Thorpe St. Andrew

Policy POTSA1: Cary’s Meadow

PDF map | Web map

  • Land at Cary’s Meadow will be conserved and enhanced for its contribution to the landscape, its wildlife and openness, and the appropriate recreation use by visitors and local residents.
  • The provision of appropriately designed and located cycle parking is encouraged and supported.

Constraints and features

  • Cary’s Meadow is a Norfolk County Wildlife Site, part of which lies within the Thorpe St. Andrew with Thorpe Island Conservation Area.
  • Flood risk - mainly zone 2 and some zone 1 by EA mapping; small part 2, 3a and by SFRA 2017).

Reasoned Justification

Cary’s Meadow is a valuable site for wildlife and popular open space for the local community. The policy signals the Authority’s continuing commitment to its protection and improvement. The river can also be accessed and viewed from the Meadow. In 2015, canoe access points were put in place. Given the Meadow’s location close to the Norwich urban area, the policy encourages and supports appropriately designed and located cycle parking.

Reasonable alternative options

An alternative option would be to keep the original policy and not mention cycle parking.

An alternative option could be to not have a policy. This policy could be protected by other policies in the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan (when made).

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: Keep original policy: 3 positives. 1 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

B: Preferred Option - amend policy to improve reference to cycle parking: 4 positives. 1 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

C: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 4 ?

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has not been used.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

Given that the area is not an allocated open space and given the importance of the area to this part of the Broads, to not have a policy is not seen as reasonable. The wording relating to cycle parking provision is preferred given the location of the site near to Norwich and lack of cycle parking currently.

Back to top

Policy POTSA2: Thorpe Island

PDF map | Web map

  • Development on Thorpe Island will be managed to:
  1. maintain and enhance:
  • the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;
  • the visual amenity and the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers;
  • the contribution of the island to the wider landscape of the River Yare; and
  • the navigational value of the Yare and the New Cut; and
  1. avoid any significant increase in:
  • the intensity or extent of mooring use;
  • the intensity or extent of onshore development required to support any lawful mooring uses;
  • vehicular traffic using the bridge;
  • dinghy access likely to lead to the mooring or storage of dinghies (or other small craft) on the Thorpe shore, unless specific and satisfactory provision has been made for this;
  • car parking in the Thorpe area, unless specific and satisfactory provision has been made for this;
  • risk of groundwater or river water pollution; and
  • flood risk and reduce flood risk where practicable.
  • not add to light pollution by ensuring any lighting is justified and well-designed.
  • For planning purposes, the island is split into three parts, to which the following criteria apply:
  1. Eastern End of Thorpe Island
  • This part of the island is retained in boatyard usage. Well-designed upgrades or renewals to the existing boatyard buildings (in conformity with the design guide or successor document) to facilitate the continued boatyard use and, which reflect this part of the island being in the Conservation Area and the urban/rural transition area, as well as being a gateway into Norwich, will be supported. Any proposals must also improve the landscaping of this part of the island. In relation to the private moorings along the river frontage, proposals which seek to give more order and improve the appearance of these moorings and the associated paraphernalia on the island itself will be supported.
  1. Central part of Thorpe Island
  • This part of the island will be retained in its current use with no significant extensions to the existing buildings and replacements on a like for like basis (in conformity with the design guide or successor document).
  1. Western end of Thorpe Island (including the basin)
  • This part of the island will be retained as open in nature with no built development. Proposals which remove the poor-quality structures and paraphernalia will be welcomed. Proposals shall make significant improvement to the visual appearance of the area and provide biodiversity enhancements.
  • Within the basin, the provision of private moorings for up to 25 vessels is acceptable, subject to the satisfactory provision of well-designed and screened on-site car parking, refuse storage and disposal, sewage disposal and upgrades to the bridge. Significant improvements will also be required to the landscaping. Moorings shall be laid out in an informal configuration to avoid regimentation in appearance[174] . Proposals for the basin must include the removal and suitable disposal of the sunken vessels to improve the visual appearance of the area and enable safe usage of the basin.
  • No other development shall be permitted on the Western end of the Island.

