Consultation Document May 2014
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 Purpose of statement 5
3.0 The process – how consultation was made 6
4.0 Initial steps – the questionnaire 8
5.0 Wider consultation with the community and organisations 12
6.0 Evolution and first Public Consultation 14
7.0 Second Public Consultation - Tickhill Gala – 6th July 2013 19
8.0 Stages in the preparation of the Pre-Submission Consultation Document 21
9.0 Changes made following the local Pre-Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultation 27th August – 11th October 2013 24
10.0 Final Stages 30
Appendices 31
2 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Following the 1974 reorganisation, Tickhill Town Council (TTC) was formed within the larger area of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC) in the newly created county of South Yorkshire. Although the council is a town council, its boundaries coincide with that of the parish of St Mary’s church, Tickhill. Therefore, as the map below shows, the jurisdiction of the Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan as drawn up by TTC simultaneously covers the local government administrative area for the town of Tickhill and the ecclesiastical parish of Tickhill.
Area covered by the Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan
1.2 The Localism Act of 2011 provided the opportunity for the development of Neighbourhood Plans with the intent to place greater emphasis on planning at the local level. Local communities were given new powers to have a direct say in the future of their local area by helping to shape the area in which they live.
1.3 Having held a Planning and Localism Training Day on 9th March 2012, at the next scheduled council meeting of 27th March Tickhill Town Council unanimously decided to accept the challenge to draw up a Neighbourhood Plan. Letters of invitation were sent to all Tickhill Town Councillors, the three Borough Councillors and the Planning Officer at DMBC plus the chair and deputy chair of Tickhill Residents’ Association. Letters were also sent to local residents who had expressed interest in the idea of a Neighbourhood Plan when it had first been muted locally. Fourteen people consequently attended an inaugural meeting held on April 19th where it was formally decided to instigate a Neighbourhood Plan. This information was disseminated to the local community and, one month later on the 14th May, a further meeting of sixteen interested parties was held at which a Steering Group was formed. At this meeting, Mr Ray Hill, Mayor of Tickhill and leader of TTC, nominated Mr John Hoare, a local resident, to act as chairperson for the Steering Group. This
3 was seconded and accepted. Following nominations and voting, Mrs Rosemary Chappell, another local resident, became secretary to the group and Cllr Ray Hill, Mayor, deputy chairperson. (Appendix 1.3 – Notes from the Steering Group meeting, May 2012.)
The make-up of the Steering Group has remained fluid throughout the process of the drawing up of the plan, allowing residents, businesses and organisations and other stakeholders to join the group or send representatives, should they wish, after its inception.
1.4 A Core Group of six volunteers, working on behalf of the larger Steering Group, was drawn up but this was soon increased to ten to take account of the wider issues and concerns being highlighted as the plan proceeded and developed. (Appendix 1.4 - Core Group members.)
1.5 Both groups started work straightaway while TTC went through the legal process necessary to apply for permission to formulate a plan.
1.6 On 3rd June 2012, TTC made a formal application to DMBC for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area under Part 2 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. This was received and accepted by DMBC on 14th June and went live on DMBC’s website for comments during a six week consultation period. The expiry date for such comments was Friday 27th July 2012. (Appendices 1.6a – Letter from TTC to DMBC; 1.6b – Response from DMBC.)
1.7 Final approval to progress a Neighbourhood Plan in the designated area of the parish of Tickhill was granted by the Planning Committee of DMBC on 2nd November 2012 and posted on its web-site. This formal acknowledgement allowed the work already underway to continue towards a final plan.
1.8 All the work undertaken to progress the Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan has been carried out by volunteers. TTC designated a small budget for the cost of materials and one anonymous public donation was received. It is obvious that the volunteers have given a great deal of their time and, in some cases, funded materials from their own resources. In this way, the cost to the Council of producing the Plan has been kept extremely low. However, in October 2013 TTC applied for, and obtained, a grant of £980.00 from the Community Development Foundation to help with costs in the later stages of production.
4 2.0 Purpose of statement
2.1 The legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulation (2012) require a body carrying out a Neighbourhood Plan to deliver a Consultation Statement.
2.2 Section 15(2) of Part 5 of the Regulations states that a Consultation Statement:
(a) contains details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan; (b) explains how they were consulted; (c) summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; (d) describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.
2.3 The Consultation Statement that follows addresses the above in chronological order of events. Contact with the wider community was made continuously both by the use of conventional methods (meetings, posters, mailings, telephone conversations, articles) and the use of electronic communication (e-mail, web pages, Facebook). The latter made it easier to send information quickly and to invite comments for consideration as well as being able to allow most members of the Steering Group (three members did not have e-mail access, in which case hard copies were supplied) to keep abreast of the nuances of progress.
2.4 This Consultation Statement provides an overview of consultation at various stages of formulating the Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan. It is intended to support, and be read in conjunction with, other statements and reports that go up to make the final Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan. As the Plan evolved, references to statements and policies were sometimes altered, added to or otherwise revised so, as this document is read through, references made will apply to the document current at the date of consultation and may not necessarily be the same as in the final Neighbourhood Plan.
5 3.0 The process – how consultation was made
3.1. The Steering Group, working on behalf of TTC, from the start set out to engage with as many in the community as possible. Each member was asked to list the organisations to which he/she belonged and this, together with a list of local groups and organisations published in Tickhill Today (a free local publication which is delivered monthly to virtually all 2,398 households in Tickhill) formed the working contact base.
3.2 Two further groups in the town were also invited to become involved:
Tickhill Together is a group of members of the community who, along with local businesses, work to promote Tickhill and all it has to offer. It was formed in 2007. It is instrumental in organising local events such as the annual Scarecrow Festival and the Late Night Opening in November which coincides with the switching on of the Christmas lights.
Tickhill Business Association was formed in February 2012 by local independent businesses to ensure that Tickhill businesses and the economic core of the town remain healthy for the benefit of the whole community. It aims to raise the profile and reputation of Tickhill as a premier destination and to develop and share good practice.
There is some overlap in the membership of these two organisations.
3.3 The Steering Group was very anxious to ensure that all ages of the community were consulted. It was agreed that young people are often reluctant to fill in questionnaires or attend meetings. So, in order to reach out to them, during the process of consultation, both junior schools in the town were visited along with a visit to the Explorer Scouts of the 13th Doncaster (Tickhill) Scout Group. The latter consisted of 14 – 18 year old boys and girls. Their contribution will be detailed further on in this consultation statement.
3.4 In addition to the above, there was regular communication with Jane Stimpson Planning Policy Manager (Built Environment) DMBC along with other council departments with an input to have such as, among others, Highways, Arboriculture, Community West Area Management Team, Communities Development, DMBC Allotments Department, Public Rights of Way.
3.5 Non-council bodies that were consulted include, among others, Severn Trent Water; Shire Group of Internal Drainage Boards; Doncaster East Internal Drainage Board; St Leger Homes; Active Independence (a charity for the disabled); Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.
3.6 Throughout the whole process, the residents of Tickhill have been kept informed by a monthly update in Tickhill Today written by John Hoare (see Appendix 3.6 – Entries
6 in Tickhill Today). The council website has also had a page dedicated to the Neighbourhood Plan and, from July 2013, a discrete e-mail address [email protected] has been live. The library, which is centrally situated in the town, has also carried copies of any communication that the Steering Group has wished to make. Public notice boards and local shops and businesses have prominently displayed posters at appropriate times during the consultation.
3.7 Two groups in the town that specifically represent residents and advise the Town Council (the Tickhill Residents’ Association and Tickhill Advisory Committee) have been regularly updated on the progress of the Neighbourhood Plan at each of their meetings since July 2012.
7 4.0 Initial steps – the questionnaire
4.1 Who was consulted: The Core Group met for the first time on the 29th of May 2012. It was decided that the quickest and easiest way to canvass the public was by way of a questionnaire inserted into the July edition of Tickhill Today. This needed to be simple yet allow opportunity for residents, businesses and visitors to comment on how they viewed the town at present and how they might want to see Tickhill take shape over the next few years.
4.2 Tickhill has a population with a mixed age range. At the last census in 2011, 37% of its population was over 60, 47% between 18 and 60 and 16% under 18. It was thought that the over 60s were most likely to return a questionnaire (as, indeed, proved to be the case!) but the Core Group needed to know this for certain in order to ascertain how hard it might need to work to access residents of a different age. The questionnaire, therefore, asked for an indication of age. In order to judge the spatial distribution of returns, it also asked people to give the name of the road/street in which they lived.
4.3 Although many owners of local businesses are also residents and therefore would receive a questionnaire in their Tickhill Today, a copy of the questionnaire was delivered by hand to businesses in the town and left for the owners to comment and return.
4.4 Extra copies of the questionnaire were placed in the library and this fact was advertised in Tickhill Today.
4.5 How were people consulted: As it was too late to include a piece in June’s edition of Tickhill Today informing residents of the forthcoming questionnaire, posters were placed in the town centre asking them to look out for the questionnaire in July’s edition. (Appendix 4.5 – Poster advertising forthcoming questionnaire in Tickhill library.)
4.6 The questionnaire (Appendix 4.6) designed by the Core Group asked people to comment on three things: the strengths and positive features of Tickhill – things that they valued and would like to keep the negative features of Tickhill – things that they did not like and would like to get rid of or improve the things that Tickhill didn’t have but which they would like
In addition, there was a space to make any other comments they wished.
4.7 The questionnaire was duly distributed at the beginning of July to be returned by 31st July. In fact, the initial analysis was not done for a further week in order to include late returns.
