This page lists rigths of way where the mapping status value stored in this tool appears to be inconsistent with what is mapped in OSM (and tagged with a prow_ref=* tag).
No RoWs found with this issue
No RoWs found with this issue
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alburgh | FP | 17 | 406 | 397 | −2.2% | 2 | 5y | South end at TM27968654 does not quite meet with the north end of FP 18, and the track between them is not recorded as a Public Highway or Right of Way. This leaves a 20m gap in the Right of Way network. Mapped route deviates round wood at S end. |
| Carleton Rode | FP | 25 | 1007 | 953 | −5.4% | 2 | 6y | Short missing section in OSM by house. Needs ground survey. |
| Cringleford | FP | 1 | 324 | 315 | −2.8% | 2 | 17m | Mapped route in OSM does not join the A11. Should it? Also route goes through new housing development. Will it get diverted? |
| Norton Subcourse | FP | 1 | 327 | 330 | +0.9% | 2 | 8y | |
| Pulham Market | FP | 14 | 330 | 322 | −2.4% | 2 | 7y | Short section as S end to check if hedge can be crossed. |
| Runhall | BR | 5 | 1272 | 1251 | −1.7% | 2 | 6m | There is a small gap in the OSM mapping in the middle of the route. Needs a ground survey to determine whether there is a way through the hedge. |
| Shelton | FP | 17 | 71 | 76 | +7.0% | 2 | 4y | Short leg at E end unmapped. Need to check on ground. |
| Tacolneston | FP | 9 | 1604 | 1583 | −1.3% | 2 | 3y | Small section near W end is not mapped in OSM. |
| Wymondham | FP | 7 | 239 | 258 | +7.9% | 2 | 2y | The Definitive Statement refers to two branches, but only one is present in the GIS data, and only this route is obvious on the ground. The Definitive Map clearly shows two branches, both of which pass through what are now private gardens, and neither of which match the route in the GIS data. Presumably, the necessary modification orders were either not made or not implemented correctly. |
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpington | FP | 1 | 162 | 189 | +16.7% | 4 | 10m | |
| Bressingham | FP | 17 | 953 | 1043 | +9.4% | 4 | 10y | GIS data is missing N-S section along parish boundary at W end to connect with North Lopham FP 1. Statement seems not to describe this section either, but surely the two paths must join up. |
| Bressingham | FP | 24 | 212 | 260 | +22.6% | 4 | 7y | Route signed on ground does not match Definitive Statement and GIS data. Apparently a Diversion Order for new route was prepared and passed, but due to an administrative oversight the legal process never finally completed. This also applies to South Lopham FP 17. There's a 30m gap between the east end of Bressingham FP 24 and the U76221 Fen Street, which isn't recorded as a Highway or Public Right of Way. The Definitive Statement is unclear where FP 24 ends, but surely any link should at least have pedestrian rights on it. |
| Brockdish | FP | 6 | 160 | 184 | +15.0% | 4 | 2y | GIS data and Definitive Map have FP6 and FP6a the other way round from the Statement. |
| Colney | FP | 1 | 69 | 94 | +36.2% | 4 | 2y | Route across the A47, covering the stopped up part of School Lane. |
| Ellingham | BR | 7 | 263 | 298 | +13.3% | 4 | 7w | |
| Flordon | FP | 6 | 582 | 643 | +10.5% | 4 | 2y | The location of the mapped bridge in OSM at TM17539756 is not consistent with the GIS data for this route and its continuation as Tharston FP 33. The Definitive Map is inconclusive. Looking at an old OS map, I think the OSM mapping is correct and the GIS data is wrong. |