Constraints and features

  • Almost the whole of Thorpe Island is within the Thorpe St Andrew with Thorpe Island Conservation Area. (Only the railway line along the southern edge of the Island is excluded.)
  • Almost the whole of the Island is in high flood risk zones (EA zone 3; SFRA 2017 most zone 2, 3a and modelled 3b).
  • The Island is in an area of safeguarded minerals (sand and gravel) resources, but the Minerals Planning Authority has advised this is unlikely to constrain the type and scale of development supported by the policy.
  • Bridges constrain types and size of vessels entering the river from the cut.
  • For the Eastern and Central parts of the Island, there is no pedestrian or vehicular access from land; access is only by boat.
  • Narrow vehicular access via a bridge to the Western end of Thorpe Island.
  • Amenity of varying neighbouring uses.
  • Limited utilities provision.
  • Active railway line.
  • Mooring basin.
  • Sunken vessels within basin.
  • Rural/urban transition area.
  • Outside development boundary.
  • River Green nearby (POTSA5).

Reasoned Justification

The semi-natural appearance that much of the Island provides is an important backdrop to views from River Green and its environs, and more generally to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It also provides a semi-natural view from the riverside path in Whitlingham Country Park, screening the traffic and urban development of Thorpe St. Andrew and helping provide a more tranquil and semi-rural character to the Park.

Since the closure of the hire boatyards that previously operated from the Island, a whole series of uses and operations, many unauthorised, have given rise to complaints from neighbouring occupiers and the Town Council, with successive enforcement actions by the Authority, decisions by the Planning Inspectorate and subsequent legal judgements by courts. The residential occupancy of the former boatyard office and the operation of a boatyard at the Eastern end of the Island are legitimate (Area A).

The Island has very limited access. A narrow bridge to the west does connect the Island to the shore but is very narrow, with poor alignment and emerging into a small residential estate and is not a suitable route for significant traffic or heavy vehicles. There is a serious shortage of parking in the vicinity to serve local residents, local business, and visitors to the popular riverside area of River Green.

Significant development of the Island would give rise to additional pressure on this already limited capacity. Access to the Island is primarily by boat, but this too is constrained. Boat access to the north side of the Island from the main river (New Cut) is constrained by shoal water and the low air draught (clearance height) of the railway bridges at both ends of the Island, while the railway along the south edge of the Island rules out direct access to it from the main river. Therefore, further substantial development of the Island is not compatible with the very limited access to it, the lack of available car parking in the environs, the Island’s contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the wider landscape.

The Environment Agency highlights that the site lies within its designated Source Protection Zone 1, and the importance here of avoiding the risk of pollution to the groundwater resources. It also emphasises the need to address the risks of water pollution for waterside sites in industrial/boatyard use.

The Broads Authority’s Design Guide addresses waterside buildings (to follow).

Given the site’s location, in a semi-rural area and next to water, lighting could have a big impact and so needs to be fully justified and well designed.

The policy for the eastern end of the Island seeks the retention of the boat usage and allows for related improvements to the existing buildings. This reflects the flood risk to the site as well as there being no pedestrian or vehicular access. This is a prominent site at the gateway to Norwich. It is located in the Conservation Area, is within the transition from rural to urban, and is prominent from River Green. Along the river are many long-term moorings, with associated paraphernalia on the island itself. It is haphazard in layout and in a prominent location with views from River Green, and the Authority seeks improvements to the appearance of this area.

Turning to the central part of the island, the usage includes boatsheds for storing of craft, rowing facilities, and amenity plots. The policy seeks to retain this low impact use.

