To join the Thetford Society, click here for an application form.

You are visitor number 

THETFORD AREA ACTION PLAN

The Thetford Society's Response to the Consultation

THE THETFORD SOCIETY'S RESPONSE TO THE THETFORD AREA ACTION PLAN

FEBRUARY 2011

TH1: Agree. However, this is not a Thetford Urban Extension but a Croxton and Kilverstone Extension. Thetford Town Council will receive very little if any from the Council Taxes paid by the residents of this Extension. The Society would urge the District Council to consider adjusting the parish boundaries so that Thetford benefits.

Concern has also been expressed that current Thetford residents in other areas of the town will not be afforded the facilities planned for the new residential area eg. very regular ‘bus services, community facilities, etc. This perceived imbalance is a recipe for disaster.

TH2: Agree. Lying in the middle of the Brecks adjacent to the Thetford Forest, Thetford has an enviable location. The observations made in the Habitat Assessment Report by Roger Evans Associates (commissioned by Breckland District Council) should be adhered to, in particular, keeping development within the A11 northern boundary. The proposal to site a large industrial unit alongside the Mundford Road north of the A11 roundabout should be opposed as it would be inappropriate within the Brecks, would ruin the rural views from the Boudica Site and disturb breeding areas of birds on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. Pollution, loss of productive farmland and increased road traffic are also reasons to turn down the planning application.

TH3: Agree but provision must be made for the future maintenance of the planting together with a request to ensure suitable species are planted.

TH4: Agree. The Boudica Site should have interpretation boards and facilities in order to attract visitors from the A11. The site should be managed so that the siting of the monument is enhanced and the integrity of Thetford's heritage is preserved.

Pigeon Investment Management stated that certain residential blocks would frame and face the important Boudica Site. This is to be applauded. We would again reiterate our concerns in TH2 as the ‘framing' houses would have an industrial unit ruining the present stunning vista.

TH5: Agree. These building could provide community facilities eg public house, but a viability study needs to be carried out first.TH6: Agree.

TH7: Agree. In the short term the High Lodge facilities should be made accessible from Thetford for cyclists and walkers via the river corridor and forest tracks. There would be a need for a crossing point along the Brandon Road.

TH8: We would support regular bus services. Monies should be ring-fenced to enable this service to continue in the future. The scheme for a guided bus route seems to have been dropped – is this the case?

TH9: Agree.

TH10: Agree. However, there are questions surrounding this scheme. Who will finance this, where precisely will this be, will there be easy access for the disabled to the platforms and will there be sufficient car and cycle parking? This scheme would take up a fairly large tract of land and we would hope that facilities such as outdoor sports provision, allotments, woodland and open space would not be compromised to accommodate the scheme. Building land should be used.

Apart from Cambridge and Norwich, Stansted should be added to the destinations.

TH11: At the moment the A11 grinds to a halt between Barton Mills and Thetford. One of the main causes is the traffic lights at Elveden which create a stop start queue of traffic. The idea to add more traffic lights at the five junctions is short sighted. Although not attractive and more expensive, flyovers do provide an uninterrupted flow of vehicles. We do not want Thetford to be known as the bottleneck of East Anglia.

TH12: We acknowledge there is a need to modify the road network as even before any expansion, problems exist. We would urge that any modifications are part of a co-ordinated whole and are not allowed to develop piecemeal.

Members are particularly concerned about the Croxton Road/Mundford Road junction ( TH12 , No.1 ) which is already at a critical point.

TH13: Agree, but there is a need to provide a range of employment opportunities. We would want to encourage a balance between warehousing, factories and offices. There is a need for quality office space to attract quality jobs. The move by Jeyes to relocate their offices from Thetford to Cambridge is significant.

It is essential that employment areas should be accessed via trunk and main roads and not through residential zones.

TH14: We have to question the viability of having local centres offering comparison goods. The town centre struggles to provide comparison goods' outlets because of the out-of-town retail parks. We should be trying to encourage more such shops into the town centre to add long lost vibrancy.

Local centres require convenience goods shops which service the immediate locality.

TH15: These should be the maximum rather than the minimum national standards. New homes should comply with the Energy Performance Certificate ‘A' or, at least, ‘B' ratings.

TH16: The local planning authority should insist that any new buildings comply with the most exacting standards available.

The ‘Community Heat and Power Plant' sounds feasible but not if the Power Plant is the one that is proposed in the countryside north of the A11 alongside the Mundford Road (ref. TH2 ).

TH17: We would hope that in the case of Primary Schools the principle that new schools are local to the population should be maintained and that new schools are not built to the detriment of existing successful schools.

TH18: We welcome the proposed increased health provision and its proximity to the population. We would hope that the provision of a pharmacy, dentists and a facility for minor operations could be provided here in Thetford.

Why is the use of the current Healthy Living Centre to be reviewed? As there is empty accommodation units in the building, one would suspect that the rental rates are set too high. It appears crazy to have such a facility only partly utilized.

TH19: Agree, as it seems a sensible idea to provide community buildings.

TH20: We support this but request that it is properly managed. The recycling facility at Sainsbury's is properly managed but the one at Tesco's was not and has been closed down.