| Framingham Earl | BR | 5 | 51 | 76 | +49.0% | 4 | 5y | Listed as FP in Definitive Statement. Shown as BR in GIS data and on Definitive Map. |
| Geldeston | FP | 9 | 125 | 151 | +20.8% | 4 | 6y | |
| Haddiscoe | BR | 5 | 423 | 336 | −20.6% | 4 | 12d | Definitive line obstructed, but alternative route available. |
| Hellington | FP | 4 | 92 | 112 | +21.7% | 4 | 3y | The statement refers to this route passing the end of FP 5 before continuing to the parish bonudary and Claxton FP 8. In the GIS data (and on the Definitive Map) the junctions with Hellington FP 5 and Claxton FP 8 are conincident, and not at the parish boundary. |
| Hethersett | FP | 6 | 1442 | 1113 | −22.8% | 4 | 2y | The GIS data also incorrectly includes the part of this route that is actually Ketteringham FP 6. |
| Hingham | FP | 7 | 106 | 128 | +20.8% | 4 | 7y | Route in GIS data does not match path on the ground. |
| Kirstead | FP | 7 | 112 | 139 | +24.1% | 4 | 6y | |
| Kirstead | FP | 7a | 156 | 201 | +28.8% | 4 | 6y | |
| Kirstead | FP | 9 | 42 | 98 | +133.3% | 4 | 7y | |
| Morningthorpe | FP | 30 | 161 | 147 | −8.7% | 4 | 7y | |
| Morningthorpe | FP | 31 | 123 | 109 | −11.4% | 4 | 7y | |
| Mulbarton | FP | 5 | 733 | 396 | −46.0% | 4 | 8m | In GIS data, most of the route appears twice in two separate segments, so the GIS length is nearly twice what it should be. |
| Newton Flotman | FP | 3 | 41 | 64 | +56.1% | 4 | 8y | |
| Redenhall with Harleston | FP | 34 | 273 | 304 | +11.4% | 4 | 6y | |
| Scole | FP | 11 | 294 | 371 | +26.2% | 4 | 17m | The Definitive Statement says the path ends at St Andrew's Church, but the line in GIS data stops short. |
| Scole | FP | 36 | 403 | 457 | +13.4% | 4 | 2y | The alignment of the route in the GIS does not match the line shown on an historic OS 1:25k map, nor the position of the RoW sign at the western end. The Definitive Map is inconclusive, but I'm assuming the GIS data is wrong. |
| Scole | FP | 38 | 40 | 28 | −30.0% | 4 | 2y | |
| Scole | BR | 40 | 67 | 101 | +50.7% | 4 | 2y | Short link on line of stopped up road. |
| Stockton | BR | 8 | 569 | 649 | +14.1% | 4 | 4y | In the GIS data, the route stops about 60m south of the C392. The gap does not seem to be recorded as a Public Highway. What is the status of this section? |
| Surlingham | FP | 10 | 352 | 413 | +17.3% | 4 | 17m | |
| Thurlton | FP | 3 | 543 | 499 | −8.1% | 4 | 8m | |
| Tivetshall St Margaret | FP | 15 | 743 | 905 | +21.8% | 4 | 2y | The Definitive Statement says path starts at Hales Street and ends at NW end of FP 17. In the GIS data and on the Definitive Map, the path starts further south and ends at Grove Road. There's a 150m gap in the track between the end of Hales Street at TM15878707 and the start of FP15 at TM15888693 which isn't recorded as a Public Right of Way. Surely there should at least be pedestrian rights on this section. At the S end, it is possible that the discrepancy has been caused by a previous diversion to FP 17. |
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bressingham | FP | 17 | 953 | 1043 | +9.4% | 4 | 10y | GIS data is missing N-S section along parish boundary at W end to connect with North Lopham FP 1. Statement seems not to describe this section either, but surely the two paths must join up. |
