Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Planning Referendum Thursday 22 July 2021
Information Pack
Contents:
1. Information Statement
2. Information for Voters (including general information as to town and country planning and neighbourhood planning)
3. The Draft Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan
4. Report of the Independent Examiner on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan
5. Summary of representations received in response to publication of the Draft Plan
6. Statement that the Plan meets the Basic Conditions by the local planning authority
7. Decision Statement
1
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Information Statement
2
The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk hereby gives notice that a Referendum relating to the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan will be held. The Referendum will be held on Thursday 22nd July 2021 to decide on the question below:
Do you want the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk to use the neighbourhood plan for Tilney All Saints to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?
The Referendum area is identical to the area that has been designated as the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan area which covers the Parish of Tilney All Saints, as shown on the following map.
3
A person is entitled to vote in the Referendum if, on 22nd July 2021:
(a) he/she is entitled to vote in an election of any Councillor of the Tilney All Saints Parish Council whose area is in the Referendum area and
(b) his/her qualifying address for the election is in the Referendum area. A person’s qualifying address is, in relation to a person registered in the register of electors, the address in respect of which he or she is entitled to be so registered.
The Referendum expenses limit that will apply in relation to the Referendum is £2,362; plus the number of persons entitled to vote in the Referendum by reference to which that limit has been calculated (number of entries in the register x 5.9p).
The Referendum will be conducted in accordance with procedures which are similar to those used at local government elections.
A number of specified documents may be inspected at:
The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk King’s Court Chapel Street KING’S LYNN PE30 1EX
Opening times: 9am-5pm Monday – Thursday 9am-4.45 pm on a Friday. Tel: 01553 616200 Web: Tilney All Saints NP Consultation 2020 - Details - Keystone (objective.co.uk)
The specified documents are:
• the draft neighbourhood plan or neighbourhood development order; • the report made by the independent examiner under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4B to the 1990 (in the case of a neighbourhood plan, as applied by section 38A(3) of the 2004 Act); • a summary of any representations submitted to the independent examiner pursuant to paragraph 9 of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act; • a statement – • in the case of a draft neighbourhood plan, that the local planning authority are satisfied that the draft plan meets those basic conditions and complies with the provision made by, or under, sections 38A and 38B of the 2004 Act; • a statement that sets out general information as to town and country planning (including neighbourhood planning) and the referendum, which is prepared having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
For further information about the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan, including all background documents, please see our Neighbourhood Planning webpages:
4
• Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan page: Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan | Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan | Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk (west-norfolk.gov.uk) • Introduction to Neighbourhood Plans: https://www.west- • norfolk.gov.uk/info/20127/neighbourhood_plans/43/neighbourhood_planni ng • Neighbourhood Plans in Progress in West Norfolk: https://www.west- norfolk.gov.uk/info/20127/neighbourhood_plans/116/plans_being_prepare d
5
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Planning Referendum Information for Voters
6
About this document
On 22nd July 2021 there will be a Referendum on a Neighbourhood Plan for your area. This document explains the Referendum that is going to take place and how you can take part in it. It explains:- • Why there are neighbourhood plans and other development plans • The Referendum and how you can take part
Referendum on the Neighbourhood Plan
A Referendum asks you to vote yes or no to a question. For this Referendum you will receive a ballot paper with this question:
• Do you want the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Tilney All Saints to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?
What does my vote mean?
You show your choice by putting a cross (X) in the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ box on your ballot paper.
Put a cross in only one box or your vote will not be counted.
If more people vote ‘yes’ than ‘no’ in this Referendum, then the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk will use the Neighbourhood Plan to help it decide planning applications in the Parish of Tilney All Saints
The Neighbourhood Plan will then become part of the Development Plan. This is a set of documents which sets out planning policies to guide development in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk.
If more people vote ‘no’ than ‘yes’, then planning applications will be decided without using the Neighbourhood Plan as part of the Development Plan for the local area.
7
Neighbourhood Plans
What is a Neighbourhood Plan? A local community can prepare a neighbourhood plan to help shape future development in its area.
If it successfully passes all the stages (including being supported by a majority of votes in a referendum) the neighbourhood plan will become part of the official ‘development plan’ for the area, alongside the Borough Council’s local plan. It then must be taken into account when the Borough Council, or a planning inspector, is deciding planning applications in the area.
Who can prepare a Neighbourhood Plan? A neighbourhood plan is prepared by the relevant parish/town council, except in unparished areas (e.g. King’s Lynn town centre). In this case a local group must first apply to be designated as a ‘neighbourhood forum’ before it can prepare a neighbourhood plan.
What can be in a Neighbourhood Plan? Neighbourhood plans are about ‘development’ (broadly speaking building construction and changes in the use of land). A neighbourhood plan can shape the future development in an area, but it cannot stop all development, or plan for less than that included in the Borough’s Local Plan.
A neighbourhood plan must:
• support sustainable development • generally conform to the strategic policies in the local plan • have regard to national planning policies, and • comply with relevant legislation; e.g. ensure environmental matters are taken into account, protect certain species and habitats, human rights, etc. • specify the period it will cover.
While a neighbourhood plan must in general conform to the local plan strategic policies for the area (e.g. the overall role of the area, the general scale and type of development planned), it can vary in detail from the local plan. This can involve additional or different allocations of land for development, different development boundaries, different design and other criteria to be applied in the area, etc. Where there is a contradiction between a neighbourhood plan and the local plan, it is the most recent one that counts.
Neighbourhood plans often contain policies to reinforce the local character of the area, to protect local green spaces and other features of particular local importance, plus measures to address particular local problems or shortages.
There is no set format for a neighbourhood plan. It could be very brief and focused (perhaps just one policy) or very long and complex. Much will depend on what are the agreed local priorities, and what resources, interests and skills are available in the local community who prepare it.
8
How is a Neighbourhood Plan prepared? Because neighbourhood plans will affect what may, or may not, receive planning permission they must go through stages of formal consultation to make sure everyone has an opportunity to comment on them, and that they meet tests laid down in legislation. These procedures include examination by an independent expert, to decide whether the plan meets the legal tests mentioned above, and a referendum to gauge the level of local support for the plan.
The Borough Council (as local planning authority) has to administer key parts of this process. The decisions it has to make in this process are not whether the Borough Council agrees with or supports the content of the neighbourhood plan, but whether the plan complies with nationally laid down rules and policies.
It is the local community’s plan, and it is they who will have to do most of the work (or commission consultants to do this for them) and make the decisions on what they want in their plan, although the Borough Council will provide advice and assistance.
For further information on neighbourhood plans see:
Borough Council Information: • Introduction to Neighbourhood Plans: https://www.west- norfolk.gov.uk/info/20127/neighbourhood_plans/43/neighbourhood_planni ng
• Neighbourhood Plans in Progress in West Norfolk: https://www.west- norfolk.gov.uk/info/20127/neighbourhood_plans/116/plans_being_prepared
• Locality http://locality.org.uk/projects/building-community/
Town and Country Planning
Background The town and country planning system exists to protect and promote the public interest in the way land is used and developed. All advanced economies have formal planning systems, though the details of how they operate vary, while simpler societies usually have less formal controls on new building.
The current British planning system was established in 1947, and grew out of concern that uncoordinated development in the 19th and early 20th century had resulted in severe adverse impacts on health, economic efficiency, quality of life and the environment. Owners of property in Britain do not have a right to build or change the use of land as they please, but must obtain planning permission to do so. (Some development, typically minor changes, is ‘permitted development’; thus benefits from an automatic permission).
The planning system endeavours to –
• Coordinate the activities of different developers and agencies, • Protect features and qualities of acknowledged public interest,
9
• Provide a degree of certainty for investors, landowners, residents and other stakeholders, and • Coordinate the provision of infrastructure and other facilities.
More broadly the system aims to balance the needs and aspirations of the immediate site or locality with those for the wider area and country within which it sits, and to balance current concerns against longer term interests.
Inevitably these different aims and considerations are often in tension, and so there are difficult and controversial decisions to be made in balancing them when considering whether to grant planning permission or include something in a plan. (Planning decisions often seem easy if only one consideration is taken into account).
Local Planning Decisions The responsibility for making most of these difficult decisions is given by Parliament to the local planning authority which, in this area, is the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk.
Planning authorities cannot, however, make a decision any way they may please. Prior public consultation is required in most cases. Decisions on applications must be made in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless there are proper planning considerations suggesting otherwise.
One of the important considerations which must be taken into account is national (government) planning policy, including the National Planning Policy Framework. This tells local planning authorities which issues they should consider most important, how decisions should be reached, how plans should be prepared and what they should contain, etc.
Decisions are made by elected councillors, advised by specialist planning officers, though routine decisions (e.g. planning applications clearly in accordance with, or contrary to, adopted plans) will usually be delegated by councillors to senior officers; because of the volume of work and pressures of time.
There is provision for the planning decisions of the local planning authority to be challenged and reviewed by an independent planning inspector (or, if the issue is the legality of the decision or the way it was reached, the courts).
Local Plans The local planning authority has to produce local plans for the future development of the area. Local plans (previously known as local development frameworks) may consist of one or more separate plans or documents. These would commonly include (as is the case in West Norfolk) a core strategy document setting out the overall scale and broad location of development, and a site allocations document identifying the specific sites and the type and amount of development sought on each area.
Local plans usually look forward at least 15 years, and must provide for enough housing and employment development to meet the anticipated growth in the area over that period, and have to be in general accordance with national planning policy. Ideas
10
for how this might be done are refined and reconsidered through successive rounds of consultation and discussion, often over a period of several years, but rarely is consensus reached; so the local planning authority must make difficult choices between competing views and proposals. Once the local planning authority has decided the plan it wishes to adopt it is tested against legal requirements and national policy by an independent planning inspector; who will consider the views of those who oppose or support the plan, and decide whether it can be adopted and brought into force.
Under current national policy if local plans are not successfully brought up-to-date and adopted, or less housing development than needed actually takes place, it will be difficult for the local planning authority to refuse a planning application for housing development unless it seriously contravenes national policy, even if it contravenes the local or neighbourhood plan.
Neighbourhood Planning Parish and town councils are statutory consultees for planning applications and local plans. This means they are consulted about these and are able to put forward any views they may have on these.
The 2011 Localism Act gave them (and communities in unparished areas that had successfully applied for designation as a neighbourhood forum) additional new planning powers to produce neighbourhood development plans, or to grant planning permission for specified developments or types of development (neighbourhood development orders and community right to build orders). Of these, neighbourhood plans have been by far the most popular. (For further information on neighbourhood plans, see section above).
11
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Area
The Referendum area is identified on the map below. This is the same as the area of Tilney All Saints Parish, and the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan area.
12
Voting in the Referendum The Referendum area
The Referendum area is identified on the map shown on Page 13 as the parish area of Tilney All Saints and is identical to the area which has been designated as the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan area.
Referendum Expenses
The Referendum expenses limit that will apply in relation to the Referendum is £2,362, plus the number of persons entitled to vote in the Referendum by reference to which that limit has been calculated; i.e. number of entries in the current register x 5.9p.
Specified Documents
A copy of the specified documents, that is the documents listed below, may be inspected at the following:- • Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, King’s Court, Chapel Street, KING’S LYNN, PE30 1EX between the hours of 9.00 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Thursday and 9.00 am to 4.45 pm on a Friday. • Tel: (01553) 616200 or email [email protected]. • Tilney All Saints Parish Clerk, 234 Smeeth Road, Marshland St James, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, PE14 8ES Tel: 07984 464460 E-mail: [email protected]
The specified documents are:- • The draft Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan • Report of the Independent Examiner • Summary of the representations submitted to the Independent Examiner • Statement by the Local Planning Authority that the Draft Plan meets the basic conditions • A statement that sets out general information as to town and country planning including neighbourhood, the Referendum • The Decision Statement
All of the above documents can be viewed on the Council’s website: Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan | Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan | Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk (west-norfolk.gov.uk)
Can I Vote? You can vote in the Referendum if you live in the Parish of Tilney All Saints and:- • You are registered to vote in Local Government Elections, and • You are 18 years of age or over on Thursday 22nd July 2021. • You have to be registered to vote by Tuesday 6th July 2021 to vote in the Referendum. You can check if you are registered to vote by calling (01553) 616773 or 616200. • The Referendum will be conducted in accordance with the procedures which are similar to those used at Local Government Elections.
13
Ways of Voting
There are three ways of voting:-
In person on Thursday 22nd July 2021 • Most people vote in person at their local polling station. It is easy and the staff on duty will always help if you are not sure what to do. • In Tilney All Saints, the Polling Station is: Tilney All Saints Village Hall, Church Road, Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn, PE34 4SJ • You will receive a poll card telling you that this is your polling station. • If you do not receive your poll card you can contact Electoral Services on (01553) 616773 to ensure you are registered. • The polling station will be open from 7am to 10pm. • If you are not in the queue for a ballot paper by 10pm you will not be able to vote; so make sure you arrive in plenty of time.
By post • To vote by post you need to complete an application form and send it to Electoral Services, Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, King’s Court, Chapel Street, KING’S LYNN. PE30 1EX to arrive by 5pm on Wednesday 7th July 2021. NB: If you already have a postal vote, there is no need to complete another application form. • Ballot papers can be sent overseas, but you need to think about whether you will have time to receive and return your ballot papers by 10pm on Thursday 22nd July 2021. • You should receive your Postal Vote about a week before polling day. If it does not arrive in time, you can get a replacement up to 5pm Thursday 22nd July 2021.
By Proxy • If you cannot go to the polling station, and do not wish to vote by post, you may be able to vote by proxy. This means allowing somebody you trust to vote on your behalf. • To vote by proxy, you need to complete an application form and send it to Electoral Services, Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, King’s Court, Chapel Street, KING’S LYNN. PE30 1EX to arrive by 5pm on Wednesday 14th July 2021.
This is for a new Proxy only. Changes to existing arrangements need to be made by 5pm on Wednesday 7th July 2021. • When you apply for a proxy vote you must say why you cannot vote in person. • Anyone can be your proxy as long as they are eligible to vote and are willing to vote on your behalf. You will have to tell them how you want to vote.
14
Postal and proxy vote application forms are available from Electoral Services on (01553) 616773 or by downloading from the Council’s website at: www.west-norfolk.gov.uk.
Am I Registered to Vote?
• If you are not registered you will not be able to vote. • If you are not on the Electoral Register, you will need to complete an Invitation to Register form and send it to Electoral Services, Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, King’s Court, Chapel Street, KING’S LYNN. PE30 1EX to arrive no later than Tuesday 6th July 2021 , or go online WWW.GOV.UK/REGISTERTOVOTE
Registration forms are available from Electoral Services on (01553) 616773 or alternatively you can register yourself at www.gov.uk/registertovote.
How to find out more
• Further general information on neighbourhood planning is available on the following websites https://www.gov.uk/government/get-involved/take- part/make-a-neighbourhood-plan and https://www.west- norfolk.gov.uk/info/20127/neighbourhood_plans • For queries about planning issues, please contact the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, Planning Policy on (01553) 616200. For queries about the Referendum and voting please contact Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, Electoral Services on (01553) 616773 or e-mail: [email protected]
15
TILNEY ALL SAINTS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN PLAN PERIOD 2015-2036
DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN POST EXAMINATION VERSION REGULATION 18
Tilney All Saints
Neighbourhood Plan Period 2020-2036
Abstract This document is the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan
Document Reference TASNP010 Issue 1.0 Date of Issue 09 June 2021 Reason for Issue Referendum
Author Parish Council
Doc Ref: Page 17 of 141 Filename: Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Information Pack.docx Date/Issue No: 2021-06-09 / 1.0
Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 21 2.0 Neighbourhood Planning ...... 23 2.1 Process ...... 23 2.2 Context ...... 23 2.3 Consultation ...... 24 3.0 Vision and Objectives ...... 26 3.1 Vision ...... 26 3.2 Objectives ...... 26 4.0 Housing ...... 27 4.1 Development ...... 27 4.1.1 Millennium Green ...... 27 4.1.2 Allotment Land ...... 28 4.1.3 Eagles Golf Centre ...... 28 4.2 Housing Mix & Type ...... 28 4.3 Design ...... 29 4.4 Light Pollution ...... 31 4.5 Affordable Housing ...... 32 5.0 Environment ...... 34 5.1 Heritage Assets ...... 34 5.2 Flood Risk and Drainage ...... 35 5.3 Natural Environment & Landscape ...... 36 6.0 Community Assets and Local Green Space ...... 38 6.1 Community Assets ...... 38 6.1.1 Tilney All Saints Primary School ...... 38 6.1.2 Tilney All Saints Village Hall ...... 39 6.2 Local Green Space ...... 40 6.2.1 Glebe Estate Playing Field ...... 40 6.2.2 The Willows ...... 41 6.2.3 Medieval Settlement ...... 41 7.0 Traffic & Transport ...... 42 8.0 Employment & Business ...... 44 8.1 Economic Development ...... 44 8.2 Broadband ...... 44 8.3 Renewable Energy ...... 45 9.0 Community Aspirational Policies ...... 46 10.0 Monitoring ...... 47 Appendix A – Scheduled Monument ...... 48 Appendix B – Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets ...... 49 Listed Buildings ...... 49 Non-designated Heritage Assets ...... 51 Bury Manor ...... 51 Chase Farm ...... 52 Orchard Cottage ...... 52 The Bell Inn ...... 52 The Old Shore Boat Inn ...... 52 Appendix C – Development Boundaries and Strategic Gap ...... 54 Development Boundaries ...... 54 Strategic Gap ...... 55
Doc Ref: Page 18 of 141 Filename: Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Information Pack.docx Date/Issue No: 2021-06-09 / 1.0
Appendix D –Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area ...... 56 Appendix E – Public Rights of Way ...... 56 Definitive Statements for the Parish of Tilney All Saints ...... 56 Maps ...... 58 Appendix F – Dark Skies ...... 62 Appendix G – Flood Risks ...... 63 From the River or the Sea ...... 63 From Surface Water ...... 63 Appendix H – East Region Agricultural Land Classification ...... 65 Appendix I – Community Assets and Local Green Space ...... 66 Community Assets ...... 66 Local Green Space ...... 67
Policy Index
Community Policy 1: Community Infrastructure Levy 32 Policy 1.1: Strategic gap between High End and All Saints 11 Policy 1.2: Housing Mix 13 Policy 1.3: Design 15 Policy 1.4: Street Lighting 16 Policy 1.5: Affordable Housing 17 Policy 2.1: Heritage 18 Policy 2.2: Flooding and Surface Water Drainage 20 Policy 2.3: Natural Environment - Farmland 21 Policy 2.4: Natural Environment – Ecology 21 Policy 3.1: Tilney All Saints Primary School 23 Policy 3.2: Village Hall 24 Policy 3.3: Local Green Space 26 Policy 4.1: Sustainable Transport 28 Policy 4.2: Car Parking 29 Policy 5.1: Economic Development 30 Policy 5.2: Broadband 30 Policy 5.3: Renewable Energy 31
Doc Ref: Page 19 of 141 Filename: Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Information Pack.docx Date/Issue No: 2021-06-09 / 1.0
Related Documents Reference 1 Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions Statement This publication is available at: https://tilneyallsaintspc.wixsite.com/taspc/neighbourhood-plan Reference 2 Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement This publication is available at: https://tilneyallsaintspc.wixsite.com/taspc/neighbourhood-plan Reference 3 Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base and Key Issues This publication is available at: https://tilneyallsaintspc.wixsite.com/taspc/neighbourhood-plan Reference 4 Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Character Appraisal This publication is available at: https://tilneyallsaintspc.wixsite.com/taspc/neighbourhood-plan Reference 5 Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Assessment Reference 6 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) Reference 7 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 Reference 8 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Reference 9 National Planning Policy Framework Reference 10 European - Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2012 Reference 11 European - Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations 2007 Reference 12 BCKLWN - Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMP) Adopted September 2016 Reference 13 BCKLWN Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2019 Reference 14 Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework 2018 Reference 15 NCC Living Well Homes Reference 16 Norfolk Insight Reference 17 East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans
1.0 Introduction
Tilney All Saints Parish lies between 3 and 4 miles south west of King’s Lynn in Norfolk, in a triangle bordered by the A47 and the A17 stretching west from the Pullover Roundabout. The main village is made up of two parts, Tilney All Saints itself and Tilney High End, although there are ribbon developments along both the old A47 road and out along Shepherdsgate Road to the Moat Road junction with the A17. As with other Fen villages in the area the village grew during the post medieval period as drainage and reclamation were used to increase the amount of workable agricultural land.
