most promising.
A few comments:
Will it be ensured that all modular paving is water-permeable, that the houses have water
butts, rain / grey-water flushing systems, PV panels and sustainably timber-framed windows
and doors?
Will the solar orientation of plots be considered so that the day's sunshine pours through the
main facade of the houses and not uselessly spent on end walls, thus making the house nicer
to live in and also retain heat better? There are two joined houses just built in the alley off the
former Godfrey's, with plenty of room for them to have faced south, and instead have been
put facing west thereby having no natural light during the day and no garden worth having.
Will there be some plots available for self-build? There is such a lot of demand for serviced
plots to gain a decent home rather than being forced to buy a dreary, ubiquitous, undersized, badly designed and ill-proportioned proffering from a mass builder. It seems to me that
each builder's house plans are depressingly identical to the others, with little imagination or
individuality showing.
Every person should have access to a decent garden (i.e not north facing, or overshadowed
by high fencing or hedges), a place to grow plants and sit in, even those in flats and social
housing. If budget constraints make it difficult to provide individual gardens (as opposed to
the usual dark, dank, pocket handkerchief patches normally associated with HA schemes)
why couldn't this Fakenham development build a few blocks around a garden square for the
inhabitants? That way instead of a tiny bald unexciting area, each resident would have a
lovely place to sit and stroll about in, perhaps with their own little allotment, secure from the
attentions of local vandals (come on, you know they exist!).
All the proposed parks, walkways and cycle paths sound most enticing, but who will keep
Page 3 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
them tidy? Will there be a 'park warden' or CCTV to ensure the children's playgrounds are
not vandalised and rubbish is not strewn about, that the allotments will not become a treasure
chest for burglars? What provision is being made for public toilets (even fee paying ones
would be better than none at all in the parks and by the allotments)?
FAK002
Rev Adrian Bell
Fakenham Parish
Church
Support
A very good addition to Fakenham. Lots of green space.
FAK003
Rev Andrew King
Fakenham Methodist
Church
Comment
The Methodist Church on Oak Street remains committed to relocating to another site in the
town. We may be interested in any possibility of land for community use / new church on the
development. Please keep me informed.
FAK004
Ms W Buchanan &
Mr A Betts
Member of Public
Comment
We agree that closing Water Moor Lane would be advantageous as parts of Rudham Stile
Lane are very narrow and would not be able to handle an influx of additional vehicular use
from the new development.
FAK005
Adrian Vertigan
Member of Public
Comment
The access out of town for North Park and Peter‟s Road area will now be restricted to
Queen‟s Road traffic lights. This will increase the problems of traffic management. Also the
High School traffic will increase and it needs somewhere to go.
FAK006
Sean Mears
Member of Public
Comment
I think that the road plan needs looking at on the corner of North Park where it meets the
bridge into the new development. Having it as bus access/egress only makes movement out
of and onto North Park difficult. We already get a funnel of traffic which had a one-way at one
end and very busy traffic lights at the other (especially at school times).
I also question the impact of that volume of homes on what is a small market town with its
own unique feel. I would question the motivation of the now „Conservative‟ led Planning
Committee that seems to be more interested in supporting local developers than preserving
the spirit of a pretty Norfolk market town.
Is the infrastructure of Fakenham equipped to deal with such a large development that would
be more integrated into the community if it was developed in a measured way.
Page 4 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
FAK007
Mark Baldwin
Member of Public
Objection
I feel that these proposals are far too big for the town to cope with. 900 extra homes on
average 1800 extra people, 1800 extra cars but will there be 1800 extra jobs? I don‟t believe
so.
This is also an area of beautiful countryside with many wildlife habitats potentially ruined.
Fakenham is a beautiful market town; do not turn it into Milton Keynes.
Most people who already live in Fakenham work and shop out of town and this will only
enhance that behaviour.
FAK008
Norman Wilson
Member of Public
Comment
As a new resident to Fakenham I have a number of queries:
Where is the water for the building & for the use of the future residents?
Assuming 2 cars per house where are 1800 extra cars going to park in the town?
What employment is there in the area for the extra people?
What extra schools are to be built?
Traffic Management during & after construction?
These are a few of my concerns
FAK009
Anthony Pielow
Member of Public
Comment
Proposed New Hotel
Whilst a reasonable idea, there is already a Hotel in Fakenham - The Crown Hotel, Market
Place, Fakenham. This has been closed for several years and needs to be brought back into
use to enliven the centre of the town. I believe that it is in a reasonable state of repair and I
would suggest that contact is made with the owners/Landlord to speed up the process to
bring the building back to a commercial use.
Swimming Pool
A swimming pool currently exists on the site of the Sixth Form College in Fakenham. It is
fairly rudimentary and suffers from a lack of use because of the extreme limits on education
funding. I know from experience that there is a demand for such a leisure facility in Fakenham
but unless a sponsor can be found with sufficient funds, the existing facility will remain underutilised. I know this because I was the Business Manager at the School & College (at the time
of the fire) and there was simply not enough money to refurbish the area to make it attractive
for public use.
Page 5 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
Since the fire, the building housing the pool is in a fairly isolated position and with a little
investigation and imagination, the area could be separated from the main College site to
allow public access and therefore greater use. In the overall picture of the costs for the major
development of the new site, the costs for the refurbishment could be a justifiable additional
cost and overall enhance the facilities which will exist in Fakenham and the new development
(Sports Centre, Rugby Club, Football Club etc)
FAK010
Roger London
Member of Public
Objection
I have just been to the Council office in Fakenham and looked at the plan for the above
development. I notice that you intend to build this on Greenbelt land, can I ask why when
there are plenty of brown field sites in and around Fakenham, for instance along Greenway
lane and the old motor show room in Norwich rd. Also have you looked at the amount of
vacant properties in the area that are owned by private person who will not let or lease them
but leave them empty waiting for the property market to start to grow, also you erected a
travellers' site on the A148 as this has been closed since it's completion why not build on this
site. do we need a hostel for the homeless of Fakenham in the 15 years i have lived here I
have never seen or heard of any homeless people sleeping rough in the streets at night, so
can't this hostel be turned into one bedroom flats for young couples with no children?
Can you also guarantee that further development of Fakenham will not spread to the
neighbouring villages thus creating an urban sprawl? About two or three years ago the then
Council pledged that the villages around Fakenham must remain small villages, do you intend
to keep this pledge? You say that the chicken farm could blend in with the development. I
keep chickens and know that in great numbers the smell can spread for miles. I don't think
the residents of the new houses would be too pleased with it.
Please look at your plans and use sites that will not ruin the greenbelt as this seems to be
disappearing at an alarming rate in North - Norfolk.
FAK011
Sandra Russell
Member of Public
Comment
In essence this appears to be a thoughtful, sensitive development plan. However, where was
the Highways Department when this was drawn up? The blocking off of Water Moor Lane
(excepting buses) seems ludicrous, creating a „them and us situation‟.
The volume of traffic is already high, unsuitable now for Rudham Stile Lane. When this
development is completed large numbers of cars, cycles, pedestrians will be leaving the High
School and their only way to get out to the bypass will be to 1) down to the traffic lights and
Page 6 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
out – already a big queue forming disaster 2) up over a totally inadequate, dangerous little
bridge and along Rudham Stile Lane. These two roads will NOT cope with the volume. The
bridge is a disaster waiting to happen - IT HAS TO GO. If there is any doubt get a planning /
highways person to stand on the bridge at peak times (if they dare) to actually see the huge
problem. My cynical view is that the problem is known that there are fundamental issues
here. I hope I am proved wrong.
FAK012
Barry & Gill Moron
Member of Public
Objection
We strongly oppose the new development on the following grounds:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Disappearance of green fields and wildlife therein.
Loss of access via Water Moor Lane to Newman Drive and surrounding roads.
Fire service and ambulance entry to above roads will be difficult.
Lack of employment in area to support approx. 2500 new residents (existing
industrial units empty, not used).
Impact of new traffic on existing roads and surfaces and pollution that new traffic will
cause.
Lack of water in area to support sewage and other services.
Lack of shops and other amenities to support new influx of residents, i.e. waste
collection etc.
Change to whole character of area becoming noisier and less village like.
No mainline train station to commute to and from. Existing bus services cannot
support new influx of people therefore new residents will put huge pressure on local
roads.
Access to new site will put additional pressure on roads and make it more difficult to
get in and out of roads towards Wells-next-the-Sea.
Would you like this development near to where you live – we think not!