| Gillingham | FP | 10 | 272 | 257 | −5.5% | 4 | 4y | |
| Haddiscoe | BR | 5 | 423 | 336 | −20.6% | 4 | 12d | Definitive line obstructed, but alternative route available. |
| Kirstead | FP | 3 | 547 | 585 | +6.9% | 4 | 7m | |
| Scole | FP | 11 | 294 | 371 | +26.2% | 4 | 17m | The Definitive Statement says the path ends at St Andrew's Church, but the line in GIS data stops short. |
| Tivetshall St Margaret | FP | 15 | 743 | 905 | +21.8% | 4 | 2y | The Definitive Statement says path starts at Hales Street and ends at NW end of FP 17. In the GIS data and on the Definitive Map, the path starts further south and ends at Grove Road. There's a 150m gap in the track between the end of Hales Street at TM15878707 and the start of FP15 at TM15888693 which isn't recorded as a Public Right of Way. Surely there should at least be pedestrian rights on this section. At the S end, it is possible that the discrepancy has been caused by a previous diversion to FP 17. |
No RoWs found with this issue
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alburgh | FP | 14 | 789 | 774 | −1.9% | 3 | 15m | |
| Alburgh | FP | 19 | 105 | 103 | −1.9% | 3 | 8y | |
| Aldeby | FP | 11 | 1167 | 1111 | −4.8% | 3 | 6y | Mapped route lies 50-100m to the north of the definitive line in places. |
| Alpington | FP | 5 | 136 | 81 | −40.4% | 3 | 8y | |
| Alpington | FP | 9 | 900 | 1270 | +41.1% | 3 | 10m | |
| Alpington | FP | 10 | 359 | 372 | +3.6% | 3 | 10m | |
| Ashby St Mary | FP | 5 | 312 | 337 | +8.0% | 3 | 8y | |
| Ashwellthorpe | FP | 3 | 345 | 337 | −2.3% | 3 | 8y | Route mapped not quite aligned with GIS data. |
| Ashwellthorpe | FP | 4 | 107 | 116 | +8.4% | 3 | 8y | Route mapped not quite aligned with GIS data. |
| Aslacton | FP | 3 | 480 | 503 | +4.8% | 3 | 4y | Mapped route doesn't follow definitive line from GIS data at east end. |
| Aslacton | FP | 6 | 406 | 454 | +11.8% | 3 | 7y | |
| Aslacton | FP | 8 | 438 | 438 | +0.0% | 3 | 6y | Mapped route possibly the wrong side of the hedge at the E end. |
| Bracon Ash | FP | 1 | 2048 | 2081 | +1.6% | 3 | 22m | A short section just west of the Church Farm is not on the definitive line in OSM. |
| Bracon Ash | FP | 2 | 155 | 101 | −34.8% | 3 | 3y | |
| Bracon Ash | FP | 12 | 419 | 331 | −21.0% | 3 | 2y | |
| Bracon Ash | FP | 13 | 333 | 340 | +2.1% | 3 | 6y | Mapped route does not follow definitive line at S end. |
| Bracon Ash | FP | 15 | 133 | 151 | +13.5% | 3 | 7y | |
| Bramerton | FP | 1 | 495 | 529 | +6.9% | 3 | 17m | |
| Bramerton | FP | 3 | 403 | 424 | +5.2% | 3 | 7y | |
| Bramerton | FP | 5 | 458 | 414 | −9.6% | 3 | 6y | Mapped route in OSM does not quite follow the GIS data line at W end. |
| Bressingham | FP | 9 | 1656 | 1721 | +3.9% | 3 | 7y | Mapped section near east end not quite on definitive line. Need to check how field boundaries are crossed. Route blocked by bushes and ditch at east end. See FMS:854506 |
| Brockdish | FP | 11 | 455 | 442 | −2.9% | 3 | 2y | |
| Brockdish | FP | 12 | 353 | 360 | +2.0% | 3 | 2y | |
| Burston | FP | 13 | 683 | 686 | +0.4% | 3 | 3y | |
| Burston | FP | 14 | 869 | 915 | +5.3% | 3 | 2y | |
| Burston | FP | 24 | 232 | 196 | −15.5% | 3 | 6y | |
| Burston | FP | 28 | 384 | 389 | +1.3% | 3 | 3y | Mapped route does not follow the Definitive Line from the GIS data, near the Western end. But it's unclear if the Definitive Line has been blocked by new houses. Should the route be diverted? |
