Representations on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan (modification proposal)

Introduction

This document provides the responses to the consultation undertaken on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan under Regulation 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). The document sets out:

• Which bodies and persons the local planning authority invited to make representations,
• How those bodies and persons were invited to make representations,
• The full representations made pursuant to regulation 16.
• The consultation took place between 6 February 2026 and 20 March 2026.
• In accordance with the Regulations, direct notification of the consultation was sent to:
• Consultation Bodies (as listed under Schedule 1 of the above Regulations)
• Residents who had expressed an interest from previous stages of consultation
• Local Green Space landowners
• Ward Members

The consultation itself was in the form of the Neighbourhood Plan and supporting documents including:

• Filby Neighbourhood Plan (submission version)
• Consultation Statement
• Statement of Basic Conditions
• Evidence base
• SEA and HRA Screening Opinion
• Statement of Modification Proposal
• Design Codes and Guidance

The documents were available online and hard copies were available for inspection at the Town Hall, Hall Plain, Great Yarmouth, NR30 2QF.

Comments to the consultation were accepted via post to Great Yarmouth Town Hall or by email to [email protected]. 

The consultation attracted responses from 13 individuals or organisations. These responses are provided below. 

Responses to the regulation 16 consultation on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan (modification proposal)

Respondent 1: Broads Authority

Para 11 - you need to mention the emerging Local Plan for the Broads and that it proposes a development boundary for Filby.

In the vision, there are some words without spaces between them.

Figure 2 - if new housing is built

Repeating the title of the policies on different pages, if the policy goes over more than one pages, is a bit confusing. Suggest just one title. You highlight the policy well and that should be enough.

Policy H1 part 1 - by the first sentence, I think you mean M4(2). I suggest you say that so there is no avoidance of doubt as to what you are referring to.

Policy H1, part 2, first bullet point - the second part of the sentence is explanatory text.

Throughout - number or letter bullet points in policies for ease of reference.

Throughout - you might want to consider how to future proof the Plan against the emerging NPPF, particularly specific paragraph references - perhaps make them generic?

Para 46 - the Broads Authority Design Guide is a SPD

Para 58 - needs to reflect the Local Nature Recovery Strategy

Para 62 - missing word? 'Other biodiversity improvements are encouraged including planting or establishing suitable local habitats that enrich the population of local species'

Para 63 - the reference in the 2019 Local Plan is SSTRI. The POSSTRI is from the Preferred Options version of the emerging Local Plan. Please amend.

Policy E1 f - the Norfolk LNRS is completed and has been in place for a little while now.

OBJECTION Policy E1 h - needs to refer to the need for habitats regulation assessment.

Throughout - lots of words don't have a space between them.

Para 78 - this is incorrect. There are Local Green Spaces allocated in the Local Plan for the Broads - see policy SSLGS.

Policy E3, last paragraph - is that more for supporting text?

OBJECTION Policy E4 - para 81 is stronger in its requirement to fully justify the need for lighting in the first place than the policy. The first couple of sentences of that paragraph need to be included in the policy - the policy does not say anything about justifying the need for lighting in the first place.

Para 90 - it is not clear what HOU3 of the GYBC Local Plan has to do with soils and BMV land.

Para 91 - 'may need to include an up-to-date agricultural land classification survey to determine land quality in accordance with current guidelines' - is the Neighbourhood Plan saying these are needed or not needed? It is not clear what the purpose of this sentence is.

Policy E5, third para, second sentence does not really make sense. Should it be: 'Proposals affecting such land will only be supported where it is clearly demonstrated that the development is necessary, no reasonable alternative for siting the proposed development on soils of lower quality exists, and the benefits of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm'.

OBJECTION Policy E5 - given that the plan often boasts of the Broads being in the parish, it is odd there is no mention of protecting the character and setting of the Broads given its status as equivalent to a National Park. Something like 'protecting the landscape and setting of the Broads' needs to be included in the policy.

Throughout - when referring to how people travel to work, use Census 2021 with care due to lockdowns. The County Councils tend not to use that Census, instead using the 2011 Census.

Respondent 2: Broads Internal Drainage Board

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: Filby Neighbourhood Plan (Review) - Regulation 16 Consultation

Thank you for consulting the Broads Internal Drainage Board on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan (2022-2041) under Regulation 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

Comments were previously made by the Broads Internal Drainage Board on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Regulation 14 Consultation, under our ref 25_31833_P. After reviewing the proposed submission documents, please see our comments below.

Filby Parish Council falls partially within the Internal Drainage District (IDD) of the Broads Internal Drainage Board (IDB) and therefore the Board's Byelaws apply to any development within the Board's area.

The principal function of the IDBs is to provide flood protection within the Board's area. Certain watercourses within the IDD receive maintenance by the Board. The maintenance of a watercourse by the IDB is an acknowledgement by the Board that the watercourse is of arterial importance to the IDD. Main Rivers within the IDB are regulated by the Environment Agency. Therefore, I recommend that an applicant proposing a discharge or any other works affecting a main river to contact the Environment Agency.

The area outside the Boards' IDDs falls within the Boards' watershed catchments (meaning water from the site will eventually enter the IDD). The Board will comment on planning for all major developments (10 or more properties) within the IDD watershed that are likely to discharge surface water into a watercourse within the IDD. Under certain circumstances, some major developments outside the IDD boundary may also be regulated by the Board's byelaws. We request that the Board is consulted as any planning application comes forward relating to any of the identified allocation sites. For any development site, we recommend that a drainage strategy is supplied which has been considered in line with the Planning Practice Guidance SuDS discharge location hierarchy.