FAK013
Mrs B Elsdon
Member of Public
Objection
Not enough jobs for local people now, nothing in town only charity shops and banks. I have
lived at this address for 47 years. I think this is a complete waste of time and money.
Whatever my thoughts are the Council will still do what it likes – same as traveller‟s site.
FAK014
Roy Gibson
Member of Public
Comment
A copy of the comprehensive detail should be made available to the Fakenham residents at
Fakenham Connect and/or Town Council Office.
Page 7 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
As the University Press seek to gain financially from this development, an input should be
offered to Fakenham generally by improved road facilities etc around the periphery of the site.
i.e.:
1) i) Improvements to Rudham Stile Lane, at the narrow points.
ii) Removal of old railway bridge, upgrade of Water Moor Lane from the bridge to the
new proposed roundabout.
iii) Whilst not adjacent to the site – a contribution to a roundabout at Cherry Tree
Corner, junction with Wells Road.
2) The play areas/football pitches etc should not be adjacent to the current by-pass.
This area should be landscaped with tress etc.
3) Should a more direct access to the town from the development not be more possible
via Thorpland Road onto Greenway Lane? Reduction in fuel costs to encourage town
shopping.
4) Are full-sized football pitches required, due to the local club facilities on Clipbush
Park?
5) Route of the sewage system proposal would prove of interest.
6) Fakenham already has an under-used square, why create another?
7) The site road layout with access/exit via the bypass and Morrison roundabout only
alienates this development from Fakenham „Town‟, not encompass with-in. Reminds
me of Thorpe Marriott (Norwich) only on a smaller scale.
FAK015
Michael Cook
Member of Public
Objection
Regarding the building of 900 houses in Fakenham. I see no point in building these houses
because there is not enough work in the town to justify this. People i have spoken to said they
had heard that work is outsourced, maybe a few people do come here each day but i can
assure you that many, many more do the arduous trip to Norwich and Kings Lynn. So i think
you should consider the fact that another 1000 cars a day minimum will be driving on our
already congested roads. How you could get a bit more work in the town would be by building
on the old surgery/awa site and the redundant Peugeot garage site and giving the work to the
local companies i.e. Fishers, Dempsey Heating, Kings and Barnhams, and Sam Windows to
see if they would take on more staff.
Fakenham cannot cope with all this extra building you are proposing ,the river Wensum is at
an all-time low ,the doctors surgery is already overfull ,there are loads of people out of work
signing on and if you build these houses i bet the jobs and all the work goes to companies
from miles away.
Page 8 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
These houses should be built on the A11 corridor for all the work being generated in that part
of Norfolk. None of our small towns should be filled up with houses just for the sake of it
because i am pretty sure there are not 900 homeless families in Fakenham.
FAK016
Thomas Cook
Member of Public
Objection
FAK017
Brian Massingham
Member of Public
Objection
1) The figure of 800-900 houses is disproportionate to the size of the town. Clearly
provision must be made for local requirements, particularly the younger generation,
but where is the evidence of demand for such a large number?
2) The centre of Fakenham already suffers from traffic chaos and lack of parking space.
Whatever pedestrian connections might be made from Rudham Stile Lane, a
substantial increase in traffic must be expected.
3) I note that water and effluent are taken into consideration. This is vitally important. Up
until the 60‟s the river Wensum below Fakenham had a thriving fish population much
enjoyed by local fishermen. With the expansion of Fakenham the water quality
deteriorated and the fish population declined to almost zero. Since a phosphate
stripper has been installed at the sewage works the water quality is greatly improved
and fish stocks are returning. The Environment Agency has spent a great deal of
public money restoring sections of the river downstream from Fakenham. It is
imperative that any development should not impinge upon the improving status of the
river.
4) The proposal to install a new roundabout on the A148 would be a very retrograde
step. At holiday times in particular there is traffic congestion and long queues of
traffic at the roundabouts both ends of the bypass. A further roundabout access
would generate yet more traffic and yet more congestion. This of course is highly
pollutive at a time when most of us are trying to reduce our environmental impact.
Could this traffic not be routed to the Morrison‟s roundabout?
5) The planning application mentions „enhanced biodiversity‟ and „a significant
contribution……to sustainability and environmental benefits‟. This is clearly a
constructed distortion of the truth. On all three counts there can only be a substantial
degradation which in some way will impact upon the local population.
6) In conclusion, there is a requirement for housing for local people. Such a large
development is way in excess of that required and it will inevitably impact upon the
quality of life not only for the residents of Fakenham, but those who live in
surrounding villages and make use of the town on a regular basis.
We are short of water now, why do we want another 900 houses drawing water from the
system?
Page 9 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
Where will another 1800 cars park for shopping in the town?
Roads to King‟s Lynn & Norwich will be like car parks early morning and late afternoon.
Sewage plant will need upgrading as the smell in the summer now is terrible.
Can the telephone exchange take any more landlines?
Why not plan little developments where the services are there already?
Don‟t do away with Water Moor Lane our only way out to the north.
Many more reasons why this plan should be a non-starter.
FAK018
June Massingham
Member of Public
Objection
It seems to me it is going to be them and us. Why another community centre. We already
have one in town and it is struggling to survive. Why a hotel there was one built in Hayes
Lane a few years ago, it is now an old peoples home. We have the Crown Hotel in town but it
remains closed.
We will need another primary school but what about the older children our high school is not
large enough.
900 homes possibly 1800 cars 1 garage per household where are the rest going to park? It
will be like Baxter Close, all the spare cars clog up Thorpland Road.
Where are all these people going to work? Businesses and shops are closing in Fakenham
now not much hope for new ones.
Why close Water Moor Lane? Trap Lane, Grove Lane, Thorpland Road, have already been
closed. For people living in this part of town will have to go long way round to get onto the
Northern by-pass.
What about the wildlife, there are rabbits, hares, pheasants, partridges living in those fields
and owls that call each other at night.
The whole plan is far too big. The Wensum valley up heath area of Fakenham has already
been spoilt by all the houses built up there, if we want to go for a walk round by the river it
makes you feel as if you walking through somebodies back garden. Why spoil another piece
of open land.
Looking around Fakenham there seems to be lots of houses for sale. Why do we need more?
Will the sewerage cope?
We already have a hose pipe ban will there be enough pressure?
Page 10 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
Will there be enough parking spaces in town, it‟s a problem to find a parking space when we
go shopping now.
Could we have small groups of new housing?
FAK019
J Prockter
British Astronomical
Association
Comment
North Norfolk is one of the few remaining locations in England that retains large areas of
excellent quality night sky. This has great benefits to Recreation, Tourism and Leisure.
The town of Fakenham is one of the largest light pollution sources in central North Norfolk.
This fact is supported by a recent light survey carried out by North Norfolk Astronomy
Society. The night sky quality in the surrounding villages such as Kettlestone, Sculthorpe and
Colkirk are badly affected by the Fakenham 'light dome'.
It is inevitable that the proposed development along the A148 will require additional lighting,
both on the access roads, the new housing estates and associated industrial developments.
Not only will this increase the amount of light but it will extend the 'light dome' towards East
Barsham and Walsingham, currently villages with minimal light pollution.
My concern is that in the November 2011 Development Briefs, apart from 'minimising energy
consumption', I cannot find any reference to the light pollution impact that this development
will cause and what policy will be introduced to reduce unnecessary lighting.
The Norfolk Dark Sky Survey is available at: http://nightscape.nnas.org/survey_phase_2.pdf
FAK020
Peter Boggis
Member of Public
Comment
I am writing with reference to the proposed future development of land north of Rudham Stile
Lane in Fakenham. I‟d like to make it clear that as a resident of some 33 years in Rudham
Stile Lane, I am not opposed in principal to „the development‟ but I do have concerns relative
to traffic flow and on-road parking that may impact on existing areas of the town‟s northern
extremities, following this and any future development west of
Water Moor Lane,
My Concerns
First, the decision to close Water Moor Lane to all traffic except busses.
As the brief correctly points out, the current northern quarter in addition to extensive
residential areas, is host to many busy amenities. Including, Fakenham High School and
College, Trap Lane Leisure and Fitness Complex, Fakenham Cricket Club and two early
years nurseries. Water Moor Lane, ever since the opening of the A148 bypass has served as
a vital relief route, kept open intentionally to reduce traffic which would otherwise impact on
Page 11 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
routes and the two intersecting junctions to the south e.g. Queen‟s Rd traffic/pedestrian lights
and the complex junction of „White Post Corner‟ at the end of Thorpland Road. While I agree
that traffic from the proposed development should not egress at any point onto Rudham Stile
lane or its contributories. Water Moor Lane, if retained perhaps as a „one way route‟
northward to the A148, could continue to serve as a vital link to all other major routes. The
alternative of course would see all traffic egress converge toward the only TWO other
remaining Junctions as identified above.