The population of the Village was recorded as being 573 in the 2011 Census. Approximately half the population is aged over 65. Although easily accessible to King’s Lynn the village and neighbouring Tilney High End retain a peaceful rural atmosphere.
Residents see Tilney All Saints as a pleasant, peaceful place to live, employment opportunities, services and a main shopping centre are to be found in King’s Lynn, there are also limited employment opportunities in the parish.
The oldest part of this attractive village clusters around the well-attended Tilney All Saints Church which is in the Ely Diocese. It is renowned as one of the 'Marshland Gems'. It is believed to date from the late 12th century and features a fine Norman Arcade and splendid double hammer-beam roof. Much of the current exterior relates to 15th and 16th century remodelling. Inside, there is an unusual screen of 1618 and outside, tomb slabs including one which gave rise to the local legend of Tom Hickathrift, the giant killer being buried there.
The nearby cul de sac, Glebe Estate, comprises 38 properties which were Council built at the same time as the small village hall which is undergoing a planned, continuing programme of refurbishment funded by the Village Hall Committee with contributions from the Parish Council. The majority of the properties on the estate are now privately owned.
There is a scheduled monument (the remains of a medieval settlement (see Appendix A), the Grade 1 listed Church and 14 Grade 2 listed buildings (see Appendix B) located within the parish which includes All Saints House dating to 1700, and the Old Vicarage which was built around 1750.
The second part of the village is labelled as Tilney High End on Ordnance Survey maps, but is not identified as such on the ground, it contains the thriving Primary School (rated Ofsted ‘Good’ in May 2014 and again in October 2017), a 9 hole Golf Course, the Millennium Village Green and ribbon development along Lynn Road and School Road. There is a further small community in Shepherdsgate Road about ¾ mile north of the school.
The village has two bus services, the First Group Excel (XL) which serves Tilney High End on the old A47, and a Lynx service which picks people up in Church Road, opposite the entrance to the Glebe Estate and by the school.
In the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy document (January 2015) the village is identified as being ‘capable of accommodating modest growth’ and is defined as part of the Fenland ‘settled Inland Marshes with panoramic views across the area’. On a population pro- rota basis Tilney All Saints received an allocation of 5 new dwellings on a site (see Appendix C, G97.1 ref No. 329 of the Local Development Framework) on the corner of School Road and Lynn Road and these have now been constructed.
Under the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk (BCKLWN) Local Plan, adopted on 29th September 2016 in the Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 82) it is defined as being a rural village, having strong historic integrity with a historic drainage network. There is a steady turnover of property in the village, and the growing school currently has 87 pupils attending in three classes. The majority of the pupils come in from the surrounding area.
2.0 Neighbourhood Planning
2.1 Process
This Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by and for the local people of Tilney All Saints Parish for the period 2020-2036. The Localism Act 2011 provided new powers for Parish Councils to prepare land use planning documents. The parish area shown in Appendix D was designated as a Neighbourhood Area and Tilney All Saints Parish Council approved as the qualifying body to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan in June 2016.
This Neighbourhood Plan is a new type of planning document. Working with and on behalf of its parishioners, Tilney All Saints Parish Council has prepared this Plan that will shape and influence future growth across the parish. The Parish Council has reviewed a range of evidence to determine key issues and develop policies for the Plan that will ensure the village remains sustainable, with any new development serving both current and future residents. These policies will enable us to influence the design, location and type of new homes being delivered in the village, as well as ensuring infrastructure improvements that are delivered alongside growth are to maximum community benefit.
Once the Plan has been ‘made’ (adopted by the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk), following consultation with residents and a local referendum, it will form part of the Development Plan for the area, with our policies used to determine all planning applications that come forward within the Neighbourhood Area. Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should not be viewed in isolation but have been developed to work holistically.
The document has been prepared by the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Project Group. Membership includes local residents and local councillors and is led by Tilney All Saints Parish Council. The Plan runs from 2016-2036 and includes the whole of the Parish of Tilney All Saints.
Various public consultations have been held to gain an understanding of the views of residents, businesses and key stakeholders with an interest in Tilney All Saints. Consultation feedback and evidence from the various studies have been fundamental to the formulation of the policies within this Neighbourhood Plan.
2.2 Context
Tilney All Saints is valued by many for its tranquillity and splendid views across the low-lying fens and farmland. This is despite its closeness to King’s Lynn and key road links including the A47 and A17.
The village consists of a mixture of old and new housing, family houses and bungalows, and a number of small businesses, and farms of varying size. The Village does not have its own shop or public house, but Tilney All Saints Primary School is thriving in a successful partnership with Anthony Curton Primary in Walpole St Peter. Both are popular church schools, very close to being fully subscribed, and both graded as ‘Good’ following recent Ofsted inspections. Many pupils come in from surrounding villages. Tilney All Saints Primary has increased from two to three classes recently, currently having 87 pupils attending, while Anthony Curton School has just under 200 pupils.
In November 2013 the Parish Council carried out a survey of the parish to gauge opinion on local issues, the future of the Village Hall, transport, road safety, housing and other community issues. The results were published in March 2014. Since then a Village Hall Committee has been formed which the Parish Council has helped to finance, and they are now managing and
gradually renovating and upgrading the Village Hall. The kitchen was refurbished, loft and cavity insulation fitted, and new double glazed fire and entrance doors. More recently the hall has been modernised, which includes: installation of an eco-friendly air source heating system; new ceiling with LED lighting; vinyl flooring; fire-resistant doors; a disabled toilet together with baby changing facility; addition of equipment storage cupboards; painting and decorating throughout; new upvc windows and removing and replacing fascias and asbestos guttering/downpipes.
A key local business is the Eagles Golf Centre a family run business that has been established for approximately 30 years. As well as golf there are a wide variety of other activities plus a "19th Hole" (The Greane Room) to quench ones thirst and appetite. Other small businesses including a small engineering works, white goods vendor, taxi company, small holdings, nurseries, farms and agricultural contractors contributing to the economy, providing work and employment opportunities.
Terrington St Clement, and Terrington St John both have Medical Practices and pharmacies, and some larger employers. Most local people attend these or the Southgates Medical Centre in King’s Lynn. There are a number of newsagents, hairdressers, hardware stores, public houses and food outlets in these villages, but they can be difficult to reach without access to some form of family transport. The A17 is seen by some as a northern boundary which has to be crossed rather than as an easily accessed traffic route.
2.3 Consultation
Engaging the community in development of the Neighbourhood Plan has been a key focus for the Parish Council. This work commenced in March 2016 with a representative from BCKLWN Planning Department attended a meeting to speak about what a Neighbourhood Plan entailed for the community. The meeting was widely publicised and members of the community attended.
Following this a Neighbourhood Plan Project Group was set up by the Parish Council, with their first meeting held on 26th May 2016. The Group included Parish Councillors and residents. Monthly meetings are now held on the third Thursday of each month, in the village Hall and are minuted and the progress reported back to the Parish Council.
The first public involvement came at the Queen’s 90th birthday parish picnic where the Neighbourhood Plan Group had a stand displaying its intentions. The event was an opportunity for the community to be asked their views by completing a questionnaire.
A community consultation drop in event was held on Saturday 17th September 2016. The event was publicised in the local press and with posters in the village and flyers delivered to the majority of households via the Village News magazine. Individual invitations were posted to businesses and landowners in the parish. Many people attended the event, enjoyed tea and cakes, completed questionnaires and left their comments. A Neighbourhood Plan website and Facebook page were set up.
Further consultation was undertaken in January 2019, focusing on key policy options, including Local Green Space, heritage assets, future housing type and size and priorities such as retaining the gap between Tilney All Saints and Tilney High End. This included a consultation survey and public open event.
The Pre-Submission Draft version of the Plan underwent consultation (Regulation 14) in July 2019. As part of this the Neighbourhood Plan was publicised to all residents, with hard copies made available in key public places and at two open events facilitated by the Neighbourhood
Plan Project Group. There was a survey to capture people’s views which could be completed online or in hard copy. Thirty-six responses were received from residents, alongside feedback from statutory bodies such as Norfolk County Council. All responses were fully considered by the Project Group with amendments made to create this Submission Document.
Further detail of the consultation process including who was consulted, the methods used, main issues and concerns raised and how these were taken into account is detailed in the Consultation Statement which accompanies this Submission Document.
3.0 Vision and Objectives
3.1 Vision
The Vision for Tilney All Saints is: Tilney All Saints aims to continue to be a small rural parish, encompassing a closely supportive community with a strong parish identity. It has a peaceful historic nature, and over the years the landscape, setting and character of the village have been enhanced. The village will continue as a thriving, desirable, attractive and viable residential area and the facilities in the Parish will have gradually improved to meet the needs of old and new residents. Communications and connectivity will have been maintained or even improved by better local bus services, the preservation of footpaths and cycle routes and the provision of universal, good quality broadband and other utilities. The many heritage assets and important open green spaces will have been protected, and local wildlife supported, including any protected species, and the Parish will have worked towards becoming carbon neutral.
3.2 Objectives
The Objectives for Tilney All Saints are: • To help the parish remain distinct from the communities of King’s Lynn and Wisbech, with no significant expansion of development into the surrounding open countryside.
• To protect the parish’s heritage assets, character and natural environment.
• To ensure new dwellings are in keeping with the village and a mix that meets the needs of the community.
• To sustain the vitality and safety of the parish and to allow residents of all ages the opportunity to remain an active and vital part of the community.
• To maintain and support important community assets such as the thriving village Primary School, the Millennium Green, and the Glebe Estate play area.
• To expand and increase the use of the Village Hall as a valuable community hub and focal point.
• To encourage new small local businesses.
• To reduce in the long term, the need to use private vehicles and encourage alternative means of transport.
4.0 Housing
4.1 Development
The parish comprises the settlements of Tilney All Saints, Tilney High End, and other scattered dwellings and farm buildings away from the settlements. Residents of Tilney All Saints parish place a lot of value on the essentially rural character of their village; a tranquil and open farming community where a mix of historic and newer buildings blends throughout what is a scattered settlement. The two main settlements are around 500m apart, and this gap is seen to be an important part of the character of the parish, although the two settlements are well-related functionally because of the footway connecting the two. Policy 1.1: Strategic gap between High End and All Saints Within the Strategic Gap (see Appendix C) development will only be permitted if: a) it is consistent with policies for development in the countryside including essential infrastructure provided by utility companies; b) it would not undermine the physical and/or visual separation of the two settlements; c) it would not compromise the integrity of the strategic gap, either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; and d) it cannot reasonably be located elsewhere.
The objective of this policy is to direct development in such a way as to respect and retain the generally open and undeveloped nature of the gap between Tilney All Saints and Tilney High End so as to help prevent the coalescence and retain the separate identity of the two settlements. The extent of the gap defined in Appendix C was agreed with the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. It’s boundaries accord with the current land uses, namely Millennium Green, the Eagles Golf Centre and the Allotments, which are described below.
4.1.1 Millennium Green
This area of land is owned and maintained by the Parish Council. It is primarily used by dog walkers and for community outdoor events as well as informal recreation such as football. There are bins, seats and fencing providing security and a gravel car park providing safe access. The Millennium Green car park is used in the mornings and afternoons by parents dropping their children off and collecting them in a safe area adjacent to the school. At the request of local parents the Parish Council is developing a play area adjoining the car park area and is looking to extend the car park area due to the increase in the number of children attending the primary school. It has been cultivated, maintained and resourced since being ‘gifted’ to the council on 17th September 1997 after the CEGB erected pylons over the Tilney All Saints Parish Allotment area.
This policy supports development proposals that intend to secure the long-term benefit of the Millennium Green which is an important resource within the community for local people. Remaining viable will require investment in maintaining the size of the facility. This policy is in line with Community & Culture policy CS13 of the BCKLWN in that it supports the retention of existing community facilities unless they are no longer viable. The policy requires that proposals avoid increasing the use of the Millennium Green to the extent that the increased use may harm the amenities of adjoining residential properties, for example through traffic movements, and on-street car parking or noise.
4.1.2 Allotment Land
The allotment land in the parish consists of just over 13 acres, which is located at the junction of Church Road and Church Lane. The land is owned by the Parish Council. In the Parish Council records the land is divided into 27 plots each approximately half an acre in size. These records were ratified at the Parish Council meeting held on 14th December 2017. Only one plot is currently rented by a resident as an allotment. The remaining plots being rented to two local farmers on an annual basis. This allows the land to continue to be used for agricultural purposes and provide the parish with an income from the land.
4.1.3 Eagles Golf Centre
The Eagles Golf Centre is made up of two areas of land. The first is accessed via a road way from the west side of School Road and extends from the back of the bungalows in Willow Drive, west of Shepherdsgate Road to the position of the first drain running south west from Shepherdsgate Road across to the second drain running south east back towards School Road. The land is bordered by mature trees and shrubs providing a haven for wildlife. The facilities include a par 3 golf and footgolf course; a floodlit part covered and part open driving range; floodlit tennis and 5-a-side football court. The second area of land is accessed via a car park off the south side of Church Road opposite the Millennium Green car park and stretches from the back of the houses on the east side of School Road, north of public right of way footpath 3 (see Appendix E) to the west of the allotment land (see 6.2.3 above) and bordered on the north by Church Road. This parcel of land consists of the main golf course in beautiful parkland setting with a small lake and pond surrounded and threaded with a variety of mature trees and shrubs providing a very tranquil location for many birds and wild life including the great crested newt. The golf centre provides a wide range of recreation and sports opportunities to benefit the health and add to the quality of life of the village and the surrounding communities, plus protecting and enhancing the natural environment whilst improving biodiversity and the landscape of Tilney All Saints.
4.2 Housing Mix & Type
Tilney All Saints housing profile is dominated by detached homes, 44% of which have 3 bedrooms and there is a higher than usual proportion of 4-bed homes when compared to King’s Lynn and West Norfolk as a whole. Furthermore, home ownership is high. The properties tend to be more expensive, and in fact property prices in the village are higher than the Norfolk average. These factors are likely to make the village unaffordable or difficult for younger people wanting to rent, and first-time buyers. There is also an ageing population, more so than
elsewhere, and so there could be a need to not only support the needs of older, less mobile residents, but also redress the balance by encouraging more young people. This could indicate the need for development to focus on homes suitable for older and less mobile residents, perhaps single storey or easily adaptable for less mobile occupants, so that residents are able to stay in Tilney All Saints as they get older. The NPPF defines older people as people over or approaching retirement age, including the active, newly retired through to the very frail elderly; and those whose housing needs can encompass accessible, adaptable general needs housing through to the full range of retirement and specialised housing for those with support or care needs. In 2001, 15.1% of the population of Tilney All Saints were aged 65 or over, and in 2011 it was 22%, so increasing. Furthermore, in 2001 19.1% of all households were either a family with all aged 65 or over, or a single person aged 65 or over. This had increased to 25% in 2011, which supports the requirement for housing locally which meets the needs of older people. There is a very low proportion of 1-bed homes, just 10 in the village (most if not all at the Glebe Estate), which is proportionally much lower than across the Borough as a whole, and in contrast nearly a quarter of homes in the village are single occupancy. This suggests there is an unmet need for smaller unit housing within the village. The Plan identifies a need to address the current imbalance in dwelling size to ensure that housing choice exists for both older people looking to downsize and younger people wanting to move into or stay in the village.
Policy 1.2: Housing Mix Housing proposals should provide an appropriate mix of housing types, tenures and sizes, and these should demonstrably reflect local need using the best available evidence. This applies to open-market and affordable housing combined, and can include homes designed to Lifetime Homes Standard. To achieve a more diverse housing stock, proposals should include dwellings of two bedrooms or fewer, including dwellings suitable for or easily adaptable for older or less mobile residents. Proposals for sheltered housing will be supported in principle. Any proposal that does not provide the mix of demonstrable local need or provide homes suitable for older or less mobile people or smaller dwellings will need to be justified with clear evidence that such homes are not required, or that the development is made not viable by meeting these expectations. Separate proposals on contiguous sites that are in the same ownership and/or control, or have a planning history indicating that they have been considered together, will be considered as a single proposal.
Dwellings should ideally be accessible and adaptable to meet the changing lifetime circumstances of occupants, and Lifetime Homes Standard or equivalent is encouraged for all new dwellings. Single storey dwellings will be considered as suitable for older residents.
4.3 Design
Whilst in the last 10 years Tilney All Saints has seen very little new development, just two new detached homes, at least a further 10 have outline planning permission. The design of these new homes and how they fit in with the character of the village is an important concern for residents. The issue of design and the need to preserve the rural and open character of the village is high on the agenda.
A Character Appraisal undertaken by local residents has sought to provide good evidence and guidance for the design of new homes within the parish. The methodology used was based on Planning Aid’s ‘How to prepare a Character Appraisal to support design within a neighbourhood plan’. The entire parish is of historic significance, with highlights including All Saints Church (Grade I Listed), Mear Green (a medieval occupation area), Tilney Old Hall (a 16th Century building with irregular plan), ruins of Bury Manor, and findings such as prehistoric worked flint, a Bronze Age barrow and Roman pottery sherds are recorded. This history is highly valued by residents. The Assessment identified eight key areas of the village, distinct in their purpose and character: • Central Village Area • Tilney High End • Old A47 – Lynn Road • Main A47 Trunk Road • Boundary Road – East • Outlying Village dwellings • Roads leading North-Easterly through the parish • Roads leading North-Westerly through the parish Traditional building materials, brick of natural colour and tile roofs are common building materials throughout the parish. Residential dwellings are interspersed with farm buildings – also made from traditional materials. In the central village area, the historic core of the parish, older buildings, some Grade II Listed, sit side by side with newer homes. This diversity and mix of housing of varied design, with a lack of repetition, is part of the character and is valued by residents as endorsed by the Character Appraisal (Related Documents – Ref. 4). Any new housing is required to be appropriate in density and design and to be of high quality. It should be of sufficient size, and well laid out, and include adequate off-road parking (see Policy 4.2) and garden space. The building materials selected for use should be in harmony with the existing locality. Gardens are seen to be important as they give children a safe play space, assist with preserving and encouraging wildlife and help with the management of water drainage. Tilney All Saints is a scattered community that has a rural and open feel, with many long views into the open countryside. It will be important to ensure that new development retains this sense of openness through appropriate layout and density. If bungalows or houses are demolished, they should be replaced with properties in keeping with the surrounding buildings.
Policy 1.3: Design Planning proposals will be supported if the character of the proposed development is reflective of Tilney All Saints and High End as rural settlements, and adds to the sense of place. Proposals will be expected to demonstrate how the use of trees and other natural features will contribute to this. Proposals for linear infill development will be supported in principle. To sustain the rural and open amenity of Tilney All Saints, linear infill development of up to five dwellings will be supported. New residential development should deliver high quality design that complements the rural character and appearance of the parish. Proposals should have due regard to the Character Appraisal and should explain clearly how the design of the proposal reflects and augments the prevailing character of the vicinity. Development will be supported where:
a) The grain of the existing settlements is respected with design repetition rarely exceeding 3 consecutive dwellings;; b) Proposals have careful regard to the height, layout and scale of existing homes in the immediate area, and be well-integrated visually and functionally with existing development; c) The density and layout provide for views into the open countryside beyond and retain a rural feeling and sense of openness; d) Traditional building materials common in the Parish, as set out in the Character Appraisal, are used, although the innovative application of energy efficiency measures will be supported; e) Private outdoor amenity space is provided with all new residential developments in the form of private gardens (see also separate Policy 3.3 on open space provision); f) Significant trees and hedge masses are retained where possible as an integral part of the design of any development, except where their long- term survival would be compromised by their age or physical condition or there are exceptional and overriding benefits in accepting their loss; g) Site boundaries use native trees and hedgerow species to give a rural edge, and to ensure connectivity to existing wildlife corridors. Separate proposals on contiguous sites that are in the same ownership and/or control, or have a planning history indicating that they have been considered together, will be considered as single proposal.