8
4.8 Main issues and concerns raised: 180 questionnaires were returned. This was a disappointing number. However, it was very obvious, after reading only a couple of dozen of these, that the very same issues were coming up again and again. Returns demonstrated a good geographical coverage of Tickhill. (Appendices 4.8a – Analysis of the July 2012 questionnaire and 4.8b Map showing distribution of returns.) The following is a summary of the issues and concerns raised:
4.9 What people liked about Tickhill: An extremely high percentage liked living in Tickhill. Residents said the town was perfectly located being surrounded by well managed farmland, had an excellent community spirit, a wide range of shops and services which were easy to access due to the level terrain and was a friendly and safe environment in which to live compared to other local areas. Positive comments were also made regarding the very many groups and organisations in the town and the community events such as the Scarecrow Festival and the Christmas Eve community singing round the Buttercross in the centre. They also liked the variety of building styles, the ancient monuments/buildings (in particular Tickhill Castle) and the fact that Tickhill has such a large Conservation Area. Almost all who commented on the size of the town did not wish to see it grow any larger and requested that the Green Belt remain as it is.
4.10 What people did not like about Tickhill: Traffic issues caused the greatest concern, both its speed and the number of HGVs passing through the town. Parking was another important issue. There was overwhelming support for free parking but concern that cars (and even lorries and delivery vehicles) were parking on the pavement or verges inappropriately. The poor location and number of parking spaces for the disabled was also raised.
Many commented on the bus services. The main service is the No. 22 bus which, during working hours provides a half hour service between Worksop and Doncaster. Most Tickhillians use it for travel to/from Doncaster. There is no direct service to Sheffield or even Maltby which is four miles to the west and where there is a large, modern leisure centre. Other local centres are very poorly served making it very difficult for young people (who can’t drive) to access these places.
Litter and dog fouling were also grave concerns.
Other notable concerns included: the poor state of some of the roads unsatisfactory access to some shops for the elderly or disabled the fact that Tickhill Castle is rarely open and, when it is, the date and time is poorly advertised the poor service at Tickhill Surgery a desire to stop building in large gardens the need to protect limestone walls and grass verges
9 a greater enforcement of building regulations with attention to ensure access for the disabled the need to protect employment sites from change of use the development of a local design policy to include pantile roofs and the use of limestone as a building material the need for a sustainable approach to new builds to include renewable energy and water harvesting the cost of shopping in Tickhill the need for affordable housing for local people better ‘Welcome to Tickhill’ signage needed the lack of a large community notice board little provision for the arts and affordable evening classes concerns about the replacement of the lime trees at Tickhill Spital the lack of a swimming pool!
NB Not all these issues and concerns fall within the remit of a Neighbourhood Plan
4.11 What people would like to see in the future: There was a huge demand for a public toilet. There is such a facility in the town but it was closed some years ago by the Council and is now derelict.
More facilities for young people were requested, especially a skate park.
There was a great deal of support for something to be done about the perceived danger at the Tickhill Spital/Stripe Rd junction. Negotiating this junction can be very risky at busy times and accidents are fairly common. However, there have been no fatalities – yet!
Residents would like more information on the history of Tickhill to be displayed around the town or produced in leaflet form.
10
4.12 How these issues and concerns have been considered: The Chair and Secretary went through each questionnaire and divided the issues and concerns initially into five major categories which were presented to the Core Group on 8th August 2012. The Core Group then divided into seven Sub-Groups, each with a leader, to look at the finer detail contained in the questionnaires. At this stage, the categories were: Traffic and Road Safety Car Parking Communal Facilities Heritage Environment and Countryside Design Flooding and Drainage
Members of the Core Group were encouraged to join more than one Sub-Group to prevent too much duplication.
4.13 As this was the holiday season, each group was given time to produce a report. All groups had access to any questionnaire relevant to their topic. It was decided that all reports should take a similar form listing each individual issue under the headings of: Concern Objective Options/Actions Advantages/Limitations Cost (if possible)
4.14 Over the following two months the groups worked on their reports. This concluded the initial steps of consultation with the wider public but opened the way for further consultation at a later stage.
11 5.0 Wider consultation with the community and organisations
5.1 From July 2012 onwards members of the Core Group consulted frequently and widely concerning their various topics. In addition, John Hoare (Chair) consulted with statutory bodies applicable to the Plan, particularly with Jane Stimpson (Doncaster Planning Department) and the Highways Department (DMBC). He also made several visits to businesses and community organisations in Tickhill. Further, presentations were made to the two local schools and the local scout group to canvass the views of young people. Feedback from all these consultations was passed on to the relevant Sub-Groups which then, as the Plan evolved, incorporated it into their sections.
5.2 Though not exhaustive, examples of the eventual outcomes of these consultations on the final Pre-Submission document are given below. However, the policies evolved further following the Pre-Submission stage. Therefore, the references in italics and square brackets [ ] indicate whether a change to the policy reference below has been made and where it can now be found in the final Neighbourhood Plan.
Market Place Group - consultation with the Business Community led to Policies MP3 [Policy MP2] - Parking in Market Place and surroundings and MP4 - Promotion of local produce [Policy MP3 – Enterprises which promote the production and distribution of local produce].
Transport Group – consultation with Active Independence (charity for the disabled) led to inclusion of Policy T4 - Accessibility for all.
Housing Group established following Core Group meeting with Jane Stimpson, Planning DMBC. (29th May 2013.)
Housing Group – consultation with Active Independence led to the separation of ‘Design’ and ‘Sustainability’ in housing.
Housing Group – consultation with a DMBC intern student studying Conservation Areas led to Policies H2 to H5 in which the policies are appropriate for the different ‘character’ areas of the town. (29th April 2013.)
Community Life Group - meetings with young people led to Policy CL3 [Policy L2] - Recreational opportunities for young people.
Community Life Group – request from Tickhill Advisory Committee (6th November 2012) led to Policy CL4 [Policy CL2] - Allotments.
Community Life Group – consultation with ‘Tickhill Together’ led to Policy CL7 [Policy L4] - Community market garden.
12 Environment Group – consultation with Arboriculture Dept DMBC led to Policy E4 [Policy NE3] -Tree planting.
Heritage Group – consultation with Tickhill and District Local History Society led to Policy HE3 [Policy HIS2] - Awareness of Heritage.
Countryside Group - consultation with Conservation Officer (Planning) Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (8th August 2012) led to inclusion of Policy C3 [Policy NE8] - Creation of wildlife corridors.
Countryside Group – consultation with Tickhill Advisory Committee led to Policy C8 [Policy C4] - Quiet lanes.
Flooding and Drainage Group - consultation with Doncaster East Internal Drainage Board led to improvement of Policies FD1 [Policy D1] - Street drains, FD2 [Policy D2] - Rivers and water courses, FD3 [Policy F1]- Building development and FD4 [Policy D3] - Lindrick (17th July 2012 et al).
13 6.0 Evolution and first Public Consultation
6.1 In September 2012, two members of the Core Group drew up the Vision and Objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan which were then presented to, and accepted by the Steering Group on 1st October 2012. (The Objectives were later twice revised, first on the 29th May 2013 following a Core Group consultation meeting with Jane Stimpson to include a statement on Housing and again following the Pre-Submission Consultation [22nd August – 11th October 2013] to include a statement on local employment.)
6.2 The seven Sub-Groups (see 4.12) were presented at the October 1st Steering Group meeting and members of this wider group were asked to join where their interests lay. This expanded the size of each Sub-Group and brought greater interest and expertise to each. It was left up to each group to organise the work on its section. At this meeting, the Heritage group was given a document on Tickhill Castle prepared by a local resident– concerns of admittance to which had been voiced by residents in the July questionnaire.
6.3 By December the Sub-Groups were ready to present their initial ideas in tabulated form using the headings listed in 4.13.
6.4 The next Steering Group was held on 15th January. The work of the Sub-Groups was to form the basis of the first Public Consultation exhibition to be held in the Parish Room, Tickhill on the afternoon and evening of 28th February and the morning of 1st March 2013.
6.5 It was also announced at this meeting that both local schools had been/will be visited, together with the 13th Doncaster (Tickhill) Scout Group to explain the Neighbourhood Plan to young people and to consult with them and collect their ideas. St Mary’s CoE Primary School had been consulted on 14th November, the Scouts would be visited on 29th January 2013 and Estfeld School on 11th February. These consultations consequently proved to be very informative and helped shape Policy L2 (Recreational opportunities for young people). (Appendices 6.5a, 6.5b and 6.5c Summary of comments of young people.)
14
6.6 Public Consultation Exhibition 28th February – 1st March 2013
Preparations: Prior to the exhibition, it was decided that, although there would inevitably be some overlap, more sub-groups were needed. The headings thus used for the exhibition were: Vision and Objectives Introduction Town Centre Transport Planning Heritage Communal Facilities Environment Flooding and Drainage In addition, the results of the consultations with young people were displayed.
6.7 Also, prior to the exhibition, The Traffic Sub-Group carried out a series of traffic counts both in the town centre and at the Spital. These were done so as to monitor traffic at different times of the day and to collect evidence of traffic types and flows. On 6th February 2013 a parking survey was undertaken in St Mary’s car park between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00 pm. The results of both these surveys were analysed and mapped for the exhibition. These surveys helped form Policies MP1 (Traffic volume and speed), MP2 Parking in Market Place and surroundings), T1 (Strategic traffic), T3 (Pedestrian safety) and T5 (Spital crossroads).