Additionally I would like pick up on the reference made in section 3.7.5 concerning the current
condition of Water Moor Lane and its junction with the A148. Indeed there have been some
serious RTA‟s at this junction but not exclusively! Regrettably similar incidents have
happened at all junctions along this section, the junction with the B1105 is equally notorious
and indeed the scene of serious RTAs. It is my firm belief that with the addition of the
proposed roundabout on the A148 and the necessary road improvements, Water Moor Lane
could and should become a positive element toward maintaining a degree of equilibrium in
terms of traffic flow along our soon-to-be „busier routes‟ as the town expands northward.
My second point is the potentially hazardous and increasingly acceptable practice of on-road
residential parking along our busier routes.
My understanding is that while no traffic will access Rudham Stile Lane directly from the „new
development‟, those properties that will face onto the Lane most certainly will. (6.2.4). My fear
is that occupants of those properties who may have insufficient off road parking to satisfy
their needs, may as a consequence obstruct and congest this already busy road.
The foundation of my concerns
I raise this concern because of what has become common practice in nearby Thorpland
Road, close to the complex junction with Greenway Lane and Holt Road. It is not uncommon
for six to ten vehicles to be inconsiderately parked outside the recent „Baxter Close‟
development, effectively restricting the carriageway‟s width to a single lane for some 50
metres. It should be noted also that since the opening of the new surgery in early 2012,
Thorpland Road (which is currently devoid of any pavements) has seen a marked increase in
pedestrian and cycle activity, not only to the new surgery, but to Morrison‟s Supermarket and
the newly built Running Horse Public House / Restaurant. As part the development, Rudham
Stile Lane will (I presume) become the focus of some key road improvements which should
ensure that motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, enjoy a safe and hazard free passage to
their intended destination.
While the 46 page brief makes a convincing and influential case toward the development,
Page 12 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
May I ask that members of the Major Developments Team and the Highways and Traffic
Departments apply careful consideration to these concerns which may become a point of
contention as the process advances.
FAK021
Brenda Townsend
Member of Public
Comment
Although any proposal to further develop the community is welcome I am concerned about
the scale of the proposal and the impact it may have on the town particularly in regards the
infrastructure and services.
The potential for 900 homes will significantly increase the population size of this small market
town by up to a third or more based on the premise that a majority of the homes built will be
for families. This in turn will impact on the local school registers, the increase in patient
population for the health services and the greater demand for public transport.
The road network in and around the town will need to be able to cope with increase in traffic
and town centre parking needs to be increased and improved.
Recreational facilities will need to support such a development and the need for a swimming
pool needs strong consideration.
I would hope that the development of leisure and commercial facilities will be sensitively
considered against the backdrop of facilities already provided in the town centre which is and
always has been at the heart of Fakenham. It would be counter-productive to develop a new
area at the expense of the existing centre.
The countryside is losing green space at an increasing rate and this will further add to the
demise of our rural community.
I would support a scaled-down proposal provided it offered affordable houses for existing
young families to stay within the area they were born and that this isn‟t see as a panacea for
buy-to-let absentee landlords or for people just to buy a nicely located second / holiday home.
FAK022
Bryan Barnes
Member of Public
Comment
As we are all aware, the junction of Thorpland Road and Greenway Lane is just about at it‟s
operational limit. Traffic can be congested, especially when the school children are being
collected and taken home.
Following a visit to the Cromer offices when I talked over the issues with a planning officer, I
Page 13 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
now believe that there is a strong likelihood that the junction will be considerably overloaded.
The following points are I think relevant:
1) The occupiers of the extra houses fronting Rudham Stile Lane will need to use
vehicles to gain access to shopping, and for work purposes etc. The direct route to
the major supermarkets is via Thorpland Road.
2) The proposed stopping-up of Water Moor Lane means that those residents of not
only Rudham Stile Lane, but the adjacent Cul-de-sac, will need to use either
Thorpland Road, or Claypit Lane (sometimes referred to as Queens Road on the
plans). As the existing route of choice for many schools generated vehicles is
Thorpland Road, no doubt the majority of them will use the former. This will add
substantially to the volumes.
3) The stopping-up proposal means also that traffic within the whole residential, schools
and sports area bounded by Field Lane, Rudham Stile Lane and Greenway Lane can
only exit the area by using Thorpland Road or Claypit Lane. Now just two exits
proposed where there are currently three.
4) Thorpland Road is directly opposite the Holt Road exit from the town centre. Although
the plans show Queens Road as the primary route out of town, the signage at the old
post office junction in town directs traffic to use Holt Road, an unclassified road. The
speed limit of 20mph and narrow nature of Queens Road discourages its use. The
greater traffic in town, generated by the additional dwellings of this new estate, must
cause more traffic to arrive at the Holt Road / Greenway Lane / Thorpland Road
junction.
It is my view that an improvement is not just desirable at the Holt Road / Greenway Lane /
Thorpland Road junction, but will prove essential if the proposed development proceeds.
FAK023
N Gray
Member of Public
Objection
Gross misuse of arable land.
1) Grave concerns regarding removal of chicken sheds, which are asbestos, very old
and brittle and a great hazard to residents during demolition.
2) Large percentage of social housing will mean Council pushing all problem families
here as Fakenham on very edge of Council district and no consideration even given
to town.
3) Existing residents of Rudham Stile Lane no longer being able to access by-pass from
Water Moor Lane will mean long detour.
Page 14 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
4) Total disregard for existing residents. Development Councils top priority.
5) Roundabout should be at Cherry Tree Corner/Wells junction not as proposed, as side
road not suitable for traffic increase.
6) There are lots of things that need attention in and around town instead of this
development.
FAK024
Christine Good
Member of Public
Comment
The comment I would like to make is that the scheme looks good but could we not use it to
get two amenities that Fakenham has long petitioned for, a proper sized swimming pool and a
skate park for the children.
You say that Fakenham is one of the major towns for people to live in, in North Norfolk but
most of the other towns have their own swimming pool within easy reach whereas Fakenham
lacks this amenity. As we live so close to the coast it is important that people learn to swim for
their own safety but it is difficult to do in the lame excuse for a pool that we have in
Fakenham.
The developers that built Safeway built the football ground as part of the deal so why can't the
pool and the park be included in this much bigger development. Also who do you propose
will be interested in running a hotel when you can't get anyone interested in running the
Crown in the town centre?
FAK025
Peter Davidson
C.E Davidson Ltd
Comment
As the owner of the poultry site in Thorpland Road, Fakenham, I am writing regarding the
proposed development.
In principle, I have no objection to this proposal but hope the Council would require any
application submitted to incorporate all the available land not just the major landowners area
and make any planning approval conditional that the development is comprehensive i.e.
includes at least the two poultry units which would be impossible to operate if they were
surrounded by development, rather than the agricultural land they now enjoy.
I am not entirely happy that the agents for Trinity College are looking to include our poultry
site, as it is often quoted that they could develop their land independent of any other, which of
course is true, but would be extremely difficult for us to operate.
I would assure the Council that we are open to any finance proposal that allows us to walk
away and relocate elsewhere - which has always been our stance.
Page 15 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
FAK026
Sandra Wood
Member of Public
Comment
I am writing with a few concerns about the proposed development for Fakenham.
1. Current pedestrian access to the High School from the North and Eastern areas of the
town is dangerous.
Although, at present, for most of the day Thorpland Road and Rudham Stile Lane are quiet,
at school run time they become a rat run for mothers trying to avoid the traffic lights at the
bottom of Claypit Lane, at the same time that dozens of teenagers are trying to negotiate
narrow stretches of lane with no footpath.
This then culminates in the redundant railway bridge referred to in point 3.7.5 of your Site
Analysis and Contextual Appraisal part 2. As this report mentions, there is no footway, but it
does not mention that the bridge is twisted in such a way as to restrict visibility from all four
approach roads. This is an accident waiting to happen.
The proposed development would be the perfect opportunity to change the road layout to
provide a type of "by-pass" for this bridge, and, if it is not able to be done beforehand, to both
widen Rudham Stile Lane (East of the bridge) and provide a full length footpath for this road
and the stretch of Thorpland Road that connects it with Greenway Lane.