| Burston | FP | 29 | 290 | 299 | +3.1% | 3 | 3y | Route on ground does not follow the Definitive Line. |
| Burston | FP | 32 | 980 | 996 | +1.6% | 3 | 3y | |
| Burston | FP | 40 | 310 | 317 | +2.3% | 3 | 3y | Route on ground at southern end does not follow the Definitive Line. |
| Claxton | FP | 5 | 170 | 176 | +3.5% | 3 | 3y | |
| Claxton | FP | 7 | 1295 | 936 | −27.7% | 3 | 17m | |
| Dickleburgh and Rushall | FP | 5 | 361 | 368 | +1.9% | 3 | 2y | At SW end, the definitive line should stay to the west of the fieldboundary, but the mapped line goes to the east. |
| Diss | FP | 11 | 220 | 231 | +5.0% | 3 | 7y | Unclear how path joins track at E end. Line in GIS data shows it passing through buildings. |
| Diss | FP | 19 | 1057 | 1077 | +1.9% | 3 | 3y | |
| Diss | FP | 20 | 467 | 450 | −3.6% | 3 | 3y | |
| Diss | FP | 27 | 587 | 618 | +5.3% | 3 | 3y | |
| Diss | FP | 32 | 552 | 645 | +16.8% | 3 | 3y | Southern part of route signposted on the ground does not match the Definitive Line. |
| Flordon | FP | 4 | 860 | 927 | +7.8% | 3 | 3y | The mapped route in OSM doesn't quite follow definitive line, but maybe current bridges and stiles are misplaced. |
| Forncett | FP | 15 | 1020 | 1060 | +3.9% | 3 | 7y | |
| Forncett | FP | 16 | 268 | 300 | +11.9% | 3 | 4y | |
| Forncett | FP | 22 | 218 | 406 | +86.2% | 3 | 2y | Mapped route in OSM is significantly off definitive line. |
| Forncett | FP | 23 | 565 | 568 | +0.5% | 3 | 3y | Route through Sandpit Farm deviates from the definitive line. |
| Forncett | FP | 25 | 621 | 620 | −0.2% | 3 | 7y | |
| Forncett | FP | 27 | 395 | 390 | −1.3% | 3 | 7y | |
| Framingham Pigot | FP | 3 | 184 | 196 | +6.5% | 3 | 2y | The line in the GIS data incorrectly follows a modern track. This route is inconsistent with both the line on the Definitive Map and the description in the Definitive Statement. |
| Gillingham | FP | 6 | 630 | 630 | +0.0% | 3 | 3y | Mapped route doesn't agree with GIS data at S end. |
| Great Moulton | FP | 1 | 330 | 346 | +4.8% | 3 | 5y | |
| Great Moulton | FP | 6 | 397 | 387 | −2.5% | 3 | 6y | Check alignment of mapped route at southern end. |
| Hales | FP | 4 | 1158 | 1163 | +0.4% | 3 | 4y | |
| Hales | FP | 6 | 731 | 767 | +4.9% | 3 | 13m | |
| Hales | FP | 7 | 354 | 311 | −12.1% | 3 | 3y | |
| Hedenham | FP | 5 | 334 | 333 | −0.3% | 3 | 18m | |
| Hellington | FP | 3 | 305 | 334 | +9.5% | 3 | 4y | Mapped route in OSM does not quite follow the Definitive Line. |
| Hempnall | FP | 13 | 646 | 587 | −9.1% | 3 | 2y | |
| Hingham | FP | 1 | 1387 | 1475 | +6.3% | 3 | 6y | Route ends on parish boundary at TG02190366, but the continuation to join with Hardingham FP 8 at TG02210370 is not recorded as a Public Right of Way. This means this route is a dead end and there is a 40m gap in the Rights of Way network. The Statement for Hingham FP 1 even explicitly says that the route continues and "joins a path leading to Manson Green Farm in the Parish of Hardingham". |
| Ketteringham | FP | 1 | 607 | 600 | −1.2% | 3 | 8y | |
| Ketteringham | FP | 5 | 722 | 731 | +1.2% | 3 | 2y | Definitive Map and Statement both have this route to the west of the field boundary, but the path mapped in OSM is to the east. |
| Kirby Bedon | FP | 1 | 145 | 151 | +4.1% | 3 | 8y | |
| Kirby Cane | FP | 3 | 395 | 417 | +5.6% | 3 | 8y | |
| Kirstead | FP | 1 | 420 | 452 | +7.6% | 3 | 5y | |