Whilst the Board's regulatory process (as set out under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Board's Byelaws) is separate from planning, the ability to implement a planning permission may be dependent on the granting of any required Land Drainage Consents.

Whilst there are currently no proposed sites listed for development within the Neighbourhood Plan; the Board may seek to comment on any sites for development which we would consider may impact the Board's area. The Board may or may not choose to comment on site allocations if and when more information is presented.

In order to avoid conflict between the planning process and the Board's regulatory regimes and consenting processes where developments are proposed within or partially within a Board's IDD, please be aware of the following:

Byelaw 3 - Discharge of Surface Water into the Board's District

• If a development proposes to dispose of surface water via infiltration, we would recommend that the proposed strategy is supported by ground investigation to determine the infiltration potential of the site and the depth to groundwater. If on-site material were to be considered favourable then we would advise infiltration testing in line with BRE Digest 365 (or equivalent) to be undertaken to determine its efficiency.
• If (following testing) a strategy wholly reliant on infiltration is not viable and/or a development proposes to discharge surface water to a watercourse, the proposed development will require consent in line with the Board's byelaws (specifically Byelaw 3). Any consent granted will likely be conditional, pending the payment of a Surface Water Development Contribution fee (SWDC), calculated in line with the Board's charging policy outlined within our Development Control Charges and Fees.
• If a development proposes to discharge surface water to a sewer, I recommend that you satisfy yourselves that this proposal is in line with the drainage hierarchy (as per best practice) and is viable in this location.

Byelaw 3 - Discharge of Treated Foul Water into the Board's District

• If a development proposes to discharge treated foul water to a watercourse, this proposal will require land drainage consent in line with the Board's byelaws (specifically Byelaw 3). Please note that any consent granted for the discharge of treated foul water is likely to be subject to a Treated Foul Water Development Contribution fee (TFWDC) as outlined within our Development Control Charges and Fees.

Byelaw 10 - Work's within 9m of Board Maintained Watercourse/s

• Should any development include works within 9 metres of a Board maintained watercourse, consent would be required to relax Byelaw 10 (no obstructions within 9 metres of the edge of drainage or flood risk management infrastructure).

Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act (1991) and Byelaw 4 - Alterations Proposed to a Watercourse.

• Should any development include works to alter a Board maintained watercourse, consent will be required under the Land Drainage Act 1991 (and Byelaw 4).
• Should and works be proposed to alter a riparian watercourse, consent would be required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (and Byelaw 4).

For developments outside a Board's IDD but within its watershed catchment, where surface water discharges have the potential to indirectly affect the Board's IDD, we would offer the following advice:

• If it is proposed that a site disposes of surface water via infiltration, we recommend that the viability of this proposal is evidenced. As such we would recommend that the proposed strategy is supported by ground investigation to determine the infiltration potential of the site and the depth to groundwater. If on-site material were to be considered favourable then we would advise infiltration testing in line with BRE Digest 365 (or equivalent) to be undertaken to determine its efficiency.
• If it is proposed to discharge surface water to a watercourse within the watershed catchment of the Board's IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the National standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), specifically S2 and S4. Resultantly we recommend that the discharge from this site is attenuated to the Greenfield Runoff Rates wherever possible.

The reason for our recommendation is to promote sustainable development within the Board's Watershed Catchment therefore ensuring that flood risk is not increased within the Internal Drainage District (required as per paragraph 167 of the National Planning Policy Framework). For further information regarding the Board's involvement in the planning process please see our Development and Consent pages on the Board's website via the following link: https://wlma.org.uk/development-consent/.

If you require any further information or would like to discuss the Board's regulation in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respondent 3: The Broads Society

The Broads Society generally supports the Filby Neighbourhood Plan (Submission Version 2022-41) and its Vision for the future of the Parish. The Society particularly welcomes Policies H2 (Housing Design), E1 (Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridors), E3 (Local Green Spaces), E4 (Dark Skies) and BE1 (Heritage Assets) where these Policies apply to those areas in the Parish that fall within or adjacent to the Broads Area.

Respondent 4: Environment Agency

Thank you for consulting us on the Submission Publication for the Filby Neighbourhood Plan.

We aim to reduce flood risk, while protecting and enhancing the water environment.

Having commented previously on this plan we are pleased to see that our previous comments have been taken on board. We therefore have no further detailed comments to make in relation to this plan.

Respondent 5: JDC Developments (c/o Graham Nourse Planning Consultants Ltd)

Please see response appended.

Respondent 6: Historic England

Thank you for inviting Historic England to comment on the Regulation 16 Submission version of this Neighbourhood Plan. 

Having reviewed the plan and relevant documentation we do not consider it necessary for Historic England to provide additional comments at this time.

We would refer you if appropriate to any previous comments submitted at Regulation 14 stage,and for any further information to our detailed advice on successfully incorporating historic environment considerations into a neighbourhood plan, which can be found here: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/plan-making/improve-your-neighbourhood/

We would be grateful if you would notify us on [email protected] if and when the Neighbourhood Plan is made by the council. To avoid any doubt, this letter does not reflect our obligation to provide further advice on or, potentially, object to specific proposals which may subsequently arise as a result of the proposed plan, where we consider these would have an adverse effect on the historic environment.

Respondent 7: Natural England

Dear Sir/Madam,

Filby Neighbourhood Plan - Review - Regulation 16 Consultation

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 06 February 2026.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England is a statutory consultee in neighbourhood planning and must be consulted on draft neighbourhood development plans by the Parish/Town Councils or Neighbourhood Forums where they consider our interests would be affected by the proposals made.