If the development is allowed to go ahead without these changes, it will be disastrous. Apart
from the aforementioned problems, point 3.7.11 says that Grove Lane connects the proposed
site with the town centre. This is untrue. Although marked on maps, the real connection is
pedestrian only, and for the sake of local residents, should probably stay that way. Therefore
an additional, say 400 of the 800 proposed new households, would regularly be negotiating
this bridge.
2. From what I can make out, there is a new roundabout proposed for the by-pass, just to the
East of the current junction with Water Moor Lane. From the town's point of view this seems a
sensible proposal, and as it will connect directly with the lane opposite, it will reduce
congestion at the junction of the A148 and B1105. However, this lane and its junction with
the B1105 and East Barsham road will be completely unable to cope with the massive
increase in traffic brought about by making it more easily accessible than the current main
junction for Wells. If the roundabout was placed here, this lane and the junction at its far end
would need to be dramatically upgraded, but whether this would be in keeping with the rural
landscape and local residents is another matter.
3. The plan includes future provision for another primary school, but what about secondary
education?
The High School already makes regular use of several mobile classrooms, although the
Page 16 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
number available is decreasing every year, as they are so old they are becoming unsafe. The
money promised for building the new classrooms already required was withdrawn, and with
the steady increase of population as these new houses are built and occupied, the problem is
going to escalate. As money seems not to be available from other sources, it needs to be a
stipulation of the planning permission that the developers will provide a suitable number of
new classrooms and other facilities required by the High School, in addition to the on-site
provisions.
4. In Figure 6 of your Site Analysis, Claypit Lane is wrongly labelled as Queen's Road.
As you can see, I am not against the proposals, as such, but I am concerned that the
opportunity for much needed improvements is not lost. Otherwise the development will be a
detriment rather than an improvement to the town.
FAK027
Richard Smith
Richard Smith
Architects
Objection
As part of the consultation process, we would like to draw your attention to the area proposed
as employment area on the presented Development Framework.
We are concerned about proposals showing the outline business units presented at the public
review.
Despite being a feasibility study, as Architects we are expected to get the principals generally
correct and this diagram clearly indicates a large building in very close proximity to five
houses, No‟s 1 – 9, which face onto the private end of Rudham Stile lane. In expectation that
the proposals will be similar in size and scale of the adjacent doctor‟s surgery our concerns
are on the detrimental
impact on our properties.
As owners and residents of property in Rudham Stile Lane, we object to the proposal due to
the following reasons;
1. Loss of privacy during the day and night
2. Excessive noise pollution during the day and light pollution at night by the occupants.
3. Loss of visual amenity
4. Indication of re-worked boundaries (see attached documents)
5. Subsequent loss of value to the existing properties
6. Indicative planting and screening would appear to be insufficient and unconsidered
These sketches reflect our concerns on the nature and scale of the proposed buildings in
Page 17 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
relation to the existing houses on Rudham Stile Lane.
For figures see original paper representation (available from Major Developments
Team)
FAK028
Philip Raiswell
Sport England
Sport England is the leading sports development agency in England, charged with
implementing the government‟s policy objectives for sport with an overall ambition to increase
participation in sport. We have a long standing commitment to the land-use planning system
as a way of helping to achieve these goals through the protection of existing places for sport
(including playing fields) and the securing of new facilities, especially as part of major new
residential developments.
The proposal seeks a mixed use development of up to 900 new homes, employment
development, public open space and community facilities on 85 hectares of land to the north
of Fakenham.
The site is mainly in agricultural use but also contains existing sports facilities Fakenham
Rugby Club (1 rugby pitch plus ancillary facilities), and Fakenham Leisure Centre, (4 court
hall, health and fitness suite and associated playing fields).
Fakenham contains established football, cricket and rugby clubs located at facilities within the
town.
Protection of Existing Facilities
Sport England are pleased to see that the part of the site containing the above sports
facilities, including the agricultural land surrounding the above two sites, is allocated as open
space within the document. This should ensure that (a) these existing sites are not under
threat of development from the proposed overall development proposed within the
development brief, and (b) the scope remains to extend these facilities in the future, if
required and the necessary funding secured. We therefore support the retention of this
designation within the final document.
Provision of New Facilities
The development brief envisages a new area of community sports facilities within the main
development areas of the overall site. This will provide 2.81 hectares of sports pitches, which
could provide for senior football, cricket, bowls and tennis). It is essential that these facilities
are supported by ancillary facilities such as changing rooms and car parking. We therefore
Page 18 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
recommend that the guidance states that the development „must‟ include adequate ancillary
facilities, rather than the use of the word „could‟ in the current document. We accept that the
current plans are indicative only but Sport England believe that pitches will need to be laid out
to meet current Sport England standards with regard to pitch quality, orientation, pitch sizes
etc., and we would therefore be grateful if the brief contained a sentence to this effect within
the relevant section.
Issues for Further Consideration
Sport England note that the proposed allocation for sports pitches, at 2.81 hectares, is
roughly equivalent to the size of the agricultural field which adjoins the existing rugby club
and sports centre site (c 3 hectares). We therefore feel that an alternative proposal might be
to concentrate new sports pitch provision on this land, which would allow a single sporting
hub to develop within this part of the overall development site, and could stimulate the
expansion of the rugby club through the provision of an additional pitch, thus meeting that
club‟s desire to expand due to increased demand. At this stage such a proposal should at
least be given consideration as an alternative, more economic, approach to meeting the
requirements for outdoor sport, which would build on existing clubs and facilities within
Fakenham, rather than providing facilities on a new „greenfield‟ site. A further alternative
might be to seek a balance of new facilities and enhancements to existing clubs in order to
best serve the needs of existing and future residents of Fakenham. Subject to the approach
to be taken, further thought should be given to the issue of delivery of the new community
facilities and whether these will be secured via s106 contributions or CIL if enhancements to
existing facilities.
FAK029
Carrie Williams
Environment Agency
Surface Water Management
This is a large greenfield development site that we feel presents a great opportunity to fully
incorporate water into the design of the area. The design brief recognises the need to
incorporate sustainable drainage features and provide areas of open space and green
infrastructure that maximize biodiversity benefits. The design brief also recognises the need
to create a distinctive development. We would promote the inclusion of innovative design of
the public realm incorporating sustainable drainage features to achieve these objectives. For
example, water gardens control urban surface water run-off but also bring a lot of interest to
the public realm as well as providing multiple environmental benefits. As well as managing
drainage, these types of features provide biodiversity benefits and can also act to provide
some cooling to the heat-island effect associated with the impacts of climate change. This
approach would be in line with the principles set out in NPPF and within the adopted North
Norfolk District Council Core Strategy.
Page 19 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
There are a lot of examples available of developments that have incorporated the principles
of water sensitive urban design. This approach is still new to the UK but it is gaining in
support from drainage professionals and planners given the multiple environmental and social
benefits that it can provide. It is also often a very cost-effective way of managing surface
water flooding when considered early in the design process. We would be happy to provide
you with some examples of this type of surface water management.
As has been recognised, the involvement of Norfolk County Council will be important given
their future role in surface water management.
Green Infrastructure
We are pleased to see that consideration is being given to providing enhanced opportunities
for biodiversity, as well as retaining local ecological features that are already established
within the site. Issues that should be considered include the planting of only native species
and use of low intensity/ time of year mowing regimes. Green/brown roofs and walls may also
be considered. As well as providing additional invertebrate and bird habitats, they can
contribute to increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and assist in attenuating rain water
flow. If green/brown roofs are not considered appropriate for residential developments, they
could still be incorporated as a feature on community facilities, for example the primary
school.
Foul Drainage
The submitted development brief includes information provided by Anglian Water in Section
3.8.5. This section states that there is permitted volumetric capacity at Fakenham Sewage
Treatment Works (STW) to accommodate the growth on this site. This conclusion is
supported by our calculations undertaken in preparation of the Water Capacity Statement
undertaken to support your site allocations.
Notwithstanding the above, we do wish to take the opportunity to advise you that the waste
water flows generated by this allocation will „use up‟ a significant proportion of the available
capacity at the works, and that further growth will therefore be constrained by the capacity of
Fakenham STW. You might wish to consider the implications of this when advising on the
phasing of development in line with any other developments that are to take place within the
catchment of that STW.
Sustainable Water Use
Page 20 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
Although Anglian Water has indicated that there is sufficient water resource to supply this
development, we would be supportive of high levels of water efficiency being designed in to
the development. While policy might only require a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of
Level 4, we would urge the developer to go beyond this where possible, particularly seeking
to maximize water efficiency credits.