4.4 Light Pollution
‘Dark Skies’ or ‘Dark Landscapes’ are recognised as contributing to rural tranquillity, as referenced in the Planning Guidance on Light Pollution (www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution).. Although sandwiched between the A47 and A17, the parish is generally very tranquil and dark after sunset (see Appendix F – map of the dark skies around Tilney All Saints). When asked if they would like to see any more street lighting in the parish 75% of the people who attended the Neighbourhood Plan consultation day said no. Policy 1.4: Street Lighting
To maintain the ‘dark skies’ and the rural amenity in Tilney All Saints, development proposals requiring a planning consent should not normally make provision for external lighting unless there are evidenced issues of highway or community safety or security; in suchcases appropriate mitigation measures are required.
Artificial light is to be kept to a minimum, consistent with a small rural parish. Where lighting is proposed that requires a planning consent, a Lighting Assessment will be expected to accompany the application Lighting Assessments should include details of the type and design of the lights proposed, the hours they will operate and proposed illumination levels. The report should also explain how the proposed lighting scheme has been designed to minimise light pollution and any mitigation measures that will be put in place.
Any permitted lighting is likely to be limited to specific operating hours only and this and any other proposed mitigation measures from within the Lighting Assessment are likely to be secured via a planning condition.
4.5 Affordable Housing
Tilney All Saints remains a much sought after village for families who are looking to own their own first home or affordable housing. Historically the Borough Council has kept an active list of persons seeking to live in the parish, at the time of writing the list contains 14 names (BCKLWN, Local Housing Profile January 2019). There are 22 affordable homes registered in Tilney All Saints, comprising 9% of the current housing stock. A review of the Housing Register (December 2018) indicates that demand for affordable housing in the parish outstrips supply. A third of applicants on this snapshot of the Register reside within Tilney All Saints. This indicates that there is a desire for people to remain within the community, but that a suitable property is unavailable or they are unable to afford current market prices, which are relatively high. Home ownership is also high. It is unlikely that there will be significant housing growth in the parish over the life of the prevailing Local Plan, and where there is development this may not trigger the need for affordable housing. To meet the need for affordable housing locally Rural Exception Sites will be supported, subject to Policy 1.5.
Exception Sites may be outside of the ‘development boundaries’ for Tilney All Saints and Tilney High End; these boundaries are shown at Appendix C and are derived from the Policies Map of the BCKLWN SADMP.
Policy 1.5: Affordable Housing Affordable housing should be provided as part of new development schemes where relevant, with the proportion being in line with the Local Plan requirements. An affordable housing mix that provides opportunities for local people to buy, and schemes for first time buyers or renters, will be strongly supported, particularly to encourage younger people to remain in the parish. Developments comprised of only affordable housing will be supported when related to local need. This includes Rural Exception Sites schemes outside of the development boundary. Exception Sites should be well related to existing development and well related to the development boundary of Tilney All Saints or Tilney High End. Affordable houses are to be retained as such in perpetuity. Furthermore, for Exception Sites the first allocation of dwellings will be to those in housing need and with a connection to the parish of Tilney All Saints in accordance with the following sequential criteria: a) Resident of the parish for the previous five years or more; b) Households with a local family connection with that local family having lived in the parish for five years or more; c) Former residents of the parish including those who have had to leave the parish due to a lack of suitable affordable housing; d) People with an employment connection to the parish dating back at least five years; e) Existing residents of the adjoining parishes of Clenchwarton, Terrington St Clement, Terrington St John, Tilney Saint Lawrence and West Lynn who have lived there for more than 3 years;
f) Existing residents of the Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk who have been living in the area for more than 5 years. For the whole of this policy, separate proposals on contiguous sites that are in the same ownership and/or control, or have a planning history indicating that they have been considered together, will be considered as a single proposal.
The policy aims to support the delivery of affordable housing, especially for younger people struggling to get on the housing ladder. However, it is felt that those with a strong local connection, either through residence, family or work, should have first refusal of any new affordable dwellings, including on exception sites.
5.0 Environment
5.1 Heritage Assets
The Character Appraisal identified a wealth of designated and non-designated (i.e. significant places of memorial; employment; education or social activities pre 1945) heritage assets that are of value to residents of Tilney All Saints. The Norfolk Historic Environment Record was also consulted. The majority of these assets are in good condition and make a significant contribution towards the character and attractiveness of the parish. These are identified at Appendix B and described below.
Policy 2.1: Heritage
‘Development proposals that will impact on the following including their settings: a) designated heritage assets, as shown in Appendices A & B, or b) non-designated heritage assets as now identified in Appendix B; or c) archaeological remains (including areas with potential for finds), should ensure that they are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. To achieve this, proposals must identify and address any adverse impacts the development may have, including on views to and from the asset, and any appropriate mitigation measures.
Tilney All Saints has a very fine Norman church (Grade I listed) with completearcades. The tower and west bays date to the 13th-14th centuries, but the rest of the exterior was remodelled during the 15th-16th century.
The church is built of Barnack Rag stone from Northamptonshire and is one of the most beautiful medieval churches in Norfolk, with a spire which can be seen for miles. Experts have agreed there was probably a place of worship on the site prior to this building, parts of which can be dated to around 1150.
Inside, there is an unusual Jacobean chancel screen of 1618, fonts and various tomb slabs including that which gave rise to the legend of Tom Hickathrift who is depicted on the village sign. The story goes that Tom fought a 12 feet giant, who had been terrorising the Marshlanders. Tom removed the wheel and axle from his cart, using them as a shield and sword. Despite being smaller than his enemy he killed the giant and was hailed as a hero.
The churchyard also features a cross, a number of memorials and a War Memorial all of which are Grade II listed (see Appendix B).
There is a Scheduled Monument (see Appendix A); a medieval settlement remains north of Kenwick Farm House. The monument, which is located in a paddock on the south side of the modern A17 and to the north of Kenwick Farm house, includes a hollow way with associated ditched enclosures, identified as crofts and tofts of a medieval settlement bordering the north side of Mear Green. The site lies on silt which post-dates the Roman period.
Some of the oldest dwellings in the village can be found clustered around the church in Church Road, with parts of Church Row cottages dating from the late 1600s. One of the oldest residential properties is The Old Hall which dates from the mid-16th Century, although Bell House, (formerly the Bell Inn, licenced in 1691), has evidence of bricks from 1592.
There are many other dwellings of historical significance including Chase Farm which was built in 1745 and thought to have been an ale house at one time, All Saints House, opposite the parish church built in the 18th century, and Orchard Cottage (Church Road) circa 1780.
For centuries the village would have been described as a farming community with the usual associated trades, and archival records show the names of blacksmiths in the village since 1718.
The village school, (which still exists and thrives today,) was built in 1845 at a cost of £500 on the site of a tithe barn and paddock which was owned by Pembroke College, Cambridge. It was known as a ‘National’ school, set up by the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church. These schools aimed to provide basic literacy, numeracy and religious education at a time when there was no government provision.
The Methodist Chapel was built in 1900, although former chapels had existed on the site since 1830. The Chapel was closed in 1968, and since 1973 has been a residential home known as Wesley Lodge.
Developers with concerns about how their development may affect the historic environment should contact Norfolk County Council Environment Service historic environment strategy and advice team directly for pre-application advice to identify archaeological implications. The historic environment strategy and advice team will continue to examine all planning applications and make recommendations to the local planning authority on archaeological mitigation if required.
5.2 Flood Risk and Drainage
Tilney All Saints is wholly constrained by Flood Zone 2 (Medium Risk) and partially constrained by Flood Zone 3 (High Risk) (see Appendix G). Environment Agency data indicates that there is risk of Surface Water Flooding within the parish, particularly within the main settlement of Tilney All Saints along Church Road, but also off School Road in Tilney High End (see Appendix G). This is also the experience of residents who have concerns that flooding has been exacerbated by new homes being built or alterations to existing homes. One particular property in the village, close to the allocated site within the BCKLWN Local Plan, flooded three times during 2018.
Policy 2.2: Flooding and Surface Water Drainage Development proposals must be designed so as to manage flood risk effectively and not increase, and wherever possible reduce, the overall level of flood risk both to the site and elsewhere. Proposals designed specifically to improve surface water drainage, such as works to reinstate an effective drainage scheme, are encouraged.
With regard to surface water flooding the expectation of the lead Local Flood Authority is that development will: • Not increase the flood risk to the site or wider area from fluvial, surface water, groundwater, sewers or artificial sources. • Have a neutral or positive impact on surface water drainage.
• Proposals must demonstrate engagement with relevant agencies. • Include appropriate measures to address any identified risk of flooding (in the following order or priority: assess, avoid, manage and mitigate flood risk). • Where appropriate undertake sequential and /or exception tests. • Locate only compatible development in areas at risk of flooding, considering the proposed vulnerability of land use. • Any Sustainable Drainage proposals (SuDS) should have an appropriate discharge location. • Priority use of source control SuDS such as permeable surfaces, rainwater harvesting and storage or green roofs and walls. Other SuDS components which convey or store surface water can also be considered. • To mitigate against the creation of additional impermeable surfaces, attenuation of greenfield (or for redevelopment sites as close to greenfield as possible) surface water runoff rates and runoff volumes within the development site boundary. • Provide clear maintenance and management proposals of structures within the development, including SuDS elements, riparian ownership of ordinary watercourses or culverts, and their associated funding mechanisms. • Confirmation of the need to seek consent before undertaking works to existing watercourses, engaging with Norfolk Council or the IDB (Kings Lynn IDB) on any proposals. • In line with good practice, the Council seeks to avoid culverting, and its consent for such works will not normally be granted except as a means of access.
The Neighbourhood Plan area has a network of working dykes and drains which drain the land and properties in the parish. In places these have been filled-in by private property owners, which has rendered parts of the system inoperative, as the backfills have either not been piped or the piping in ineffective. During wet weather these water channels can become very full. The Parish Council will continue to work with the King’s Lynn Internal Drainage Board, Lead Local Flood Authority (NCC) and Highways at Norfolk County Council to ensure dykes and culverts are maintained and remain effective and fit for purpose. The community are keen to ensure that any future development is able to demonstrate there is no increased risk of flooding and that mitigation measures are implemented to address surface water arising from development. They are also keen to protect existing water courses and ensure that additional development does not exacerbate existing problems relating to these.
5.3 Natural Environment & Landscape
Tilney All Saints is designated as a rural village in the BCKLWN 2011 Core Strategy and falls within The Fens-Settled Inland Marshes. It is defined in the Landscape Character Assessment as having panoramic views across the area and beyond, over the adjacent fen landscape. It is also defined by a strong historic integrity with historic drainage network.
The vast majority parish is classified according to Natural England as Grade 1 Agricultural Land (see Appendix H), which means it is of excellent quality. This places constraints on where further housing growth can be delivered. Farmland also retains a number of native hedges which act as corridors for wildlife. This includes hedgerow around the Allocated Site within the BCKLWN Core Strategy. There is one Tree Preservation Order covering two trees in the historical core of the village, on land behind The Vicarage, Church Road. There have also been recent sightings of Great Crested Newts within the community, as recorded by the Parish Council.
Policy 2.3: Natural Environment - Farmland
To protect the farming integrity of Tilney All Saints, development proposals on Grade 1 Agricultural Land should normally be limited to those that will contribute towards an agricultural benefit, such as provision of necessary agricultural dwellings for essential rural workers or other types of development within the countryside that may be acceptable within the NPPF.
The community feel strongly about protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of Tilney All Saints and its native habitats. In September 2017 one hundred percent of people who attended a consultation event indicated that they would like to see the rural nature of the parish maintained.
Policy 2.4: Natural Environment – Ecology
Where appropriate, development proposals are encouraged to the deliver enhancement of ecological networks, especially where they improve habitat connectivity within the Neighbourhood Area.
Wherever possible, existing natural features such as trees and hedgerows should be retained unless their removal results in an ecological gain or an improvement to important views or green open space. Supplementary planting with mixed native species which strengthens the existing network of hedgerows will be supported.
Where a biodiversity asset is lost as a result of a development it will be expected to be compensated for elsewhere within the site, to a greater ecological value. Where this is not possible, then compensation should take place elsewhere in the vicinity or within the Neighbourhood Plan Area. Net gains in biodiversity should be achieved such as through the creation of high- quality habitats, improved connectivity to other habitats, and the inclusion of design features that enable animals, especially species in decline, to move between habitats unhindered.
6.0 Community Assets and Local Green Space
6.1 Community Assets
The Parish Council recognise the following buildings and sites as Community Assets (these are shown at Appendix I) because of their acknowledged importance to the life and enjoyment of the local community. In establishing the Neighbourhood Plan the committee has observed that people enjoy living in Tilney All Saints. Residents are relatively prosperous, and for the most part enjoy good health, good housing, and an exceptional environment. Educational provision is good whilst unemployment, deprivation and crime are low.
6.1.1 Tilney All Saints Primary School
The school is situated on the corner of Shepherdsgate Road, School Road and Church Road, next to a car park maintained by the Parish Council, it is popular and is used by parents from outside the village who drop their children while parking next to the Millennium Green. The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate further buildings to accommodate expansion and/or improvements.
Policy 3.1: Tilney All Saints Primary School
Development at Tilney All Saints Primary School of a permanent extra classroom and/or additional work space areas will be supported provided the development is sympathetically designed and appropriate to the needs of the School.
Tilney All Saints Primary School has been a significant part of the local community since 1845, both as an educational provider and an employer, it is now as a church school, part of the Diocese of Ely Multi Academy Trust (DEMAT) in partnership with Anthony Curton School in Walpole St Peter about 12 minutes away by car. Parents and members of the community attend the schools’ Church services.
The school was rated Ofsted ‘Good’ in its last inspection (October 2017) is increasingly popular and has a sustained and growing intake, currently at 87 pupils (Nov 2017). It has three classes,
Dolphin Class – Reception, Year 1 and Year 2, Penguin Class Year 3 and 4, and Otter Class Year 5 and 6. The school is close to its maximum capacity of 90 pupils, and would need a new classroom to increase any further in size.
6.1.2 Tilney All Saints Village Hall
The Village Hall is built on land leased by the Parish Council and managed by Tilney All Saints Village Hall Charity’s active committee who were awarded a £44,000 grant to refurbish the building in 2017. It has a small, newly refurbished, car park, and is regularly used. It currently relies on a small annual grant from the Parish Council but is otherwise financially self-sufficient.
Policy 3.2: Village Hall Proposals to improve the viability of the established community use of the village hall by way of an extension or partial redevelopment will be supported, provided the design of the scheme and the resulting increase in use are appropriate in design terms and will not harm the amenities of adjoining residential properties. Proposals that will result in the loss of the village hall will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that it is no longer viable or that the facility can be re- provided to no less a standard of amenity and usefulness on a suitable site within the village.
This policy supports development proposals intended to secure the long-term benefit of the village hall which is important to local people. Remaining viable will require investment in updating and/or increasing the size of the facility to support new uses. The policy is in line with Community & Culture policy CS13 of the BCKLWN in that it supports the retention of existing community facilities unless they are no longer viable. For clarity, evidence to support such a case will need to show that the facility can no longer serve its community purpose or that there is no longer any community purpose. If a proposal is made to re-provide the same community benefits in a new facility, to enable a development proposal, then this must be in a suitable location and fit for that purpose.
The site of the present village hall has the capacity to accommodate extension or redevelopment in ways that are suitable to a rural location. However, the policy requires that proposals avoid increasing the use of the village hall to the extent that they may harm the amenities of adjoining residential properties, for example through traffic movements, on-street car parking and noise or light pollution.
6.2 Local Green Space
The Neighbourhood Plan recognises that some open spaces are especially important to the local community. For example, they can provide a valuable formal and informal recreational facility for both children and adults, or they can add character and interest to a community. People who have good access to open space, parks, and other leisure and recreation facilities have the opportunity to have an active and healthy lifestyle. In developing this Neighbourhood Plan the community has identified a gap in social infrastructure within the parish; currently there is no provision of a children’s play area. This was recognised by many members of the community during the consultation exercises in 2017 – 70% of people who responded to a questionnaire indicated that there were not enough facilities for children in the parish. The Neighbourhood Plan designates three Local Green Spaces. These are described below. The designation of land as Local Green Space through neighbourhood plans allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. Designation of Local Green Spaces can afford the same level of protection as Green Belt. Policy 3.3: Local Green Space The following existing open spaces are designated as Local Green Spaces: • Glebe Estate Playing Field; • The Willows; and • Medieval Settlement These are shown in detail at Appendix I. Development proposals that harm the reason for their designation or undermine their openness and amenity value will not be acceptable unless in very special circumstances. All proposals relating to these or new open spaces should be designed to a high standard to fit with the character of the Parish and, where possible, to connect with other amenity land.
6.2.1 Glebe Estate Playing Field
The Glebe Estate Playing Field is located behind the Glebe Estate, a small residential cul de sac, situated off Church Road. This area of land is rented by the Parish Council from the Borough Council, and is maintained and run by the Parish Council, for the benefit of all the residents of the village. The playing field is a relaxing area popular with dog walkers and local children. Two new swing seats were installed by the Parish Council in August 2016 and seating was put in place at the end of 2017, to further enhance the area.
6.2.2 The Willows
The Willows is a privately owned strip of land running south from the south side of the modern A17 at the west edge of the medieval settlement (see section 6.2.6 below) turning south east towards Station Road finishing just short. The land has been planted with mass of evergreen trees creating an environment to support a very varied and rich collection of wildlife. These trees protect and enhance the natural environment, improve biodiversity and help to meet the challenge of climate change.
6.2.3 Medieval Settlement
The scheduled monument, which is located in a paddock on the south side of the modern A17 and to the north of Kenwick Farm house, includes a hollow way with associated ditched enclosures, identified as crofts and tofts of a medieval settlement bordering the north side of Mear Green. The site lies on silts which post-date the Roman period.
The settlement earthworks survive well and are identifiable as remains of one of the few medieval settlements in Marshland which has decreased significantly in size since the 14th century. The hollow way, ditched enclosures and house plots will contain important archaeological information concerning the arrangement and function of the settlement, and evidence of an earlier land surface will be preserved beneath the raised platforms. The relationship of the earthworks to the adjacent medieval green, whose outline is still discernible in the modern field boundaries, gives the monument additional historic interest.
