THE GLAVEN VALLEY CONSERVATION AREA

                   
                           

                                                                          Click on image to Enlarge

With heartfelt thanks to you all, we've done it, the Spirit of north Norfolk has won. Yesterday 4th September the members of NNDC’s Development Committee rejected the officer's recommendation for approval and voted 11 to 2 against this application. We thank them for standing up for the people of north Norfolk. 

But we ain't done yet, despite clear guidelines in the Local Development Framework, there is a notable  change of direction by NNDC’s planning officers towards new large, modern buildings in the countryside.

The 170 letters of objection NNDC received against this proposal are an indication of how the people who live here feel about that; but will that alter how the planners act?  No of course it won’t, because they do not see themselves as answerable to us, they are the professionals and it is we who should accept their advice not the other way round.  Several years ago Wiveton spent a good deal of time and money preparing a Village Design Statement which, after a fight was accepted by NNDC as supplementary planning guidance. It has sat at the back of the shelf - if not in the waste bin- ever since.

This culture has to change; those who live in a place should shape that place,  throughout history that is how it has been and is how we came to have the distinctive and much loved architecture of north Norfolk.

 If you agree with this there is a meeting with Nicola Baker -NNDC Head of Planning- on the 10th September @ 7.00 pm in Cley Village Hall please do attend. 

 If you agree with this there is a meeting with Nicola Baker -NNDC Head of Planning- on the 10th September @ 7.00 pm in Cley Village Hall please do attend.  This is just one of many views that show how closely this development will share this                                                           landscape with our Grade 1 listed Churches.

The planning application and all supporting documents can be accessed via the North Norfolk District Council planning search function within its website.  To access the application and all related documentation, please type in the planning search box, the reference 14/0785. The application is for the construction of a large dwelling on elevated ground south of Blakeney.  The application also includes demolition of a small bungalow and related farm buildings. The main questions which need to be answered in the affirmative for this application to succeed are:

2.4.7 The strategy recognises the major role played by Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham as larger service centres, and the complementary roles of Cromer, Sheringham and Holt in relation to the provision of employment, retailing and services for the central area of North Norfolk. The smaller settlements of Hoveton, Stalham, Sheringham and Wells-next-the-Sea also play a significant role as local centres within the rural area. Many of the villages and hamlets distributed across North Norfolk have very few or non-existent local services and are dependent on the larger settlements for everyday needs. Therefore in such small settlement and in the Countryside development will generally be constrained, except to support rural communities and rural economic diversification. There are however a number of villages that perform a limited role as local service centres that collectively help to sustain the wider rural community. In order to support these roles and help meet local employment and housing needs, sixteen Service Villages that are evenly distributed across North Norfolk have been identified as suitable for accommodating limited residential and other types of development. The Service Villages were selected on the basis of presence of a primary school, a level of public transport and a range of services (e.g. village shop) that can meet basic day-to-day needs. The Service Village methodology is explained fully in the Sustainability Appraisal report.

2.4.8 In order to address the issues facing coastal communities as a result of coastal erosion and flooding, resulting from changing Government policies toward sea defences, Coastal Service Villages are identified where a different approach may be taken to development so as to ensure the future well-being of these communities. Adaptation initiatives may be implemented to address the loss of properties and potential blight caused by erosion and provide for opportunities for relocation of property and services where appropriate.

2.4.9 The Appropriate Assessment which examines the impact of a strategy on wildlife designations (Natura 2000 sites) also informed the location and scale of future development and highlighted particular concerns such as water quality around the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) that have been addressed in the individual town strategies.

2.4.10 Within all of the selected settlements particular land uses will be designated and protected, such as Residential and Employment Areas, Open Land Areas and important car parks.  Policies for their protection are contained in the Development Control section of the Core Strategy.

2.4.11 The combined effect of the Strategic policies and the Development Control policies is to support the vitality and viability of town centres, protect the character of villages, maintain the vitality of rural communities, achieve sustainable development and minimise carbon emissions through a variety of measures including:

·       reducing the need to travel, especially by car;

·       improving access for all to housing, jobs and services;

·       reducing energy use;

·       reducing carbon emissions;

·       promoting renewable energy sources; and

·       promoting high quality and inclusive design, designed for the climate it is likely to experience over its intended lifetime

Policy SS 1

Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk

The majority of new development in North Norfolk will take place in the towns and larger villages, dependent on their local housing needs, their role as employment, retail and service centres and particular environmental and infrastructure constraints.