6.8 Who was consulted: The forthcoming Public Consultation was widely advertised to reach local residents, the business community and groups/organisations in Tickhill. This was done by:
an article by John Hoare appearing in February’s edition of Tickhill Today posters being placed in the town centre a Neighbourhood Plan Information Pack being sent to 31 groups and organisations in Tickhill inviting comments and encouraging people to attend the Public Consultation (Appendix 6.8 – Groups/organisations sent a Neighbourhood Plan.) being published on TTC’s web-site the Neighbourhood Plan being advertised on the T-fest website (a forthcoming local music event) running to September 2013 word of mouth to, among others, Tickhill Business Association and Tickhill Together encouraging the business community to attend and have input an ‘A’ frame advertisement outside the Parish Room on the relevant days
15
6.9 First Public Consultation Exhibition in the Parish Room, Tickhill, Thursday February 28th – Friday March 1st 2013
How people were consulted: The Public Consultation ran from 4.00 pm to 8.00 pm on the Thursday and 9.00 am to 12.00 noon on the Friday. This was to allow residents who worked away from the town to attend on Thursday evening and to catch the Friday morning shoppers.
First Public Consultation, Parish Room - February/March 2013
6.10 The exhibition gave space for each of the sections to display its work, together with maps, photographs and evidence collected. The tables were continuously manned by members of the Core Group. In addition, the Town Clerk was on hand to help with enquiries. Each section also had a supply of ‘Comments’ slips which asked people to indicate the exact point on which they were commenting and to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each proposal. (Appendix 6.10 Comment slip.)
6.11 Approximately 172 people attended the Consultation Days. 285 comment slips were completed resulting in 374 separate comments. (Appendix 6.11 Feedback from Consultation Day.)
6.12 Main issues and concerns raised: The overwhelming response by those who had attended was very positive and supportive of all that had been done. Issues and concerns included the following: the restricted access to Tickhill Castle was unpopular. This ancient building is viewed as a tourist attraction and it was felt it should be open to the public more often. (In truth, the castle is in private hands leased from the Duchy of Lancaster, therefore it is almost impossible to change this situation.) the lack of public toilets there was still concern for measures to be put in place to reduce both the amount and the speed of traffic in the town and at the Spital parking was seen as a major problem especially the misuse of the disabled parking spaces, parking on residential streets such as St Mary’s Rd which restricted movement along the street or blocked sight lines, parking close to the
16 two schools, parking on verges and the obstructions caused by delivery lorries to shops in and around Market Place pedestrian congestion in the town centre, particularly in Market Place where the pavement is very narrow more pedestrian crossings were requested it was felt that the needs of young people were not being met public services to local areas (except Doncaster) were lacking the non existence of cycle routes was a concern, especially as cycling is an increasingly popular recreation building in large gardens and the use of inappropriate building materials the lack of affordable housing, particularly for young people who wish to remain in the town dog fouling, litter and the number of plastic bags being used by retailers the lack of allotments concern over the continuing risk of flooding
6.13 A concern of the organisers of the Public Consultation was that, although every effort had been made to reach out to it, hardly anyone from the business community attended the event on either of the two days.
6.14 How the issues and concerns have been considered: The 374 separate comments received, together with comments returned through the Information Packs sent to local groups/organisations, were then analysed and placed under a Sub-Group heading. Comment slips that contained feedback on several sections were divided up and also allotted to the relevant section. The slips were then fed back to the Sub-Groups for them to consider and incorporate in the Plan if felt to be appropriate.
6.15 Following the Public Consultation, a summary of the main issues and concerns affecting the business community was circulated to all relevant businesses and discussed at a meeting between the Tickhill Business Association and Tickhill Town Council at which the chair and secretary of the Steering Group were also present. This summary included issues on the Market Place, short term parking, public toilets, deliveries and plastic bags. As a result of this meeting, a leading member of the business community agreed to join the Steering Group.
6.16 The Core Group met on 25th April and each Sub-Group presented a detailed analysis of its findings. Following this, it was suggested that, although the Sub-Groups remained the same, their contents, acting on the information gathered at the Public Consultation, were slightly reworked to prevent duplication.
6.17 The outcome and analysis of the comments made during the Public Consultation were presented to the Steering Group at a meeting on 30th April 2013. Each Sub- Group gave a short presentation and discussion followed. A member of the business community, present for the first time, gave a brief report on the aspirations of the business community.
17 6.18 John Hoare, Chair, proposed that it was now possible to use the information to shape policies for the Plan and he circulated a section on Transport that he had written. He invited each Sub-Group to use this as an exemplar as to how each should word its contribution.
6.19 During May and June each Sub-Group worked on its section allowing the Plan to take shape. It was co-ordinated by John Hoare. During this period, further consultations took place with the departments of Arboriculture and Transport (DMBC) and with Jane Stimpson, Planning Officer (DMBC) who suggested that the Objectives be revised to include a statement on housing. (See 6.1.)
18 7.0 Second Public Consultation - Tickhill Gala – 6th July 2013
7.1 Tickhill Gala gave a further opportunity for a Public Consultation. This annual event is always widely promoted and well attended. The Neighbourhood Plan stall was also well advertised in advance – a reminder appearing in July’s edition of Tickhill Today together with a further mention on TTC’s web page and a Facebook posting on the Tickhill Community Forum.
7.2 A designated e-mail address was established ([email protected]) to receive feedback. This address was widely publicised.
7.3 Due to all the consultation and discussion that had taken place since the previous Public Consultation in February/March, the Neighbourhood Plan had evolved and now had policies and supporting text in place. There had also been slight changes to the section headings, particularly to ‘Planning’ which was now divided into two sections ‘Design and Sustainable Construction’ and ‘Housing’. Material was therefore displayed under the following headings: Vision and Objectives (revised 29th May 2013) Introduction Market Place (Town Centre) Transport Design and Sustainable Construction Housing Supporting and Developing Community Life The Natural Environment Conserving and Enhancing the Historical Environment Countryside Flooding and Drainage
Supporting maps, graphs, photographs were also displayed.
Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan’s stall at the Gala - July 6th 2013
19
7.4 During the afternoon (1.00 pm to 4.00 pm) footfall through the stall was high and much interest was shown. The public was asked to write any comments on a slip provided. People were also asked to complete a ‘straw poll’ to indicate whether or not they supported key ideas in the Plan. (Appendix 7.4 Comments slip.)
7.5 Almost without exception, the support for the plan was very positive. The public liked what it saw and was in agreement with the policies presented. The results of the straw poll (Appendix 7.5 Straw Poll Analysis) bore this out. (The figures of return are percentages of answers given.) Not one question received less than 77% support. Everyone who took part in the poll endorsed increased access to Tickhill Castle. Other top concerns were through traffic and housing to meet local needs.
7.6 The draft of the Neighbourhood Plan as had been displayed at the Gala was consequently posted on TTC’s web-site on 8th July. Public comments were invited.
7.7 An e-mail received from Nikki Davies (Chair of Tickhill Business Association) on July 24th stated that the general consensus of the businesses in Tickhill was an agreement with the proposed plan. However, two points were raised: (1) concern about crime and a request for CCTV and (2) a request for a Landlords’ Register to protect the variety of independent businesses in Tickhill and to take responsibility for on-going maintenance. In subsequent discussion with the TBA, it was agreed, at that time, that neither of these issues was appropriate material for the Neighbourhood Plan but that the issues would be passed on to the Town Council for consideration. However, yet further discussion following the Pre-Submission Consultation of 23rd August – 11th October, led to Policy TC5 (Security of business premises) being incorporated into the Neighbourhood Plan.
20 8.0 Stages in the preparation of the Pre-Submission Consultation Document
8.1 Draft Neighbourhood Plan dated 22nd July Following the Public Consultation at the Gala on 6th July 2013 and further discussion with Jane Stimpson, the draft plan was again altered slightly. The July 22nd version of the draft plan had the following changes:
The section ‘Design and Sustainable Construction’ was now entitled ‘Design – New and Existing Buildings’. The policies were altered to include a new D1 Policy (New Building), and the old D3 Policy (Materials for new building) was moved to become Policy H1 in the section ‘Housing – New Housing (New Building). NB: In the final Plan, Policy D1 became Policy DE1.
The section ‘Housing’ was now entitled ‘Housing (New Housing) and included a new policy (Policy H1 New building). The old policies H1 to H4 thus became policies H2 to H5 (policies specific to different character areas of the town). The old Policy H5 was incorporated into Policy H1.
In Polices H2 to H5 the wording under Point 1 in each case was altered to read ‘stone or brick’ rather than ‘stone or red brick’. This was after a comment from a member of the public suggested that ‘red brick’ was too prescriptive.
Policy C7 was added (Quiet Lanes) following a request by a member of Tickhill Advisory Committee who represented the Tickhill Countryside Group. NB: In the final Plan, this became Policy C4).
An e-mail communication with the Shire Group of Internal Drainage Boards led to a rewording of Policies FD2 (Rivers and water courses) and FD3 (Building development). NB: In the final Plan, Policy FD2 became Policy D2 and Policy FD3 became Policy F1.
8.2 Item 9.7 of the minutes of the meeting of Tickhill Town Council on 23rd July 2013 reads: ‘A RESOLUTION to authorise the Neighbourhood Plan Core Group to progress and manage the formal stages of the Neighbourhood Plan has been approved at this council meeting. RESOLVED.’ The Core Team now had the authorisation to proceed towards a Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Plan.
8.3 Draft Neighbourhood Plan dated 12th August 2013
A Steering Group meeting on August 12th 2013 was presented with the latest draft of the Neighbourhood Plan, updated since the July 22nd version. Changes, on the whole, were small and made more to clarify the text rather than include new material.
21 8.4 The Steering Group went through each section of the draft very carefully as this version was very close to becoming the draft of the formal Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Plan that would be published for a six week period as required by the Localism Act prior to a plan going through its final stages.