7.0 Traffic & Transport
Tilney All Saints lies around 5 miles South West of King’s Lynn bordered by the key transport corridors of the A47 and A17. Part of the settlement runs linearly along the old A47. The A17 can be seen as a barrier and is difficult to cross at peak times. From time-to-time, when traffic incidents occur on either the A47 or A17, the village is used as an alternative route and considerable traffic is generated on School Road, Shepherdsgate Road, Church Road and Church Lane. These roads do not have sufficient passing places and congestion quickly builds up, which is a cause for concern for residents. There would be strong support and encouragement for the completion of a flyover for the A17 at Pullover Roundabout. There would also be support for the completion of duelling the A47 from Norwich through to Peterborough. Some roads through the parish are very narrow in places, particularly in the older parts of the village settlement. This can cause an issue due to the number of large farm vehicles travelling through the village. Some Victorian homes do not have any off-road parking so cars are parked on the road, which adds to this issue. Car ownership has increased over the years, and this combines with the addition of work vans and visitors’ vehicles as well. This has led to an increase in parking on the road. New development will be expected to provide sufficient off-road parking and the Parish Council will continue to work to ensure that all possible parking restrictions are introduced and enforced. There is a footway network but also a number of gaps in footway provision, meaning that residents need to walk in the road in places. The parish also has a number of Public Rights of Way (see Appendix E) that connect parts of the built-up area and provide access into the countryside. There are a number of other trails around the parish that are well used, but are not designated Public Rights of Way. The Parish Council is in the process of identifying any unregistered Public Rights of Way in the parish, so that they can be evidenced and added to the Definitive Map before 1st January 2026. There is also a Restricted Byway to the east. A small proportion of households have no car and so rely heavily on public transport and local service provision. The parish is served by local bus services on the strategic routes, but the service is far more limited through the main village. Some bus services are subsidised by Norfolk County Council, which means that their viability could be questioned if patronage drops. The Neighbourhood Plan intends to improve and support public and community transport links and services by encouraging and improving the use of the public transport. The Parish Council website will continue to encourage and promote local bus services. The use of public transport will assist in reducing carbon emissions. However, the car remains the dominant mode of choice for those travelling to work, which indicates that public transport is not flexible or good enough for most commuters. Whilst car use is inevitable and expected in such a rural community, it can have negative impacts such as inappropriate speeds, which can make pedestrians and cyclists feel unsafe. Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan robustly supports reduced traffic speeds or improved speed management on existing residential streets and roads in the village. The Parish Council deploys a mobile SAM (Speed Activated Monitor) on a rotation basis at three sites within the village. There are plans to form a volunteer ‘Speedwatch’ group that would monitor the speed of traffic users through the village.
Developments will be expected to take all reasonable opportunities to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access. This could include providing new or enhanced facilities as well as improving the physical condition of existing facilities. There is an ambition for a cycle path to be created that links the village to other cycle routes in neighbouring villages and thus opening a safe cycling option to King’s Lynn which lies approximately five miles away.
Policy 4.1: Sustainable Transport
In order to support more sustainable travel choices development proposals are encouraged, on a scale appropriate to the proposal, to:
a) Provide the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging and other emerging technologies for transport; b) Demonstrate safe and sustainable transport connectivity, especially walking and/or cycling links to key local services and community facilities, particularly to the primary school, and to bus stops; c) Address and improve walking and cycling connectivity towards neighbouring villages, King’s Lynn, Wisbech and the countryside; d) Take all reasonable opportunities to promote the use of public transport, such as improving bus waiting facilities and improvements to bus services.
Policy 4.2: Car Parking
Residential development proposals are encouraged to include provision for a minimum of one off-road car parking space per bedroom. Where this standard cannot be met because of design or viability constraints, and where there is a potential for on-street parking to occur because of the needs of visitors, streets will need to be designed to safely accommodate some on-street parking, which may include parking facilities such as laybys. Well-designed on street parking schemes on through routes that function as informal traffic calming measures to help slow traffic will be supported.
Proposals by existing householders to create additional off-road car parking spaces, where a planning consent is required, will be supported as long as it is not to the detriment of the environment or flood risk.
8.0 Employment & Business
8.1 Economic Development
The village is a dormitory community with most people of working age employed within commuting distance, usually in King’s Lynn or Wisbech. There are a few locally based businesses and workplaces such as small engineering works specialising in Minis, a white goods vendor, taxi company, the primary school, golf club, small holdings, nurseries, farms and agricultural contractors. The largest single business type in the parish is agriculture, consisting of three large units. The large farms are all arable and employ a small labour force and occasional contractors, but the smaller units are horticultural nurseries, producing items such as soft leaf salad and wild flower seed. More recently a livestock unit has been established close to the village. A proportion of people employed in local business come from the village. There is also the Eagles Golf Centre and a number of small independent businesses, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, builders and kitchen fitters. These are mostly self-employed tradesmen who service and contribute to the local economy.
The Neighbourhood Planning group wishes to encourage similar small-scale businesses into the village and ensure that unsuitable and unsustainable businesses are discouraged and so prevented from damaging the local environment.
Policy 5.1: Economic Development New economic development within the development boundary that comprises a micro or small business, at a scale appropriate to the rural setting, is encouraged subject to it being demonstrated that the following have been assessed and appropriately addressed: a) Design that is appropriate to the location; b) Any adverse impact on residential amenity; c) Any adverse impact on the transport network; d) Accommodation of all related parking within its site, including for visitors; and e) Any other environmental impacts, including impacts on the historic environment.
8.2 Broadband
A significant number of people in the parish work from home. They could be more likely to make use of local services and also rely on good technological infrastructure such as broadband. It is recognised that most apparatus for Broadband does not require planning permission.
Policy 5.2: Broadband Development proposals should, on a scale appropriate to the proposal, incorporate infrastructure to accommodate the latest generation of broadband connectivity.
8.3 Renewable Energy
Renewable energy in the village context is currently limited to wind turbines, solar panels, air and ground source heating. The surrounding agricultural land in this parish is Grade 1, and consists of some of the most productive farmland in Britain. It is therefore unsuitable for the construction of large arrays of ‘solar farms’ but we do have a number of small wind turbines about 3.5 metres tall in the parish. Local opinion strongly opposes developments involving the larger type of wind turbines, not least because of its impact on the open landscape and long views.
Policy 5.3: Renewable Energy Development proposals for renewable energy, including any emerging technology thereof, are supported provided they are of a size and scale that does not detract from the rural or historic nature of Tilney All Saints.
9.0 Community Aspirational Policies
Housing and other development will be expected to contribute towards improving local services and infrastructure. The Community Infrastructure Levy is the Government’s chosen approach to set a mandatory tariff on development. It's also known as the CIL or 'the Levy'. It came into force on 6 April 2010 through the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The borough Council formally adopted the Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule January 2017, and it came into use in the February. It applies to planning decisions made from that date. CIL will allow the Borough Council to raise funds from new development in the borough. The adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan means that the parish council will be given responsibility for spending 25% of the CIL monies raised within the parish, an increase from the standard 15%.
Community Policy 1: Community Infrastructure Levy The Neighbourhood Plan priorities for investing the 25% CIL money raised by the borough council and managed by the Parish Council will be used to meet agreed community needs such as: • New children’s playground at the Millennium Green and improved facilities at the Glebe Estate playing field; • Village Hall improvements; • Maintenance of Village Hall, Millennium Green, Glebe Estate Playing Field and allotments; and • Walking and cycle network improvements within the parish.
10.0 Monitoring
The Neighbourhood Plan covers the period 2020 to 2036. Once the Plan is adopted then any developments that take place during this time will need to take account of the Neighbourhood Plan policies. It is important to ensure this is monitored and that community projects and priorities identified through the Neighbourhood Planning process are achieved.
The delivery of the Neighbourhood Plan will require co-ordinated action involving a number of statutory and non-statutory agencies, private sector organisations and the local community.
Most importantly, development will inevitably take place during this time, both in the parish and outside it, and this will have an impact on the community, as well as on the physical fabric of the village. The Borough Council will determine planning applications in Tilney All Saints.
However, it will be essential to the long-term success of the Plan that developments in Tilney All Saints itself and neighbouring parishes are monitored and reviewed against the Plan’s objectives and against the policies.
Subject to available resources, the Parish Council will prepare regular monitoring reports, which will be published on the village website and issued to the Borough Council.
In addition to regular monitoring, the plan will as a minimum be fully reviewed within five years of it being adopted.
This will be to assess whether the policies need updating due to changes in national policy and will take into account any change in circumstances affecting the parish.
An earlier review may be triggered by:
• The adoption of a new Local Plan by the Borough Council, so as to identify any conflict between the Neighbourhood Plan and the non-strategic policies in the local plan; or • The identification by the regular monitoring process of any major issues with the plan.
Tilney All Saints Parish Council will lead the monitoring of the Neighbourhood Plan. This will involve the coordinated input of the community and statutory agencies.
Appendix A – Scheduled Monument
Appendix B – Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets Listed Buildings
1. Church Of All Saints 2. All Saints House 3. Barn Abutting All Saints House Tilney All Saints, King’s Tilney All Saints, King’s Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn And Lynn And West Norfolk, Lynn And West Norfolk, West Norfolk, Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Copyright Graham Brown Copyright TASLHG Copyright Graham Brown
4. Cross Base 8 Metres 5. Memorial 13 Metres 6. Old Vicarage South Of Porch Of Church South Of Nave Of Church Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn And Of All Saints Of All Saints West Norfolk, Norfolk Tilney All Saints, King’s Tilney All Saints, King’s Copyright Alan Francis Polaine Lynn And West Norfolk, Lynn And West Norfolk, Norfolk Norfolk Copyright Graham Brown Copyright Graham Brown
7. Barn Adjacent To Ivy 8. Tilney Hall 9. Row Of Memorial Stones House Tilney All Saints, King’s Between 2 And 12 Metres South Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn And West Norfolk, Of Porch Of Church Of All Saints Lynn And West Norfolk, Norfolk Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn And Norfolk Copyright TASLHG West Norfolk, Norfolk Copyright Alan Francis Copyright Graham Brown Polaine
10. Memorial 14 Metres 11. Memorial 11 Metres South 12. Church Farmhouse South Of Nave Of Church Of Of Nave Of Church Of All Tilney All Saints, King’s All Saints Saints Lynn And West Norfolk, Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn Norfolk And West Norfolk, Norfolk And West Norfolk, Norfolk Copyright TASLHG Copyright Graham Brown Copyright Graham Brown
13. Barn At Church Farm 14. Tilney Old Hall Including 15. War Memorial Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn Forecourt Walls Tilney All Saints, King’s And West Norfolk, Norfolk Tilney All Saints, King’s Lynn Lynn And West Norfolk, Copyright TASLHG And West Norfolk, Norfolk Norfolk Copyright TASLHG Copyright TASLHG
Non-designated Heritage Assets Non-designated heritage assets are buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets.
Tilney All Saints has five non-designated heritage assets which are described below and shown on the accompanying map.
Bury Manor Bury Manor, an 18th century manor house, was recorded by various 19th century maps and documents. It was shown as a group of large buildings with a lake in the grounds to the west. The Local History Group started excavating the site in 2013 recovering medieval to post-medieval pottery sherds; undated and post-medieval to modern ceramic building material; post-medieval clay tobacco pipe fragments; post-medieval to modern glass shards and undated animal bones and clinker. Further details can be found at https://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/ NHER No: 42014.
Chase Farm Chase Farm is an 18th Century farm house which was thought to have been an ale house at one time. During restoration work in 1964 various artefacts were unearthed in the process including ancient coins and pottery the oldest, a farthing, dates from the 13th century. A Local History Group dig in 2013 found a number of items which were identified as Grimston Ware (1080-1400). Further information can be found in a book entitled “House History – Chase Fruit Farm” which is available in the heritage centre in the village church.
Orchard Cottage Orchard Cottage was originally built as two farm cottages. The earliest record shows the cottages on Fadens map dated 1747 and it's one of a handful of dwellings of this type remaining in the village. The cottages are described in a memoir written by Cissie Gardiner who was born there in 1928 and wrote about her life in Tilney All Saints (a copy of this book can be found in the heritage centre in the village church).
The Bell Inn The Bell Inn, now known as Bell House, is probably one of the oldest buildings in the village having been licensed as an inn since 1691. However, it could be older, as a brick in the chimney (possibly moved from elsewhere in the property) is dated 1592. It was licensed until 1967. Further information can be found in a book entitled “Tilney All Saints in Living Memory” which is available in the heritage centre in the village church.
The Old Shore Boat Inn The Old Shore Boat is a former public house that can trace its history back to 1784 when it was called ‘The Boat’. By 1869 the name had become ‘The Shove Boat’. This may have referred to its role in stabling horses that may have been used to assist boats around the bend in the river before it was recut. By 1879 the name Shore Boat was given, this could be attributed by a misinterpretation of an ‘R’ for a ‘V’ and the name remains today. During World War II the premises were used as the rally point for the local home guard who were recruited from nearby villages and usually met in the cellar. The Shore Boat closed as a public house in 1961 and was initially turned into two flats before becoming a family home in 1981.
Appendix C – Development Boundaries and Strategic Gap Development Boundaries
Strategic Gap
Appendix D –Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area
Appendix E – Public Rights of Way Definitive Statements for the Parish of Tilney All Saints February 2020
Each of these footpaths are enjoyed by residents of Tilney All Saints parish, enabling them to access the wider countryside. Although many of the footpaths start within the parish a number travel into the neighbouring parish.
Starting in the area west of Tilney All Saints Church, Map 1. Footpath 1 goes from Church Road to the Parish Boundary at Greens Lane. Starting on the west (A) of Church Road approximately midway between Church Farm and All Saints Church, it then proceeds almost due west to (B) then turn north-west then west to point (C) then crosses Green’s Lane then proceeding north-west to the parish boundary.
Footpath 2 also starts at (A) at the west of Church Road, shares the same route to (B) but then goes south-west, then north-west along a concrete farm track to come out onto Shepherdsgate Road (D) at the entrance to Chase Farm.
Footpath 3 starts approximately halfway along School Road, crossing a small footbridge between properties No. 26 and 28 near (E) to pass between fences to enter Eagles Golf Centre which it crosses travelling east-north-east, eventually crossing another footbridge into a field to join Church Lane at (F).
Map 2. Footpath 4 starts at the south-east corner of Tilney All Saints Church yard (an alternative start is at the track between Bell House, previously the Bell Inn, and Church Row Cottages). These two branches join at the footbridge across the dyke, then travel south (G) and then exit at Church Lane.
Footpath 5 starts with footpath 4, but diverges at (G) to travel south-east to the Shore Boat Inn (I).
Map 3. Footpath 6 commences at the corner of the disused church at Islington (J) and travels south-east to join footpath 7 at (K).
Footpath 7 commences at the south side of the roundabout on the A47, and goes through land adjacent to Islington Hall, travelling south-south-east to (M) and finishing at (N) on Wiggenhall Road.
Map 4. Footpath 8, a Restricted Byway, commences from A47, south west of Pear Tree House (S), and runs southwards to North Sea bank (T).
Maps
Appendix F – Dark Skies
Appendix G – Flood Risks From the River or the Sea
Source: flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk From Surface Water
Source: flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk
Appendix H – East Region Agricultural Land Classification
Appendix I – Community Assets and Local Green Space Community Assets
Local Green Space
Independent Examiners Report of the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan April 2021
TILNEY ALL SAINTS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2016 - 2036
The Report of the Independent Examiner to the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk on the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan
Andrew Matheson MSc MPA DipTP MRTPI FCIH Independent Examiner 20th April 2021
Summary
I was appointed by the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, in agreement with the Tilney All Saints Parish Council, in January 2021 to undertake the Independent Examination of the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan.
The Examination has been undertaken by written representations.
The Neighbourhood Plan proposes a local range of policies and seeks to bring forward positive and sustainable development in the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area. There is an evident focus on safeguarding the very distinctive, local character of the area whilst accommodating future change and growth.
The Plan has been underpinned by extensive community support and engagement. The social, environmental and economic aspects of the issues identified have been brought together into a coherent plan which adds appropriate local detail to sit alongside the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Core Strategy.
Subject to a series of recommended modifications set out in this Report I have concluded that the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan meets all the necessary legal requirements and should proceed to referendum.
I recommend that the referendum should be held within the Neighbourhood Area.
Report Index Page Introduction 3
The Role of the Independent Examiner 3
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area 5
Consultation 5
Representations Received 6
The Neighbourhood Plan 6
Basic Conditions 7
The Plan in Detail: 8
Front Cover 8
Document Control 8
Contents & Policy Index 8
Related Documents 8
1. Introduction 9
2. Neighbourhood Planning 9
3. Vision and Objectives 9
4. Housing 10
4.1 Development 10
4.2 Housing Mix and Type 10
4.3 Design 11
4.4 Light Pollution 12
4.5 Affordable Housing 12
5. Environment 13
5.1 Heritage Assets 13
5.2 Flood Risk and Drainage 14
5.3 Natural Environment and Landscape 15
6. Community Assets and Local Green Space 16
6.1 Community Assets 16
6.2 Local Green Space 17
6.3 Community Infrastructure Levy 18
7. Traffic and Transport 18
7.1 Sustainable Transport 18
7.2 Car Parking 19
8. Employment and Business 19
8.1 Economic Development 19
8.2 Broadband 20
8.3 Renewable Energy 20
9. Implementation and Monitoring 20
Appendices 21
EU and ECHR Obligations 23
Conclusions 24
Listing of Recommendations 25
Introduction This report sets out the findings of the Independent Examination of the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan 2016 - 2036. The Plan was submitted to The Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk by Tilney All Saints Parish Council in their capacity as the ‘qualifying body’ responsible for preparing the Neighbourhood Plan.
Neighbourhood Plans were introduced into the planning process by the Localism Act 2011. They aim to allow local communities to take responsibility for guiding development in their area. This approach was subsequently incorporated within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012 and this continues to be the principal element of national planning policy. A new NPPF was published in July 2018, updated in February 2019, and it is against the content of this NPPF that the Plan will be examined.
This report assesses whether the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan is legally compliant and meets the ‘basic conditions’ that such plans are required to meet. It also considers the content of the Plan and, where necessary, recommends modifications to its policies and supporting text. This report also provides a recommendation as to whether the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum. If this is the case and that referendum results in a positive outcome, the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan would then be used in the process of determining planning applications within the Plan boundary as an integral part of the wider Development Plan.
The Role of the Independent Examiner The Examiner’s role is to ensure that any submitted Neighbourhood Plan meets the legislative and procedural requirements. I was appointed by The Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, in agreement with Tilney All Saints Parish Council, to conduct the Examination of the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan and to report my findings. I am independent of both the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and Tilney All Saints Parish Council. I do not have any interest in any land that may be affected by the Plan.
I possess the appropriate qualifications and experience to undertake this role. I have over 40 years’ experience in various local authorities and third sector body as well as with the professional body for planners in the United Kingdom. I am a Chartered Town Planner and a panel member for the Neighbourhood Planning Independent Examiner Referral Service (NPIERS). I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
In my role as Independent Examiner I am required to recommend one of the following outcomes of the Examination: • the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan is submitted to a referendum; or • the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum as modified (based on my recommendations); or • the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan does not proceed to referendum on the basis that it does not meet the necessary legal requirements. As part of this process I must consider whether the submitted Plan meets the Basic Conditions as set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If recommending that the Neighbourhood Plan should go forward to referendum, I must then consider whether or not the referendum area should extend beyond the Neighbourhood Area to which the Plan relates.
In examining the Plan, I am also required, under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to check whether: • the policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated Neighbourhood Area in line with the requirements of Section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; • the Neighbourhood Plan meets the requirements of Section 38B of the 2004 Act (the Plan must specify the period to which it has effect, must not include provision about development that is excluded development, and must not relate to more than one Neighbourhood Area); • the Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared for an area that has been designated under Section 61G of the Localism Act and has been developed and submitted for examination by a qualifying body. These are helpfully covered in the submitted Basic Conditions Statement and, subject to the contents of this Report, I can confirm that I am satisfied that each of the above points has been properly addressed and met.