·       Cromer, Holt, Fakenham and North Walsham are defined as Principal Settlements where the majority of new commercial and residential development will take place (approximately 75% of new employment land and 50% of new homes).

·       Hoveton, Sheringham, Stalham and Wells-next-the-Sea are defined as Secondary Settlements in which a more limited amount of additional development will be accommodated (approximately 25% of employment land allocations and 20% of new homes).

The distribution of development will also have regard to the complementary roles played by the three towns of Cromer, Holt and Sheringham in the central part of North Norfolk.

The overall housing provision for North Norfolk will be distributed in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and will seek to achieve the visions for each place. The strategic policy for each settlement sets out the range of housing and employment provision and other land use considerations.

A small amount of new development will be focused on a number of designated Service Villages and Coastal Service Villages to support rural sustainability.

The Service Villages are:	The Coastal Service Villages are:
·       Aldborough ·       Briston & Melton Constable ·       Catfield ·       Corpusty & Saxthorpe ·       Horning ·       Little Snoring ·       Walsingham ·       Ludham ·       Roughton ·       Southrepps	·       Bacton ·       Blakeney ·       Happisburgh ·       Mundesley ·       Overstrand ·       Weybourne

Development in these Coastal Service Villages will support local coastal communities in the face of coastal erosion and flood risk. Land may be identified in or adjacent to these settlements to provide for new development or relocation from areas at risk.

The rest of North Norfolk, including all settlements not listed above, will be designated as Countryside and development will be restricted to particular types of development to support the rural economy, meet affordable housing needs and provide renewable energy. 

2.4.12 The North Norfolk countryside, and the many small villages and hamlets that are not selected settlements, are designated as Countryside. This countryside area is a principal element in the rural character of North Norfolk and is enjoyed by residents and visitors. The quality and character of this area should be protected and where possible enhanced, whilst enabling those who earn a living from, and maintain and manage, the countryside to continue to do so. Therefore while some development is restricted in the Countryside, particular other uses will be permitted in order to support the rural economy, meet local housing needs and provide for particular uses such as renewable energy and community uses.

2.4.13 New market housing in the Countryside is restricted in order to prevent dispersed dwellings that will lead to a dependency on travel by car to reach basic services, and ensure a more sustainable pattern of  development.  However affordable housing may be permitted.

Policy SS 2

Development in the Countryside

In areas designated as Countryside development will be limited to that which requires a rural location and is for one or more of the following:  

·       agriculture;

·       forestry;

·       the preservation of Listed Buildings;

·       the re-use and adaptation of buildings for appropriate purposes;

·       coastal and flood protection;

·       affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s ‘ rural exception site policy’;

·       the extension and replacement of dwellings;

·       extensions to existing businesses;

·       sites for Gypsies and Travellers and travelling showpeople;

·       new-build employment generating proposals where there is particular environmental or operational justification;

·       community services and facilities meeting a proven local need;

·       new build community, commercial, business and residential development where it replaces that which is at risk from coastal erosion, in accordance with Policy EN 12 ‘ Relocation and Replacement of Development Affected by Coastal Erosion Risk’ ;

·       development by statutory undertakers or public utility providers;

·       recreation and tourism;

·       renewable energy projects;

·       transport;

·       mineral extraction; and

·       waste management facilities

Proposals which do not accord with the above will not be permitted.

Presumption.

The developer claims that there is a presumption within the NPPF in favour of sustainable development, which he advances in support of the application.

There are 2 flaws with this approach.

·      Any claim that a presumption in favour of sustainable development is of any assistance to the developer is conceptually incorrect, as the application, being an isolated dwelling in the countryside, is by its very nature unsustainable.  In particular, the proposal is disconnected in physical terms from Blakeney, and will have a permanent adverse impact on the area for generations to come – 2 classic tests of sustainability.

·      Critically however, where proposed development lies within an AONB, that presumption does not apply.(see footnote 9 to policy 14 of the NPPF).

The application must therefore be determined on a simple balance as to whether or not it meets the policy requirements of the Core Strategy and the NPPF and is not otherwise unacceptable in terms of all other material considerations.

That this property is a replacement dwelling for the 1950s/1960s bungalow at 3 Owls Farm. 