Finally, the western end of the island has been the subject of many complaints, enforcement action, planning appeals and legal action. The final appeal decision is here: Thorpe Island appeal decision 20 Oct 2014 (pdf | broads-authority.gov.uk). The provision of appropriately surfaced and screened car parking spaces, an agreed method of waste storage and collection as well as provision for pump out all on the island will ensure that the impact of any mooring provision within the basin is minimal on the nearby community. Subject to detailed design, this provision could be located to the west of the marina, close to the existing bridge.

Reasonable alternative options

An alternative option would be to keep the original policy and not mention light pollution or the design guide within the policy itself.

Another option would be to not have a policy.

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 8 ? Uncertain impact as policy elements could be covered by other policies.

B: Keep original policy: 7 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

C: Preferred Option - amend policy to improve reference to light pollution and the design guide: 8 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has not been used.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

A policy is favoured given the long and complicated planning history of this area. The stronger wording relating to light pollution is favoured when compared to the original to ensure the dark skies of the Broads are protected in this edge of settlement location. Mentioning the Design Guide is also important given the type of buildings in this area.

Back to top

Policy POTSA3: Griffin Lane – boatyards and industrial area

PDF map | Web map

  • Environmental and landscape improvements to this area will be sought, while protecting the existing dockyard and boatyard uses under Broads Local Plan policies on general employment and boatyards (PODM31 and PODM33).
  • Development in the area will not be permitted except where this furthers these objectives and is compatible with the restricted road access to the area and other highway constraints.
  • Any change in line with the requirements of this policy will take account of the Listed Grade II building and its setting. Furthermore, in the light of the potential for archaeological remains in the area, an archaeological survey may be required in advance of any grant of planning permission.
  • Particular consideration will be given to the need and design of lighting and any subsequent light pollution, given the location of the area on the edge of the settlement, near to water.
  • Any proposals will need to be in conformity with the Design Guide[175] (or successor document).

Constraints and features

  • Listed Grade II building within area.
  • Area likely to be of archaeological interest.
  • Just across river from Whitlingham Marsh Local Nature Reserve.
  • Flood risk (mainly zone 3 by EA mapping; zones 2, 3a & modelled 3b, by SFRA 2017 mapping).
  • This area contains safeguarded minerals (sand and gravel) resources, but the Minerals Planning Authority has advised this is unlikely to constrain the type and scale of development supported by the policy.

Reasoned Justification

The policy seeks to support the value of the boatyards and dockyard, while ensuring that full regard is given to the desirability of achieving environmental improvements, and to the constrained road access to the area. Environmental improvements could relate to water quality, biodiversity, soil, and noise and air pollution.

The Broads Authority’s Design Guide addresses waterside buildings (to follow).

Given the site’s location, in a semi-rural area and next to water, lighting could have a big impact and so needs to be fully justified and well designed.

Reasonable alternative options

An alternative option would be to keep the original policy and not mention light pollution or the design guide within the policy itself.

Another option would be to not have a policy.

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 6 ? Uncertain impact as policy elements could be covered by other policies.

B: Keep original policy: 5 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

C: Preferred Option - amend policy to improve reference to light pollution and the design guide: 6 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has not been used.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

The stronger wording relating to light pollution is favoured when compared to the original to ensure the dark skies of the Broads are protected in this edge of settlement location. Mentioning the Design Guide is also important given the type of buildings in this area.