8.5 As a result of the August 12th meeting the following changes were subsequently made to the relevant sections and incorporated into the Pre-Submission Plan: Market Place (Town Centre): Policy MP4 (Promotion of local produce) was added. NB: this became Policy MP3 in the final Plan Transport: Policy T8 (Cycle routes) was added Design (New and Existing Buildings): Policy D5 (Accessibility and Adaptations) was added (later became DE5). This was also a consequence of a further consultation between the charity Active Independence and John Hoare. The old Policy D5 thus became DE6 (Extensions and alterations). A new policy (DE7) was added concerning surface water run-off in new builds. Housing: sentence added to Policies H2 to H5 concerning storage space for refuse and recycling Countryside: Policy C3 (Highway Verges) was added
8.6 In addition to the above, there were slight changes to the wording of the following policies: MP2 (Parking in Market Place and surroundings), DE4 (Sustainability in buildings), CL1 (Local employment), NE2 (Recreation in the countryside) and D5 (Water power). The introduction to Housing had a phrase of clarification added.
8.7 The wording of the final draft of the Pre-Submission document was now complete.
8.8 From August 22nd onwards the Pre-Submission Draft Plan was distributed as follows: copies of the document (including a large print version) were placed in the library with comment slips for responses (Appendix 8.8a - Comments Slip.) thirty seven hard copies were sent to local groups and organisations with a covering letter and comment slips for responses (Appendix 8.8b – Recipients of draft copy of the Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Plan.) the updated version of the Plan was put on TTC’s web-site together with explanatory text of the process being undertaken a posting was made on the Facebook page of the Tickhill Community Forum the Tickhill Town Clerk sent an e-mail with the draft as an attachment to 16 adjacent or nearby local councils (Appendix 8.8b.) the Tickhill Town Clerk sent an e-mail with the draft as an attachment to 14 statutory bodies (Appendix 8.8b.) local businesses were contacted by e-mail and directed to the council’s website DMBC was advised of the posting on TTC’s website a copy was sent to Caroline Flint MP for Don Valley
In addition, posters were placed around the town to draw people’s attention to the publication. All these were in place prior to the start of the formal six week notification date of 30th August 2013.
22 8.9 Notification of the formal Pre-Submission Consultation of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan for Tickhill was given at the council’s monthly meeting on 27th August 2013. Council minutes – item 9.8 reads: ‘The formal pre-submission consultation of the Draft Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan is now published. This is now the formal publicity and public consultation period and will run for six weeks and will close on 11th October 2013. RESOLVED.’ The formal six week period was to run from 30th August to 11th October 2013.
8.10 John Hoare wrote to DMBC seeking its opinion as to whether Tickhill needed to carry out a Sustainability Appraisal. In reply, the Neighbourhood Plan Screening Form dated 4th September 2013 confirmed that a Sustainability Appraisal was not necessary. (Appendix 8.10 – Letter to DMBC and DMBC’s reply.)
23 9.0 Changes made following the local Pre-Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultation 27th August – 11th October 2013
9.1 Who was consulted and how they were consulted: Section 8.8 lists the persons and bodies who were consulted and also outlines the methods used to reach as wide an audience as possible.
9.2 The main issues and concerns raised and how they were considered and addressed in the draft Neighbourhood Plan: Table 1 (below) summarises the changes made following this particular period of consultation. These additions and alterations were incorporated into the Draft Submission of the Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan which was sent to DMBC in November 2013. (Table 2, Appendix 10.4 shows how the changes in the table below were later incorporated into the final Neighbourhood Plan.)
Table 1: Responses to invitation to comment on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan’s Pre-Submission Consultation 27th August – 11th October 2013
Status Issue/Concern Implementation
DMBC/Statutory bodies
English Heritage General support for the Additional point added to Neighbourhood Plan. Policies H2 to H5 (New English Heritage did not builds) to include consider there was a need appropriate size, scale and to be involved in the height. development of the Plan. Change to supporting text Instead directed authors of Policy HE1 (Tickhill to the planning and Castle) to delete reference conservation team at to English Heritage’s DMBC for assistance (see function as agent since below). However, this is not within its changes to wording to statutory role. some policies suggested. Additional sentence to HE2 (Heritage assets) to include historical buildings and sites outside the Conservation Area.
24 Status Issue/Concern Implementation Design and Conservation General support for the Minor alterations to (Built Environment) Neighbourhood Plan. wording of Policies T2 DMBC Suggestions for slight (Residential traffic), T3 alterations to the text of (Pedestrian safety) and T7 several policies were (Grass verges). made, some of which Inclusion of ‘heritage were implemented. statements’ in Policy D1 (New building) to support DMBC’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan currently being drawn up. Change of wording to Policy D5 (Accessibility and adaptations) to include ‘other buildings of historical significance’ and the replacement of ‘affect’ with ‘harm’. Change to wording in Policy D6 (Extensions and alterations) to include alterations to ‘historical’ (as well as listed) buildings should be ‘in keeping with’ the vernacular style. Additional sentence added to Policies H2 to H5 (New building) to comment on new boundary treatments as well as the existing limestone walls. Sentence inserted into the supporting text of Policy HE1 (Tickhill Castle) to support the role of English Heritage’s involvement.
Design and Conservation Suggestion made that Survey of premises (Built Environment) some sort of protective subsequently undertaken DMBC policy regarding town indicating a 60% Class A1 centre uses be considered use to 40% of A2, A3, A4, to prevent over A5 and Sui Generis uses. prevalence of certain Agreement to keep within classes of establishment. these limits. Policy MP2 altered to reflect this, supported by the business community.
25 Status Issue/Concern Implementation Environment Agency Overall support for the Rewording of Policy D4 Neighbourhood Plan. (Sustainability in building) Several comments made to include greater and discussed by Core guidance on what is Team. meant by ‘more sustainable buildings’. New policy (Policy C9 Infrastructure) added concerning appropriate siting and landscaping of future infrastructure proposed by utilities.
Natural England Acknowledgement of Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns or comments.
The Coal Authority Acknowledgement that the Neighbourhood Plan meets the legal and procedural consultation requirements.
Sport England Neighbourhood Plan is in Changes to wording in accord with Paragraphs 73 Policy CL5 (Open Spaces) and 74 of the NPPF. to include sports grounds and playing fields.
Public Rights of Way Acknowledgement of Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns.
Highway Authority DMBC Acknowledgement of Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns except to point out the 20 mph zones near schools is a DMBC mayoral priority.
26 Status Issue/Concern Implementation Planning Aid Suggested improvements Suggestions adopted and in wording and the incorporated eg additional augmentation of material sentences added to in some introductions. introductions to ‘Transport’, ‘Supporting and Developing Community Life’ and ‘The Natural Environment’. Last sentence added to supporting text of Policy C8 (Quiet lanes).
Doncaster East Internal Advice offered on the Inclusion as a Drainage Board correct Risk Management management body in Authorities and suggested Policy C4 (Creation of inclusion of Sustainable wildlife corridors) and Urban Drainage Systems sentence of introduction (SUDS). to ‘Flooding and Drainage’. Inclusion of SUDS in Policy FD3 (Building development).
Local groups/organisations
Tickhill Business Concerns about the Addition of Policy MP3 Association occupational use of (Upper floors above shops premises in the town and businesses) and MP4 centre. (Residential accommodation in the town centre).
Concerns about security Addition of Policy MP5 and crime. (Security of business premises).
Tickhill Countryside Acknowledgement of the Group Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns.
Tickhill & District WI Members in agreement No action taken. with the proposals in the Supporting text to Policy Neighbourhood Plan but, MP8 (Site of former public whilst acknowledging the toilets) to remain in place. problems involved, requested a good public toilet.
27 Status Issue/Concern Implementation Les Francophiles de General endorsement of Reply sent to reassure Les Tickhill the Neighbourhood Plan Francophiles de Tickhill but concern that Policy E1 that, were this policy to be (Energy economy) might implemented, it would not affect monthly attendance coincide with the time of if street lights were turned their meeting. off to save energy.
Tickhill Bowling Club Acknowledgement of, and complete support for the Neighbourhood Plan.
Tickhill Pop-In Centre Acknowledgement of, and No action taken. Policy T5 complete support for the (Spital crossroads) covers Neighbourhood Plan but this concern. reiterated the need for effective traffic management at the Spital.
Members of the public (Names withheld)
1 Concerns that the Vision Revision of some wording and Objectives are not to the Vision and sufficiently forward Objectives to include thinking. greater sustainability. Additional objective added concerning opportunities for local employment.
2 Lack of parking space for Policy MP6 (Parking in cycles. Market Place and surroundings) reworded to include cycles.
3 Concerns about use of Addition of Policy MP8 land on the site of the (Site of former public former public toilets in the toilets). town centre.
4 More measures needed to Introduction to ‘Market encourage walking. Place’ reworded to emphasise the suitability of the town for travelling on foot. Sentence added to the introduction to ‘The Natural Environment’ promoting walking and cycling.
28 Status Issue/Concern Implementation 5 A request to make the This is not within the remit parish of Tickhill a ‘Frack of a Neighbourhood Plan. Free Zone’ (parts of the No action taken. parish are covered by licences for fracking).
6 A suggestion that Policy T1 reworded to implementation of Policy include council liaison T1 (Strategic Traffic) with adjoining authorities. would require working with adjoining authorities.
7 Request that Tickhill, due It is outside the powers of to its size and isolation, a Neighbourhood Plan to has its own re-cycling get involved in waste refuse site. matters, therefore suggestion not implemented.
8 Suggestion that the Wording added to the Neighbourhood Plan ties supporting text of Policy in with the Conservation D1 (New building). Area Appraisal and Management Plan currently being undertaken by DMBC.
9 Concern over the ratio of Wording altered in H2 to back garden to footprint in H5 to include the garage Policies H2 to H5 (New (if applicable) within the building). footprint of the property rather than the garden.
10 Request to clarify which Additional paragraph aspects of the added to the end of ‘A Neighbourhood Plan are Neighbourhood Plan – aspirational and which are Why?’. more easily achievable.