| Kirstead | FP | 2 | 295 | 265 | −10.2% | 3 | 5y | |
| Kirstead | FP | 5 | 802 | 813 | +1.4% | 3 | 3y | |
| Langley with Hardley | FP | 5 | 6012 | 6243 | +3.8% | 3 | 8m | Definitive line in GIS data shows odd deviation from actual path on the ground, just east of Hardley Dyke. |
| Loddon | FP | 13 | 233 | 257 | +10.3% | 3 | 21m | |
| Loddon | FP | 15 | 738 | 623 | −15.6% | 3 | 5y | |
| Loddon | FP | 20 | 371 | 333 | −10.2% | 3 | 3y | In Statement, 'Mundford' should be 'Mundham'. |
| Long Stratton | FP | 1 | 230 | 252 | +9.6% | 3 | 17m | |
| Long Stratton | FP | 19 | 476 | 450 | −5.5% | 3 | 2y | |
| Marlingford | FP | 3 | 1113 | 1139 | +2.3% | 3 | 3y | |
| Marlingford | FP | 5 | 114 | 135 | +18.4% | 3 | 8y | |
| Marlingford | FP | 7 | 1498 | 1468 | −2.0% | 3 | 2y | Mapped route of middle section in OSM does not follow the Definitive Line. |
| Morningthorpe | FP | 1 | 224 | 246 | +9.8% | 3 | 4y | |
| Morningthorpe | FP | 16 | 833 | 890 | +6.8% | 3 | 3y | |
| Mulbarton | FP | 1 | 525 | 585 | +11.4% | 3 | 7y | |
| Mulbarton | FP | 10 | 771 | 779 | +1.0% | 3 | 7w | |
| Needham | FP | 3 | 300 | 301 | +0.3% | 3 | 8m | |
| Needham | FP | 7 | 189 | 169 | −10.6% | 3 | 7y | |
| Needham | FP | 8 | 315 | 326 | +3.5% | 3 | 2y | |
| Poringland | FP | 2 | 586 | 601 | +2.6% | 3 | 18m | West end at TG25980154 is not on a public highway according to the NCC highways data. See FP 1. Mapped route also doesn't follow line of GIS data near W end. |
| Poringland | FP | 8 | 483 | 477 | −1.2% | 3 | 10m | |
| Roydon | FP | 5 | 290 | 290 | +0.0% | 3 | 3y | Route terminates at NW cornder of Little Green wood at TM09738119, about 30m from the road at TM09748116. A path exists on the ground, but it not recorded as a Right of Way. Little Green wood does not appear to be Access Land, so there is a gap in the Rights of Way network. Mapped route doesn't follow Definitive line at south end. Check accessibilty. |
| Runhall | FP | 18 | 640 | 643 | +0.5% | 3 | 9y | Mapped route doesn't follow line from GIS data at E end. |
| Saxlingham Nethergate | FP | 8 | 713 | 733 | +2.8% | 3 | 2m | Mapped route doesn't quite follow definitive at S end. |
| Saxlingham Nethergate | FP | 9 | 835 | 819 | −1.9% | 3 | 2m | Mapped route doesn't quite follow definitive at N end. |
| Saxlingham Nethergate | FP | 12 | 1301 | 1349 | +3.7% | 3 | 15m | Mapped route in OSM contains a deviation that's not part of the definitive line. |
| Saxlingham Nethergate | FP | 26 | 1522 | 1480 | −2.8% | 3 | 2m | Mapped route in OSM follows path on ground between TM21899661 and TM21689623, but this doesn't agree with the Definitive Map and GIS data. I suspect the OSM route is correct, and the recently diverted route for that section simply wasn't recorded accurately on the Definitive Map. |
| Saxlingham Nethergate | FP | 29 | 633 | 542 | −14.4% | 3 | 4y | According to the GIS data this overlaps with some of RB 24 for a bit. Definitive Statement is ambiguous. |
| Scole | FP | 2 | 447 | 477 | +6.7% | 3 | 2y | |
| Scole | FP | 3 | 481 | 493 | +2.5% | 3 | 2y | Definitive line seems to be to west of boundary on norther section, but line mapped in OSM is to the East. |
| Scole | FP | 5 | 1338 | 1377 | +2.9% | 3 | 2y | |
| Scole | FP | 10 | 779 | 763 | −2.1% | 3 | 17m | Mapped route deviates from the definitive line near the electricity pylon at TM13898017. Route obstructed by hedge at TM13878027. |
| Scole | FP | 21 | 1055 | 1027 | −2.7% | 3 | 2y | |