TH21: Thetford's shopping environment is not vibrant – perhaps ‘maintaining' should be changed to ‘creating'.

In order to create a vibrant town centre something different, revolutionary needs to happen to make Thetford a place people wish to visit. The river could become a huge asset if it were to become navigable to Brandon. This used to be the case and Thetford thrived. Tourists arriving via boats from far afield would re-vitalise the riverside areas where cafes, restaurants and shops would spring up. The other tourist attractions such as the Brecks, the Ancient House Museum, the Burrell and Dad's Army Museums, the Art Gallery, the Priory, Castle Hill, etc. would also benefit from the influx of tourists.

Although such a scheme would be initially expensive, with a number of different agencies involved costs could be spread. The alternatives are few and would not guarantee a ‘vibrant' town centre. It does, however, depend on the foresight, skill and determination of the MTF Board members to implement this scheme as part of their vision for Thetford.

The proposal to route coaches down Minstergate is hardly ‘giving priority to pedestrians'. As Minstergate is the main pedestrian artery into the town from the west. We feel that pedestrian safety will be compromised if the plan is implemented.

‘Concentrated' car parking presumably means ‘multi-storey'? If this is the case then the present car park at the rear of the old Woolworths unit would be an ideal location. The fear is that planners will wish to compromise the open aspect of the river side at sites such as School Lane, the Anchor site, the rear of Argos and/or the Wilkinson site. We would strongly urge that these sites remain out-of-bounds as far as multi-storey parking is concerned.

We realise that the Carnegie Room is a valuable community facility which could be enhanced if it were to be remodelled and refurbished. The cost of demolishing and rebuilding it would appear prohibitive.

Riverside Walk requires large scale redevelopment and investment in order to provide Thetford with an acceptable, attractive town centre.

The Anchor site together with the soon to close Magistrates' Courthouse, should be upgraded to provide a distinctive, appealing and functional mix of welcoming bus interchange, drop-off/pick-up bays, parking, taxi ranks together with retail and food outlets.

TH22: Major redevelopment needs to take place in the town centre rather than providing meagre units (ref. TH21 ). The Town Centre Master plan should be produced first before piecemeal development.

TH23: Agree, but this may be difficult perhaps even impossible to achieve.

TH24: Agree.

TH25: The identified site for the proposed new bus station has a number of weaknesses – restricted access and exit, lack of space for a suitable drop-off/pick-up zone, lack of space for a suitable taxi rank, safety concerns for pedestrians along Minstergate with increased traffic, a separate block of public WCs welcoming visitors to Thetford, not a Town Centre site, lack of facilities eg tourist information, booking facility, waiting room.

The renovation of the Cosy Carpets building under this heading is nothing but a red herring. We have always hoped that assuming the MTF Board ignores residents' views and forges ahead with the scheme regardless, then this building would make an iconic bus station with related facilities. The plans for a budget hotel which would also serve as a cafe, information centre and provide attended toilets for the bus station is more appealing.

The present (Anchor) site could be upgraded at a fraction of the cost of moving the interchange to St Nicholas St/Minstergate.

TH26: Agree, but question how points one and three can be achieved without taking allotment land, commercial land or carrying out a major restructuring of the surrounding roads. The obvious car parking area, which was redundant commercial land, is now being built on and Station Road, the main artery into the Town Centre from the Station, has its own traffic flow problems.

TH27: Agree

TH28: Agree, but would add that the allotment sites should be in close proximity to the residents.

TH29: Agree and would add that a tree buffer zone either side of the Lane should be established and maintained and that only pedestrian/cycle traffic be allowed to cross it.

TH30: Agree

TH31: Agree, but there is a need for sports' provision being made for the south of the town. We feel that the retention of the swimming pool at the Academy's south site (formerly Charles Burrell High) along with changing facilities would be applauded. The pool could be used by the local schools and swimming club as well as opened to the public for specific periods. With the site's proximity to the sports fields on Barnham Common the changing facilities could be used by local clubs and groups.

The sports facilities of the Academy (north site) could be administered on a joint use basis.

One glaring omission is the provision of a synthetic Athletics track. Thetford has a thriving Athletics Club but their facilities (at the Rugby Club) are woeful compared to similar clubs around the country.

Whatever the facilities it is essential that they are maintained to a high standard for future generations and a financial commitment to this effect is required.

TH32: Agree

TH33: Any such development should not compromise the countryside, wildlife or residents' amenity (ref. TH2 ).

TH34: Agree. The long term viability of a fresh water supply is essential. Studies must be conducted to ensure the supply is sustainable before development commences.

TH35: Agree

TH36: Agree

TH37: Agree

TH38: Agree

TH39: Infilling is a contentious issue. Planning permission was granted for a certain density of development which, hopefully, provides a pleasant living environment – this should not be compromised. Development of gardens and open space amenity land within residential developments should be avoided.

We would encourage more and varied play equipment but question maintenance responsibilities in years to come.

TH40: Agree (ref. TH13 )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prepared by the Thetford Society Environmental Committee

Contact details: Mr Stuart Wilson - e -mail me.