Natural England does not have any specific comments on this draft neighbourhood plan.

However, we refer you to the attached annex which covers the issues and opportunities that should be considered when preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and to the following information.

Natural England does not hold information on the location of significant populations of protected species, so is unable to advise whether this plan is likely to affect protected species to such an extent as to require a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Further information on protected species and development is included in Natural England's Standing Advice on protected species.

Furthermore, Natural England does not routinely maintain locally specific data on all environmental assets. The plan may have environmental impacts on priority species and/or habitats, local wildlife sites, soils and best and most versatile agricultural land, or on local landscape character that may be sufficient to warrant a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Information on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees is set out in Natural England/Forestry Commission standing advice.

We therefore recommend that advice is sought from your ecological, landscape and soils advisers, local record centre, recording society or wildlife body on the local soils, best and most versatile agricultural land, landscape, geodiversity and biodiversity receptors that may be affected by the plan before determining whether a Strategic Environmental Assessment is necessary.

Natural England reserves the right to provide further advice on the environmental assessment of the plan. This includes any third party appeal against any screening decision you may make. If an Strategic Environmental Assessment is required, Natural England must be consulted at the scoping and environmental report stages.

For any further consultations on your plan, please contact: [email protected].

Respondent 8: National Highways

National Highways is a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

It has been noted that once adopted, the Neighbourhood Plan will become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Where relevant, National Highways will be a statutory consultee on future planning applications within the area and will assess the impact on the SRN of a planning application accordingly.

Notwithstanding the above comments, we have reviewed the document and note the details of set out within the draft document are unlikely to have a severe impact on the operation of the trunk road and we offer No Comment.

Respondent 9: Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care System 

Introduction

Thank you for consulting the Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care System (ICS) strategic estates workstream on the neighbourhood development plan Regulation 14 for Filby. The following comments are on behalf of the Norfolk and Waveney ICS, incorporating Norfolk & Waveney Integrated Care Board (ICB), Norfolk Community Health and Care (NCHC), Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

Existing Healthcare Position Proximate to the Proposed Development Plan Area

The local Primary Care Network (PCN) that covers the health needs of the Filby Neighbourhood area residents is the Great Yarmouth and Northern Villages PCN, same as the recent Filby Neighbourhood plan. This network is a group of GP practices that work together, and with wider health and care providers, to deliver a wider range of services to the local population.

Alongside the service providers listed in the introduction, and in terms of physical infrastructure local to Filby residents, Filby is located within the catchment area of the following GP practices: Fleggburgh Surgery, Coastal Partnership (Ormesby St Margaret) and Acle Medical Partnership. The nearest Dental surgery is located in Ormesby St Margaret; the nearest pharmacies can be found in Ormesby St Margaret and Martham, with the closest Optician residing in Filby itself. Community health services are provided by East Coast Community Healthcare. Mental Health services can be found to the East in Great Yarmouth or West towards Norwich but will require travel.

Review and Assessment of the Proposed Development Plan

The plan outlines the parish's vision, presents several objectives, and details policies on important themes that reflect the community's future goals.

The vision is supported by a number of key objectives which cover areas such as the natural environment and ecological network, future housing growth, sustainable development, local heritage assets green spaces and active travel, improvements to current infrastructure and promotion of opportunities to improve access to services and community facilities.

Filby is not expected to see any new housing growth from the emerging Great Yarmouth Local Plan. There are only two existing permissions in place which will deliver 8 further dwellings to the parish.

Policy areas with health relevance:

Community Facilities and Infrastructure (Policy CFI1): Filby has a range of community amenities (village hall, shop, post office, playing fields, etc.), which are important mental health, and wellbeing. The plan is also seeking to protect and enhance these facilities, recognising their role in supporting all age groups. The policy looks to protect existing facilities and supports new ones where there is a proven need, including health and recreation facilities. Whilst there are no identified projects for healthcare in the area, this does not mean that one will not come forward in the future.

Green Space and Recreation (Policies E1, E3): The neighbourhood plan promotes the protection of extensive green spaces and wildlife corridors, supporting physical activity, recreation, and mental health.

The Plan also recognises the health benefits of access to nature and prioritises biodiversity, clean air. By preserving and improving local green spaces, people gain more chances to exercise and unwind, which all promote physical and mental well-being, in turn potentially reducing the number of appointments at the local GP practice.

Sustainable Transport (Policy AT1):This policy promotes safe walking and cycling links to services and facilities. There is limited public transport and high car dependency in the area which can affect access to healthcare. With improved bus services, walking and cycling routes, this would support active travel and help to reduce barriers to accessing healthcare services.

Housing Type and Mix (Policy H1):This policy focuses on the current type of homes available within the parish (large, detached homes), but also highlights the shift in an ageing population, and a shortage of smaller affordable and accessible homes. There is a requirement for foe new housing to meet local needs such as the aging population, young families and support for independent living, this would help to support reducing health inequalities.

Community Aspirations:There are explicit aspirations for the improvement of access to healthcare, outdoor recreation and infrastructure, such as Transport and Broadband. This would help to promote social well-being. Ongoing engagement with residents, the ICB, and local authorities will be required.

Suggested Additions

Primary Care Facilities: Although Filby does not have its own GP practice in the village, the plan should still aim to include a policy that addresses the need for access to primary care facilities for the residents of Filby. This could involve ongoing engagement with the ICB ad local planning authority. The Policy should also state support from the parish for the use of CIL and/or S106 developer contributions towards nearby healthcare infrastructure as and when required, to ensure sustainable healthcare provision for the neighbourhood boundary residents.