In undertaking this Examination I have considered the following documents: • Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan 2016 - 2036 as submitted • Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions Statement (October 2020) • Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement (October 2020) • Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk screening report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment for the emerging Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Development Plan (March 2019) • Content at: https://tilneyallsaintspc.wixsite.com/taspc/neighbourhood-plan • Content at: www.west- norfolk.gov.uk/info/20127/neighbourhood_plans/859/tilney_all_saints_neighbo urhood_plan • Representations made to the Regulation 16 public consultation on the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan • The Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Core Strategy adopted in July 2011 • The Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Site Allocations and Development Strategy adopted in September 2016 • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) • Neighbourhood Planning Regulations (2012) • Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (March 2014 and subsequent updates)
It would be normal practice as part of an Examination to visit the Neighbourhood Area to see and assess the Plan details on the ground. However, in view of the Government pandemic guidelines to limit travel to that which is essential, I had to reach a view on the necessity of such a visit. The use of Google maps/Street View is rarely a satisfactory substitute for exploring the locality in person. However, I noted that the Plan does not allocate land for development and in only two Policies is land use designated – as Strategic Gap and Local Green Space, both of which seek to sustain existing uses. On balance therefore, I concluded that the benefits of concluding the Examination without further delay outweighed the benefits that might arise from a visit.
The legislation establishes that, as a general rule, Neighbourhood Plan examinations should be held without a public hearing, by written representations only. Having considered all the information before me, including the representations made to the submitted plan which I felt made their points with clarity, I was satisfied that the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan could be examined without the need for a public hearing and I advised The Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk accordingly. The Qualifying Body and the Local Planning Authority have helpfully responded to my enquiries so that I may
have a thorough understanding of the facts and thinking behind the Plan, and the correspondence is being shown on the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Neighbourhood Planning website for the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan.
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area A map showing the boundary of the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area has been provided within the Neighbourhood Plan. Further to an application made by Tilney All Saints Parish Council, the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk approved the designation of the Neighbourhood Area on 14th June 2016. This satisfied the requirement in line with the purposes of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan under section 61G(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Consultation In accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, the Qualifying Body has prepared a Consultation Statement to accompany the Plan.
The Planning Practice Guidance says: “A qualifying body should be inclusive and open in the preparation of its Neighbourhood Plan [or Order] and ensure that the wider community: • is kept fully informed of what is being proposed • is able to make their views known throughout the process • has opportunities to be actively involved in shaping the emerging Neighbourhood Plan [or Order] • is made aware of how their views have informed the draft Neighbourhood Plan [or Order].” (Reference ID: 41-047-20140306)
The submitted Consultation Statement confirms that “A significant amount of work went locally into engaging with the community early in development of the plan, so that it could be informed by views of local people. Consultation events took place at key points in the development process, and where decisions needed to be taken, for example, on local green spaces. A range of events and methods were used and at every opportunity the results were analysed and shared with local people.”
I note that as early as May 2016 a Working Group for the Neighbourhood Plan was established with membership including local residents and Parish Councillors. During 2016 two significant public consultation events were held, one as part of a Village Picnic and the other, a more formal event, was publicised in the local press, posters on village noticeboards, advertised on the Parish Council website and on a flyer distributed to all households with invitations sent directly to local businesses & landowners. These events were followed by the creation of website and Facebook pages to keep the community up-todate with progress. Feedback from the community on the importance of retaining Tilney’s heritage led to the Working Group carrying out a Character Appraisal. General feedback was used to inform a residents’ survey.
In February 2019 there was an ‘Issues and Options’ consultation involving an event at the Village Hall and a survey which was distributed to all households but also available online. 63 people responded to the survey (a 25% rate of return) and the responses were analysed to inform a public consultation draft of the Neighbourhood Plan which was then the subject of a Regulation 14 consultation in July/August 2019.
The opening of the Regulation 14 consultation was accompanied by a press release which resulted in an article being published in the Lynn News. An advert was also placed on the local community Next Door forum, which many residents of the village are signed up to. A flyer was sent to every household and business. This informed people of the drop-in events, how they could access the draft plan, make representations and the timeframe for doing so. The flyer included a survey form and link to the online survey. During the consultation period the Neighbourhood Plan was available for download along with all the supporting documents on the website. Hard copies of the plan were available to view at Tilney All Saints Village Hall on consultation days or from the Working Group and several people did request, and look at, hard copies of the plan at home. Two drop-in sessions took place offering people the opportunity to discuss the draft plan with members of the Working Group; people were encouraged to complete a response form at the event. An email was sent directly to each of the statutory consultees. Throughout the consultation it was possible for people to make representations by: • Completing an online survey • Filling in a hard copy of the survey • Providing feedback via letter or electronically to the Working Group. Responses at the end of the consultation period there were 36 completed forms, three of these were completed by local businesses, the rest from individual residents. The Consultation Statement shows how these comments influenced the redrafting of the Plan prior to submission.
Accordingly, overall, I am satisfied that the consultation process accords with the requirements of the Regulations and the Practice Guidance and that, in having regard to national policy and guidance, the Basic Conditions have been met. In reaching my own conclusions about the specifics of the content of the Plan I will later note points of agreement or disagreement with Regulation 16 representations, just as the Qualifying Body has already done for earlier consultations. That does not imply or suggest that the consultation has been inadequate, merely that a test against the Basic Conditions is being applied.
Representations Received Consultation on the submitted Plan, in accordance with Neighbourhood Planning Regulation 16, was undertaken by The Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk from Monday 2nd November to Monday 28th December 2020. I have been passed the representations – 7 in total – which were generated by the consultation and which are included alongside the submitted Plan on the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Neighbourhood Planning website. I have not mentioned every representation individually within the Report but this is not because they have not been thoroughly read and considered in relation to my Examiner role, rather their detail may not add to the pressing of my related recommendations which must ensure that the Basic Conditions are met.
The Neighbourhood Plan Tilney All Saints Parish Council is to be congratulated on its extensive efforts to produce a Neighbourhood Plan for their area that will guide development activity over the period to 2036. I can see that a sustained effort has been put into developing a Plan around a vision for Tilney All Saints: “Tilney All Saints aims to continue to be a small rural parish, encompassing a closely supportive community with a strong parish identity. It has a peaceful historic nature, and over the years the landscape, setting and character of the village have been enhanced. The village continues as a thriving, desirable, attractive and viable residential area and the facilities in the parish have gradually improved to meet the needs of old and new residents. Communications and connectivity have been maintained
or even improved by better local bus services, the preservation of footpaths and cycle routes and the provision of universal, good quality broadband and other utilities. The many heritage assets and important open green spaces have been protected, and local wildlife supported, including any protected species, and the parish has worked towards becoming carbon neutral.”
The Plan document is well presented with a combination of text, images and Policies that are, subject to the specific points that I make below, well laid out and helpful for the reader. The Plan has been kept to a manageable length by not overextending the potential subject matter and the coverage of that.
It is an expectation of Neighbourhood Plans that they should address the issues that are identified through community consultation, set within the context of higher-level planning policies. There is no prescribed content and no requirement that the robustness of proposals should be tested to the extent prescribed for Local Plans. Where there has been a failure by the Qualifying Body to address an issue in the round, leading to an inadequate statement of policy, it is part of my role wherever possible to see that the community’s intent is sustained in an appropriately modified wording for the policy. It is evident that the community has made positive use of “direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area” (Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 41-001-20140306).
Individually I can see that the Policies address legitimate matters for a Neighbourhood Plan as identified with the community. I will later look at the Policies in turn so as to ensure that the Basic Conditions are met, which include an obligation to have regard to Local Plan strategic policies. Having considered all the evidence and representations submitted as part of the Examination I am satisfied that the submitted Plan has had regard to national planning policies and guidance in general terms. It works from a positive vision for the future of the Neighbourhood Area and promotes policies that are, subject to amendment to variable degrees, proportionate and sustainable. The Plan sets out the community’s priorities whilst seeking to identify and safeguard Tilney All Saints distinctive features and character. The plan-making had to find ways to reconcile the external challenges that are perceived as likely to affect the area with the positive vision agreed with the community. All such difficult tasks were approached with transparency, with input as required and support from the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk.
However, in the writing up of the work into the Plan document, it is sometimes the case that the phraseology is imprecise, not helpful, or it falls short in justifying aspects of the selected policy. This is not uncommon in a community-prepared planning document and something that can readily be addressed in most instances. Accordingly, I have been obliged to recommend modifications so as to ensure both clarity and meeting of the ‘Basic Conditions’. In particular, Plan policies as submitted may not meet the obligation to “provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency” (NPPF para 17). The significance of this expectation was not always fully appreciated by the Qualifying Body who seemed to envisage some postplanning application interpretation of policy. I bring this particular reference to the fore because it will be evident as I examine the policies individually and consider whether they meet or can meet the ‘Basic Conditions’.
Basic Conditions The Independent Examiner is required to consider whether a Neighbourhood Plan meets the “Basic Conditions”, as set out in law following the Localism Act 2011; in December 2018 a fifth Basic Condition was added relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In order to meet the Basic Conditions, the Plan must:
•have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State; •contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; •be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Plan for the area; •be compatible with European Union (EU) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations; •not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017(d).
The submitted Basic Conditions Statement has very helpfully set out to address the issues in relation to these requirements in the same order as above and has tabulated the relationship between the policy content of the Plan and its higher tier equivalents. I note that the Local Plan is the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan comprised of the Core Strategy adopted in July 2011 and the Site Allocations and Development Strategy adopted in September 2016. As the Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate land for development and is supportive of Tilney All Saints’ rural features, I am satisfied that the making of the Plan will not breach the Basic Condition relating to the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
I have examined and will below consider the Neighbourhood Plan against all of the Basic Conditions above, utilising the supporting material provided in the Basic Conditions Statement and other available evidence as appropriate.
The Plan in Detail I will address the aspects of the Neighbourhood Plan content that are relevant to the Examination in the same sequence as the Plan. Recommendations are identified with a bold heading and italics, and I have brought them together as a list at the end of the Report.
Front cover A Neighbourhood Plan must specify the period during which it is to have effect. I note that there is a prominent reference to the Plan period 2016 – 2036 on the front cover. The Qualifying Body has explained that the dates were chosen to coincide with the start of work on the Plan and the end date of the Local Authority Core Strategy. However, since the Neighbourhood Plan was not submitted until 2020 and does not rely on a specific set of time-related data, it would be misleading to suggest that 2016 has any relevance to the Plan content. Accordingly, I recommend that the Plan period is updated to 2020 – 2036. The cover reference to “Consultation Document” can now be removed.
Document Control Now that the Plan is going forward to referendum, after which it will become part of the Development Plan, the administrative content has served its purpose and should be removed.
Contents & Policy Index The Contents and Index lists will need to be reviewed once the text has been amended to accommodate the recommendations from this Report.
Related Documents I note that references for “Related Documents” are included here but there is no footnote indicating where the documents that are particular to the Plan (eg the Character Appraisal) can be accessed. The
Marine Management Organisation has requested the addition of a reference to the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans.
Recommendation 1: 1.1 On the front cover and any later references amend the Plan period from “2016 – 2036” to ‘2020 – 2036’.
1.2 Remove the heading “Document Control” and the related admin content of 0.i, 0.ii, 0.v and 0.vi and renumber the remaining content appropriately.
1.3 Review the “Contents” and “Policy Index” pages once the Plan text has been amended to accommodate the recommendations from this Report.
1.4 Amend the “Related Documents” content to add a source reference(s) for the first five documents that are particular to the Neighbourhood Plan; add a reference to the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans.
1.0 Introduction I agree with the local authority that this section “Provides a very useful appreciation of the area and how this has evolved over time”. However, there are a couple of points to be addressed for clarity. As I will note later under Section 2, the map at Appendix A needs to identify the Neighbourhood Area and therefore, to avoid confusion, the reference to Appendix A in the opening sentence of Section 1 should be omitted. The Qualifying Body has advised that the new development referenced in the ninth paragraph has now been constructed and so that paragraph should be updated.
Recommendation 2: Under the heading “1 Introduction”: 2.1 Delete “(see Appendix A)” from the first sentence.
2.2 In the ninth paragraph replace the second and third sentences with: ‘On a population pro- rota basis Tilney All Saints received an allocation of 5 new dwellings on a site (see Appendix D, G97.1 ref No. 329 of the Local Development Framework) on the corner of School Road and Lynn Road and these have now been constructed.’
2.0 Neighbourhood Planning 2.1 Process The map at Appendix A is required to identify the “Neighbourhood Area” not the “Neighbourhood Plan Area” and so that is what the text should show. I will address the Appendices later in this Report. At the suggestion of the Qualifying Body, an explanatory note is to be added here relating to how the Plan policies should be read.
Recommendation 3: Under the heading “2.0 Neighbourhood Planning” and sub-heading “2.1 Process”: 3.1 In the first and third paragraphs replace “Neighbourhood Plan Area” with ‘Neighbourhood Area’.
3.2 Add at the end of the third paragraph: ‘Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should not be viewed in isolation but have been developed to work holistically.’
3.0 Vision and Objectives
3.1 Vision It is, in some parts, difficult to distinguish whether the Vision statement is a factual one about present day Tilney All Saints or an ambition for the future. The Qualifying Body has agreed that some changes would make the intent of a forward-looking statement clearer.
Recommendation 4:
Under the heading “3.0 Vision and Objectives” and sub-heading “3.1 Vision” reword the content after the second sentence as follows: ‘The village will continue as a thriving, desirable, attractive and viable residential area and the facilities in the Parish will have gradually improved to meet the needs of old and new residents. Communications and connectivity will have been maintained or even improved by better local bus services, the preservation of footpaths and cycle routes and the provision of universal, good quality broadband and other utilities. The many heritage assets and important open green spaces will have been protected, and local wildlife supported, including any protected species, and the Parish will have worked towards becoming carbon neutral.’
4.0 Housing 4.1 Development
I note that the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk’s (BCKLWN) Core Strategy Policy CS12 provides for “settlement gaps” to be acknowledged as significant features of “local distinctiveness” which is to be protected, conserved and, where possible, enhanced. Further the BCKLWN Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMP) subsequently applies the concept of the “strategic gap” to ensure separation between communities. It is therefore legitimate for the Neighbourhood Plan to seek to apply that concept at the parish scale.
However, I noted to the Qualifying Body that the area of the Strategic Gap proposed by Policy 1.1 is also the subject of Local Green Space proposals (Policy 3.3) and since these policy approaches were designed to achieve similar but not exactly similar objectives, there was an internal policy conflict within the Plan. The Qualifying Body agreed with my initial assessment that Policy 1.1 was more in keeping with their policy objective than the coincident parts of Policy 3.3. Accordingly, Policy 1.1 can proceed on the basis that the overlapping parts of Policy 3.3 will be removed.
In relation to the wording of Policy 1.1 two matters arise: i. The boundary of the “Gap” would be better defined (map-wise) and understood if combined with the Development Boundaries (with their designation source provided) as presently shown in Appendix D; I will address the Appendices later in this Report. ii. Anglian Water has commented: “We welcome this amended wording which is consistent with our previous representations. But for clarity it is suggested that the wording is amended as follows: 'a) it is consistent with policies for development in the countryside including essential infrastructure provided by utility companies'”.
Recommendation 5: Under the sub-heading “4.1 Development”: 5.1 Amend the wording of Policy 1.1 to: 5.1.1 Replace the reference to “Appendix E” with ‘Appendix D’.
5.1.2 In element (a) replace “and might include” with ‘including’.
5.2 In the paragraph immediately following the Policy: 5.2.1 In the first sentence delete “elsewhere and”.
5.2.2 In the second sentence replace “Appendix E” with ‘Appendix D’.
As amended Policy 1.1 meets the Basic Conditions.
4.2 Housing Mix & Type I note that a context for Policy 1.2 is provided by BCKLWN Core Strategy Policy CS09. Although the analysis of the local housing trends from census data is interesting it does not amount to an assessment of local housing requirements upon which a level of detail such as “minimum of 20%” can be justified. The Policy itself expects the housing mix to “reflect local need using the best available evidence” and this will undoubtedly vary over the Plan period to 2036. Accordingly, and because only small-scale development is supported through Core Strategy Policy CS09, the Policy needs to be framed more flexibly to allow schemes to achieve viability across variably configured sites.
I noted an internal conflict between Policy 1.3 – which suggests that individual developments should not exceed 5 dwellings to be acceptable – and Policy 1.2 – which says that it only applies to developments of 5 dwellings “or more”. In becoming more flexible I consider that a dwelling range for Policy 1.2 can be dispensed with.
Not least because their requirements and application will change over time, it is not the role of a Neighbourhood Plan to enforce national space standards for housing.
Recommendation 6: Under the sub-heading “4.2 Housing Mix & Type” and within Policy 1.2: 6.1 Reword the first paragraph as follows: ‘Housing proposals should provide an appropriate mix of housing types, tenures and sizes, and these should demonstrably reflect local need using the best available evidence. This applies to open-market and affordable housing combined, and can include homes designed to Lifetime Homes Standard. To achieve a more diverse housing stock, proposals should include dwellings of two bedrooms or fewer, including dwellings suitable for or easily adaptable for older or less mobile residents.’
6.2 In the second paragraph delete “the required proportion of” and “to that level”, and replace “requirements” with ‘expectations’.
6.3 In the first sentence of the paragraph immediately following the Policy replace “will be” with ‘is’. As amended Policy 1.2 meets the Basic Conditions.
4.3 Design National (NPPF section 12) and local (Core Strategy Policy CS08) policy actively supports good design for new development. It is therefore appropriate for a Neighbourhood Plan to provide local detail – NPPF paragraph 125 notes that “Neighbourhood plans can play an important role in identifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected in development.” To this end I
suggested to the Qualifying Body that the “Character Appraisal” carried out as part of the Plan preparations should become part of the Plan, perhaps as an Appendix; however, the Qualifying Body preferred to leave the Appraisal as a reference document.
As noted earlier, Plan policies must meet the obligation to “provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency” (NPPF para 17). In a number of respects the wording of Policy 1.3 falls short of the clarity required for ease of application. In response to my queries the Qualifying Body responded that the Parish Council would act as “guardians” of the character of the Parish but this can only be achieved through clarity in the Policy since their role in the determination of planning applications remains as a consultee. Accordingly, a number of amendments or deletions have been agreed with the Qualifying Body as necessary to improve readability.
Recommendation 7: Under the sub-heading “4.3 Design” and within Policy 1.3: 7.1 In the second paragraph reword the first and second sentences as: ‘Proposals for linear infill development will be supported in principle. To sustain the rural and open amenity of Tilney All Saints, linear infill development of up to five dwellings will be supported’; delete the third sentence.
7.2 In the third paragraph: 7.2.1 In the third sentence replace “permitted” with ‘supported’.
7.2.2 Replace element (a) with: ‘The grain of the existing settlements is respected with design repetition rarely exceeding 3 consecutive dwellings’.
7.2.3 Add a new element (d) as follows and renumber subsequent elements accordingly: ‘Traditional building materials common in the Parish, as set out in the Character Appraisal, are used, although the innovative application of energy efficiency measures will be supported.’
7.2.4 In element (d) delete “that can be accessed without going through the house”.
7.2.5 In element (f) replace “are soft, preferably using” with ‘use’.
7.2.6 Delete the fourth paragraph as it has been incorporated within paragraph three.
As amended Policy 1.3 meets the Basic Conditions.
4.4 Light Pollution I can appreciate that Policy 1.4 is relevant in a rural location, and the NPPF (paragraph 180(c) addresses the issue. The BCKLWN SADMP Policy DM 15 on Environment, Design and Amenity also acknowledges that “light pollution” is a matter to be addressed in new development. The Policy must however have regard for the fact that the installation of street lighting by a local authority is permitted development (part 12 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995) and most domestic security lighting will also be permitted development. There are therefore limits within which the Policy must operate.
Referencing out of date documents such as the 2003 “NCC Environmental Lighting Zones
Policy” does not provide evidence appropriate to a Plan becoming part of the Development Plan. Whilst the Government Planning Guidance on Light Pollution (www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution) generally prefers the term “dark landscape” to “dark sky”, it does provide evidence and a current and appropriate reference.
Recommendation 8: Under the sub-heading “4.4 Light Pollution”: 8.1 Reword the first sentence of the first paragraph as: ‘‘Dark Skies’ or ‘Dark Landscapes’ are recognised as contributing to rural tranquillity, as referenced in the Planning Guidance on Light Pollution (www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution).’