This is the only realistic chance the developer has of building in the countryside - by firstly showing it is a replacement, and then meeting certain additional criteria

In the event that this property is not a "replacement" in planning terms, it would then need to be judged as an  “isolated dwelling in the countryside” within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the national designation of landscape and character protection. The proposal would then fail on all Spatial Strategy policies of the NNDC Core Strategy – SS1 and SS2, aswell as several development control policies e.g EN1 and EN3

The factors on which this "replacement" test hinge are:

·      Proximity to the existing bungalow.

o   Proximity - The proposed site is on farmland beyond the obvious curtilage of the 3 Owls Farm buildings.  The proposed dwelling is [space] metres away from the bungalow, elevated grassland site.

o   The emphasis in planning policy is that development should wherever possible take place on ‘brownfield land’ - land that has previously been built on.  In the current situation, that analysis underpins the requirement that the replacement. As the existing property is empty, a replacement dwelling on the same site, with a modest increase on the current floorspace would be the only acceptable form of the residential development at this location.

·      Comparable in size to the existing bungalow

o   Size. The proposed dwelling is over 5 times the size of the bungalow it is "replacing".  A typical accepted tolerance for replacing dwellings is a 50% increase on existing. Other non residential buildings being removed do not count as space being ‘replaced’

·      The ‘fit’ of the new dwelling with the character of the existing buildings at the farm.

o   The proposal has no physical relationship in location or design terms with the existing pattern of buildings or character.

The easy conclusion on this issue is that the proposed dwelling cannot be sensibly seen as a replacement.

Even if the property is accepted by the planning officers as a "replacement" the property must then pass further local and national policy tests before it can properly be approved. 

See firstly the national perspective, paragraph 55 of the NPPF extract.

The only possible "special circumstance" is the design of the building is truly outstanding, of the highest architectural standards, a significant enhancement to its immediate setting and sensitive to the characteristics of the local area. 

Whatever the merits/demerits of the design, it is difficult to see how such a development could be seen as either enhancing or being sensitive to the open grassland characteristic of the local area set within the AONB and the Undeveloped Coast.

The parallel local planning policy adopted by NNDC  states that the replacement dwelling must meet both the following tests:

not be a "disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling" and

not "materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside". 

The new proposal is on elevated ground, remote from the dwelling it is apparently replacing, and 5.5 times the size, and on three levels. 

Assessment

The developer sought to claim “replacement” status as there is no policy support at all for an isolated large dwelling in the middle of the countryside AONB!

On every logical basis it is not a replacement; and even if it were it is not a compliant replacement failing the additional tests that must be met.

One of the arguments advanced is that the application site magically falls within the established curtilage of the property.  This is plainly nonsense as on the applicant's own analysis, the application site is on improved grassland, remote from the bungalow and its garden curtilage. 

       How this building will appear from Blakeney Road 

                                                        

     “ ACTION THIS DAY!   The 3 Owls application has been          resubmitted and is little changed.  The Glaven Valley Protection Group will be meeting very soon to examine the plans and draw up an action plan. In the meantime Richard Hewitt is active on our behalf and we need MONEY and we need it NOW.  The accounts and banking arrangement are on below.  Please make a contribution.

Please send cheques to Hayes & Storr ( Client Account)   putting this client reference number ( 52883-9)  on the back.  If you wish to pay with cash please contact Roger Thompson here =     roger.thompson@thompsonex.com          

 Funds will accrue safely with H  and S. The money remains the donor’s money - subject only to fees deducted by agreement or necessary expense –e.g. obtaining Land Registry information or copy documents.

 

Hayes + Storr Client Account

Sort Code  20-30-81

Account Number 70459542

Barclays 17 Market Place Fakenham NR21 9BE

The significance of this development cannot be overstated; the applicants have used precedent as one of the main planks of their argument for why this proposal should be accepted. But precedent is that makes this application so significant for the south of Blakeney.   At present on Saxlingham Road there is only minor development outside the village development boundary.  There are however, two large plots that have existing buildings on them and more or less fit the Three Owls pattern.  Should Three Owls be given permission a precedent would be set not just for these two areas but for other land that have been already been purchased for future development. This satellite image of the south of Blakeney shows land at risk. Three Owls is marked in blue, land already being developed in red, land purchased for future development in yellow and that thought to have developer’s eyes on it in green.  It is not difficult to see why this has to be opposed.

North Norfolk's unique villages and wonderful coastal scenery have been under constant pressure from over-development for many years, fortunately its designation as an AONB and most of its villages as 'Conservation Areas' have protected it from some of the worst excesses. However, in recent years a more subtle and powerful demographic has begun to breach these defences. 