Other responses from members of the public were very supportive and generally reinforced policies already in place.
Notes: (a) In addition to the above, slight word changes were made to some policies or supporting texts in the interests of clarification. (b) Following the inclusion of the above, the policies in some sections were re- numbered to present a better order. (c) All responses received from local organisations and groups are listed above. If an organisation or group is not listed, there was no response.
29 10.0 Final Stages
10.1 Following discussions with DMBC in February 2014, it was decided to review the Plan and divide it into two parts: (1) Land Use Planning Policies and (2) Accompanying Policies and Proposals. This divided those policies more directly connected with planning from those with a more aspirational content. Some renaming of sections and movement of policies, along with the addition of new sections, became necessary.
10.2 Land Use Planning Policies The sections and references for this part became: Town Centre (TC) Highways and Traffic (HT) Design – New and Existing Buildings (DE) Housing – New Housing (H) Supporting and Developing Community Life (CL) The Natural Environment (NE) Conserving and Enhancing the Historical Environment (HE) Flooding and Drainage (F)
10.3 Accompanying Policies and Proposals The sections and references for this part became: Market Place – Town Centre (MP) Transport (T) Developing Community Life (L) The Historic Environment (HIS) Countryside (C) Litter (LIT) Drainage and Watercourses (D)
10.4 This re-organisation led to a careful review of the Plan and this Consultation Document. Appendix 10.4 (Table 2: Transfer of responses in Table 1 to the final Neighbourhood Plan) documents where policies created earlier appear finally in the Neighbourhood Plan.
10.5 In the spring of 2014, the Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to DMBC for it to arrange a six week period of final consultation before entering the examination process and the final stages of its implementation.
Rosemary Chappell Secretary Steering Group Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan May 2014
30
Appendices Appendix numbers refer to appropriate paragraphs in main text
1.0 Introduction 1.3 Notes from Steering Group meeting 14th May 2012 1.4 List of Core Group members 1.6 (a) TTC formal application to DMBC for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area (b) DMBC’s acknowledgement of Tickhill’s application
2.0 Purpose of Statement No appendices
3.0 The Process – how consultation was made 3.6 Entries in Tickhill Today April 2012 – May 2014
4.0 Initial Steps – the Questionnaire 4.5 Poster advertising forthcoming questionnaire in Tickhill library 4.6 Questionnaire inserted into Tickhill Today, July 2012 4.8 (a) Table summarising returns (b) Map showing distribution of returns
5.0 Wider consultation with the community and organizations No appendices
6.0 Evolution and First Public Consultation 6.5 Summary of views of young people: (a) St Mary’s School, (b) Estfeld School (c) 13th Doncaster (Tickhill) Scout Group 6.8 List of groups/organisations sent a Neighbourhood Plan Information Pack (February 2012) 6.10 Comment slip 6.11 Feedback from the first Public Consultation Day
7.0 Second Public Consultation – Tickhill Gala, 6th July 2013 7.4 Comment slip 7.5 Results of the Straw Poll
8.0 Stages in the preparation of the Pre-Submission Consultation Document 8.8 (a) Comment slip (b) Recipients of the draft copy of the Pre-Submission Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan: Local groups/organisations sent a hard copy by the Core Group Adjacent or nearby councils e-mailed a copy by the Clerk to Tickhill Town Council Statutory bodies e-mailed a copy by the Clerk to Tickhill Town Council 8.10 (a) Letter to DMBC concerning a Strategic Environmental Appraisal (b) DMBC’s confirmation that a SEA is not required
9.0 Changes made following the local Pre-Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultation 27th August – 11th October 2013 No appendices
10.0 Final Stages 10.4 Table 2: Transfer of responses in Table 1 to final Neighbourhood Plan
31 Appendix 1.3 Notes from Steering Group meeting 14th May 2012
Attendees: Nigel Cannings, Margaret Cannings-Clough, Rosemary Chappell, Bob Ford, Ian Henderson, Ray Hill, John Hoare, Barbara Hoyle, Brian Keith, Margaret Marrison, Philip Mottram, Paul Rigley, Bernard Rounthwaite, Tony Sheridan.
Apologies: Stuart Millard, Sally Tyas.
A record was taken of members’ contact details.
Election of Officers: The following were proposed, seconded and accepted: Chairperson: John Hoare – proposed RH, seconded MM Secretary: Rosemary Chappell – proposed MC-C, seconded BR Deputy Chairperson: Ray Hill – proposed JH, seconded RC
The meeting was told that TTC had discussed the merit of undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan (NP) in terms of effort and cost and deemed it to be worthy although it was acknowledged that the ‘costs’ are as yet unknown. There would be no money from DMBC apart from the Referendum stage where costs would be met.
The meeting itself then briefly discussed the ‘worthiness’ of doing a NP by summing up the negatives of not doing so. It was agreed that TCC would have less control over some aspects of planning (especially the location of new housing) if a NP were not in place. It was also felt that if such a plan were not attempted, it might indicate that local residents were not interested in their own community, which is clearly not the case. It was agreed that Tickhill is a rural area with a large farming community which ought also to be consulted. TS spoke of the need to avoid a ‘geriatric’ community by encouraging a larger number of younger people to the town.
JH asked those present to record his/her own areas of interest and expertise. He suggested that the meeting seeks advice and expertise both within the town and elsewhere where appropriate. (JH has contacts with planning outside the borough.) The farming and business communities should also be strongly involved. PM informed the meeting that Nicky Davies (from the chocolate shop) had recently launched the Tickhill Business Association. JH offered to speak to her about its possible involvement. Local organisations and groups would also be approached. ‘Tickhill Today’ and TTC’s website would be useful starting points to identify such groups and also to advertise the NP as widely as possible so as to involve as many people as possible.
PM proposed a draft ‘Vision Statement’ which was read to the meeting. He was thanked for this and a copy given to RC to photocopy and pass to all for further consideration.
MC-C is in possession of a copy of the Dawlish Parish Neighbourhood Plan which was completed as a pilot study. She is to pass this to RC and JH for perusal though it was acknowledged that Dawlish is quite a different settlement compared with Tickhill. BH informed the meeting that Hatfield had also embarked on a NP. It might be useful to get in contact so that ideas can be shared.
In 2003 a Community Consultation Exercise had been carried out in Tickhill involving some of those present. It was agreed that the published document produced at that time be a
32 useful starting point. BR agreed to pass RC a copy for consultation. It was also proposed that a questionnaire be drawn up and distributed to as many residents/groups/organisations/businesses as possible to get a flavour of what people want in their community. ‘Tickhill Today’ would help here. Locations for the collection of completed questionnaires were suggested including an electronic return to TTC’s website. JH and RC are to organise a small group to format the questionnaire.
The problem and expense of securing maps on which to base the NP had been discussed at the last meeting. Since then, NC had made enquiries and found a website ‘Parish Online’. For a fee (based partly on population numbers) of £80 for the first year and £60 for each year thereafter, there would be online access to the necessary maps, aerial photographs etc. Seeing this could solve one of the critical problems of drawing up a NP, it was agreed that the cost be put before TTC for consideration. RH agreed to do this. MM also produced a large scale map showing the parish boundary which was used in the previous investigation. BR had a similar map and agreed to pass it to RC.
The date of the next meeting was not fixed but was agreed to be after the questionnaire had been conducted which might be some time. RC to inform members of the date when set.
33 Appendix 1.4 Members of the Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan Core Group
Mr John Hoare (Chair) Tickhill Residents’ Association
Cllr Ray Hill (Deputy Chair) Mayor and Chairman, Tickhill Town Council
Mrs Rosemary Chappell (Secretary) Tickhill Parish Room Management Committee
Cllr Nigel Cannings Deputy Chairman, Tickhill Advisory Committee
Cllr Ian Henderson Tickhill Town Council
Cllr Brian Keith Tickhill Town Council
Mr John Marsden Tickhill Together
Mr Tony Sheridan Tickhill Countryside Group
Mr Edwin Simpson Les Francophiles de Tickhill
Mrs Sally Tyas Tickhill and District Local History Society
34 Appendix 1.6 (a) TTC formal application to DMBC for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area
Tickhill Town Council
Clerk: Mrs. M. Cannings-Clough
Jane Stimpson (Planning Officer) DMBC Colonnades House Duke Street Doncaster DN1 1ER
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012
Application for Designation of a Neighbourhood Area
Dear Mrs. Stimpson,
Tickhill Town Council of 24 Vine Road, Tickhill, Doncaster, DN11 9EP, herby apply to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (in its capacity as local planning authority) for it to designate as a Neighbourhood Area all that area of land situated within the Town of Tickhill, which is shown edged in red on the attached map.
The Town Council considers the area shown edged in red on the map is appropriate to be designated as a Neighbourhood area for the following reasons:-
A. It comprises the whole geographical area of the Town of Tickhill. B. It is the local government administrative area for the Town Council of Tickhill. C. It is essential for proper and effective neighborhood planning to include the whole area of the Parish.
Tickhill Town Council, which is a local authority by virtue of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, is for the purpose of this application a relevant body specified in section 61G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
Dated this 3rd June 2012
Clerk to Tickhill Town Council
24 Vine Road, Tickhill, Telephone: (01302) 745372 Doncaster, DN11 9EP E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.tickhilltowncouncil.co.uk 35
Appendix 3.6 Entries in Tickhill Today April 2012 – May 2014 (Unless otherwise stated, all articles are by John Hoare, Chair of the Steering Group, Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan) Date Synopsis of text Page No.