Health Impact Assessments: The Neighbourhood plan could also reiterate a requirement for health impact assessments in line with the local plan guidance for new developments to ensure that they contribute positively to the health and well-being of residents.

Active Travel Infrastructure: Enhance policy AT1 (sustainable transport) to include active travel policies by setting clear objectives for expanding walking and cycling infrastructure, for example specify how many new footpaths or cycle routes need to be built. Ensure effective wayfinding and access to leisure opportunities are included in these plans and that any new active travel routes are accessible for everyone to promote exercise.

Digital Infrastructure: Include a specific policy with regards to Digital infrastructure. This is covered within the community aspirations, however having reliable broadband and mobile coverage in rural areas are essential for supporting home working, and can also facilitate access to digital health services, further supporting independence for those reliant on public transport and making access to health care more equitable.

Conclusion

• The Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care System welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan and supports the overall vision and objectives set out by the community, particularly those that promote health, wellbeing, and sustainability.
• The Filby Neighbourhood Plan provides a clear and positive vision for the parish and reflects local priorities that support health and wellbeing.
• There is no significant housing growth proposed, and current development levels are unlikely to place additional pressure on local health services. However, it is still important to recognise there may be a future need for improved access, which will require access to CIL or S106 funding, this should be supported by the plan.
• The Filby Neighbourhood Plan recognises both direct and indirect determinants of health. Policies that protect community facilities, green spaces and encourage active travel will support physical and mental wellbeing.
• Improving access to services, transport and digital infrastructure will help reduce barriers to healthcare in this rural area which will support the reduction of health inequalities.
• Ongoing engagement between the Parish Council, local planning authority and the ICB will be important as the plan progresses.
• The ICB supports the plan's overall direction and welcomes continued collaboration to ensure sustainable healthcare provision for residents.

Respondent 10: Norfolk County Council

The officer-level comments below are made without prejudice.

1.2. The County Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and recognises the considerable amount of work and effort which has been put into developing the Neighbourhood Plan to date.

2. Lead Local Flood Authority

2.1 Thank you for your consultation on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan 2022 - 2041 Regulation 16 Version, February 2026 and supporting documents received by the LLFA on 6th February 2026 (LLFA Ref: FW2026_0114). The LLFA note that we previously provided comments on the Filby Neighbourhood Plan at Regulation 14 stage (LLFA Ref: FW2025_0450) as part of the NCC Corporate Response.

2.2 The LLFA comments at Regulation 16 review stage are as follows:

2.3 The LLFA welcomes that the Filby Neighbourhood Plan 2022 - 2041 Regulation 16 Version, February 2026 and its proposed policies retain references to flooding from various sources such as surface water and fluvial flooding and to the implications of climate change upon development and flood risk. It is however noted that there are still no references made to groundwater flooding. Policy H2: Design, Policy E1: Biodiversity and Wildlife corridors, Policy E3: Local Green Space and Policy E6: Managing Surface Water and their supporting text within the document, are of most relevance to matters for consideration by the LLFA.

2.4 The LLFA welcomes the retention and enhancements made to Policy E6: Managing Surface Water and its supporting text in respect of the consideration of flooding in future developments within the Parish, the implications of climate change and the wider benefits of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and further references made within Policies H2, E1 and E6. The LLFA particularly welcomes reference made to developments seeking to achieve the four pillars of SuDS within Policy E6.

2.5 Furthermore, the LLFA notes and welcomes reference made in the Regulation 16 document to the 'Norfolk County Council LLFA Statutory Consultee for Planning: Guidance Document within the Neighbourhood Plan (the most relevant updated version depending on the timeframe for the preparation and adoption of the final Neighbourhood Plan document) regarding surface water risk and drainage for any allocated sites or areas of proposed development, available from the "Information for developers" section of the Norfolk County Council website.

2.6. The LLFA welcomes references to the Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 Document complimenting Strategic Policies included within the Greater Yarmouth Local Plan, the Broads Authority Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2.7. According to LLFA datasets (extending from 2011 to present day) we have 1 no. records of internal flooding and 2 no. records of external/anecdotal flooding in the Parish of Filby. The LLFA highlight the importance of considering surface water, groundwater and flooding from ordinary watercourses within the Neighbourhood Plan in the best interest of further development in the area. We note that all external flood events are deemed anecdotal and have not been subject to an investigation by the LLFA.

2.8. We advise that Norfolk County Council (NCC), as the LLFA for Norfolk, publish completed flood investigation reports here.

2.9. According to Environment Agency datasets, there are areas of localised surface water flooding (ponding) in the built-up area, with some ponding in fields, as well as significant surface water flowpaths present within the Parish of Filby.

2.10. The LLFA are aware of AW DG5 records within the Parish of Filby, however, this will need to be confirmed with/by Anglian Water.

2.11. The LLFA welcomes flood risk mapping has been included in the Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 document within Figures 14, 15 and 16. However it is suggested that it would be helpful if the mapping showed the whole Parish area with the extent of the Parish boundary marked upon it for clarity. The LLFA recommends that mapping be provided for all sources of flooding. Information on this and associated tools/reference documents can be found at:

• GOV.UK - Flood map for planning
• GOV.UK - Check your long term flood risk
• Norfolk County Council (NCC) - Flood and Water Management Policies
• Norfolk County Council (NCC) - Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Statutory Consultee for Planning: Guidance Document

2.12 Allocation of Sites

2.13 We would expect that the Neighbourhood Planning Process provide a robust assessment of the risk of flooding, from all sources, when allocating sites. It is not evident to the LLFA that this has been undertaken in respect of any site allocations (although in this instance it is noted that no housing allocations form part of the Neighbourhood Plan). If a risk of flooding is identified then a sequential test, and exception test where required, should be undertaken. This would be in line with Planning Practice Guidance to ensure that new development is steered to the lowest areas of flood risk. However, any allocated sites will also still be required to provide a flood risk assessment and / or drainage strategy through the development management planning process.