| Scole | FP | 23 | 1160 | 1186 | +2.2% | 3 | 2y | In at least two places, the mapped route in OSM does not follow the Definitive Line. |
| Scole | FP | 30 | 164 | 188 | +14.6% | 3 | 2y | |
| Seething | FP | 1 | 482 | 499 | +3.5% | 3 | 13m | Accidental repetition of "Kirstead Footpath No. 4 at its junction with" in Statement. |
| Seething | FP | 8 | 352 | 344 | −2.3% | 3 | 8y | |
| Shelfanger | FP | 4 | 68 | 85 | +25.0% | 3 | 6y | |
| Shelfanger | FP | 8 | 461 | 477 | +3.5% | 3 | 2y | Path does not quite meet up with FP 7 at Druids' Lane. Is this part of Druid's Lane a Public Highway? If not there is a gap in the network. |
| Shelfanger | FP | 11 | 576 | 558 | −3.1% | 3 | 2y | Cross-field route and bridge not on the Definitive Line. |
| Shelton | FP | 3 | 579 | 576 | −0.5% | 3 | 3y | Mapped route in OSM doesn't quite follow definitive line at S end. |
| Shotesham | FP | 4 | 868 | 880 | +1.4% | 3 | 3y | |
| Shotesham | FP | 6 | 894 | 888 | −0.7% | 3 | 6y | |
| Shotesham | FP | 17 | 961 | 962 | +0.1% | 3 | 2m | |
| Starston | FP | 5 | 2324 | 2378 | +2.3% | 3 | 3y | Road at south end is not recorded as a Right of Way or Public Highway, making the route a dead end. |
| Starston | FP | 17 | 256 | 249 | −2.7% | 3 | 7y | GIS data shows the path to run south of the pond at the E end, but currently mapped passing to the north of it. |
| Starston | FP | 18 | 92 | 88 | −4.3% | 3 | 6y | Definitive line obstructed. Route should be further south than currently mapped in OSM. |
| Starston | FP | 19 | 697 | 688 | −1.3% | 3 | 2y | Route should join FP 18 further south than currently mapped in OSM. |
| Stoke Holy Cross | FP | 2 | 428 | 478 | +11.7% | 3 | 4y | Route mapped in OSM does not quite follow the Definitive Line. |
| Swardeston | FP | 2 | 913 | 949 | +3.9% | 3 | 2m | |
| Tacolneston | FP | 7 | 1426 | 1443 | +1.2% | 3 | 2y | |
| Tacolneston | FP | 8 | 513 | 494 | −3.7% | 3 | 2y | GIS data shows the N half to the W of the wood. Statement not specific, but mapped route is in the wood. |
| Tasburgh | FP | 2 | 214 | 260 | +21.5% | 3 | 5y | |
| Tharston | FP | 3 | 316 | 278 | −12.0% | 3 | 4y | |
| Tharston | FP | 7 | 1731 | 1767 | +2.1% | 3 | 4y | |
| Tharston | BR | 16 | 442 | 455 | +2.9% | 3 | 8m | GIS data has the E-W section being straight, mapped route in OSM has a bend part way along. |
| Tibenham | FP | 6 | 309 | 327 | +5.8% | 3 | 4y | |
| Tibenham | FP | 20 | 1362 | 1237 | −9.2% | 3 | 8y | |
| Tivetshall St Mary | FP | 3 | 369 | 402 | +8.9% | 3 | 2y | East end is at Church Lane, but this isn't recorded as a Highway or Right of Way. |
| Topcroft | FP | 4 | 524 | 545 | +4.0% | 3 | 7y | |
| Topcroft | FP | 9 | 861 | 900 | +4.5% | 3 | 4y | Definitive Statement says route enters Topcroft Street, but in GIS data and the Definitive map the route stops 30m short of the main highway. If the GIS data is correct, the link between the ed of the Right of Way and Topcroft Street is a gap in the nework as it's not recorded as a Public Highway on the NCC online map. |
| Trowse with Newton | FP | 2 | 156 | 160 | +2.6% | 3 | 2y | |
| Wacton | FP | 12 | 293 | 290 | −1.0% | 3 | 23m | |
| Winfarthing | BR | 19 | 659 | 659 | +0.0% | 3 | 6y | |
| Wreningham | FP | 10 | 138 | 173 | +25.4% | 3 | 8y | |
| Wymondham | FP | 18 | 558 | 594 | +6.5% | 3 | 2y | |
| Wymondham | FP | 34 | 701 | 729 | +4.0% | 3 | 2y | |
No RoWs found with this issue