Back to top

Policy POTSA4: Bungalow Lane – mooring plots and boatyards

PDF map | Web map

  • Further development will be limited by the area’s vulnerability to flooding, the retention of its semi-rural character, and the poor road access.
  • The existing tree cover will be retained. Additional tree and other planting will be encouraged, subject to avoiding the creation of additional wind shadowing of the river affecting its sailing value.
  • Permission will not be granted for:
  1. permanent dwellings;
  2. the use as permanent dwellings of buildings restricted to holiday or day use;
  3. the use for holiday or permanent occupation of buildings constructed as day huts, boatsheds or temporary buildings; or
  4. the stationing of caravans.
  • Extensions to existing buildings, and replacement buildings, will be permitted, provided that:
  • the building and use proposed complies with policies for development in areas of flood risk;
  • the design, scale, materials and landscaping of the development contributes positively to the
    semi-rural and holiday character of the area, and pays appropriate regard to the amenity of
    nearby occupiers and is in conformity with the Design Guide (or successor document);
  • particular consideration is taken to the need and design of lighting and any subsequent light pollution, given the location of the area on the edge of the settlement, near to water;
  • Care is be taken to avoid over-development of plots, and in particular:
  • a significant proportion of the plot area (excluding mooring areas) should remain unbuilt;
  • buildings should not occupy the whole width of plots;
  • buildings should be kept well back from the river frontage; and
  • buildings should be of single storey of modest height, with floor not raised excessively above ground level.
  • Development of new or replacement buildings within existing boatyards to meet essential operational needs will be permitted, provided that no significant increase in traffic on Bungalow Lane would result.

Constraints and features

  • Just across river from Whitlingham Marsh Local Nature Reserve.
  • Flood risk (zones 2 & 3 by EA 2012 mapping; zone modelled 3b by SFRA 2017 mapping).
  • The site is in an area of safeguarded minerals (sand and gravel) resources, but the Minerals Planning Authority has advised this is unlikely to constrain the type and scale of development supported by the policy.

Reasoned Justification

This is a small riverside area of mooring plots, chalets, and boatyards. Road access is poor, being a narrow track with an unmanned level crossing of the railway and a restricted junction onto the main road.

The aim is to avoid any increase in road traffic, any consolidation, or extension of built development along the river frontage, and any increase in flood risk.

The Environment Agency supports the intention to keep buildings back from the river frontage. While ‘well back’ is difficult to define and depends on particular local circumstances, in general setting the building back by a third of a plot could be appropriate. Being hard up or too close to the water’s edge could enclose the river and be overbearing. Setting of buildings with an undeveloped area in front will also allow architectural interest of buildings to be appreciated.

The Broads Authority’s Design Guide addresses waterside buildings (to follow).

Given the site’s location, in a semi-rural area and next to water, lighting could have a big impact and so needs to be fully justified and well designed.

Reasonable alternative options

An alternative option would be to keep the original policy and not mention light pollution or the design guide within the policy itself.

Another option would be to not have a policy.

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 7 ? Uncertain impact as policy elements could be covered by other policies.

B: Keep original policy: 6 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

C: Preferred Option - amend policy to improve reference to light pollution and the design guide: 7 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has not been used.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

The stronger wording relating to light pollution is favoured when compared to the original to ensure the dark skies of the Broads are protected in this edge of settlement location. Mentioning the Design Guide is also important given the type of buildings in this area.

Back to top

Policy POTSA5: River Green Open Space

PDF map | Web map

The area of River Green, as defined on the Adopted Policies Map, is allocated as open space and will be kept open for its contribution to amenity, townscape, and recreation.

Constraints and features

  • Area is within Thorpe St. Andrew Conservation Area.
  • Flood risk (zone 2 by EA 2012 mapping; zones 2, 3a & modelled 3b by SFRA 2017 mapping).
  • River Green includes safeguarded minerals (sand and gravel) resources, but the Minerals Planning Authority has advised this is compatible with the open space designation, subject to no permanent buildings being erected.

Reasoned Justification

River Green is an important amenity, part of the local street-scene, and part of the Thorpe St. Andrew Conservation Area. It also provides public access to the riverside and views of the river and Thorpe Island, within easy reach of a large population. Continued protection of this area is thus warranted.

Reasonable alternative options

An alternative option could be to not have a policy. This policy could be protected by other policies in the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan (when made).

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: Preferred Option: 3 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive.

B: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 3 ? Overall positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has not been used.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

Given that the area is not an allocated open space and given the importance of the area to this part of the Broads, it seems prudent to have a policy that seeks protection.

Share this page