2.14 LLFA Review of Local Green Spaces (LGS)

2.15 As was the case at Regulation 14 stage, the Regulation 16 document proposes 12 no. Local Green Spaces which are identified in Policy E3: Local Green Space and Figures 8 and 9. It is understood that designation of LGSs provides a level of protection against development. The LLFA do not normally comment in LGSs unless they are/are proposed to be part of a SuDS or contribute to current surface water management/land drainage. If it is believed that a designated LGS forms part of a SuDS or contributes to current surface water management/land drainage, this should be appropriately evidenced within the submitted Neighbourhood Plan. The LLFA have no comments to make on the proposed LGSs in the plan.

2.16 Should you have any queries with the above comments please contact the Lead Local Flood Authority at [email protected].

3. Transport

3.1. Like this Neighbourhood plan, some parish councils have seek to designate highways verges as Local Green Spaces within Neighbourhood Plans. The concern of the Highway Authority is that should there be a need to undertake (permitted development) highway works that affect the verges included in these allocations, there may be local opposition to such works from the perceived damage to a protected green space, even though these works are undertaken by (or on behalf of) the Highway Authority to ultimately benefit the local community.

3.2. Highway verges are effectively part of the highway land where the road or footway is adopted highway as defined through Highways legislation. This should not be adopted as open space as it is for all intents and purposes functional highway land for maintenance purposes for the adopted road or footway or surface water drainage associated with the adopted highway. However, where a road/footway is not adopted, it may be possible with the consent of the landowner/s.

3.3. National guidance (paragraph 104 of the NPPF) states that the space must be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Land adjoining an existing highway is subject to 'Permitted Development' rights, which could be used to bring forward development that is in direct contradiction to the designation of a Local Green Space, but would not require planning permission to be granted. Highway land may also be utilised in bringing forward future highway/transport schemes, as well as active travel measures to encourage walking and cycling, such as cycle lanes or footways. Therefore, highway land/roadside verges would not typically be suitable for designation.

3.4. It is considered that highway verges do not typically meet the criteria of paragraph 107 of the NPPF of being "demonstrably special" or of "particular local significance" and therefore are not suitable to be designated as Local Green Spaces.

3.5. The remedy to this is to redefine the boundaries of the Local Green Space designations as shown on figure 7 to exclude highway land. The final paragraph in policy E3 recognises the issues but does not address the fundamental objection of the Highway Authority to the plan showing public highway as Local Green Space. The plan would benefit from and needs to include more detailed plans of each of the proposed Green space areas at a scale capable of being able to confirm the boundary of each area and that it does not extend into the public highway or conflict with the powers and functions of the highway authority.

3.6. The green spaces directly affected are and objected to are,

• 1 - Highway Boundary definition
• 3 - Green space allocation may restrict maintenance works to Public Right of Way FP 1
• 4 - Highway Boundary definition
• 5 - Highway water drains into pond from A1064. Allocating the pond as greenspace may restrict future maintenance of highway drainage feature.
• 6 - Green space allocation may restrict maintenance works to Public Right of Way FP 1
• 7 - Highway boundary definition
• 10 - Highway boundary definition
• 11 - It is not clear whether the pond is a highway drainage feature as it is adjacent to A1064. This will need to be clarified. Allocating the pond as greenspace may restrict future maintenance of highway drainage feature.

3.7. Should you have any queries with the above comments please contact Richard Doleman (Principal Infrastructure Development Planner) at [email protected].

4. Norfolk Fire and Rescue

4.1 Background and Context

4.2 Underpinned by statutory obligations within the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England provides the overall strategic direction for Fire and Rescue authorities. Within the framework, each authority is required to produce a Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP) that identifies and assesses all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community.

4.3 Each CRMP must demonstrate how prevention, protection and response activities will best be used to mitigate the impact of risk on its communities. Through local determination of risk and local determination of response standards, it is expected that this will:

• Reduce the number of emergency incidents occurring.
• Reduce death and injury from fire and other emergency incidents.
• Ensures emergency response standards of 10 minutes are met.
• Reduce the socio-economic impacts of fire.
•  Protect heritage.
• Safeguard the environment.
• Contribute to the development of stronger, more self-sufficient, and cohesive communities.
• Provide value for money.   

4.4 The above legislation imposes a requirement on Fire and Rescue Authorities to ensure efficient and effective fire and rescue provision, and to ensure that the Service contributes effectively to the wider community safety agenda.

4.5 Neighbourhood Plan Comments

4.6 New developments as set out in Neighbourhood Plans can potentially change the risk profile for the area and increase attendance times to incidents. Increases in population place additional demand on fire and rescue resources, both in terms of the need for additional capital investment in new facilities and vehicles and funding for additional equipment based on increased risks. This also impacts revenue budgets for firefighters, officers, and support staff. NFRS dynamically reallocates resources across the county to meet changes in risk and demand.