8.2 Reword Policy 1.4 as follows: ‘To maintain the ‘dark skies’ and the rural amenity in Tilney All Saints, development proposals requiring a planning consent should not normally make provision for external lighting unless there are evidenced issues of highway or community safety or security; in such cases appropriate mitigation measures are required.’
8.3 In the paragraph that follows the Policy, replace the second sentence with: ‘Where lighting is proposed that requires a planning consent, a Lighting Assessment will be expected to accompany the application.’
As amended Policy 1.4 meets the Basic Conditions.
4.5 Affordable Housing The BCKLWN Core Strategy at paragraph 6.5.2, in line with NPPF expectations (paragraph 77), acknowledges that “Rural exception sites can be used to enable the Council to deliver affordable housing in rural communities on sites not otherwise available for residential development”. However, Policy 1.5, in line with the definition of rural exception sites in the NPPF Glossary, needs to ensure that the housing provided via this route is retained as affordable in perpetuity.
From an exchange of comments with the Qualifying Body I am aware that the data sources quoted in the pre-amble are not the most up to date, and for the benefit of a Plan submitted in 2020 these references should be updated. Also, Policy 1.5 includes the first reference to “development boundaries” within the Plan and although a map in an Appendix defines these, the concept and its source should be explained briefly.
Recommendation 9: Under the sub-heading “4.5 Affordable Housing”: 9.1 In the first and second paragraphs update the references, and data if required) to the “Local Housing Profile” and “Housing Register”.
9.2 Within the third paragraph, and also the second paragraph of Policy 1.5, replace “local plan” with ‘Local Plan’.
9.3 Add to the third paragraph: ‘Exception Sites may be outside of the ‘development boundaries’ for Tilney All Saints and Tilney High End; these boundaries are shown at Appendix D and are derived from the Policies Map of the BCKLWN SADMP.’
9.4 Within Policy 1.5:
9.4.1 In the first sentence of the second paragraph replace “comprising” with ‘comprised’.
9.4.2 In the third sentence of the second paragraph replace “have reasonable sustainable access to village services” with ‘well related to the development boundary of Tilney All Saints or Tilney High End’.
9.4.3 Add after the third sentence of the second paragraph: ‘Affordable houses are to be retained as such in perpetuity.’
9.4.4 In the fourth sentence of the second paragraph replace “priority” with ’first’.
9.4.5 Move the third paragraph to be a continuation of the first paragraph (since both relate to non-Exception Sites).
As amended Policy 1.5 meets the Basic Conditions.
5.0 Environment Within the opening parts of this section of the Plan, the preamble/introductory text has been altered to a post-Policy text, which is not always helpful to the understanding of the context for the Policy; accordingly, I recommend that the format used for the other Plan sections is maintained for Section 5.
5.1 Heritage Assets The NPPF supports specific attention to heritage assets (section 16) as does the BCKLWN Core Strategy for the local context (Policy CS08). Policy 2.1, whilst acknowledging the listed heritage assets of the Neighbourhood Area, in effect identifies for the first time a number of non-designated heritage assets for recognition. National policy within the NPPF specifically expects that heritage assets should be “conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance” (para 184). However, the non-heritage assets are only identified on a map within Appendix C without any brief detail that would establish their significance. The Qualifying Body has advised me that the supporting text provides that detail but, in that location, it is incomplete and does not facilitate read-across to the map. I will make my recommendation regarding this detail when I address the Appendices, but I need to note it here so that the Policy wording reflects the matter of “significance”.
The local authority has commented that the expectation of a formal Heritage Statement for non- designated assets may be onerous. I believe that it would be sufficient for applicants to be required to state how they have identified and addressed impacts on the significance of the heritage asset and its setting. The County Council has also recommended additional wording for the supporting text which was agreed by the Qualifying Body.
Recommendation 10: Under the sub-heading “5.1 Heritage Assets”: 10.1 Move the first post-Policy paragraph to provide a preamble to Policy 2.1; within that paragraph alter the referencing of “Appendix C” to ‘Appendices B & C’.
10.2 Reword Policy 2.1 as follows: ‘Development proposals that will impact on the following including their settings: a) designated heritage assets, as shown in Appendices B & C, or b) non-designated heritage assets as now identified in Appendix C; or
c) archaeological remains ((including areas with potential for finds), should ensure that they are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. To achieve this, proposals must identify and address any adverse impacts the development may have, including on views to and from the asset, and any appropriate mitigation measures.’
10.3 Add an additional paragraph to the post-Policy text as follows: ‘Developers with concerns about how their development may affect the historic environment should contact Norfolk County Council Environment Service historic environment strategy and advice team directly for pre-application advice to identify archaeological implications. The historic environment strategy and advice team will continue to examine all planning applications and make recommendations to the local planning authority on archaeological mitigation if required.’
As reworded Policy 2.1 meets the Basic Conditions.
5.2 Flood Risk and Drainage The NPPF (para 16) says that Plans should avoid “unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area”. It seems that Policy 2.2 represents one such unnecessary duplication as nothing particular to Tilney All Saints is addressed. Further, a land use Neighbourhood Plan cannot alter national administrative procedures for when a formal Flood Risk Assessment will be required (as set down in the NPPF footnote page 47).
I note that in the event of windfall development, the BCKLWN Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2019 includes a specific Appendix which provides detailed guidance for developers on how to apply the Sequential and Exception Test at a Planning Application stage. Should additional sites be allocated through the Local Plan review the BCKLWN SADMP Policy DM 21 (or a reviewed version of this) will apply setting down developer requirements. Accordingly, there is no value in the Neighbourhood Plan seeking to repeat these requirements with added potential for confusion from omitted or reworded content.
The supporting text says that “The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to contribute towards strategic multi- agency efforts to reduce the risk of flooding from all sources in the Plan area” and the Qualifying Body has explained that the “contribution” here is from “local knowledge that would be channelled through the Parish Council”. But the multi-agency work is not affected, positively or negatively, by the Neighbourhood Plan content.
My conclusion is that Policy 2.2 should be limited to registering the need for prospective developments to assess and address flooding and surface water issues but it should not attempt to duplicate or precis or be selective from procedural guidance which is more appropriately addressed at a Borough-wide level. I will comment later on the content within Appendices.
Recommendation 11: Under the sub-heading “5.2 Flood Risk and Drainage”: 11.1 Move the first post-Policy paragraph to provide a preamble to Policy 2.2.
11.2 Reword Policy 2.2 as follows: ‘Development proposals must be designed so as to manage flood risk effectively and not increase, and wherever possible reduce, the overall level of flood risk both to the site and
elsewhere. Proposals designed specifically to improve surface water drainage, such as works to reinstate an effective drainage scheme, are encouraged.’
11.3 Delete the second post-Policy paragraph.
11.4 Amend the opening sentence of the third post-Policy paragraph to read: ‘With regard to surface water flooding the expectation of the lead Local Flood Authority is that development will:’.
11.5 Delete the final sentence of the last paragraph.
As reworded Policy 2.2 meets the Basic Conditions.
5.3 Natural Environment & Landscape The NPPF (para 170) confirms that plans and planning decisions should “recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland” and (footnote on page 49) acknowledges that “Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality”. Likewise, BCKLWN Core Strategy Policy CS01 commits to “protect the countryside beyond the villages for its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its historic environment; landscapes; geodiversity and biodiversity through a Green Infrastructure Management Plan, and Biodiversity Action Plans.” Also, a “Key Sustainability Issue” identified at paragraph 3.2 is “Loss of high quality agricultural land”. These assure a significant degree of protection for the character of the Parish.
Since, at its opening, Policy 2.3 says “The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect the current farming integrity of Tilney All Saints” there is no obvious justification for the protection exceptions that are then introduced, neither of which have support in the NPPF or the Core Strategy. I queried with the Qualifying Body the basis of the ‘3 year not in active farming use’ clause, since lack of use would not change the agricultural classification of the land; the Qualifying Body accepted that this element of the Policy should be deleted. Similarly, ‘a plot too small to be in viable agricultural use’ would not alter the classification of the land (as well as being silent on the metric of “too small”). Accordingly, Policy 2.3, and the supporting text where appropriate, needs to be simplified.
With Policy 2.4, for clarity, two amendments have been agreed with the Qualifying Body.
Recommendation 12: Under the sub-heading “5.3 Natural Environment & Landscape”: 12.1 In the first sentence of the second paragraph replace “entire” with ‘vast majority’ (I will address the matter of Appendix H later in this Report).
12.2 Reword Policy 2.3 as follows: ‘To protect the farming integrity of Tilney All Saints, development proposals on Grade 1 Agricultural Land should normally be limited to those that will contribute towards an agricultural benefit, such as provision of necessary agricultural dwellings for essential rural workers or other types of development within the countryside that may be acceptable within the NPPF.’
12.3 Delete the post-Policy paragraph.
12.4 Within Policy 2.4: 12.4.1 Amend the first sentence to read: ‘Where appropriate, development proposals are encouraged to the deliver enhancement of ecological networks, especially where they improve habitat connectivity within the Neighbourhood Area.’
12.4.2 Replace the last two sentences with one, as follows: ‘Net gains in biodiversity should be achieved such as through the creation of high-quality habitats, improved connectivity to other habitats, and the inclusion of design features that enable animals, especially species in decline, to move between habitats unhindered.’
As amended Policies 2.3 and 2.4 meet the Basic Conditions.
6.0 Community Assets and Local Green Space 6.1 Community Assets The NPPF at paragraph 92 provides a framework for planning “positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments”. The BCKLWN Core Strategy Policy CS13 aims to protect and promote existing cultural assets, in the widest sense, as well as facilitating new cultural facilities where appropriate. Policies 3.1 and 3.2 add appropriate local detail.
6.1.1 Tilney All Saints Primary School In relation to Policy 3.1 I received assurance from the Qualifying Body that the site of the School had sufficient capacity to accommodate the envisaged expansion; the matter of capacity should therefore be noted in the pre-amble. I also raised a concern that, as worded, the Policy requires that “the development is sympathetically designed and appropriate to the needs of the school” if additional work space areas are being provided but not if it is “a permanent extra classroom”; the Qualifying Body confirmed that a rewording would be appropriate.
6.1.2 Tilney All Saints Village Hall As also noted in relation to the School, I noted to the Qualifying Body that no evidence is provided to suggest that there is sufficient flexibility within the Hall site to accommodate additional buildings and therefore give some assurance that this Policy would be deliverable. The Qualifying Body provided confirmation and the matter of capacity should therefore be noted in the pre-amble.
Recommendation 13: Under the sub-heading “6.1 Community Assets”: 13.1 Add to the pre-amble paragraph under the sub-heading “6.1.1 Tilney All Saints Primary School” as follows: ‘The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate further buildings to accommodate expansion and/or improvements.’
13.2 Reword Policy 3.1 as follows: ‘Development at Tilney All Saints Primary School of a permanent extra classroom and/or additional work space areas will be supported provided the development is sympathetically designed and appropriate to the needs of the School.’
13.3 Delete the first sentence of the second paragraph post-Policy 3.2 and amend the second to read: ‘The site of the present village hall has the capacity to accommodate extension or redevelopment in ways that are suitable to a rural location.’
Policy 3.1 as reworded and Policy 3.2 meet the Basic Conditions.
6.2 Local Green Space The NPPF provides for the declaration of Local Green Spaces subject to specific criteria set out at paragraphs 99 and 100. Although I was not initially provided with sufficient evidence to determine whether the Local Green Space designation was being applied appropriately, my main concern was the overlap between the areas proposed for designation and Policy 1.1 which defines a “Strategic Gap”. I noted to the Qualifying Body some significant incompatibilities between these Policies. Having considered my concerns the Qualifying Body decided that the three proposed Local Green Spaces that covered the same area as the Strategic Gap – plus another related space, part of the Golf Course – should be removed from the proposed designation as Local Green Spaces; this cleared the way for Policy 1.1 to proceed, as earlier noted. In relation to the remaining three spaces proposed for designation, I am now satisfied, on the basis of the additional information provided and the better mapping provided by BCKLWN, that the Local Green Space designation is appropriate. Accordingly, some amendments to the text and Policy 3.3 are required; the Qualifying Body has also agreed that Policies 3.4, 3.5 & 3.6 are no longer appropriate and should be deleted.
In relation to the other elements of Policy 3.3, I commented to the Qualifying Body that the scope of the charging schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a matter for the Borough Council (following the required procedures). As is later noted in the Plan, the Parish Council will receive a specific proportion of the CIL monies arising from development within the Parish and it may prioritise the use of this at it wishes. I further noted that the second paragraph of Policy 3.3 appears to have a scope, at least potentially, wider than the designated Local Green Spaces but other ‘open spaces’ are not defined. I will address the content of Appendix I later in this Report.
Recommendation 14: Under the sub-heading “Local Green Space”: 14.1 In the third paragraph replace the first sentence with: ‘The Neighbourhood Plan designates three Local Green Spaces.’; amend the related map on page 26.
14.2 Reword Policy 3.3 as follows: ‘The following existing open spaces are designated as Local Green Spaces: • Glebe Estate Playing Field; • The Willows; and • Medieval Settlement These are shown in detail at Appendix H.
Development proposals that harm the reason for their designation or undermine their openness and amenity value will not be acceptable unless in very special circumstances.
All proposals relating to these or new open spaces should be designed to a high standard to fit with the character of the Parish and, where possible, to connect with other amenity land.’
14.3 Move and renumber appropriately the post-Policy content relating to Millennium Green, Allotment Land and the Eagles Golf Centre to sit in support of Policy 1.1.
14.4 Delete Policies 3.4, 3.5 & 3.6 and renumber the remaining content relating to Glebe Estate Playing Field, the Willows and the Medieval Settlement.
As amended Policy 3.3 meets the Basic Conditions.
6.3 Community Infrastructure Levy It is accepted that “Wider community aspirations than those relating to development and use of land can be included in a neighbourhood plan, [but] actions dealing with non land use matters should be clearly identifiable. For example, set out in a companion document or annex.” (Planning Policy Guidance Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 41-004-20170728). However, whilst I note that the Policy under this heading has been identified as “Community Policy 1”, I believe that this falls short of the expectation in the Guidance. Accordingly, the Qualifying Body has agreed that sub-section 6.3 should be moved to a separate section toward the end of the Plan to be titled ‘Community Aspirational Policies’ which will contain “Community Policy 1: Community Infrastructure Levy”. . Recommendation 15: Move sub-section “6.3 Community Infrastructure Levy” to a new section toward the end of the Plan titled ‘Community Aspirational Policies’ to include “Community Policy 1: Community Infrastructure Levy”.
7.0 Traffic & Transport Whilst I can see that this topic area has given rise to local concerns, I noted to the Qualifying Body that it is a tricky subject to address separately and appropriately in a land use plan. Traffic generation and related mitigation are already material considerations in the determination of planning applications but such factors must be assessed consistently across all applications. Assertions such as “Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan robustly supports cleaner energy technologies” do not amount to Policy but may tend to disguise the fact that the Plan can only influence matters that involve a planning application. The Plan does not envisage significant development.
Policy 4.1: Sustainable Transport I commented to the Qualifying Body that only two elements of Policy 4.1 appeared to relate specifically to the Neighbourhood Area and, of these, the expectation of a Travel Plan in relation to a minor extension the School would not be proportionate; the Qualifying Body accepted that this was so. Having regard to the need for Policies to “provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency” (NPPF para 17) there are amendments needed to the content of Policy 4.1 and, to the extent that Policy 4.3 equates to a land use policy, a merger of Policies 4.1 and 4.3 would be beneficial.
Recommendation 16: 16.1 Reword Policy 4.1, incorporating elements of Policy 4.3 as appropriate, as follows: ‘In order to support more sustainable travel choices development proposals are encouraged, on a scale appropriate to the proposal, to: a) Provide the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging and other emerging technologies for transport; b) Demonstrate safe and sustainable transport connectivity, especially walking and/or cycling links to key local services and community facilities, particularly to the primary school, and to bus stops; c) Address and improve walking and cycling connectivity towards neighbouring villages, King’s Lynn, Wisbech and the countryside;
d) Take all reasonable opportunities to promote the use of public transport, such as improving bus waiting facilities and improvements to bus services.
16.2 Delete Policy 4.3.
As amended Policy 4.1 meets the Basic Conditions.
Policy 4.2: Car Parking Paragraph 105 of the NPPF makes it clear that a range of factors need to be considered if setting local parking standards for residential development. Whilst I note that there is community support for more off-street parking, no compelling evidence is provided to show that the Norfolk County parking standards are inadequate to assure appropriate accommodation of cars in new developments. Accordingly, Policy 4.2 can only encourage a higher level of provision, and must acknowledge the potential impact of this on development design choices and viability.
Recommendation 17: Reword Policy 4.2 as follows: ‘Residential development proposals are encouraged to include provision for a minimum of one off-road car parking space per bedroom. Where this standard cannot be met because of design or viability constraints, and where there is a potential for on-street parking to occur because of the needs of visitors, streets will need to be designed to safely accommodate some on-street parking, which may include parking facilities such as laybys. Well-designed on street parking schemes on through routes that function as informal traffic calming measures to help slow traffic will be supported.
Proposals by existing householders to create additional off-road car parking spaces, where a planning consent is required, will be supported as long as it is not to the detriment of the environment or flood risk.’
As amended Policy 4.2 meets the Basic Conditions.
8.0 Employment & Business 8.1 Economic Development The NPPF section 6 supports a prosperous rural economy. The BCKLWN Core Strategy Policy CS06 likewise supports in rural areas “sustainable communities and sustainable patterns of development to ensure strong, diverse, economic activity”. In general terms Policy 5.1 encourages more economic activity within the development boundaries but the preamble says: “The Neighbourhood Planning group wishes to encourage similar smallscale businesses into the village”. The preceding paragraphs however mention a whole range of activities, not all of which may be considered small-scale. It is therefore unclear what the term “small-scale”, picked up in the Policy, might mean in the local context. The Qualifying Body responded that “all current businesses in the village are small scale and we wish to keep it that way”; that factor therefore needs to be better reflected in the Policy.
Recommendation 18: Reword Policy 5.1 as follows: ‘New economic development within the development boundary that comprises a micro or small business, at a scale appropriate to the rural setting, is encouraged subject to it being demonstrated that the following have been assessed and appropriately addressed: a) Design that is appropriate to the location;
b) Any adverse impact on residential amenity; c) Any adverse impact on the transport network; d) Accommodation of all related parking within its site, including for visitors; and e) Any other environmental impacts, including impacts on the historic environment.’
As amended Policy 5.1 meets the Basic Conditions.
8.2 Broadband As written Policy 5.2 does not address a matter that would require a planning application. The Qualifying Body has clarified that it would wish new development to incorporate infrastructure for broadband technology. Accordingly, some rewording of the Policy is required.
Recommendation 19: Reword Policy 5.2 as follows: ‘Development proposals should, on a scale appropriate to the proposal, incorporate infrastructure to accommodate the latest generation of broadband connectivity.’
As amended Policy 5.2 meets the Basic Conditions.
8.3 Renewable Energy The local authority commented on Policy 5.3: “Can this policy be more specific; at the moment it is very broad and says that renewable energy schemes will be supported but in the supporting text they appear to instead be against certain renewable schemes. Can this policy be reworded to reflect your concerns while still having a proactive stance?” I note that the NPPF already says (footnote page 45) “a proposed wind energy development involving one or more turbines should not be considered acceptable unless it is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in the development plan; and, following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by the affected local community have been fully addressed and the proposal has their backing”. In response to these issues the Qualifying Body suggested a revision to the pre-amble and Policy upon which the following recommendations are based.
Recommendation 20: Under the sub-heading “8.3 Renewable Energy”: 20.1 Replace the first sentence with: ‘Renewable energy in the village context is currently limited to wind turbines, solar panels, air and ground source heating.’