Waste Management
The management of waste should be considered as early as possible during the design
phase to ensure that minimal volumes of waste arise during the construction of the
development, and the demolition at the end of its life. This can include measures such as
preventing the over-ordering of materials, reducing damage to materials before use by careful
handling and segregating waste on site into separate skips. The developer should consider
how they will incorporate recycled/recovered materials into the building programme, including
the use of secondary and recycled aggregates, and re-use of any on-site demolition waste.
The design of the development can also influence the ability of residents to be able to recycle
their waste and we would suggest that designs incorporate facilities to aid in this, especially in
multiple-occupancy buildings. We would also suggest that consideration is given to the
provision for recycling within public areas. We recommend the following websites which
provide ideas and further information: http://www.wrap.org.uk and
http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/towards-zero-waste.html
FAK030
Stephen Jacklin
Kick Start Fakenham
Comment
It was encouraging to hear Steve Blatch of NNDC taking residents‟ concerns on board at the
recent town meeting, despite little awareness of the meeting itself around the town.
Prior to this, and just after the main consultation process began regarding the development,
Kick Start Fakenham set up an online conversation, via Facebook, and has since received
over 80 comments, which are also attached to this letter. Kick Start is not a political
organisation, but as our local media (i.e. Fakenham & Wells Times) and elected
representatives (i.e. district councillors) are unwilling to stand up for people‟s specific worries
then an alternative way of passing these on has to be found. Whilst most people are in favour
of the development in general, so far the seven primary concerns are:
1. Traffic access to, across and out of the new development
Rudham Stile Lane, Claypit Lane, Field Lane, etc are already congested enough during
school-run times. Blocking the Water Moor Lane exit onto the bypass for traffic from the old
railway bridge can only be dangerous and lead to more accidents and congestion. Similarly if
Page 21 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
traffic from the new development can‟t access the town directly, and with poor/no footpaths
and cycleways in the area, residents will not come into the town centre and Fakenham won‟t
benefit from their business. Whilst a new roundabout onto the A148 is good idea, and we
appreciate increased traffic volume from the development has to be controlled, doing it in this
manner can only be damaging to not just the immediate area, but to the town as a whole and
further separate it from what is already in situ.
2. Proximity of the proposed Primary School and leisure facilities to the bypass Whilst
a new Primary School would perhaps be needed to accommodate the extra children living in
the development, the proposals clearly show the new school on the main arterial route and
very close to the bypass. The majority of the proposed leisure facilities are at the other end of
the development, and again, appear to be in a corner next to the busy road.
3. New Community Centre
Last summer, when these plans were first unveiled, NNDC stated that a new CC wouldn‟t be
built, so as to help with the town centre‟s Community Campus project for an enhanced
Community Centre for the WHOLE town and also so as not to create a separate community
in the new development. Again, if a new community centre is built just for the new
development, it can only lead to further separation. Has NNDC forgotten about this promise?
4. Swimming Pool
Over the past 20 years or so, Fakenham has had at least 2 petitions/campaigns for a muchneeded community swimming pool. The most recent, being championed by FAP, has much
support; I believe the Partnership has asked NNDC on several occasions to include a Pool in
its plans but without response. What is the position on this? With an expected rise in
Fakenham‟s population by over a quarter, doesn‟t NNDC now think now is the time for a Pool
to be included in the development plans?
5. Empty shops and parking in the town centre
Always at the top of residents‟ concerns, it was encouraging for Mr Blatch to state that NNDC
is keeping an eye on empty shops and the situation with landowners Wildmoor being in
administration. What guidance/action is to be put into place for developers so as to preserve
and enhance Fakenham‟s conservation area status and encourage businesses and shoppers
into the town centre?
6. Loss of hunting habitat for buzzards and other wildlife in the area to the north of the
town.
Page 22 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
7. SS3 of NNDC‟s Local Development Plan states 1,430 new homes will be built in
Fakenham between 2001 & 2021. With up to 900 on the new development, along with those
built in the last decade, where will the remaining 200-300 go?
From all of the above, I proposed to one of NNDC‟s representatives at the consultation a new
development would therefore be very dislocated from the rest of the town and give it the
same relationship with Fakenham as Dereham has with Toftwood. The representative had no
answer but a sharp intake of breath and a „penny dropped‟ expression on his face indicating
that my comment had struck a chord. I think he understood my overall conclusion that if the
plans go ahead without amendment, the new development would not be integrated into the
town at all, despite its brief to be as inclusive and complementary to Fakenham as possible.
Of course we all hope for a development that will only seek to further enhance our fantastic
town.
Of course, the seven points are just a summary of what has been raised by our members so
far, and we understand that NNDC has many factors to take into consideration when
consulting on and planning a new development, especially one of this scale.
Facebook Discussion
After several of our members commented on the recent proposals for development of the
land between the A148/Rudham Stile Lane in Fakenham, Kick Start Fakenham initiated an
online discussion via Facebook with the caveat that we would forward people's comments
onto yourselves at NNDC.
Please find attached a brief letter/summary of people's concerns along with a transcript of the
conversation feed taken directly from Facebook. Kick Start Fakenham's Facebook page can
also be viewed at ... http://www.facebook.com/groups/50109234042/10150758307509043/
We are a non-political organisation and therefore all comments (including my own) are
people's own, private thoughts. I do hope that these are taken into consideration during the
consultation period and we look forward to hearing from you with regards to the specific
issues raised once the plan for the development is finalised, or indeed beforehand should
NNDC feel fit.
Many people in the town and surrounding areas feel quite passionately about this issue, and
although most seem to be in favour, of course there are some genuine reservations about
certain aspects as summarised/covered in the attached.
Page 23 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
Facebook comments have not been specifically published by NNDC but are available
for public viewing at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/50109234042/10150758307509043/
In addition to those mentioned previously, the main concerns are traffic, wider road
infrastructure, shops in the town centre, jobs (i.e. provision of jobs for residents of the new
development), impact of the development as a whole, sustainability of development in terms
of environment and jobs. Plus upgrading the sewerage system / etc to cope, bus services,
possible re-instated rail link to the town, better appearance of the entrances/exits to
Fakenham via signage and landscaping/giving arterial routes more trees, etc (not just within
the new development, but for example the unmade stretch of private road in front of
Clarendon Road/Sandy Lane, which forms part of Wells Road (up to Toll Bar/Creake road).
As someone whose house backed onto this stretch of road, its a horrible sight to see
entering/exiting the town and doesn't give a very good impression: I know the road is private,
but if the unmade stretch could be grassed and given a path, trees, and the houses had
individual/shared access going at right-angles to Wells Road, this would not only improve the
area greatly but currently walking along this side of the road is very unsafe. Residents from
the new development would no doubt use this roadway and proposed footway in accessing
the town centre, especially as the pedestrian links round the High School are already very
good.
Finally, and this might be something that can be answered without looking at the
plans/comments, once revisions, etc are made and a developer/final plan is announced, will
there be a public display of them, with accompanying rationale of what has been
revised/included and its impact on the town?
Many thanks once again for all your help and in taking people's comments on board, we await
very keenly what happens and how the development brief affects the town as a whole and
wider area.
FAK031
Rosemary & Brian Dear
Member of Public
Comments
Before building approx. 900 new houses in Fakenham more thoughts needs to be given to
whether the town needs extra housing and in particular where the new residents are going to
be employed. Unless many new employment opportunities are in place as the houses are
built most of the new residents are going to commute to the nearest large towns, Norwich,
King‟s Lynn, Sheringham, Cromer, Thetford, thus adding to the already existing congestion
and traffic pollution. It is unlikely that in the current economic climate public transport will be
extended and improved to cover such journeys so it would therefore be better to site these
houses where people are more able to find jobs. Therefore the phasing of the Fakenham
Page 24 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
housing development should be dependent on the take-up of the commercial premises, not
just relocations from elsewhere in the town but new employment.
The town centre is already under strain with empty shops and little incentive for regeneration
through lack of customers. Although in theory more residents may help the town to sustain its
existing shops and businesses however in reality if shops are provided on the new estate
residents are unlikely to go into town. They are even less likely to use the town facilities
unless more parking is available in the centre.
Such a large development should not put additional strain on the existing infrastructure and
be more truly sustainable. All houses should be equipped to make use of solar power, which
may mean that street layout must be adjusted to provide a roof with as much southern aspect
as possible. Wind turbines should be incorporated on the estate, particularly for the
employment area and community / commercial areas.
In light of the current drought and predictions that water will be increasingly in short supply in
this area, all houses should have provision for rain water collection and storage for its use as
grey water. Such measures would make the claims for the development to be „sustainable‟ far
more credible.