4.7 To ensure that NFRS can respond appropriately to the increased risks and demand - Policy H1 (Housing Type and Mix) and supporting text should make it clear that developers will be asked to contribute to fire service vehicles, equipment, facilities and response provision through s106 agreements, where this meets the legal tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

4.8 The capability and availability of water resources to fight fires is also a key consideration for the Service. The provision of public fire hydrants on residential developments is not covered by Building Regulations 2010 (Part B5 as supported by Secretary of State Guidance 'Approved Document B'). Developers are expected to make provision for fire hydrants to adequately protect a development site for fire-fighting purposes. Policy H1 (Housing Type and Mix) should make appropriate reference to the need for fire hydrant provision associated with new development.

4.9. Due to the risk of fire spread Policy H2: (Design) should make clear that any purpose-built structure to house refuse or recycling bins should not be built next to residential houses.

4.10. Policy H2: (Design) of the Local Plan should have regard to the need for Fire appliance access to all areas of developments as this is vital for emergency response and should be in compliance with Building Regulations 2010 (Part B5 as supported by Secretary of State Guidance 'Approved Document B').

4.11. Where residential properties (dwellinghouses) are located more than 45 meters away (furthest point of floorplan) from the closest fire appliance access location British Standard 9991 directs that domestic sprinklers should be installed in accordance with British Standard 9251 and this will allow a maximum access distance of 90 metres to the furthest point of the floorplan in dwellinghouses with no floor more than 4.5 metres above ground. This is reduced to 75 metres where a floor is over 4.5 metres above ground. Norfolk Fire & Rescue Service would expect developers to adhere to the access distances given above or prove comparable safety of occupants should they wish to deviate from these.

4.12. Developments which include PV arrays, Domestic Energy Storage Systems (DESS) and electric vehicle charging points should comply with national guidance, Institute of Engineering and Technology Codes of Practice and PAS63100:2024. Developers should consult with NFRS both before and during planning stage on safe installation and location within residential dwellings.

4.13. Should you have any queries with the above comments please contact: Clive Denniss, Group Manager - Operational Risk and Policy Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service [email protected]

5. Corporate Property

5.1 We previously objected to site allocation number 4 - Community Paddocks as a Local Green Space as this site forms part of the County Farms Estate and the allocation may restrict the future use of this agricultural land. It should also be noted that the land is currently leased to tenants as grazing land with limited wildlife interest and is not accessible to the general public so has limited recreational value. We would continue to request this site allocation be removed from the NP.

5.2 Should you have any queries with the above comments please contact Richard Smith (Associate Director - Planning - NPS) at [email protected]

Respondent 11: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

NWT Response: Filby Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16

Thank you for consulting Norfolk Wildlife Trust on this Neighbourhood Plan.

We have been advised by the Senion Planning Officer that our Regulation 14 response was omitted from the Consultation Statement in error. The Qualifying Body have acknowledged this and are aware that the Consultation Statement should have included a summary of the response. We therefore reiterate our previous comments below.

Vision (p10)

We strongly support the vision, and related objectives, for the plan to result in a more coherent, connected and expansive ecological network of key habitats that delivers a significant net ecological gain for wildlife over the plan period.

We also support the aspiration of the vision to address climate change and the intent of paragraph 27 to embed action to tackle the climate and nature emergency into multiple policies. However, we recommend that a specific policy on climate change would be welcome in addition to this. A robust neighbourhood plan climate policy should mandate sustainable design, such as requiring new developments to exceed minimum energy efficiency standards, incorporate renewable energy, and protect green spaces. An example of such a policy can be seen in the Bishop Stortford Neighbourhood Plan.

Policy H2: Design (p18)

We support the intention of e) around flood resilience and the use of SUDS. SuDS will be extremely important in helping to reducing flood risk, reducing pollution downstream and locally, increasing biodiversity and when used effectively can provide habitat connectivity. Similarly, we welcome the inclusion of f) to integrate biodiversity enhancements.

However, we recommend additional text is included around climate resilience and carbon efficiency to encourage a shift to low carbon development. We suggest the inclusion of the additional text below:

'All developments should strive for high quality design that meets the climatic targets for CO2 emissions and are encouraged to incorporate wherever possible green design elements. Wherever possible, new homes should include built-in low carbon heating sources, use low carbon building materials and come equipped with low carbon technology...'

The Environment (p20)

We strongly support the objectives outlined for this section.

We note the reference to the NPPF (paragraphs 59 and 60) and the citation of specific paragraphs within this. We advise that the NPPF is currently under consultation so it is highly likely that this document will change.

Policy E1: Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridors

We welcome this policy which aims to protect Filby's wildlife rich habitats. However, we recommend more robust wording in the first sentence to ensure that the policy will be effective and clear for use in planning application responses, for example (or similar):

'Filby's wildlife rich habitats, including all statutory and non-statutory designated sites, protected species, wetland areas and Priority Habitats must be safeguarded and enhanced through proactive action as part of development...Proposals will......'

Buffer zones are designed to protect sensitive landscape patches and areas of high biodiversity from the impacts of development. We therefore recommend additional policy wording, for example:

'Buffer zones should be implemented around sensitive wildlife sites, where appropriate, and where this will provide ecological benefits.'

We recommend an aspiration for new development (unless exempt) to deliver 20% Biodiversity Net Gain and for this to form part of this biodiversity policy. Neighbourhood Plans provide ideal opportunities for this aspiration.

The State of Nature report highlights the significant historical losses that have occurred across the UK and safeguarding what remains of our natural heritage is a vital cornerstone in nature's future recovery.

Given the pressures facing biodiversity, The Wildlife Trusts recommend an ambition of 20% Biodiversity Net Gain should be encouraged to provide greater confidence in genuine gains for biodiversity and ensure the successful recovery of nature. Natural England's biodiversity net gain study considered the impacts on the economics and viability of development and concluded that a biodiversity net gain requirement was not expected to affect the financial viability of housing developments (up to 20% biodiversity net gain scenario); it also suggests there is a strong case for greater ambition.