April 2012 Article outlining the concept of a Neighbourhood Plan. 48 May 2012 Article discussing transport issues in Tickhill. 52 June 2012 Article by Clerk to TTC introducing the Neighbourhood Plan 64 July 2012 Article outlining the Vision and Objectives of the Neighbourhood 34 Plan. Questionnaire inserted into every copy for distribution to all households and businesses in Tickhill. August 2012 Update on the July questionnaire 48 September Article outlining the issues raised by the questionnaire. 48 2012 October 2012 No entry. November Article outlining the role of the various sub-groups formed to 46 2012 consider the results of consultation so far. December No entry. 2012 January 2013 No entry. February 2013 Article promoting the Consultation Days at the end of the month. 24 March 2013 Article reflecting on earlier efforts of local planning and the link 38 with the current process of formulating a Neighbourhood Plan. April 2013 Article outlining the findings from the first Public Consultation. 44 May 2013 Article explaining the Basic Conditions that have to be met by a 59 Neighbourhood Plan. June 2013 Article outlining the approach being taken to draw up the 28 Neighbourhood Plan. ‘Transport’ taken as an example. July 2013 Invitation to visit the Neighbourhood Plan stall at Tickhill Gala and 67 comment on the Plan so far. August 2013 Results of the Straw Poll taken at Tickhill Gala published. 63 September Article outlining the Pre-Submission process of the 50 2013 Neighbourhood Plan. Reminder that the Plan can be viewed on TTC’s web-site and an invitation to comment by letter or via the designated e-mail address ‘[email protected]’. October 2013 A reminder to residents and businesses to return comments on 44 the draft of the Neighbourhood Plan. November Article explaining procedures following the Pre-Submission 66 2013 consultation. December Article drawing attention to the publication of the Pre-Submission 64 2013 Neighbourhood Plan on DMBC’s web-site, encouraging people to comment.
37
Date Synopsis of text Page No. January 2014 Article updating residents concerning the consultation process 56 and summarising policies contained in the ‘Countryside’ section. February 2014 Article urging residents to look at, and comment on, the Pre- 44 Submission Neighbourhood Plan on DMBC’s web-site. Section on ‘Traffic’ summarised. March 2014 Article outlining policies in the section on the Town Centre. 34 April 2014 Article explaining that the Neighbourhood Plan needs to be split 42 into two sections requiring revision of the document. Policies on Flooding and Drainage highlighted this month. May 2014 Article summarising policies on the Historic Environment. 8
38 Appendix 4.5 Poster advertising forthcoming questionnaire in Tickhill Library, June 2012 !
Tickhill-an ancient town....
!
!
... with a !modern outlook !
How can we shape
where we live?
! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !
Look for details ! of how you can help in July’s edition of ‘Tickhill Today’ !
!
39 Appendix 4.6 Questionnaire inserted into Tickhill Today July 2012
40
The negative features of Tickhill – things that you don’t like and would like to get rid of or improve:
The things that Tickhill doesn’t have which you would like:
Any other comments:
Tickhill Town Council Steering Group – Neighbourhood Plan Appendix 4.8a Analysis of the July 2012 Questionnaire Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan – Questionnaire results 24th September 2012
180 questionnaires were analysed.
Resident Business Visitor Not recorded
164 4 4 8
Age: Under 15 16-25 26-40 41-65 65+ Not recorded
20 10 9 55 84 2
Airedale Avenue 5 Lumley Drive 3 All Hallowes Drive 2 Market Place 1 Alderson Drive 3 Meadow Drive 4 Blyth Gate Lane 2 Northgate 1 Bride Church Lane 1 Orange Croft 1 Broom Close 1 Pinfold Close 3 Castlegate 6 Rawson Road 1 Castle Close 2 Rotherham Road 2 Common Lane 1 Rye Croft 1 Croft Drive 1 Saffron Crescent 5 Crossland Gardens 1 Saffron Road 1 Crown Road 1 St Mary’s Crescent 6 Dadsley Road 3 St Mary’s Road 1 Dam Road 2 St Leonard’s 1 Darfield Court 1 Sunderland Street 6 Doncaster Road 6 The Oval 2 Everetts Close 1 Vine Road 3 Fairfax Way 1 Vineyard Close 1 Greystone Close 2 Walnut Avenue 4 Heather Close 1 Westgate 6 Herril Ings 2 Westfield Road 3 Home Meadows 3 Wheatfield Drive 2 King Edward Road 1 Wong Lane 6 Lancaster Crescent 11 Worksop Road 2 Langdale Close 1 York Road 1 Lindrick 1 No address given 41 Lindrick Close 4 Visitors 4
Tickhill Town Council Steering Group – Neighbourhood Plan Appendix 4.8 (b) Map showing distribution of returns
Tickhill CP Date: 9-8-2012 Scale: 1:8000 N/P First Questionnaire Map Centre - easting / northing: 128 with area given, 37 with no area given.4 from visitors. Total of © Crown copyright and database right. All rights 169 replies. 459105 / 392627 reserved (0100050629) 2012
43 Appendix 6.5 (a) Summary of comments Tickhill St Mary’s CE Primary School 14th November 2012
Below is a summary of comments made by Year 6 pupils of St Mary’s, Tickhill. Pupils were asked to comment on what they didn’t want to see in the town in the future and then what they would like to see. They worked in groups of three. There was overlap and some contradiction between groups.
Pupils didn’t want: Pupils would like to see:
Tickhill to get larger More clubs for young people (aged 5+). Ancient buildings destroyed Suggestions included table tennis, So much traffic teenage dance, horse riding, basketball, Busy main roads sports clubs Any more parking Leisure centre/aqua park/fishing Yellow lines lake/full sized football pitch Crime and vandalism Cycle and walking trails Dog excrement More shops for their age group. Any greater number of buses Suggestions included games, book, More ladies’ hairdressers sports, entertainment shops A museum (town not large enough to Designated dog walking area plus more support one) ‘dog bins’ around the town Keep the library A camping site Less busy roads (‘B’ rather than ‘A’ roads) More parking near shops, plus more disabled parking More pelican and zebra crossings CCTV to enforce parking and improve safety in the town centre and around children’s play areas such as the ‘rec’ Bus routes to local leisure centres More community events such as Halloween festival, Easter egg hunt and charity fund raising events A designated area for sledging More affordable housing for 20 – 30 year olds New housing to include a variety of building materials A cinema/theatre A KFC or McDonald’s A fountain and a statue of the Queen
44 Appendix 6.5 (b) Summary of comments Tickhill Estfeld Primary School 11th February 2013
Below is a summary of comments made by Year 6 pupils of Estfeld Primary School, Tickhill. Pupils were asked to comment on what they didn’t want to see in the town in the future and then what they would like to see. They worked in groups of twos and threes. There was overlap and some contradiction between groups.
Pupils didn’t want: Pupils would like to see:
Tickhill to get any larger Tickhill to grow only slightly Empty, unoccupied houses Countryside retained Any more modern style housing More clubs for young people. So much rubbish in the streets Suggestions included youth club, laser Vandalism and hooligans quest, paint balling, bowling, dance Teenagers hanging around studio, game club, play centre for older ‘Granny mobiles’ children More ladies’ hairdressers Leisure centre, gym, water park, football Police station stadium, swimming pool/arcade Secondary school More shops for their age group. Another primary school Suggestions included Claire’s An old people’s home Accessories, cheap stationery, Apple Factories causing pollution computer, riding, go karting, model railway Football stadium Expand the library facilities Power plant A drop-in centre for young people with Opera house problems A historical trail/walk of fame More parking available An organised graffiti wall A scheme to prevent litter – eg takeaway outlets to record name of buyer on packaging A smoking shelter Pet shop/animal museum Veterinary practice Hospital A cinema/theatre/ice rink A KFC or McDonald’s ‘Do-nut’ cart The train station re-opened Keep the old buildings A school bus
45 Appendix 6.5 (c) Summary of comments 13th Doncaster (Tickhill) Scout Group 29th January 2013
Below is a summary of comments made by the members of 13th Doncaster (Tickhill) Scout Group which consisted of 14 – 18 year olds boys and girls. Members were asked to comment on what they didn’t want to see in the town in the future and then what they would like to see. They worked in groups of three/four. There was a little contradiction between groups.
Young people didn’t want to see: Young people would like to see:
Tickhill to get larger A continuation of the excellent community Ancient buildings destroyed feeling in the town Poor and inappropriate parking More clubs for teenagers eg youth club, car Dog excrement/litter club, music club More ladies’ hairdressers Skate park and dirt jumps for BMX Teenagers on street corners Larger park at the ‘rec’ to include more slides, More modern design houses climbing frame etc Cheap shops – eg 99p store Leisure centre/gym/swimming pool Any night clubs Cycle lanes and routes Empty properties, especially houses Youth café Any building on open spaces Cheaper shops for their age group Large supermarket eg 99p store Poorly maintained road surfaces Local people to support local businesses ‘Chavs’ and ‘Scooter-kids’ CCTV to give the town centre a greater safety feel Bus routes to other local centres and more bus services/routes generally Local events and community projects Preservation of old buildings More affordable housing New housing to be built using local, rather than modern, materials A KFC or McDonald’s More litter and dog bins More allotments Flower garden and preservation of open spaces Community garden Castle open more often More use to be made of local school buildings and grounds especially when schools are not open Less traffic Traffic lights at Stripe Rd Friendly policemen to patrol more often A landmark statue (dinosaur suggested!) to make the town memorable
46 Appendix 6.8 Local organisations receiving an Information Pack concerning the Neighbourhood Plan February 2013
Friends of the Mill Dam Les Francophiles de Tickhill Methodist Pop-In Centre St Mary’s Church Mothers’ Union Tickhill & Bawtry Probus Tickhill Bowling Club Tickhill Christian Fellowship Tickhill Country Market Tickhill Countryside Group Tickhill & District Footpaths Group Tickhill & District Lions Club Tickhill & District WI Tickhill Estfeld School Tickhill Flower Club Tickhill Horticultural Society Tickhill Library Tickhill & District Local History Society Tickhill Male Voice Choir Tickhill Methodist Ladies Fellowship Tickhill Music Society Tickhill Parish Room Tickhill Residents’ Association Tickhill & District Running & Athletics Club Tickhill St. Mary’s CE Primary School Tickhill TARA Tickhill Tennis Club Tickhill Together Tickhill Yoga Voglia d’Italia Wapentake Writers’ Group Yorkshire Countrywomen’s Association
47 Appendix 6.10: Comments slip first Public Consultation February 28th/March 1st 2012
Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan – Public Consultation Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan – Public Consultation
Topic: 1 = strongly disagree 3 = neither disagree nor agree Topic: 1 = strongly disagree 3 = neither disagree nor agree (eg A1) 5 = strongly agree (please circle): (eg A1) 5 = strongly agree (please circle):
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Comment:
Continue overleaf... Continue overleaf...
Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan – Public Consultation Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan – Public Consultation
Topic: 1 = strongly disagree 3 = neither disagree nor agree Topic: 1 = strongly disagree 3 = neither disagree nor (eg A1) 5 = strongly agree (please circle): (eg A1) agree 5 = strongly agree (please circle):
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Comment:
Continue overleaf... Continue overleaf...
Appendix 6.11 Analysis of feedback from the first Public Consultation February 28th/March 1st 2012
TICKHILL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Consultation Days Thursday 28th February TTC Friday 1st March Tickhill Town Council 2013
Feedback
Approximately 172 people attended the two Consultation Days and 285 comment slips were completed. This resulted in 374 separate comments being made (see table below).
A B C D E F G Transport Town Heritage Planning Environment Community Water Centre Facilities 97 slips 32 slips 28 slips 27 slips 43 slips 47 slips 11 slips 126 47 36 31 64 51 19 comments comments comments comments comments comments comments
Some slips had comments relating to more than one section. These have been added to each appropriate section.
49
Appendix 7.4 Comment Slip Tickhill Gala July 2013
TICKHILL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Consultation Day Saturday 6th July 2013 TTC Tickhill Town Council Topic: ......
General comments:
50 Appendix 7.5: Analysis of Straw Poll taken at Tickhill Gala – 6th July 2013 (figures in percentages)
Hh TICKHILL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN TTC In addition to the comments made to specific questions shown in red Please answer ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ to each question: opposite, the following comments were also made:
Do you agree that the Neighbourhood Plan should: Increase number of trees in roadside verges 1 put pressure on the authorities to downgrade the YES NO Greater thought to materials used for new housing east-west road and reduce through traffic when the 97 2 new road opens from the M18 to the Bawtry Rd (A638)? Increase dog litter bins
2 aim for all residential roads having a 20 mph speed limit? 79 21 Tidy up the snickets please
3 widen pavements in the town centre, if possible? 77 23 Increase cycle paths and parking/locking facilities for cyclists Not at the expense of parking 4 increase pedestrian safety with more traffic islands to There is a lack of dropped kerbs for wheelchair users on Alderson slow vehicle speed and provide crossing points? Drive Provided islands are where people want to cross 87 13 Particularly on Sunderland St More litter bins, especially at the entrance or exits of snickets
5 press for increased public access to Tickhill Castle? 100 0 Speed bumps would be good! Definitely!
83 17 Look at the speed from Langdale Park. There is a blind spot at the 6 seek to stop building in large gardens? top – not good when turning out of Langdale Drive
7 try to ensure any newly-built houses meet local need? Lower cost for local kids 95 5 NOTES: Smaller houses needed! 8 restrict the construction of hard standing and new Not everyone answered every question. 98 2 buildings where there is danger of flooding? One person was undecided on questions 3 and 6. A must! Everyone who took part answered ‘Yes’ to question 5 Suitable building Appendix 8.8 (a) General comment sheet Pre-Submission
TICKHILL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN TTC Pre-Submission Consultation Tickhill Town Council 20th August – 11th October 2013
Please indicate whether you are a member of the public or are responding on behalf of a group/organisation.
Member of public Group/Organisation (please state)......
Topic: ......
General comments:
Please continue on the back or separate sheet if necessary
TICKHILL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN TTC Pre-Submission Consultation Tickhill Town Council 20th August – 11th October 2013
Please indicate whether you are a member of the public or are responding on behalf of a group/organisation
Member of public Group/Organisation (please state)......
Topic: ......
General comments:
Please continue on the back or separate sheet if necessary
Appendix 8.8 (b) Recipients of the draft copy of the Pre-Submission Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan for the consultation period 30th August – 11th October 2013
Note: Appendix 6.8 lists the local groups and organisations sent a draft document of the Neighbourhood Plan in February 2012. These same local groups and organisations also received the draft copy of the Pre-Submission Tickhill Neighbourhood plan. In addition, the following local groups or organisations were sent the Pre-Submission document for comment: 13th Doncaster (Tickhill) Scout Group; St Mary’s Church; Tickhill Cricket Club; Tickhill Methodist Church; Northgate Playgroup; Wilsic Road Day Nursery.
Local Councils: Armthorpe Parish Council Finningley Parish Council Auckley Parish Council Harworth and Bircotes Parish Council Austerfield Parish Council Loversall Parish Council Bassetlaw District Council Maltby Town Council Bawtry Town Council Rossington Parish Council Blyth Parish Council Stainton Parish Braithwell and Micklebring Parish Council Wadworth Parish Council Edlington Town Council Warmsworth Parish Council
Statutory Bodies: Doncaster Primary Care Trust Network Operation PPT Team The Coal Authority Network Rail Planning Consultants English Heritage Northern Gas Networks The Environment Agency Northern Power Grid - Yorkshire The Homes and Communities Agency Mono Consultants Ltd (Electronic National Grid communications codes and apparatus) Natural England Sport England Yorkshire Water Services Ltd
In addition, a copy was sent to Caroline Flint MP for Don Valley.
Table 1 (page 24) details responses received from the above. Where there is no mention, no response was received.
53 Appendix 8.10 (a) Letter to DMBC concerning a Strategic Environmental Appraisal
72 Lancaster Crescent Tickhill, Doncaster DN11 9QB [email protected]
Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan Jane Stimpson A ugust 2013 Planning Policy Manager Regeneration & Environment Doncaster MBC
Dear Jane
I am writing to seek the opinion of the local authority as to whether a Strategic Environmental Assessment is required for our draft Neighbourhood Plan.
The draft plan, as currently worded, is available on the Town Council website for public comment and formal representation. A copy is attached for your reference and for any suggestions that the Council may wish to make before we move onto the next stage after the end of the pre-submission publicity (October 11th).
I wish to make the following points regarding environmental assessment:
1 The draft plan contains the following themes:- Town Centre, Traffic, Historic Environment, Housing (New), Design (New and existing building), Community Facilities, Natural Environment, Countryside and Flooding and Drainage. 2 The plan does not propose a higher level of development than that already identified in Doncaster’s Core Strategy. 3 There are no sensitive sites, such as SSI, in the parish. 4 The plan seeks to reinforce and make locally applicable the Council’s policies towards the Conservation Area and the Green Belt. 5 There are no proposals in the plan calculated to lead to major development. 6 The overall aims of the plan are to enhance community life, to conserve and enhance the historic and natural environment and to support the local economy.
We believe that the draft plan accords with the sustainability objectives of the National Policy Planning Framework.
Yours sincerely
John M Hoare (Chairman, Neighbourhood Plan steering group)
54 Appendix 8.10 (b) DMBC’s confirmation that a SEA is not required NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SCREENING FORM
A. Summary of Plan
Details of Neighbourhood Plan Name of Neighbourhood Plan Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan
Geographic Coverage of Plan The Parish of Tickhill
Key topics/scope of Plan The draft plan contains the following themes:- Town Centre, Traffic, Historic Environment, Housing (New), Design (New and existing building), Community Facilities, Natural Environment, Countryside and Flooding and Drainage.
Key Issues Aims of the Plan:
· Retain the character of the Town in respect to its built environment, natural environment, services and amenities.
· Support a continued high quality of life.
· Sustain economic growth and environmental improvement
· Support the development of affordable housing and quality infill development
Date Screening Opinion Requested 28 August 2013
Person requesting Screening Opinion John M Hoare
(Chairman, Neighbourhood Plan steering group)
B. Summary of Screening Opinion
Local Authority Details Name and Job Title of officer producing Richard Dobson (Planning Officer) Screening Opinion Date of assessment September 2nd 2013
Conclusion of assessment SEA is not required
!" "
55 Reason for conclusion · The plan does not propose a higher level of development than that already identified in Doncaster’s Core Strategy.
· The plan does not include any land allocations for development.
· There are no sensitive sites, such as SSSI, in the parish.
· The plan seeks to reinforce and make locally applicable the Council’s policies towards the Conservation Area and the Green Belt.
· There are no proposals in the plan calculated to lead to major development.
· The cumulative impact of the plan policies and proposals should not give rise to any significant environmental effect.
· The overall aims of the plan are to enhance community life, to conserve and enhance the historic and natural environment and to support the local economy.