A recent application for a large modern house on high ground overlooking the valley has acted as a catalyst to bring together a number of concerned residents and visitors to form a group with the aim of protecting this north Norfolk gem from further incursions of this kind.  That particular application was withdrawn at the eleventh hour but is set to reappear at any moment. The group is preparing to resist this fresh attempt, which is expected to exceed the planning policy allowance for this very sensitive site.  To do this the group will need the support of all those who love this part of the world. No matter whether they live here or just visit, their objections to this application once it is known are vital. The group are preparing to assist in this by promoting vigorous, well-argued and individual objections that can be used by objectors  as a basis for their submissions to the Planners at North Norfolk District Council.  This web journal will carry these arguments and other details of the application when they are to hand and will update you regularly on when you can submit your views to the Planning Process.

To aid us in this and to gather the most powerful arguments the Group has employed the services of a planning lawyer. When the Application is made and his work begins we will need help from our supporters to meet the legal costs. This web site will inform you of how you can help us with these if you feel able. This fund will be in the keeping of the Clients account arrangements in place with the legal firm and only used for the purpose of obtaining their skilled advice. The funds will be fully ring-fenced by the Rules of the SRA, (Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society) The remittance details are below.

Please send cheques to Hayes & Storr ( Client Account)   putting this client reference number ( 52883-9)  on the back.  If you wish to pay with cash please contact Roger Thompson here =     roger.thompson@thompsonex.com          

 Funds will accrue safely with H  and S. The money remains the donor’s money - subject only to fees deducted by agreement or necessary expense –e.g. obtaining Land Registry information or copy documents.

 

Hayes + Storr Client Account

Sort Code  20-30-81

Account Number 70459542

Barclays 17 Market Place Fakenham NR21 9BE

              
                 

      THE LANDSCAPE AROUND THREE OWLS FARM

      From a historical perspective

                                                                                             JW   30.03.14     3 Owls 

                                          

        John Wright    

1     Settlement pattern

The settlement pattern in the vicinity of the Glaven Valley is neither unique nor accidental. It is typical of the western parts of Norfolk and the north coast in that it consists of ‘nucleated’ villages with little or no residential building in between. In the eastern parts of Norfolk and the SE in particular ‘dispersed’ settlement is the norm. This contrast between nucleation and dispersal arises from soil type and agricultural practice developed over the centuries. On the light sandy soils of NW and N Norfolk ‘open field’ agriculture concentrated on arable crops and sheep rearing, and many large estates were created. On the heavier clay soils of central and SE Norfolk there was more emphasis on woodland, greens and pasture for cattle, with early enclosure and small farms.  The maps below compare the settlement pattern of the Glaven area with a typical area in S Norfolk (from Faden’s map of 1797; green denotes residential areas).     

2     Village form

Morston is clustered near its church, itself situated on a small mound beside the head of a former tidal creek - where water still reaches on the highest tidal surges. Here boats would have been kept in the early medieval period. The same applies at Wiveton and Cley where the earliest landing places would have been near the church, and in both villages settlement has progressed downstream as the Glaven shallowed and boats became larger, leaving church and green at the southern end of each settlement. At first Wiveton was the more important but the village is probably now smaller than it was, resulting in a village form more straggle than nucleation. Cley followed a similar pattern, with development in the present ‘centre’ accelerating after the fire of 1612 before siltation of the Glaven estuary and embanking by manorial landlords transferred the focus of marine activity to Blakeney.

The origins of Blakeney village are less clear. The Domesday Snitterley was a typical village with church and farm land and it is unlikely that it lay on an ‘eye’ later swallowed by the sea. It is much more likely that the harbour was known as ‘Blakeney’ and that this name was gradually transferred to Snitterley, the nearest village. Blakeney church is not by a medieval creek but on Howe Hill, the name suggesting the site of a barrow, a former burial place. The first churches were usually sited close to the community they served so it is possible that the centre of the Anglo/Saxon village lay nearer the church than the creek. A map of 1769 shows a low density High Street; the development of the characteristic tightly-packed yards is a product of the last 250 years as maritime trade and population reached a 19^th century peak.

3     Landscape features 

The main features of the landscape derive from its glacial history and from the creation of the Glaven valley. The river is a short one but it flows from some of the highest ground in Norfolk so is relatively fast-flowing down through an attractive valley. It has been very important to the parishes through which it runs initially as a source of water and then for powering numerous watermills, principally at Glandford and upstream beyond the tidal reach. Aside from its scenic value, perhaps its main importance today is that of a chalk river in good condition. Chalk rivers are surprisingly rare and at their best carry a distinctive flora and fauna easily destroyed by mismanagement. The Glaven is fortunate to be under the care of the River Glaven Conservation Group.

