FILR2B - Examination Note 2

The following examination note was sent to the Borough Council, Broads Authority and Filby Parish Council by the Neighbourhood Plan examiner on 17 July 2026.

EXAMINATION NOTE 2

Following my recent site visit and having undertaken a review of the Neighbourhood Plan, I have a number of questions on which I would be grateful for a response from either the Borough Council or Parish Council as indicated below. The questions relate to the content of the submitted Neighbourhood Plan.

Policy H1: Housing Type and Mix

1. I note that Part One of Policy H1 requires housing units to meet accessible and adaptable standards. The Policy is underpinned by commentary in paragraph 37 and the Consultation Statement. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Parish Council could:

• confirm that 'accessible and adaptable standards' refers to the standards required by Building Regulations M4(2).
• provide any detailed justification for this part of the Policy as required by NPPF Footnote 51. I am particularly interested in the justification for M4(3) standards to apply at a rate of 10% to affordable housing units on major schemes.

2. It would be helpful if the Parish Council could comment on why Part Two of the Policy should only apply to proposals of 5 dwellings or more. It would appear that the policy supports larger dwellings on small schemes contrary to the consultation outcomes.

Policy E1: Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridors

3. The ambition of Policy E1 is clear. However, is it appropriate to seek to deliver 'at least the statutory minimum Biodiversity Net Gain' whilst the emerging Great Yarmouth Local Plan (Policy NAT3) seeks to secure a '20% measurable biodiversity net gain' on major developments. It would be helpful if the Parish Council and Borough Council could respond to this issue.

Policy E2: Trees and Hedgerows

4. Paragraph 70 seeks to identify woodlands, mature trees and biodiversity rich hedgerows as 'irreplaceable' as they make a significant contribution to Filby's wildlife habitats and landscapes. Could the Parish Council comment on how this is consistent with NPPF's definition of irreplaceable habitats.
5.  Representations advocate the use of climate resilient species as replacement provision where the loss of existing trees and hedges is unavoidable. Would the Parish Council have any objection to the inclusion of this proposal in the Policy?

Policy E3: Local Green Spaces

6. I note that the consultation statement comments that the Steering Group carefully considered representations and agreed that all identified Local Green Spaces (LGS) should be retained as they meet the NPPF criteria. The Modifications Statement reports that the sites were included after a site assessment review. Could the Parish Council provide me with a copy of the appropriate report, if available, which demonstrate the sites compatibility with the LGS criteria stated in NPPF.
7. Norfolk County Council is concerned that the allocation of LGS on public highway land would be inappropriate. Can the Parish Council confirm that the proposed LGS sites do not include land within the highway boundary. At this point, I am likely to recommend that the site plans for the LGS are replaced by those which more clearly identify the site boundaries.
8. It would be helpful if the Parish Council also commented on Norfolk County Council's assertion that Local Green Space 4 (Community Paddocks, off Thrigby Road) is inconsistent with and does not satisfy the criteria as a Local Green Space.

Policy E5: Landscape Character

9. The Broads Local Plan (Policy SP4) seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. Can the Parish Council comment on why it is appropriate to include a distinct policy in the Neighbourhood Plan which avoids development on such agricultural land.

Policy CFI1: Services and Facilities

10. The emerging Great Yarmouth Local Plan at Policy HEC3 (Protection of open spaces and green infrastructure) seeks to protect spaces that provide local amenity or recreational benefit. Importantly, it supports the loss of such spaces where it is replaced by equivalent or better provision elsewhere. Therefore, such spaces could, in some circumstances be substituted.
11. Six sites: Filby allotments; Community Orchard; Trinity Woods; Meadow; Playing Fields and the Bowling Green are identified as both Community Facilities and Local Green Spaces. Local Green Spaces must be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. For consistency and clarity, I am minded to delete these sites from the list of Community Facilities whilst retaining them as Local Green Spaces. Does the Parish Council have a view on this?

Conclusions

12. I am aware that there are a considerable number of questions and there are areas that require further information and analysis. However, it would be helpful in programming the

Examination timetable if the Parish Council and Borough Council could give an indication of the likely timescale needed to respond to these questions.

Edward Cousins

Radcliffe Chambers

15 July 2026