Name and Job Title of officer approving Steve Butler (Planning Policy Manager: Screening Opinion Natural Environment)
Date of approval 04/09/13
C. Summary of Consultation
Internal consultation
Officer (name and job title) Summary of Comments None considered necessary
External Consultation
Officer (name and job title) Summary of Comments None considered necessary
2
56
D. Assessment
Stage Y/N Reason 1. Is the PP (plan or programme) subject to Yes The Neighbourhood Plan, once preparation and/or adoption by a national, regional independently assessed and or local authority OR prepared by an authority for subjected to referendum, needs adoption through a legislative procedure by to be formally adopted by the Parliament or Government? (Art. 2(a)) Local Planning Authority to be brought into force 2. Is the PP required by legislative, regulatory or No The plan is being undertaken administrative provisions? (Art. 2(a)) voluntarily as a parish Council initiative 3. Is the PP prepared for agriculture, forestry, Yes The draft plan contains the fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste following themes:- Town management, water management, Centre, Traffic, Historic telecommunications, tourism, town and country Environment, Housing (New), planning or land use, AND does it set a framework Design (New and existing for future development consent of projects in building), Community Facilities, Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive? (Art 3.2(a)) Natural Environment, Countryside and Flooding and Drainage and will inform the determination of planning applications (a form of development consent) 4. Will the PP, in view of its likely effect on sites, No There are no sensitive sites, require an assessment for future development such as SSSI, in the parish. under Article 6 or 7 of the Habitats Directive? (Art. 3.2 (b)) 5. Does the PP Determine the use of small areas No The plan does not include any at local level, OR is it a land allocations for minor modification of a PP subject to Art. 3.2? (Art. development. 3.3)
6. Does the PP set the framework for future Yes The Neighbourhood Plan will development consent of projects (not just projects inform the determination of in annexes to the EIA Directive)? (Art 3.4) planning applications, within the context set by the LDF Core Strategy. Responsibility for development consent will remain with the Local Authority. 7. Is the PP’s sole purpose to serve the national No The overall aims of the plan are defence or civil emergency, OR is it a financial or to enhance community life, to budget PP, OR is it co-financed by structural funds conserve and enhance the or EAGGF programmes 2000 to 2006/7? (Art 3.8, historic and natural 3.9) environment and to support the local economy 8. Is it likely to have a significant effect on the No The cumulative impact of the environment? (Art. 3.5) plan policies and proposals should not give rise to any significant environmental effect
3
57 Appendix 10.4 Table 2: Transfer of responses in Table 1 to the final Neighbourhood Plan (wording in bracketed italics indicates where changes have been made)
Status Issue/Concern Implementation
DMBC/Statutory bodies
English Heritage General support for the Additional point added to Neighbourhood Plan. English Policies H2 to H5 (New builds) Heritage did not consider there to include appropriate size, was a need to be involved in the scale and height. development of the Plan. Instead Change to supporting text of directed to the planning and Policy HE1 (Tickhill Castle) to conservation team at DMBC for delete reference to English assistance (see below). However, Heritage’s function as agent changes to wording to some since this is not within its policies suggested. statutory role. [Policy HIS 1 - Tickhill Castle] Additional sentence to HE2 (Heritage assets) to include historical buildings and sites outside the Conservation Area. [Policy HE1 – Heritage assets]
Design and General support for the Minor alterations to wording Conservation (Built Neighbourhood Plan. of Policies T2 (Residential Environment) DMBC Suggestions for slight alterations traffic), T3 (Pedestrian safety) to the text of several policies and T7 (Grass verges). were made, some of which were Inclusion of ‘heritage implemented. statements’ in Policy D1 (New building) to support DMBC’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan currently being drawn up. [Policy DE1- New building] Change of wording to Policy D5 (Accessibility and adaptations) to include ‘other buildings of historical significance’ and the replacement of ‘affect’ with ‘harm’. [Policy DE5 – Accessibility and adaptations] Change to wording in Policy D6 (Extensions and alterations) to include alterations to
58 Status Issue/Concern Implementation ‘historical’ (as well as listed) buildings should be ‘in keeping with’ the vernacular style. [Policy DE6 – Extensions and alterations] Additional sentence added to Policies H2 to H5 (New building) to comment on new boundary treatments as well as the existing limestone walls. Sentence inserted into the supporting text of Policy HE1 (Tickhill Castle) to support the role of English Heritage’s involvement. [Policy HIS1 – Tickhill Castle]
Design and Suggestion made that some sort Survey of premises Conservation (Built of protective policy regarding subsequently undertaken Environment) DMBC town centre uses be considered indicating a 60% Class A1 use to prevent over prevalence of to 40% of A2, A3, A4, A5 and certain classes of establishment. Sui Generis uses. Agreement to keep within these limits. Policy MP2 (Town centre uses) altered to reflect this, supported by the business community. [Policy TC2 - Town centre uses]
Environment Agency Overall support for the Rewording of Policy D4 Neighbourhood Plan. Several (Sustainability in building) to comments made and discussed include greater guidance on by Core Team. what is meant by ‘more sustainable buildings’. [Policy DE4 - Sustainability in building]. New policy (Policy C9 Infrastructure) added concerning appropriate siting and landscaping of future infrastructure proposed by utilities. [Policy NE7 – Infrastructure in the countryside]
59
Status Issue/Concern Implementation Natural England Acknowledgement of Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns or comments.
The Coal Authority Acknowledgement that the Neighbourhood Plan meets the legal and procedural consultation requirements.
Sport England Neighbourhood Plan is in accord Changes to wording in Policy with Paragraphs 73 and 74 of the CL5 (Open Spaces) to include NPPF. sports grounds and playing fields. [Policy CL3 – Open spaces]
Public Rights of Way Acknowledgement of Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns.
Highway Authority Acknowledgement of DMBC Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns except to point out the 20 mph zones near schools is a DMBC mayoral priority.
Planning Aid Suggested improvements in Suggestions adopted and wording and the augmentation of incorporated eg additional material in some introductions. sentences added to introductions to ‘Transport’, ‘Supporting and Developing Community Life’ and ‘The Natural Environment’. Last sentence added to supporting text of Policy C8 (Quiet lanes). [Policy C4 – Quiet lanes]
Doncaster East Advice offered on the correct Risk Inclusion as a management Internal Drainage Management Authorities and body in Policy C4 (Creation of Board suggested inclusion of wildlife corridors) [Policy C2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Wildlife corridors] and Systems (SUDS). sentence of introduction to ‘Flooding and Drainage’. Inclusion of SUDS in Policy FD3 (Building development). [Policy F1 - Building development]
60 Status Issue/Concern Implementation
Local groups/organisations
Tickhill Business Concerns about the occupational Addition of Policy MP3 (Upper Association use of premises in the town floors above shops and centre. businesses) [Policy TC3 Upper floors above shops and businesses] and MP4 (Residential accommodation in the town centre) [Policy TC4 - Residential accommodation in the town centre].
Concerns about security and Addition of Policy MP5 crime. (Security of business premises). [Policy TC5 - Security of business premises]
Tickhill Countryside Acknowledgement of the Group Neighbourhood Plan. No concerns.
Tickhill & District WI Members in agreement with the No action taken. Supporting proposals in the Neighbourhood text to Policy MP8 (Site of Plan but, whilst acknowledging former public toilets) to remain the problems involved, requested in place. [Policy L3 – Public a good public toilet. toilets]
Les Francophiles de General endorsement of the Reply sent to reassure Les Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan but concern Francophiles de Tickhill that, that Policy E1 (Energy economy) were this policy to be [Policy NE1 - Energy economy] implemented, it would not might affect monthly attendance coincide with the time of their if street lights were turned off to meeting. save energy.
Tickhill Bowling Club Acknowledgement of and complete support for the Neighbourhood Plan.
Tickhill Pop-In Centre Acknowledgement of and No action taken. Policy T5 complete support for the (Spital crossroads) covers this Neighbourhood Plan but concern. reiterated the need for effective traffic management at the Spital.
61 Status Issue/Concern Implementation
Members of the public (Names withheld)
1 Concerns that the Vision and Revision of some wording to Objectives are not sufficiently the Vision and Objectives to forward thinking. include greater sustainability. Additional objective added concerning opportunities for local employment.
2 Lack of parking space for cycles. Policy MP6 (Parking in Market Place and surroundings) reworded to include cycles. [Policy MP2 – Parking in Market Place and surroundings]
3 Concerns about use of land on Addition of Policy MP8 (Site of the site of the former public former public toilets). [Policy toilets in the town centre. TC6 – Site of former public toilets]
4 More measures needed to Introduction to ‘Market Place’ encourage walking. reworded to emphasise the suitability of the town for travelling on foot. Sentence added to the introduction to ‘The Natural Environment’ promoting walking and cycling. [Policy C1 – Opportunities for walking, cycling and horse- riding]
5 A request to make the parish of This is not within the remit of a Tickhill a ‘Frack Free Zone’ (parts Neighbourhood Plan. No of the parish are covered by action taken. licences for fracking).
6 A suggestion that implementation Policy T1 reworded to include of Policy T1 (Strategic Traffic) council liaison with adjoining would require working with authorities. adjoining authorities.
62 Status Issue/Concern Implementation 7 Request that Tickhill, due to its It is outside the powers of a size and isolation, has its own re- Neighbourhood Plan to get cycling refuse site. involved in waste matters, therefore suggestion not implemented.
8 Suggestion that the Wording added to the Neighbourhood Plan ties in with supporting text of Policy D1 the Conservation Area Appraisal (New building). [Policy DE1 – and Management Plan currently New building] being undertaken by DMBC.
9 Concern over the ratio of back Wording altered in H2 to H5 to garden to footprint in Policies H2 include the garage (if to H5 (New building). applicable) within the footprint of the property rather than the garden.
10 Request to clarify which aspects Additional paragraph added to of the Neighbourhood Plan are the end of ‘A Neighbourhood aspirational and which are more Plan – Why?’. easily achievable.
Other responses from members of the public were very supportive and generally reinforced policies already in place.
Notes: (a) In addition to the above, slight word changes were made to some policies or supporting texts in the interests of clarification.
(b) Following the inclusion of the above, the policies in some sections were re- numbered to present a better order.
(c) All responses received from local organisations and groups are listed above. If an organisation or group is not listed, there was no response.
63