Blakeney and Wiveton Downs are an important feature of the local landscape, providing a largely natural southern skyline, with bracken, gorse and trees atop a north-facing slope. The Downs also have a national importance as one of the best-known eskers in the country, an esker being a long sinuous ridge of sand and gravel formed by a river flowing under an ice sheet or glacier. Other deposits left by the retreating ice include the Holt / Cromer Ridge, the sands under the heathlands stretching west towards Salthouse and Cley, and small isolated hills of sand and gravel, including Howe Hill, Rubery Hill and Joe’s Hill. These glacial deposits have been much quarried for their sand and gravel content.

4     Archaeology

With the ending of the last Ice Age some 12,000 years ago, people returned to this area, leaving behind evidence of their activities. The Norfolk Historic Environment Record shows that Blakeney, in common with many other Norfolk villages, has produced Mesolithic flint flakes, Neolithic axe heads, Beaker pottery, a Bronze Age spear, Roman coins and metal work, and Anglo/Saxon pottery, including some pieces from the churchyard. In addition to these fortuitous discoveries a substantial amount of material has been obtained by metal detecting from an area close to the Wiveton boundary between the church and the Downs (the exact location is confidential). Two articles in the Glaven Historian (2001 and 2002) described just the tokens and jettons selected from some 1,200 metal objects found between 1997 and 2000. Detecting continued during the following six years and much more was found. The NHER records show that at least 260 coins, of all ages, were recovered in the area, in addition to tokens, jettons and a wide variety of other metal finds. It seems this area was used for some function other than just agriculture, perhaps it was a market area.

5     Agricultural landscape

The 1769 map shows a landscape in which an echo of the old ‘open field’ system can still be seen. Much of the arable land is still divided into small strips although there are also blocks of land, occasionally hedged. The southernmost part of the parish was managed as brecks by the Lord of the Manor, and sheep were still important: sheep walks and drove ways feature on the map. This was a largely treeless landscape, the land in and around the village being more valuable for crops. The sketch by Cotman (c.1818) of the view from Cley towards Blakeney church, Blakeney mill and Wiveton Hall is completely devoid of trees. The Blakeney & Wiveton Parliamentary Inclosure Award of 1824 continued, and largely completed, a process which had been going on for centuries. The remaining strips were swept away, larger fields laid out, bounded by thorn hedges, ownerships were consolidated, new roads made and old ones stopped or realigned. A few old boundaries were retained, though some may have been lost during the hedgerow removals of the 20^th century. So the landscape between Blakeney village and the Downs, though hedged now, still retains in essence its ancient open appearance.

Below is a section of the 1769 map, traced from the original and re-coloured to show the roads and tracks as well as the tenurial boundaries existing at the time. The main features include Rubery Hill, the Old Rectory and the church.

The following section of the 1824 Inclosure Map covers a similar area to the 1769 map above; the church is in red and Rubery Hill is coloured green. The new roads and field boundaries are drawn over the features of the 1769 map, shown in faint dotted lines. In Blakeney, a New Road has been created (never since re-named) and a section of Wiveton Road re-aligned. (The illustration has been tilted slightly to accord with the orientation of the 1769 map.

 6     Recent development

The absence of residential buildings between villages in the Glaven area continued through the 19^th century. The 6 inch OS map of 1886 shows that in Blakeney there had only been development in the Greencroft area and at the Butts (if that building was residential). Otherwise the only houses situated a little apart from the main village remained the Old Rectory and Friary Farm - both of them very old buildings. A 6 inch map issued in 1958 shows only two additional buildings between Wiveton Road and Langham Road: at ‘Pye’s Farm’ and at Rubery Hill, both of them agricultural buildings, not houses. The village itself was extended up Langham Road by the addition of council houses - often built on the outskirts of villages rather than within (as also at Wiveton).

Planning policies developed since 1947 have often attempted to limit building in the countryside to farm houses needed for the management of the farms, and conditions could be attached to planning permissions to restrict the occupancy of these houses to agricultural workers. Since 1947 houses have been built at both Pye’s Farm and Joe’s Hill, initially for the two farmers - one of whom still resides at Joe’s Hill.