20.2 Reword Policy 5.3 as follows: ‘Development proposals for renewable energy, including any emerging technology thereof, are supported provided they are of a size and scale that does not detract from the rural or historic nature of Tilney All Saints.’
As amended Policy 5.3 meets the Basic Conditions.
9.0 Implementation and Monitoring I note that the final paragraph of this section mentions “As part of the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, an Implementation Plan will be developed.” I commented to the Qualifying Body that, whilst I can see that this may be appropriate for the Community Policy, it is less obviously applicable to the Neighbourhood Plan where no new land is allocated. The Qualifying Body agreed that “implementation” was not appropriate in the content and their response provides the basis of my recommendations.
Recommendation 21: At the heading “9.0 Implementation and Monitoring”: 21.1 Remove “Implementation and” from the title.
21.2 Reword the final paragraph as follows: ‘Tilney All Saints Parish Council will lead the monitoring of the Neighbourhood Plan. This will involve the coordinated input of the community and statutory agencies.’
Appendices Appendix A - Map of the Parish of Tilney All Saints As noted earlier, what is required here is a map defining the Neighbourhood Area, which I appreciate is the same as the Parish but in this instance the correct wording is important.
Recommendation 22: At Appendix A alter the two titles and the key of the map to read: ‘Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area’.
Appendix B - Schedule Monument Apart from correcting the heading, the key needs to be brought in line with the Appendix A map.
Recommendation 23: At Appendix B correct the title to ‘Scheduled Monument’ and amend the key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”. Appendix C - Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets As noted earlier, the presentation of this Appendix could be improved for referencing purposes.
Recommendation 24: At Appendix C: 24.1 Provide a numerical cross-reference between the map of the Listed Buildings and the illustrated schedule that follows; amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”. 24.2 For the section on Non-Designated Heritage Assets provide a schedule that lists and provides brief details (one or two sentences) setting down the significance of each asset, each titled to read across to the map; amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”. Appendix D – Development Boundary As noted earlier, the bringing together of the content of Appendices D and E (on the base map used for D) would benefit the understanding of Policy 1.1. The source document for the Development Boundaries needs to be stated.
Recommendation 25: At Appendix D: 25.1 Correct the title to ‘Development Boundaries’. 25.2 State on the map the BCKLWN Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan source of the defined boundaries and the identified housing allocation.
25.3 Overlay the “Strategic Gap” that is the subject of Appendix E onto the Appendix D map.
25.4 Delete Appendix E and renumber subsequent Appendices accordingly. Appendix F – Dark Skies As noted in the recommendation above, Appendix F becomes Appendix E both here and in the Plan text.
Appendix G – Flood Risks As noted in the recommendation above, Appendix G becomes Appendix F both here and in the Plan text. I will note here that the Environment Agency suggested that a complete mapping of flood risk from surface water should be used.
Appendix H - Agricultural Land Classification As noted in the recommendation above, Appendix H becomes Appendix G both here and in the Plan text. The Qualifying Body noted an error with the data mapping that needs to be corrected; the source of the data also needs to be declared.
Recommendation 26: At Appendix H (as now renumbered G): 26.1 Correct the data mapping and declare the data source.
26.2 Amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”. Appendix I - Community Assets and Local Green Space As noted in the recommendation above, Appendix I becomes Appendix H both here and in the Plan text. Since the Local Green Spaces to be designated have now been reduced to three, the map should be replaced with two larger scaled maps (as supplied by BCKLWN) showing the Glebe Estate Playing Field and the Medieval Settlement/Willows so that the exact boundaries of the Local Green Spaces are clear.
Recommendation 27: At Appendix I (as now renumbered H) replace the Local Green Spaces map with two at a larger scale (as supplied by BCKLWN) and amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
Appendix J - Public Rights of Way As noted in the recommendation above, Appendix J becomes Appendix I both here and in the Plan text. The source of the data depicted on the maps needs to be declared.
Recommendation 28: At Appendix J (as now renumbered I) provide a source reference for the map data presented and amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”. European Union (EU) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Obligations A further Basic Condition, which the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan must meet, is compatibility with European Union (EU) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations.
There is no legal requirement for a Neighbourhood Plan to have a sustainability appraisal. The Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening carried out by The Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk for the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan (March 2019) considered whether or not the content of the Plan required a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with the European Directive 2001/42/EC and associated Environmental Assessment of Plan and Programmes Regulations 2004. In accordance with Regulation 9 of the SEA Regulations 2004, the
Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk determined: ““The Borough Council is of opinion that a full environmental assessment of the Tilney All Saints Draft Neighbourhood Plan is not required. Having consulted the relevant statutory bodies, it has reached the view because, as per regulations 5(6), the plan constitutes a minor modification to the adopted (2011) King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy, and, having regard to Schedule 1, is unlikely to have environmental effects. The Borough Council is also of the opinion that an appropriate assessment of the Tilney All Saints Draft Neighbourhood Plan is not required. It has reached this view with regard to the neighbourhood plan’s need to be in general conformity with the Core Strategy (itself subject the HRA), and with a Habitats Regulations Assessment* of similar potential development in Tilney All Saints and nearby settlements of Terrington St Clement and Clenchwarton which concluded that such development was not likely to have a significant effect on any relevant designated European site. (*Habitats Regulations Assessment report accompanying the proposed King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Site Allocations and Development Policies DPD, submitted to PINS 23rd April 2015).” Particularly in the absence of any adverse comments from the statutory body or the Local Planning Authority (either at the Screening or the Regulation 16 Consultation) I can confirm that the Screening undertaken was appropriate and proportionate, and that the Plan has sustainability at its heart.
In regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Basic Conditions Statement that accompanies the Neighbourhood Plan states: “TASNP has regard to and is compatible with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights, transposed into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. TASNP is highly unlikely to be incompatible because it has been prepared within the existing framework of statute, and national planning policy and guidance. In accordance with established process, its preparation has included consultation with the local community.” I therefore confirm that the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan has regard to fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the ECHR and complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. No evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that this is not the case.
Taking all of the above into account, I am satisfied that the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan is compatible with EU obligations and that it does not breach, nor is in any way incompatible with, the ECHR.
Conclusions This Independent Examiner’s Report recommends a range of modifications to the Policies, as well as some of the supporting content, in the Plan. Modifications have been recommended to effect corrections, to ensure clarity and in order to ensure that the Basic Conditions are met. Whilst I have proposed a significant number of modifications, the Plan itself remains fundamentally unchanged in the role and direction set for it by the Qualifying Body.
I therefore conclude that, subject to the modifications recommended, the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan:
• has regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State; • contributes to the achievement of sustainable development; • is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Plan for the area; • is compatible with European Union (EU) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations;
• does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017(d).
On that basis I recommend to the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk that, subject to the incorporation of modifications set out as recommendations in this report, it is appropriate for the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to referendum.
Referendum Area As noted earlier, part of my Examiner role is to consider whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the Plan area. I consider the Neighbourhood Area to be appropriate and no evidence has been submitted to suggest that this is not the case. I therefore recommend that the Plan should proceed to referendum based on the Neighbourhood Area as approved by the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk on 14th June 2016.
Recommendations: (this is a listing of the recommendations exactly as they are included in the Report)
Rec Text Reason 1 1.1 On the front cover and any later references amend the Plan period For clarity from “2016 – 2036” to ‘2020 – 2036’. and accuracy
1.2 Remove the heading “Document Control” and the related admin content of 0.i, 0.ii, 0.v and 0.vi and renumber the remaining content appropriately.
1.3 Review the “Contents” and “Policy Index” pages once the Plan text has been amended to accommodate the recommendations from this Report.
1.4 Amend the “Related Documents” content to add a source reference(s) for the first five documents that are particular to the Neighbourhood Plan; add a reference to the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans.
2 Under the heading “1 Introduction”: 2.1 Delete “(see For clarity Appendix A)” from the first sentence. and accuracy
2.2 In the ninth paragraph replace the second and third sentences with: ‘On a population pro-rota basis Tilney All Saints received an allocation of 5 new dwellings on a site (see Appendix D, G97.1 ref No. 329 of the Local Development Framework) on the corner of School Road and Lynn Road and these have now been constructed.’
3 Under the heading “2.0 Neighbourhood Planning” and sub-heading “2.1 For clarity Process”: and accuracy 3.1 In the first and third paragraphs replace “Neighbourhood Plan Area” with ‘Neighbourhood Area’.
3.2 Add at the end of the third paragraph: ‘Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should not be viewed in isolation but have been developed to work holistically.’
4 Under the heading “3.0 Vision and Objectives” and sub-heading “3.1 For clarity Vision” reword the content after the second sentence as follows: ‘The village will continue as a thriving, desirable, attractive and viable residential area and the facilities in the Parish will have gradually improved to meet the needs of old and new residents. Communications and connectivity will have been maintained or even improved by better local bus services, the preservation of footpaths and cycle routes and the provision of universal, good quality broadband and other utilities. The many heritage assets and important open green spaces will have been protected, and local wildlife supported, including any protected species, and the Parish will have worked towards becoming carbon neutral.’
5 Under the sub-heading “4.1 Development”: For clarity 5.1 Amend the wording of Policy 1.1 to: and to meet 5.1.1 Replace the reference to “Appendix E” with ‘Appendix D’.
Basic 5.1.2 In element (a) replace Condition 1 “and might include” with ‘including’.
5.2 In the paragraph immediately following the Policy: 5.2.1 In the first sentence delete “elsewhere and”.
5.2.2 In the second sentence replace “Appendix E” with ‘Appendix D’.
6 Under the sub-heading “4.2 Housing Mix & Type” and within Policy 1.2: For clarity 6.1 Reword the first paragraph as follows: and accuracy ‘Housing proposals should provide an appropriate mix of housing types, and to meet tenures and sizes, and these should demonstrably reflect local need Basic using the best available evidence. This applies to open-market and Conditions 1 affordable housing combined, and can include homes designed to & 3 Lifetime Homes Standard. To achieve a more diverse housing stock, proposals should include dwellings of two bedrooms or fewer, including dwellings suitable for or easily adaptable for older or less mobile residents.’
6.2 In the second paragraph delete “the required proportion of” and “to that level”, and replace “requirements” with ‘expectations’.
6.3 In the first sentence of the paragraph immediately following the Policy replace “will be” with ‘is’.
7 Under the sub-heading “4.3 Design” and within Policy 1.3: For clarity 7.1 In the second paragraph reword the first and second sentences as: and accuracy ‘Proposals for linear infill development will be supported in principle. To and to meet sustain the rural and open amenity of Tilney All Saints, linear infill Basic development of up to five dwellings will be supported’; delete the third Condition 1 sentence.
7.2 In the third paragraph: 7.2.1 In the third sentence replace “permitted” with ‘supported’.
7.2.2 Replace element (a) with: ‘The grain of the existing settlements is respected with design repetition rarely exceeding 3 consecutive dwellings’.
7.2.3 Add a new element (d) as follows and renumber subsequent elements accordingly: ‘Traditional building materials common in the Parish, as set out in the Character Appraisal, are used, although the innovative application of energy efficiency measures will be supported.’
7.2.4 In element (d) delete “that can be accessed without going through the house”.
7.2.5 In element (f) replace “are soft, preferably using” with ‘use’.
7.2.6 Delete the fourth paragraph as it has been incorporated within paragraph three.
8 Under the sub-heading “4.4 Light Pollution”: For clarity 8.1 Reword the first sentence of the first paragraph as: ‘‘Dark Skies’ or and accuracy ‘Dark Landscapes’ are recognised as contributing to rural tranquillity, as and to meet referenced in the Planning Guidance on Light Pollution Basic (www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution).’ Condition 1
8.2 Reword Policy 1.4 as follows: ‘To maintain the ‘dark skies’ and the rural amenity in Tilney All Saints, development proposals requiring a planning consent should not normally make provision for external lighting unless there are evidenced issues of highway or community safety or security; in such cases appropriate mitigation measures are required.’
8.3 In the paragraph that follows the Policy, replace the second sentence with: ‘Where lighting is proposed that requires a planning consent, a Lighting Assessment will be expected to accompany the application.’
9 Under the sub-heading “4.5 Affordable Housing”: For clarity 9.1 In the first and second paragraphs update the references, and data and accuracy if required) to the “Local Housing Profile” and “Housing Register”. and to meet Basic Condition 1 9.2 Within the third paragraph, and also the second paragraph of Policy 1.5, replace “local plan” with ‘Local Plan’.
9.3 Add to the third paragraph: ‘Exception Sites may be outside of the ‘development boundaries’ for Tilney All Saints and Tilney High End; these boundaries are shown at Appendix D and are derived from the Policies Map of the BCKLWN SADMP.’
9.4 Within Policy 1.5: 9.4.1 In the first sentence of the second paragraph replace “comprising” with ‘comprised’.
9.4.2 In the third sentence of the second paragraph replace “have reasonable sustainable access to village services” with ‘well related to the development boundary of Tilney All Saints or Tilney High End’.
9.4.3 Add after the third sentence of the second paragraph: ‘Affordable houses are to be retained as such in perpetuity.’
9.4.4 In the fourth sentence of the second paragraph replace “priority” with ’first’.
9.4.5 Move the third paragraph to be a continuation of the first paragraph (since both relate to non-Exception Sites).
10 Under the sub-heading “5.1 Heritage Assets”: For clarity 10.1 Move the first post-Policy paragraph to provide a preamble to and to meet Policy 2.1; within that paragraph alter the referencing of “Appendix C” Basic to ‘Appendices B & C’. Condition 1
10.2 Reword Policy 2.1 as follows: ‘Development proposals that will impact on the following including their settings: a) designated heritage assets, as shown in Appendices B & C, or b) non-designated heritage assets as now identified in Appendix C; or c) archaeological remains ((including areas with potential for finds), should ensure that they are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. To achieve this, proposals must identify and address any adverse impacts the development may have, including on views to and from the asset, and any appropriate mitigation measures.’
10.3 Add an additional paragraph to the post-Policy text as follows: ‘Developers with concerns about how their development may affect the historic environment should contact Norfolk County Council Environment Service historic environment strategy and advice team directly for pre-application advice to identify archaeological implications. The historic environment strategy and advice team will continue to examine all planning applications and make recommendations to the local planning authority on archaeological mitigation if required.’
11 Under the sub-heading “5.2 Flood Risk and Drainage”: For clarity 11.1 Move the first post-Policy paragraph to provide a preamble to and accuracy Policy 2.2. and to meet Basic 11.2 Reword Policy 2.2 as follows: Condition 1 ‘Development proposals must be designed so as to manage flood risk effectively and not increase, and wherever possible reduce, the overall level of flood risk both to the site and elsewhere. Proposals designed specifically to improve surface water drainage, such as works to reinstate an effective drainage scheme, are encouraged.’
11.3 Delete the second post-Policy paragraph.
11.4 Amend the opening sentence of the third post-Policy paragraph to read: ‘With regard to surface water flooding the expectation of the lead Local Flood Authority is that development will:’.
11.5 Delete the final sentence of the last paragraph.
12 Under the sub-heading “5.3 Natural Environment & Landscape”: For clarity 12.1 In the first sentence of the second paragraph replace “entire” with and accuracy ‘vast majority’ (I will address the matter of Appendix H later in this and to meet Report). Basic Condition 1 12.2 Reword Policy 2.3 as follows: ‘To protect the farming integrity of Tilney All Saints, development proposals on Grade 1 Agricultural Land should normally be limited to those that will contribute towards an agricultural benefit, such as provision of necessary agricultural dwellings for essential rural workers
or other types of development within the countryside that may be acceptable within the NPPF.’
12.3 Delete the post-Policy paragraph.
12.4 Within Policy 2.4: 12.4.1 Amend the first sentence to read: ‘Where appropriate, development proposals are encouraged to the deliver enhancement of ecological networks, especially where they improve habitat connectivity within the Neighbourhood Area.’
12.4.2 Replace the last two sentences with one, as follows: ‘Net gains in biodiversity should be achieved such as through the creation of high-quality habitats, improved connectivity to other habitats, and the inclusion of design features that enable animals, especially species in decline, to move between habitats unhindered.’
13 Under the sub-heading “6.1 Community Assets”: For clarity 13.1 Add to the pre-amble paragraph under the sub-heading “6.1.1 and to meet Tilney All Saints Primary School” as follows: ‘The site has sufficient Basic capacity to accommodate further buildings to accommodate expansion Condition 1 and/or improvements.’
13.2 Reword Policy 3.1 as follows: ‘Development at Tilney All Saints Primary School of a permanent extra classroom and/or additional work space areas will be supported provided the development is sympathetically designed and appropriate to the needs of the School.’
13.3 Delete the first sentence of the second paragraph post-Policy 3.2 and amend the second to read: ‘The site of the present village hall has the capacity to accommodate extension or redevelopment in ways that are suitable to a rural location.’
14 14.1 In the third paragraph replace the first sentence with: ‘The For clarity Neighbourhood Plan designates three Local Green Spaces.’; amend the and accuracy related map on page 26. and to meet Basic 14.2 Reword Policy 3.3 as follows: Condition 1 ‘The following existing open spaces are designated as Local Green Spaces: • Glebe Estate Playing Field; • The Willows; and • Medieval Settlement These are shown in detail at Appendix H.
Development proposals that harm the reason for their designation or undermine their openness and amenity value will not be acceptable unless in very special circumstances.
All proposals relating to these or new open spaces should be designed to a high standard to fit with the character of the Parish and, where possible, to connect with other amenity land.’
14.3 Move and renumber appropriately the post-Policy content relating to Millennium Green, Allotment Land and the Eagles Golf Centre to sit in support of Policy 1.1.
14.4 Delete Policies 3.4, 3.5 & 3.6 and renumber the remaining content relating to Glebe Estate Playing Field, the Willows and the Medieval Settlement.
15 Move sub-section “6.3 Community Infrastructure Levy” to a new section For clarity toward the end of the Plan titled ‘Community Aspirational Policies’ to and to meet include “Community Policy 1: Community Infrastructure Levy”. Basic Condition 1 16 16.1 Reword Policy 4.1, incorporating elements of Policy 4.3 as For clarity appropriate, as follows: and accuracy ‘In order to support more sustainable travel choices development and to meet proposals are encouraged, on a scale appropriate to the proposal, to: Basic a) Provide the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging and Condition 1 other emerging technologies for transport; b) Demonstrate safe and sustainable transport connectivity, especially walking and/or cycling links to key local services and community facilities, particularly to the primary school, and to bus stops; c) Address and improve walking and cycling connectivity towards neighbouring villages, King’s Lynn, Wisbech and the countryside; d) Take all reasonable opportunities to promote the use of public transport, such as improving bus waiting facilities and improvements to bus services.
16.2 Delete Policy 4.3.
17 Reword Policy 4.2 as follows: For clarity ‘Residential development proposals are encouraged to include and accuracy provision for a minimum of one off-road car parking space per bedroom. and to meet Where this standard cannot be met because of design or viability Basic constraints, and where there is a potential for on-street parking to occur Condition 1 because of the needs of visitors, streets will need to be designed to safely accommodate some on-street parking, which may include parking facilities such as laybys. Well-designed on street parking schemes on through routes that function as informal traffic calming measures to help slow traffic will be supported.
Proposals by existing householders to create additional off-road car parking spaces, where a planning consent is required, will be supported as long as it is not to the detriment of the environment or flood risk.’
18 Reword Policy 5.1 as follows: For clarity ‘New economic development within the development boundary that and to meet comprises a micro or small business, at a scale appropriate to the rural Basic setting, is encouraged subject to it being demonstrated that the Condition 1 following have been assessed and appropriately addressed: a) Design that is appropriate to the location;
b) Any adverse impact on residential amenity; c) Any adverse impact on the transport network; d) Accommodation of all related parking within its site, including for visitors; and e) Any other environmental impacts, including impacts on the historic environment.’