All these issues should be examined more closely before the development plans are
finalised.
On a related subject, on the fringe of the proposed development, there is no easy pedestrian
access to the Running Horse pub. When trying to reach the pub from the footpath which goes
past the new health centre, the roundabout has no pavement on the Running Horse side and
the way in is to follow the road, with no pavement, right round to the entrance from their car
park. Crossing is made more dangerous by Morrisons‟ lorries parking in the bus stop layby.
Surely it is important to encourage people to not use cars when visiting pubs and to provide
easy pedestrian access would be a sensible addition to the pub.
FAK032
Susan Howell
Member of Public
Comment
As a resident of Thorpland Road I was wondering if there is to be any vehicle entrance or exit
points along Rudham Stile Lane from the new proposed development.
a) Thorpland Road and Rudham Stile Lane are already becoming a rat-run especially
during school times; school buses have even been known to use this route.
b) Pedestrian access to the new medical centre and no foot path along Thorpland Road.
Page 25 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
c) Parked cars making Thorpland Road only passable by one vehicle, dangerous to
those on foot.
d) The junction with Greenway Lane can be a nightmare to exit.
e) Make the vehicle access to properties along the two above mentioned roads even
more difficult.
The other situation to be addressed is the distance and size of the existing sewage works
which serves Fakenham, you would probably say another pumping station would be installed.
The addition of a new sewage treatment works at the new development side of town would
be the only answer if Fakenham is to keep expanding over the coming years.
FAK033
Rev David Sharp
Member of Public
Object
1. I object to the closure to Field Lane residents of the new and improved Water Moor
Lane with its new roundabout onto the A148
I live just above the junction of Field Lane with Wells Road, which is closed to traffic
existing onto Wells Road, and already have to drive an extra third of a mile on the
one-way system to exit Field Lane in the Fakenham town / Dereham direction. But at
present I can use Water Moot Lane (inadequate though it is) to access easily the
A148 for destinations north (Wells) north-east (Cromer), north-west (King‟s Lynn).
Denying me the new improved Water Moor Lane exit onto the A148 will cause me
nearly an extra mile to get anywhere north, east or west from my home, with all the
extra petrol that will require. The junction of Rudham Stile Lane with Water Moor
Lane should be open to all traffic, as now, not just buses, and we can all then benefit
from the improved access to the A148.
2. It is poor planning and unnatural that the development is so cut off from its
surrounding streets, and will cause it to become a sealed off enclave.
The Park Lane earlier development is a better model, where all streets are accessible
to everywhere else and road traffic in and out is widely dispersed and virtually
unnoticed. The new development will constrict all its traffic onto one route through it.
The proposal repeats the main faults of a development like Bowthorpe, which has
never integrated into its surroundings and neighbouring suburbs, and has become an
isolated enclave with a single, fast long entrance and exit route. The proposed
Rudham Stile Lane development would be better if all its road were open to connect
with its surroundings, dispersing the traffic, and allowing the area to integrate with its
surroundings. It is crazy that all its traffic will be routed along one road, which passes
Page 26 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
through its amenity „village square‟!
FAK034
David Freeman
Member of Public
This development, if allowed, will result in my loss of job and home. Despite this fact I would
like to make the following observations:
The marked area on the map for employment use, will not in my mind provide
anything like the work needs for the expected 900 home-dwellers, bearing in mind
that some workers employed within this employment development area will already
come from areas around Fakenham.
Bearing in mind there is a possibility of 900 homes being built on this development, a
conservative estimate of people of working age will therefore be approximately 900 of
varying employment abilities. I do not consider that this conservatively based number
will all find employment in Fakenham, therefore work will need to be secured in other
towns, which will increase the pressure on the already heavily used roads, and in
some cases roads currently not fit for purpose.
Convenience store – I see no reason to have a convenience store on this
development when there are two large and perfectly serviceable within walking
distance.
I am concerned of the effect on our rich wildlife within the proposed development
area being forever lost. I would like to enquire if there has been a fauna and flora
study of this area?
While I understand there is a need for further affordable homes in this area, this development,
in my opinion and with reference to the points above should be reviewed.
FAK035
Caroline Gilfillan
Member of Public
Support
FAK036
M Segon
Member of Public
Comment
I support this proposal as long as affordable housing is provided for local Norfolk residents –
particularly young families.
1. Roundabout on A148 / Water Moor Lane junction
Mini roundabout is madness – must be full-scale roundabout.
2. Junction of Rudham Stile Lane / Water Moor Lane / Claypit Lane
Can the mound of earth created for the old/disused railway bridge be removed or
Page 27 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
reduced. Visibility on this junction must be greatly improved.
Restricted access to the by-pass will drive traffic back down Claypit Lane, Highfield Lane and
Wells Road. The by-pass was designed to take traffic off of the route.
FAK037
C. J Lawson
Member of Public
Support
All in favour of new development. With added traffic could it not be possible to pedestrianize
Market Place and also have a one-way system into Tesco (sketch supplied)? With this
system I think there would be less problems for buses and pedestrians.
(See image on original paper representation)
FAK038
Anna Coburn
Member of Public
Comment
This is an ideal opportunity for eco-friendly housing, Will at least some properties have solar
panels. What about insulation to cut down on fuel bills?
FAK039
Evans
Member of Public
Object
Far too big and separated so people would not come to the town centre and if they did they
would have problems parking. If necessary less houses would help – it‟s a huge increase on
the population of Fakenham and lots of traffic. Can Rudham Stile Lane & Thorpland Road
take this traffic? Is Fakenham being destroyed as a Market Town?
FAK040
Deborah Reed
Member of Public
Comment
These new houses will they be available for all person. Weather working or not. Also are
there any being built for ??? people. Bungalows, with garden for me. I would love the chance
to be put forward for a home with this future development. Also employ if it come along. All in
one. Wonderful.
FAK041
Roger Rose
Member of Public
Comment
1. Having examined the illustrative masterplan for this proposed development I wish to
comment in relation to the actual Rudham Stile Lane highway. I am sure it is not by
accident that the site allocation boundary runs along the northern edge of the
carriageway, thus not including any modification/improvement of the carriageway
which between Thorpland Road and Watermoor Lane varies between three lanes
and one lane in width, with various footpaths or no footpath at all.
2. In the 1970s the then occupant of 101 Rudham Stile Lane, for his own reasons
transplanted the roadside hedge of his property about three feet from its original line
to eliminate the then existing grass verge. The original boundary of the property is
Page 28 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
still marked by two oak trees. With the hedge in its “new” position pedestrians are
obliged to walk in the carriageway.
I consider that no authority in its right mind would sanction the redevelopment of the area
under consideration without including a plan for the redevelopment or removal of the existing
disused narrow railway bridge. No such plan is included in this proposal. The bridge and its
approaches are used by all classes of highway users including pedestrian and cycling
schoolchildren who have no protection from vehicles on the bridge. The approaches to the
bridge are blind from all directions.
FAK042
Andrew Ross
Barsham Parish
Council
Comment
Your plans suggest a roundabout where Water Moor Lane joins the A148. This is fine for the
increase in traffic coming from Fakenham and the new development but my concern is for the
road on the opposite side of the A148 (a road that links the A148 to the B1105 with Trap Lane
leading off it). This is a single carriage way "rat run" and the roundabout that this road would
supposedly link to would encourage more people to use it, especially when there is a lot of
traffic leaving the coast and Walsingham trying to join the A148 via the B1105 junction. I
would like to know how this will be coped with.
FAK043
Sue Bull
Anglian Water
Comment
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft document.
I have noted the comments relating to wastewater disposal and am satisfied that it reflects
the situation.
FAK044
Mr & Mrs O. PrinceWhite
Member of Public
Comment
Our main concern with the proposals as they now stand is that the closure of Water Moor
Lane would have considerable impact on all those who live in North Park and Field Lane,
forcing us to go back into town in order to access the by-pass and onward routes to Norwich
and King‟s Lynn.
We would urge you to give serious consideration to making Water Moor Lane a one-way
outward route to the by-pass, balancing the system in place at the bottom of Field Lane.
The proposed development will inevitably increases pressure on the towns roads and it
seems unwise to us, and no doubt the other potentially disadvantaged residents of North
Park / Field Lane, to add to this pressure. There is a simple solution: We hope the planners
will accept it.