We note that the emerging Great Yarmouth Local Plan states in Policy NAT3 that, 'All major development proposals must deliver at least a 20% measurable biodiversity net gain attributable to the development.' An aspiration for 20% would also not conflict with any policies within the Local Plan for the Broads.

The following is an example of wording taken from the Hadleigh Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum version): '....all development proposals should deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity and are encouraged to deliver a minimum of 20%.'

Community Aspiration 1: Local Action to Enhance and Improve Biodiversity and Local Habitats (p25)

We strongly support this community action. We suggest whether this action could also include finding creative ways to use green roofs in the community? For example, they can be used effectively and creatively on structures such as bin stores, bike sheds etc. Please see: Having a bike shed with a green roof can help deliver biodiversity, Livingroofs.org, the leading UK green roof website .

We also recommend that ponds could be added to the list of examples, as these habitats provide many benefits for wildlife.

We recommend text to show a commitment to avoid the use of pesticides and herbicides wherever possible.

Policy E2: Trees and Hedgerows (p26)

Trees and other vegetation provide significant benefits, including acting as a natural 'carbon sink' which will help to tackle the effects of climate change. They also offer protection from flooding, purify air, contribute to biodiversity and provide health benefits. We therefore strongly support this policy which aims to safeguard trees and hedgerows. We also welcome the text requiring an appropriate management plan as after care is essential in order to secure successful planting.

New research from Forestry England has led to the planting of alternative species predicted to cope better with climate conditions. The following is from Forestry England: 'Diverse forests are more resilient to climate change. One way of increasing diversity is to encourage a range of different trees to grow, another is to choose where the seeds we use come from. We're designing forests for the future and diversifying the trees we plant. We don't know exactly what the future holds and which tree species may suffer more from threats, like climate change and new pests or diseases, so growing different types of tree mitigates the risks.'

We therefore recommend that the following sentence includes wording to ensure that climate-resilient species are also included, in addition to native species.

'Where proposals will result in the loss of trees or hedgerow, adequate replacement provision, using native British species of greater value...',

Community Aspiration 2: Filby Lands and Conservation Trust (p28)

We are particularly supportive of all the work and achievements of the Filby Lands & Conservation Trust. We strongly support this community aspiration.

Policy E3: Local Green Space (p33)

Green spaces provide important habitats for wildlife and can act as wildlife corridors and stepping stones, enabling animals to move freely through the landscape. We therefore support this policy and the designation of these 12 listed Local Green Spaces.

Policy E4: Dark Skies (p35)

Due to the known adverse impacts on nocturnal wildlife from light pollution, we welcome the Dark Skies Policy.

Community Aspiration 3: Resolve foul water drainage issues with Anglian Water (p45)

We strongly support this community action.

Policy E6: Managing Surface Water (p46)

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) are extremely important in reducing flood risk, reducing pollution locally, increasing biodiversity and when used effectively can provide habitat connectivity.

We welcome and support this policy regarding the use of SuDS.

We advocate the addition of green roofs/walls to buildings as they provide numerous benefits: reducing run-off, increasing biodiversity, improving air quality and improving thermal performance by providing shading and insulation which contributes to greater energy efficiency.

We therefore support the following wording: 'Proposals for making use of green roofs will be seen to deliver significant benefit.' However, we recommend that this policy wording is more robust to provide greater effectiveness, for example (or similar):

'Proposals for making use of green roofs and walls will be seen to deliver significant benefit. Creative ways of designing green roofs/walls into developments should be encouraged and opportunities maximised'.

We welcome the policy wording that 'SuDS should link with Filby's key wildlife corridors (as identified in Figure 5), acting as a stepping stone......wildlife habitat are encouraged.'

It may be useful to also add in reference to linking in with areas identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS).

Policy BE2: Filby Village Gap (p52)

We support the intention of this policy to maintain an area of separation between the two distinct parts of the village. Alongside other benefits, this separation allows wildlife to move freely through the landscape without physical barriers.

Community Aspiration 5: Walking and Cycling Links (p58)

We welcome and support this community aspiration.

We particularly encourage the provision of a network of green walking and cycling routes/links which helps to reduce carbon emissions, support nature's recovery, increase biodiversity, provide habitats for wildlife and improve habitat connectivity, whilst also providing health benefits etc.

We recommend that opportunities are maximised for 'green infrastructure (GI)' to be sensitively incorporated into the design and layout of walking and cycle routes/links within the Plan area. Examples include using trees, wildflowers, hedgerows, SuDS features such as swales, rain gardens, creative use of green roofs etc.

Policy AT1: Sustainable Transport (p58)

We support this policy as sustainable transport can significantly help to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions from reliance on cars.

Our recommendation above regarding the incorporation of green infrastructure (GI) into the design of any walking routes/links could provide significant benefits and therefore we recommend that it is included in policy wording.

We recommend that any new walking/cycle paths use permeable surfaces as appropriate, to effectively manage surface water and that this is also included in policy wording.

We trust that our comments have been helpful. Please notify us at Regulation 19 stage whether the Borough Council makes (adopts) the neighbourhood plan.

Respondent 12: Sport England 

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above neighbourhood plan.

Government planning policy, within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), identifies how the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Encouraging communities to become more physically active through walking, cycling, informal recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process. Providing enough sports facilities of the right quality and type in the right places is vital to achieving this aim. This means that positive planning for sport, protection from the unnecessary loss of sports facilities, along with an integrated approach to providing new housing and employment land with community facilities is important.