7     The built landscape

As a result of economic and social history, and later planning polices, there are no buildings in the immediate vicinity of Three Owls Farm except for the single-storey dwelling at Joe’s Hill, the brick shed opposite at Rubery Hill, and the remains of a corrugated-iron shed close by. Further afield lies a new agricultural building just under the Downs to the west, and further still the buildings that make up Wiveton and Cley villages, the nearest being J Ramm’s farm complex by the road from Wiveton Green up to Blakeney. Viewed from the south the buildings in Blakeney are well screened by trees. Even the medieval church is mostly hidden - only the top of its 15^th century western tower is visible.

Below is a section of the 6 inch map published in 1958.

8     Conservation                 

Because of the former importance of the Glaven ports there are large numbers of Listed Buildings in all three villages - c.100 in Blakeney alone. Many of these buildings lie within designated Conservation Areas within which planning policies are more strictly applied in order to conserve architectural and historic character. In Norfolk there are also a few rural Conservation Areas designed to protect areas of particular natural beauty and landscape importance. Of these the Glaven Valley Conservation Area  is the largest. The marshland coast of north Norfolk also has a number of designations intended to protect visual landscape and wildlife habitats.

The combination of maritime history and settlement form in an attractive and valued coastal setting has encouraged the conversion of many buildings to holiday and second homes. The age structure of the permanent population is heavily skewed towards the elderly as people of retirement age move in. The result has been higher house prices than in most inland areas, prices which younger people can rarely afford. The three Glaven villages are fortunate that the Blakeney Neighbourhood Housing Society owns 39 houses which it lets to local people, although most of these houses are old and very difficult to maintain from rents alone.

Summary

The land around Three Owls Farm is not just ‘fields’. It is a many-layered landscape with glacial landforms and a long agricultural history integrated with the long maritime history of the adjacent Glaven villages.

Publications

T Ashwin & A Davison,  Eds,  An Historical Atlas of Norfolk,  3rd edition,  Phillimore  2005.

            The atlas contains text and maps covering 93 topics, including:

              2        Geological Background

              4        Soil Landscapes

            56         Norfolk Agriculture 1500 - 1750

            62         Great Estates in the 19^th century

            92         Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings

J C Barringer,  An Introduction to Faden’s Map of Norfolk,  Norfolk Record Society 

                        Vol XLII  1975.

This volume contains Faden’s map of 1797 in 6 sheets at a scale of 1 inch to 1 mile with an introduction by J C Barringer. It was republished in 30 (A4) sheets by Larks Press as ‘Faden’s Map of Norfolk’ in 1989. The county was surveyed by Donald & Milne 1790 - 1794; William Faden was the publisher.

A McNair & T Williamson,  William Faden and Norfolk’s 18^th Century Landscape,                                   Windgather Press  2010.

            A detailed study of Faden’s map with a digitised version on DVD (Windows 97 or later).

J Hooton,  The Glaven Ports,  Blakeney History Group  1996.

            Covers the maritime history of Blakeney, Cley and Wiveton, with some comment on the physical            development of these villages.

P Carnell,  Trade Tokens recovered in Wiveton,  The Glaven Historian  Issue No. 4,  Blakeney                 Area Historical Society  2001.

P Carnell,  Medieval Jettons discovered in Wiveton,  The Glaven Historian  Issue No. 5,                           Blakeney Area Historical Society  2002.

            The Glaven Historian is the Journal of the Blakeney Area Historical Society. All articles in the first 6        issues can be read on line at www.history-blakeney-area-org.uk.

Other Sources

1769 Map of Blakeney

            William & Corba Cranefield produced a plan of Blakeney parish at a scale of 20 inches to the mile. For      many years a tracing (not entirely complete) was held in the Norfolk Record Office but recently the         original coloured map has been deposited there. Websitewww.archives.norfolk.gov.uk.

1824 Inclosure Map of Blakeney and Wiveton

            Copies can be seen at the Norfolk Record Office. There is also a tithe map for Wiveton (1842) but no         tithe map was prepared for Blakeney.

J S Cotman,  ‘Blakeney Church and Wiveton Hall’,  An engraving included in Kitson and             Cromwell’s Excursions in the County of Norfolk Vol I,  1819.

            This sketch, with Eson’s Bridge in the foreground, is reproduced in Hooton’s The Glaven Ports.

Norfolk Historic Environment Record

            Database of the county’s archaeological sites and historic buildings which can be searched by parish and     by period at www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk. The Record is maintained by the County Council’s Historic   Environment Service at Gressenhall, where aerial photographs can also be consulted by appointment.

River Glaven Conservation Group

            The Group aims to protect the river, improve water quality and restore wildlife habitats, and produces        regular Newsletters which can be read on line at www.riverglaven.co.uk.