Page 29 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
FAK045
Joanne Sparkes
Member of Public
Object
I feel as a resident of Fakenham and from North Park near the proposed site, the council are
taking the easy option to bring more money in for themselves, I believe the ground work
should be put into place first, perhaps we should be investing in our town centre to encourage
people to visit Fakenham and spend money, at the moment you can only buy clothes from
one shop there is nowhere to buy Music, all Fakenham has is lots of charity shops, eateries
and cheap shops, when you compare Fakenham with Dereham for instance, I would not
hesitate to go to Dereham for shopping, we have nothing to be proud of, Even the cameras
for our safety do not work, The car parks are either pay and display, or dump it on the side of
the road in the centre so it‟s difficult to drive through, and dangerous for pedestrians or the
workers take the spaces on Argos or the opposite car park. Also I can‟t tell you the last time I
saw a policeman to speak to!
There is nothing for the young people to do in Fakenham except make people very uneasy
whilst walking in the street, I am a 35 year old lady who would not go to Tesco in the dark due
to the behaviour of the young people there with nothing to occupy them, and no one to teach
them or give them the opportunity to make something of themselves, let alone the elderly!!
Watermoor lane, this a quick and easy, low congestion route to get access to the main A148,
this is a quick access to Wells, Kings Lynn and Cromer, closing this will not only increase the
congestion going into town, but going down to our traffic lights is already a nightmare when
the school is on, it will increase the traffic congestion considerably, leaving the Rudham Stile
Lane route which is not an ideal route and past peoples properties!!
Then comes the subject of Jobs, there are not enough jobs in Fakenham at the moment
without the 900 extra homes with people chasing local jobs, I would like to see that the
percentage of Fakenham people actually work outside of town, I know I would love to work in
town given the opportunity, and this would bring down the cost of fuel and wear and tear on
the car, It is not possible to car share with the hours I do and public transport is not good
enough to get me to and from Gressenhall every day!! I believe this will bring more people in
to town causing the unemployment list to grow further!! I work hard with a full time job as my
husband does, to help others stay at home all day and watch television, and now you are
planning to make this situation a lot worse!!
FAK046
Janice Syer
Member of Public
Comment
I am writing to express my concern with one aspect of the proposed development to the north
of Fakenham. I understand that it is proposed in the plans to close access for cars on to
Water Moor Lane and to turn it into a bus route. Having lived on North Park for almost 30
Page 30 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
years this route is used by my family daily to access the A148 if travelling to Holt, Cromer,
Wells, Kings Lynn etc.
Surely it does not make sense to close this 'escape route' and send even more traffic down to
either the traffic lights or via Rudham Stile Lane in order to reach the places already listed.
Not to mention the extra fuel this would use if carried out on a regular basis - very important
when we are all trying to consider our Carbon Footprints! I had assumed that it would be
better to filter traffic which needs to leave away from the town centre access routes in order to
relieve congestion.
I appreciate that we are all being urged to use public transport but this is not always
convenient. I feel that although the new development is important, more attention should be
paid to those of us who have lived in and supported Fakenham over the years and for the
convenience to us, not just the newcomers!
Equally, if you were to view the particular junction which leads over Rudham Stile Lane bridge
and into Water Moor Lane at 3.25pm term time you will appreciate the extra traffic which
would be diverted to the traffic lights and the chaos this would cause at an already VERY
busy time.
FAK047
Desmond Pearson
Member of Public
Object
One of several objections I have is the danger that already exists to traffic leaving/entering
water moor lane from the main road. It seems that the area is quite a Black Spot! Perhaps
police records of incidents of this nature be examined. I feel that this particular lane should be
shut altogether.
FAK048
Dawn Wakefield
Member of Public
Comment
My main concern having read this document and talked to planning officers is in relation to
increased traffic levels entering Fakenham town centre.
Whilst more people in the town of Fakenham would not be unwelcome for many businesses
and organisations, a large increase in traffic would be detrimental to the town and
unsustainable.
Although some thought has gone into mitigating the effects of the inevitable extra
traffic around the edges of the new development, it remains a fact that the town
centre ends of the main routes into the centre will struggle to cope with a significant
increase in traffic levels.
2.3.1 states „Policy CT5 The Transport Impact of New Development- requires that
Page 31 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
developments seek to reduce the need to travel, maximise the use of sustainable
forms of transport, and access without detriment to highway safety and the amenity
and character of the area‟ whilst 3.9.1 states „The majority of local facilities are found
to the south within the town centre itself‟. So there will be a continual need to travel to
the town centre from the new development, and this significant rise in traffic will
cause „detriment to the amenity and character of the area‟.
Although measures are proposed to keep extra traffic away from the smaller
residential streets near to the development, once on the designated main roads,
private cars will access the town centre (1) via Holt Road – ending in an already poor
junction with 2 mini roundabouts, that would struggle with a large increase in traffic,
or (2) via Greenway Lane, then Wells Road and Oak Street, which give access to the
Public library, Tesco with free parking, the Community centre and cinema. As
described in 3.10.2 this part of Wells Road and Oak Street are predominantly
residential with many of the houses situated directly at the pavement edge or very
near to it. I am seriously concerned that these narrow residential streets that are
already busy with traffic will not cope with a significant rise in traffic volume.
Already Oak Street is often blocked as buses and large delivery lorries navigate this
narrow street, driving on pavements in order to pass each other. Oak Street and
Wells Road are the main pedestrian route into town for school children and college
students – severe congestion and more pavement driving will put unaccompanied
children and young people at risk. On an ordinary week day late morning it often
takes over 5 minutes to cross this road with current traffic levels.
5.3.7 states „Additional pedestrian, cycle and public transport connections should be
made with Fakenham to the south, with restrictions placed on the amount of private
traffic that can travel in this direction; and‟ This sounds great - but gives no idea of
how these „restrictions‟ could be achieved. This paragraph ends with an „and‟
suggesting there should have been more content to this – I am told no text is missing
– but some more specific plans are needed here. Even if the buses are very frequent
and cheap, a considerable number of the residents of these 900 houses will still
choose to drive into town. I voiced concerns about all this at the Core Strategy
consultation stage, before I had any idea I would end up living on Oak Street, and I
don‟t feel they are adequately addressed as yet.
Another traffic related concern is the need for provision of another petrol station. The
two we have are used to capacity, with queues for most of the day, as there are no
Page 32 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
other filling stations in villages from here to the coast, and none in Wells. In recent
years 2 others have closed and with a population increase another would be needed.
I understand that NNDC is able to condition the occupancy of the new houses for full
time residential use, and feel this would be a good tool in ensuring that this new
housing can provide for the needs of those who live and work here, including
providing housing for the many adults currently stuck living with parents due to lack of
affordable housing; thus it will not just supplement the increasing amount of local
housing stock taken up as second homes.
The development document plans the actual development site itself well and has good
sustainable ideas about transport but it is hard to see how they will be put into practice, so
that although the existing town facilities can serve the new development, it needs more
careful planning to make sure the effects of the large amount of extra population and its traffic
do not have a negative and detrimental effect on existing town centre residents and street
users - be they drivers, pedestrians or cyclists.
FAK049
Heather de Lyon
Member of Public
Comment
In principle I have no problem with a development in Fakenham as people need places to
live. However I do have some concerns with regard to this major development as follows:
1. There is no mention of additional school provision for over 11‟s. The current school
was built for around 600 pupils as I understand it and already has nearer 1000.
2. Providing land for economic development is not the same as providing jobs for the
additional residents. What will be done to ensure that there are sufficient
employment opportunities for the new residents?
3. Community facilities are crucial. These should exist within the new development and
within the town centre. The current community centre, Connect building, scout hut
and library needs major investment and development. The town also lost its learning
centre some years ago and this could also be cited in the new central Fakenham
Community Campus and provide education, training and business advice to all
Fakenham residents – existing and new.
4. Good public transport will be crucial. This will need to include good public transport
to other potential areas of employment such as Norwich, Kings Lynn and the North
Norfolk coast.
5. Good road access will be essential from the by-pass rather than from the south of the
proposed site.
6. Parking spaces will need to be adequate. New developments often seem to
Page 33 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
underestimate the need to address this issue.
7. It will be important to address the leisure needs of new residents – the tennis courts
are a welcome addition to the town especially since the High School/College
removed ten tennis courts and replaced them with car parking. This was a major
amenity loss to the town. With obesity levels rising healthy exercise options will be
crucial. Football pitches, cricket pitches etc. will be essential. It is dreadful that there
is no good quality swimming/leisure pool nearby and this would be an opportunity to
address this need.
8. It will be essential that the design issues are addressed and that there will be a focus
on green build options and innovative modern design as well as traditional building.
We do not need another bland and characterless housing estate. Landscaping
issues are very important as are open spaces and a people-friendly development.