Therefore, it is essential that the neighbourhood plan reflects and complies with national planning policy for sport as set out in the NPPF with particular reference to Pars 103 and 104. It is also important to be aware of Sport England's statutory consultee role in protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing field land. Sport England's playing fields policy is set out in our Playing Fields Policy and Guidance document.

https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#playing_fields_policy

Sport England provides guidance on developing planning policy for sport and further information can be found via the link below. Vital to the development and implementation of planning policy is the evidence base on which it is founded.

https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#planning_applications

Sport England works with local authorities to ensure their Local Plan is underpinned by robust and up to date evidence. In line with Par 104 of the NPPF, this takes the form of assessments of need and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. A neighbourhood planning body should look to see if the relevant local authority has prepared a playing pitch strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports facility strategy. If it has then this could provide useful evidence for the neighbourhood plan and save the neighbourhood planning body time and resources gathering their own evidence. It is important that a neighbourhood plan reflects the recommendations and actions set out in any such strategies, including those which may specifically relate to the neighbourhood area, and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support their delivery.

Where such evidence does not already exist then relevant planning policies in a neighbourhood plan should be based on a proportionate assessment of the need for sporting provision in its area. Developed in consultation with the local sporting and wider community any assessment should be used to provide key recommendations and deliverable actions. These should set out what provision is required to ensure the current and future needs of the community for sport can be met and, in turn, be able to support the development and implementation of planning policies. Sport England's guidance on assessing needs may help with such work.

http://www.sportengland.org/planningtoolsandguidance

If new or improved sports facilities are proposed Sport England recommend you ensure they are fit for purpose and designed in accordance with our design guidance notes.

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/

Any new housing developments will generate additional demand for sport. If existing sports facilities do not have the capacity to absorb the additional demand, then planning policies should look to ensure that new sports facilities, or improvements to existing sports facilities, are secured and delivered. Proposed actions to meet the demand should accord with any approved local plan or neighbourhood plan policy for social infrastructure, along with priorities resulting from any assessment of need, or set out in any playing pitch or other indoor and/or outdoor sports facility strategy that the local authority has in place.

In line with the Government's NPPF (including Section 8) and its Planning Practice Guidance (Health and wellbeing section), links below, consideration should also be given to how any new development, especially for new housing, will provide opportunities for people to lead healthy lifestyles and create healthy communities. Sport England's Active Design guidance can be used to help with this when developing planning policies and developing or assessing individual proposals.

Active Design, which includes a model planning policy, provides ten principles to help ensure the design and layout of development encourages and promotes participation in sport and physical activity. The guidance, and its accompanying checklist, could also be used at the evidence gathering stage of developing a neighbourhood plan to help undertake an assessment of how the design and layout of the area currently enables people to lead active lifestyles and what could be improved.

NPPF Section 8: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/8-promoting-healthy-communities

PPG Health and wellbeing section: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/health-and-wellbeing

Sport England's Active Design Guidance: https://www.sportengland.org/activedesign

(Please note: this response relates to Sport England's planning function only. It is not associated with our funding role or any grant application/award that may relate to the site.)

If you need any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact Sport England using the contact details below.

Respondent 13: Swifts Local Network

I would like to comment on FILR1 Filby Neighbourhood Plan (2022-2041), on behalf of the Swifts Local Network: Swifts & Planning Group.

If you can confirm receipt of these comments, that would be much appreciated.

I wish to be notified by the Borough Council at Regulation 19, whether the Borough Council makes (adopts) the neighbourhood plan.

Policy E1: Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridors is very welcome, and in particular "c) Biodiversity measures are integrated into development design, including... the incorporation of bird and bat boxes in accordance with British Standard BS 42021:2022 (one bird box per dwelling and one bat box per four dwellings);" -

however, most readers will not be aware that the only bird boxes that comply with BS 42021:2022 are swift bricks (except for the uncommon case of starling boxes that have been specially adapted with a rough internal surface so that swifts can climb out);

BS 42021:2022 only covers bird nest boxes, and does not cover bat boxes at all.

Therefore, in summary:

for clarity please amend the end of the sentence as follows:

",and the incorporation of bird boxes in accordance with British Standard BS 42021:2022 (one suitable bird box, e.g. swift brick, per dwelling), and one bat box per four dwellings;".

I also request that you add, as house martins are a significant species in Filby with good availability of vegetated and waterside areas for foraging:
"Artificial nest cups for house martins may be specified as an alternative to swift bricks, where recommended by a suitably qualified ecologist."

For background information:

Swift bricks are a universal nest brick that are safely used by a range of small bird species.

The government's national planning guidance (NPPG) Natural Environment 2025 paragraph 017 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment ) states:

"Developments should include integrated nest boxes (commonly known as swift bricks) where possible, with the general aim across a development of a minimum of one nest box per unit. Nest boxes can provide important habitat for other species as well as swifts, such as starlings and sparrows.
Extensive guidance is available on wildlife friendly features, including the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code which illustrate how well-designed places can support rich and varied biodiversity by facilitating habitats and routes for wildlife. More specific support for the selection and installation of swift bricks can be found in the British Industry Standard BS 42021:2022the Future Homes Hub Homes for Nature Guidance, and the RSPB's Guide to Nestboxes."

A useful source of reference for swift bricks is Swift Conservation: https://swift-conservation.org/

A useful source of reference for house martins is House Martin Conservation UK & Ireland: https://housemartinconservation.com/how-to-help

Many thanks. If you have any questions at all please let me know.