9. The purpose-built youth centre in the middle of town is now the Connect building with
no youth activities taking place in the building. Resources and facilities for young
people both on the new development and in the centre of Fakenham are crucial.
10. There needs to be a recognition that what the town centre can offer will be important
to the success of this proposal as well as what is available in the new development
itself.
11. Resources for older people will also need to be provided with 20% of the
development earmarked for this age group.
FAK050
Richard Crook
Member of Public
Comment
I would like to make the following observations and comments on the proposals:
Employment (or lack of employment) is a major concern
The High School is already outdated and overcrowded – is there going to be a new
one or a major expansion and if so where?
There needs to be good integration with the existing town centre which enhances the
feeling of a single community.
Community facilities need to be vastly improved. This should include an integrated
civic and community hub on the existing site for the CONNECT centre, Community
centre and library.
A town of this size should have a swimming pool.
Transport links (including bus or even rail services) should be improved to enable
better access for employment and social activities.
I hope these comments are helpful and I feel that if the relevant issues are incorporated into
the development plan then there could be benefits for existing residents as well as new
Page 34 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
residents and the surrounding population.
FAK051
Cathy Ray
Member of Public
Comment
I like the mixed housing and the fact that thought has been given to green areas.
I do not like the idea that this is creating a\ satellite village/ town due to the lack of vehicular
access directly into Fakenham. Because most of us are lazy I suspect that the car will be
needed for even the smallest shopping trip, which is not eco-friendly. Surely it would be more
sensible to provide a direct vehicular route into Fakenham centre?
Is it due to cost that a through-route is not being planned?
FAK052
I M Witham
Open Spaces Society
Comment
I am responding on behalf of the society, and in so doing, am making no comment upon the
merits or otherwise of the principle of developing this site. Needless to say, development of
this site would have a major impact on the character of the land here, and its surrounding
areas. I do, however, make the following comments:
If the scheme were to go ahead, important public benefit could be achieved by the creation of
new publicly accessible open spaces and new public rights of way, whether within the site
and/or linking to it, in the wider area of Fakenham.
In order to secure its status for present and future generations, it is absolutely vital that any
and every area of public open space provided as part of the scheme be voluntarily registered
as town green, under section 15(8) of the Commons Act 2006.
Guidance about such registration can be found here:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13733-rural-villagegreens-voluntary-guidance.pdf
Any routes or thoroughfares (not including roads) created as part of the scheme should be
dedicated as permanent public rights of way, preferably by agreement under Section 25 of
the Highways Act 1980.
In addition, any such routes should preferably be created as restricted byways, making them
available for enjoyment by all categories of user, except for mechanically propelled vehicles.
In this regard, investigation could be carried out into whether assistance would be available
Page 35 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
through "Paths for Communities" (see
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/access/rightsofway/p4c.aspx).
FAK053
Miss C Colk
Member of Public
Object
I am writing to express my views against the proposed new development in Fakenham, as
someone who has lived here most of her life, since the 1970s, and not as someone who is
stuck here but as someone who loves it here.
I think the development will destroy the country feel of the town. Rudham Stile Lane is a
peaceful, tranquil area with beautiful views, and I know that my son is safe doing his paper
round there. He loves seeing the wildlife in the mornings.
The building of 900 houses, and the additional facilities, will destroy the rural feel of the north
of the town, and as a resident on one of the main routes into the town centre, I worry about
how our older houses, which were built without foundations, are going to cope with all the
extra traffic thundering down our roads. It is obvious that some of the buildings on Wells
Road, leading to Oak Street, have suffered as a result of the extra traffic since Tesco was
built.
As for the argument that new facilities will create extra jobs, if there are potentially 900 extra
families here, unemployment will increase, not decrease.
I think that changes on such a major scale will erase a lot of the charm of Fakenham, and
probably drive some of us away.
FAK054
B Meller
Member of Public
Comment
Extreme concern re:
Sewerage – able to cope?
Schools – only 1?
Jobs – shortage of industries
Parking – in town especially at holiday times + tourists + half-term times. No space now.
Hoping hedge will remain along Rudham Stile Lane.
FAK055
Ronnie & Sheila
Moulton
Member of Public
Comment
We currently live off Rudham Stile Lane and have lived in Fakenham for 25 years and am
happy going forward with change and development providing the infrastructure of the town
Page 36 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
and surrounding area is in place to cope with the expansion.
However our main concerns regarding the planned expansion of our town are:
Changing the profile of a small country market town and spoiling the current way of
life as we do not want it to be another Thetford.
Inadequate sewerage, water supply and support roads in and around the expansion
area.
Roads are dangerous now as more people, more cars and more rat runs being
created as Rudham Stile is an accident waiting to happen now.
Increase in bad behaviour, vandalism and break-ins.
Not enough skilled jobs in the town now as I for one have to drive 50 miles every day
to work as there is no public transport which must be improved.
Changes would have to be made within the town to cope with the additional
population e.g. roads, increase car parking space and generally upgrade the town to
encourage people to shop in the town and to bring more retailers in as for instance
you are unable to buy men‟s clothes in the town.
Increased pressure on public services, police, health and emergency providers and
quite sure you would have to double the size of the new surgery.
I could go on as the size of the expansion would certainly have more impact on us that some
people in Fakenham living so close to the development as we would no longer live in a
country town and the wildlife and ecological pattern would also change immensely.
The new development would supply housing to the younger population which is great if the
pricing policy is managed correctly and would also make housing available to the minority
who have jobs in Fakenham.
In summary, we have to move forward as more houses must be built to accommodate our
growing population but we feel the timing for this development is incorrect.
Improve the general infrastructure of Fakenham first and surrounding area including the road
networks over the next few years as the budget money needs to be spent on this first before
a new brick is laid.
FAK056
Kevin Gray
Member of Public
Comment
In view of the current hosepipe ban currently in place in this area has the impact on the
utilities required to support this number of houses and the occupants been calculated and
Page 37 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Comments
what impact it will have also what mitigation has been put in place to ensure that basic human
needs to support life are in place.
Be interesting to understand how these calculations have been arrived at.
FAK057
John Hiskett
Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Comment
From a landscape and ecology viewpoint the Development Brief does not appear to have
changed much since the consultation on the draft Masterplan in 2009. At the time we made a
number of comments regarding biodiversity and green infrastructure (GI).
We are pleased to see that the Vision states that there should be an extensive GI permeating
the development. However, elsewhere in the document the commitment is less strong
referring to creation of a network of hedges and open spaces, if feasible. In our view, a
development of this size should be subject to a GI plan with a firm commitment that this
should be a key element of the new community. It is also important that this element is put in
place at an early stage in the development in order to give time for vegetation to mature.
We are also disappointed that there do not appear to be any commitment to investigation of
pedestrian or cycle links out of the development into the surrounding countryside, or through
the existing town to link with existing green space along the River Wensum. Whilst we
appreciate that developers will not be able to create new green space on land that is not
under their control, proposals that improve access to existing green space in the vicinity will
make it less likely that residents will drive to areas outside of the town for informal recreation.
As we have argued previously, any GI plan for the development should also outline how
biodiversity will be protected and enhanced. Although not being prescriptive this should give a
strong steer as to how measures such as bird and bat boxes, green roofs and native planting
should be included in the development.
We would like to see investigation of the possibilities of biodiversity offsetting in relation to the
development. This approach is being piloted around Norwich and may be rolled out nationally
by the time this development gets underway. Although the habitats and species present in the
development site are not of high value they nevertheless have a level of ecological value for
species such as farmland birds. If biodiversity off-setting were to be adopted it may be
possible to use the revenue accrued to improve other habitats to the south of the town that
could then be accessed on foot from the development area.
Page 38 of 39
Comment
ID
Name
Organisation
Comments
Member of Public
Objection/
Support/
Comment
Support
FAK058
Paul Picken
FAK059
Liz Radley
Member of Public
Support
As a resident of the town, I am broadly in favour.
It seems unlikely that public transport will be used instead of cars, though; it would be wise to
leave access onto the A148 open, in order to ease congestion through town.
Are such a large number of houses necessary? Could it be done in two phases?
Are there sufficient school places and infrastructure to allow the expansion to be a success?
Is the town centre large enough for the extra people?
These are questions, rather than comments as I am not an expert; they do show my areas of
concern.
I am generally in favour of the Design Brief but would like to make the following comments.
The DB should state that there will be only one outline planning application for the whole
allocated area so as to ensure a complete and comprehensive development of the area , and
the DB should also state in more comprehensive detail how the development will unravel
over time.
Page 39 of 39