19 Reword Policy 5.2 as follows: For clarity ‘Development proposals should, on a scale appropriate to the proposal, and to meet incorporate infrastructure to accommodate the latest generation of Basic broadband connectivity.’ Condition 1
20 Under the sub-heading “8.3 Renewable Energy”: For clarity 20.1 Replace the first sentence with: ‘Renewable energy in the village and to meet context is currently limited to wind turbines, solar panels, air and Basic ground source heating.’ Condition 1
20.2 Reword Policy 5.3 as follows: ‘Development proposals for renewable energy, including any emerging technology thereof, are supported provided they are of a size and scale that does not detract from the rural or historic nature of Tilney All Saints.’
21 At the heading “9.0 Implementation and Monitoring”: For clarity 21.1 Remove “Implementation and” from the title. and accuracy
21.2 Reword the final paragraph as follows: ‘Tilney All Saints Parish Council will lead the monitoring of the Neighbourhood Plan. This will involve the coordinated input of the community and statutory agencies.’
22 At Appendix A alter the two titles and the key of the map to read: For clarity ‘Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area’. and accuracy
23 At Appendix B correct the title to ‘Scheduled Monument’ and amend For clarity the key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish and accuracy Boundary”.
24 At Appendix C: For clarity 24.1 Provide a numerical cross-reference between the map of the Listed and accuracy Buildings and the illustrated schedule that follows; amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
24.2 For the section on Non-Designated Heritage Assets provide a schedule that lists and provides brief details (one or two sentences) setting down the significance of each asset, each titled to read across to the map; amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
25 At Appendix D: For clarity 25.1 Correct the title to ‘Development Boundaries’. and accuracy
25.2 State on the map the BCKLWN Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan source of the defined boundaries and the identified housing allocation.
25.3 Overlay the “Strategic Gap” that is the subject of Appendix E onto the Appendix D map.
25.4 Delete Appendix E and renumber subsequent Appendices accordingly.
26 At Appendix H (as now renumbered G): For clarity 26.1 Correct the data mapping and declare the data source. and accuracy
26.2 Amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
27 At Appendix I (as now renumbered H) replace the Local Green Spaces For clarity map with two at a larger scale (as supplied by BCKLWN) and amend the and accuracy map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
28 At Appendix J (as now renumbered I) provide a source reference for the For clarity map data presented and amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood and accuracy Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Summary of the representations submitted to the independent Examiner
The Draft Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan was published and consulted on by the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, 7 representations were received in response to that consultation and provided to the independent Examiner. These representations came from (or on behalf of):
• Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk • Norfolk County Council • Historic England • Anglian Water Services Ltd • Marine Management Organisation • Water Management Alliance (IDB) • Natural England
There were no specific issues raised in these representations. Most commentary were general comments or referring to rewording policies for clarity.
These representations were provided to the independent examiner to inform the examination of the Neighbourhood Plan. They are available for inspections on the Borough Council’s website via the following link; Tilney All Saints NP Consultation 2020 - Details - Keystone (objective.co.uk)
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan Statement by the local planning authority that the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions.
The draft Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan was considered by the Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk. On behalf of the Borough Council it was agreed by Geoff Hall the Executive Director (Environment and Planning) in consultation with the Portfolio Holder Cllr Richard Blunt, that the amended Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan in the spirit of the Examiner’s recommendations meets the basic conditions, and that, so modified, it should proceed to a local referendum covering the area of Tilney All Saints Parish.
The Borough Council Decision Statement in full can be read on the following pages.
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan | Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan | Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk (west-norfolk.gov.uk)
The Draft Neighbourhood Plan has now been so amended, and thus the Borough Council is satisfied that the Draft Neighbourhood Plan being presented in the referendum meets the basic conditions set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Alan Gomm, Planning Policy Manager Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Planning Referendum Decision on examiner’s recommendations May 2021
Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk: Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan – Decision on examiner’s recommendations
May 2021
1 | P a g e
Borough Council Decision on the Examiner’s recommendation for the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan
Neighbourhood Planning (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2012
Name of neighbourhood area Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area Parish Council Tilney All Saints Parish Council Submission 2nd November- 28th December 2020
Examination January- April 2021
Inspector Report Received 20/04/2021
Introduction
1.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), states that the Council has a statutory duty to assist communities in the preparation of neighbourhood development plans and to take the plans through a process of examination and referendum.
1.2 The Localism Act 2011 (Part 6 chapter 3) details the Local Planning Authority 's responsibilities under Neighbourhood planning.
1.3 This Decision Statement confirms that the modifications proposed by the examiner's report on the whole have been accepted. Accordingly, the draft Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan has been amended taking into account these modifications, and the Borough Council has reached the decision that the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Development Plan may proceed to referendum.
Background
2.1 The Neighbourhood Area of Tilney All Saints was designated on 14/06/2016. The Neighbourhood Area corresponds with Parish boundaries for Tilney All Saints Parish Council. The Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared Tilney All Saints
2 | P a g e
Parish Council. Work on the production of the plan has undertaken by members of the Parish Council and the local community, since 2016.
2.2 The Plan was submitted to the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and the consultation under Regulation 16 took place between 2nd November- 28th December 2020. As part of this the plan it was publicised for an eight-week period due to Covid-19 to allow further extension for representation invited.
2.3 In December 2020 Andrew Matheson was appointed by the Borough Council with consent of the Parish Council, to undertake the examination of the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan. The examination took place over January to April 2021. This culminated in the Examiner’s Report being issued on 20/04/2021.
2.4 The Examiner’s Report concludes that subject to making the modifications recommended by the examiner, the plan meets the basic conditions as set out in legislation and should proceed to a Neighbourhood Planning Referendum.
2.5 Having carefully considered each of the recommendations made within the Examiner’s Report and the reasons for them, the Borough Council and Tilney All Saints Parish Council (in accordance with the 1990 Act Schedule 48 paragraph 12) has decided to make most of the modifications to the draft plan referred to in Section 3 below to ensure that the draft plan meets the basic conditions set out in legislation.
2.6 As set out in section 3, it has been decided by the Borough Council and Parish Council to split up the modifications made within the examiner’s report. This has been separated into appropriate columns. As stated by the examiner in the Final Examination Report (2021) and left apparent in the table: Areas that need modification are expressed in column 2.
3 | P a g e
Recommendations by the Examiner
Table 1: Specific Modification for the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) to be compliant with the basic conditions
Section Specific Modification and suggested amendments Who will Do you What needs to Amendments and new changes made to the proposed Tilney All for the NP to be compliant with the basic make agree with be done to Saints neighbourhood plan. conditions as stated in the final Tilney All Saints these the meet the NP Examination Report April 2021 changes? modification specific LPA or QB modification? 1 1.1 On the front cover and any later references Front cover and 2 later references amended. amend the Plan period from “2016 – 2036” to ‘2020 QB Yes Amend the text – 2036’. “Document Control” and the related admin content of 0.i, 0.ii, 0.v
and 0.vi removed and contents updated. 1.2 Remove the heading “Document Control” and
the related admin content of 0.i, 0.ii, 0.v and 0.vi
and renumber the remaining content appropriately. “Contents” and “Policy Index” updated
1.3 Review the “Contents” and “Policy Index” pages
once the Plan text has been amended to Source references added, but will need updating when actual accommodate the recommendations from this documents added to PC website. Report.
East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans added to “Related 1.4 Amend the “Related Documents” content to add Documents”. a source reference(s) for the first five documents that are particular to the Neighbourhood Plan; add a reference to the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans.
2 Under the heading “1 “(see Appendix 2.1- Tilney All Saints Parish lies between 3 and 4 miles south west of Introduction”: 2.1 Delete “(see QB/LPA Yes A)” deleted and King’s Lynn in Norfolk, in a triangle bordered by the A47 and the Appendix A)” from the first appendices A17 stretching west from the Pullover Roundabout (see Appendix renumbered. A). The main village is made up of two parts, Tilney All Saints itself sentence. and Tilney High End, although there are ribbon developments along
both the old A47 road and out along Shepherdsgate Road to the 2.2 In the ninth paragraph replace the second and Second and Moat Road junction with the A17. As with other Fen villages in the third sentences with: ‘On a population pro-rota third sentences area the village grew during the post medieval period as drainage basis Tilney All Saints received an allocation of 5 replaced. and reclamation were used to increase the amount of workable new dwellings on a site (see Appendix D, G97.1 ref agricultural land. No. 329 of the Local Development Framework) on the corner of School Road and Lynn Road and these have now been constructed.’ 2.2- In the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy document (January 2015) the village is identified as being ‘capable of accommodating modest growth’ and is defined as part of the Fenland ‘settled Inland Marshes with panoramic views across the area’. On a population pro-rota basis Tilney All Saints received an allocation of 5 new dwellings on a site (see Appendix C, G97.1 ref No. 329 of the Local Development Framework) on the corner of School Road and Lynn Road and these have now been constructed. 3 Under the heading “2.0 Neighbourhood Planning” Text replaced as This Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by and for the local and sub-heading “2.1 Process”: QB Yes requested. people of Tilney All Saints Parish for the period 2020-2036. The 3.1 In the first and third paragraphs replace “period 2016- Localism Act 2011 provided new powers for Parish Councils to 2036” replaced prepare land use planning documents. The parish area shown in “Neighbourhood Plan Area” with ‘Neighbourhood with “period Appendix D was designated as a Neighbourhood Area and Tilney All Area’. 2020-2036”. Saints Parish Council approved as the qualifying body to prepare a “Appendix A” Neighbourhood Plan in June 2016. 3.2 Add at the end of the third paragraph: ‘Policies replaced with in the Neighbourhood Plan should not be viewed in “Appendix D” Once the Plan has been ‘made’ (adopted by the Borough Council of isolation but have been developed to work King’s Lynn and West Norfolk), following consultation with holistically.’ residents and a local referendum, it will form part of the Sentence Development Plan for the area, with our policies used to determine added. all planning applications that come forward within the 1 | P a g e
Neighbourhood Area. Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should not be viewed in isolation but have been developed to work holistically.
4 Under the heading “3.0 Vision and Objectives” and sub-heading “3.1 Vision” reword the content QB Yes Text reworded. The Vision for Tilney All Saints is: after the second sentence as follows: ‘The village will continue as a thriving, desirable, attractive Tilney All Saints aims to continue to be a small rural parish, and viable residential area and the facilities in the encompassing a closely supportive community with a strong parish Parish will have gradually improved to meet the identity. It has a peaceful historic nature, and over the years the needs of old and new residents. landscape, setting and character of the village have been enhanced. Communications and connectivity will have been The village will continue as a thriving, desirable, attractive and maintained or even improved by better local bus viable residential area and the facilities in the Parish will have services, the preservation of footpaths and cycle gradually improved to meet the needs of old and new residents. routes and the provision of universal, good quality Communications and connectivity will have been maintained or broadband and other utilities. The many heritage even improved by better local bus services, the preservation of assets and important open green spaces will have footpaths and cycle routes and the provision of universal, good been protected, and local wildlife supported, quality broadband and other utilities. The many heritage assets and including any protected species, and the Parish will important open green spaces will have been protected, and local have worked towards becoming carbon neutral.’ wildlife supported, including any protected species, and the Parish will have worked towards becoming carbon neutral.
5 Under the sub-heading “4.1 Development”: 5.1 Amend the wording of Policy 1.1 to: QB Yes Replaced Policy 1.1: Strategic gap between High End and All Saints 5.1.1 Replace the reference to “Appendix E” with reference to Within the Strategic Gap (see Appendix C) development will only ‘Appendix D’. “Appendix E” be permitted if: with “Appendix 5.1.2 In element (a) replace “and might include” C”. a) it is consistent with policies for development in the countryside with ‘including’. including essential infrastructure provided by utility companies; Text replaced. b) it would not undermine the physical and/or visual separation of the two settlements; 5.2 In the paragraph immediately Text deleted. following the Policy: 5.2.1 In 2 | P a g e
the first sentence delete Replaced c) it would not compromise the integrity of the strategic gap, “elsewhere and”. reference to either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed “Appendix E” development; and 5.2.2 In the second sentence replace “Appendix with “Appendix d) it cannot reasonably be located elsewhere. C”. E” with ‘Appendix D’. Supporting text: Added “, which are described The objective of this policy is to direct development elsewhere and below” at the in such a way as to respect and retain the generally open and end of the third undeveloped nature of the gap between Tilney All Saints and Tilney paragraph plus High End so as to help prevent the coalescence and retain the the descriptions separate identity of the two settlements. The extent of the gap of the defined in Appendix C was agreed with the Borough Council of Millennium King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. It’s boundaries accord with the Green, current land uses, namely Millennium Green, the Eagles Golf Centre Allotment Land and the Allotments, which are described below. and Eagles Golf Centre as requested @ recommendatio n 14.3 below. 6 Under the sub-heading “4.2 Housing Mix & Type” and within Policy 1.2: QB Yes QB will make First paragraph of Policy 1.2 has been reworded. 6.1 Reword the first paragraph as follows: textual changes ‘Housing proposals should provide an appropriate Policy 1.2: Housing Mix mix of housing types, tenures and sizes, and these should demonstrably reflect local need using the All housing proposals of five or more dwellings will need to provide best available evidence. This applies to open- an appropriate mix of housing types, tenures and sizes, and these market and affordable housing combined, and can should demonstrably reflect local need using the best available include homes designed to Lifetime Homes evidence. This applies to open-market and affordable housing Standard. To achieve a more diverse housing stock, combined, and can include homes designed to Lifetime Homes proposals should include dwellings of two Standard. Our requirements are set out below:
3 | P a g e
bedrooms or fewer, including dwellings suitable for a) A minimum of 20% of dwellings must be suitable for or easily or easily adaptable for older or less mobile adaptable for older or less mobile residents; and residents.’ b) Proposals will need to include dwellings of two bedrooms or fewer, and these should, as a minimum, meet the space 6.2 In the second paragraph delete “the required requirements as set out in the Technical housing standards – proportion of” and “to that level”, and replace nationally described space standard, March 2015.
“requirements” with ‘expectations’. Housing proposals should provide an appropriate mix of housing
types, tenures and sizes, and these should demonstrably reflect 6.3 In the first sentence of the paragraph local need using the best available evidence. This applies to open- immediately following the Policy replace “will be” market and affordable housing combined, and can include homes with ‘is’. designed to Lifetime Homes Standard. To achieve a more diverse housing stock, proposals should include dwellings of two bedrooms or fewer, including dwellings suitable for or easily adaptable for older or less mobile residents.
Any proposal that does not provide the mix of demonstrable local need or provide the required proportion of homes suitable for older or less mobile people or smaller dwellings will need to be justified with clear evidence that such homes are not required to that level, or that the development is made not viable by meeting these requirements expectations.
Separate proposals on contiguous sites that are in the same ownership and/or control, or have a planning history indicating that they have been considered together, will be considered as a single proposal.
Supporting text:
Dwellings should ideally be accessible and adaptable to meet the changing lifetime circumstances of occupants, and Lifetime Homes
4 | P a g e
Standard or equivalent will be encouraged for all new dwellings. Single storey dwellings will be is considered as suitable for older residents.
7 Under the sub-heading “4.3 Design” and within Policy 1.3: QB Yes Text amended Text reworded and third sentence deleted. 7.1 In the second paragraph reword the first and as requested. second sentences as: ‘Proposals for linear infill Policy 1.3: Design development will be supported in principle. To New element sustain the rural and open amenity of Tilney All (d) added and Planning proposals will be supported if the character of the Saints, linear infill development of up to five subsequent proposed development is reflective of Tilney All Saints and High End dwellings will be supported’; delete the third elements as rural settlements, and adds to the sense of place. Proposals will sentence. renumbered. be expected to demonstrate how the use of trees and other natural features will contribute to this. 7.2 In the third paragraph: 7.2.1 In the third Phrase deleted sentence replace “permitted” with as requested. Proposals for linear development will be supported in principle. Tilney All Saints seeks to maintain the ‘village concept’ and will ‘supported’. Text amended normally support linear infill development to a maximum of five as requested. dwellings. New homes in excess of this number have the potential 7.2.2 Replace element (a) with: ‘The grain of the Fourth to become an insular community and discourage integration into existing settlements is respected with design paragraph the existing village structure. repetition rarely exceeding 3 consecutive deleted. dwellings’. Proposals for linear infill development will be supported in principle. To sustain the rural and open amenity of Tilney All Saints, linear infill 7.2.3 Add a new element (d) as follows and development of up to five dwellings will be supported. renumber subsequent elements accordingly: ‘Traditional building materials New residential development should deliver high quality design common in the Parish, as set out in the that complements the rural character and appearance of the parish. Character Appraisal, are used, although the Proposals should have due regard to the Character Appraisal and innovative application of energy efficiency should explain clearly how the design of the proposal reflects and measures will be supported.’ augments the prevailing character of the vicinity. Development will be permitted supported where:
5 | P a g e
7.2.4 In element (d) delete “that can be a) There is diversity in design for proposals of more than 3 accessed without going through the house”. dwellings; The grain of the existing settlements is respected with design repetition rarely exceeding 3 consecutive dwellings; 7.2.5 In element (f) replace “are soft, b) Proposals have careful regard to the height, layout and scale of existing homes in the immediate area, and be well-integrated preferably using” with visually and functionally with existing development; ‘use’. c) The density and layout provide for views into the open countryside beyond and retain a rural feeling and sense of 7.2.6 Delete the fourth paragraph as it has openness; been incorporated within paragraph three. NEW d) Traditional building materials common in the Parish, as set out in the Character Appraisal, are used, although the innovative application of energy efficiency measures will be supported d) Private outdoor amenity space is provided with all new residential developments in the form of private gardens that can be accessed without going through the house (see also separate Policy 3.3 on open space provision); e) Significant trees and hedge masses are retained where possible as an integral part of the design of any development, except where their longterm survival would be compromised by their age or physical condition or there are exceptional and overriding benefits in accepting their loss; f) Site boundaries are soft, preferably using use native trees and hedgerow species to give a rural edge, and to ensure connectivity to existing wildlife corridors; and g) Affordable homes should be indistinguishable from the market homes in terms of design.
The use of traditional building materials common in the parish, as set out in the Character Appraisal, will be supported. Innovative application of energy efficient materials will be supported.
Separate proposals on contiguous sites that are in the same ownership and/or control, or have a planning history indicating that 6 | P a g e
they have been considered together, will be considered as single proposal.
8 Under the sub-heading “4.4 Light Pollution”: 8.1 Reword the first sentence of the first paragraph QB/LPA Yes QB will make ‘Dark Skies’ is recognised as contributing to the tranquillity of the as: ‘‘Dark Skies’ or textual changes environment as referenced in the NCC Environmental Lighting ‘Dark Landscapes’ are recognised as contributing to Zones Policy. rural tranquillity, as referenced in the Planning Text reworded Guidance on Light Pollution as requested. Dark Skies’ or ‘Dark Landscapes’ are recognised as contributing to (www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution).’ rural tranquillity, as referenced in the Planning Guidance on Light Policy 1.4 Pollution (www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution). Although
reworded as sandwiched between the A47 and A17, the parish is generally very 8.2 Reword Policy 1.4 as follows: requested. tranquil and dark after sunset (see Appendix F – map of the dark ‘To maintain the ‘dark skies’ and the rural amenity skies around Tilney All Saints). in Tilney All Saints, development proposals Second requiring a planning consent should not normally sentence in the Policy 1.4: Street Lighting make provision for external lighting unless there are paragraph that evidenced issues of highway or community safety or follows the To maintain the ‘dark skies’ and the rural amenity in Tilney All security; in such cases appropriate mitigation Policy replaced Saints, development proposals requiring a planning consent measures are required.’ as requested should not normally make provision for external lighting unless there are evidenced issues of highway or community safety or 8.3 In the paragraph that follows the Policy, replace security; in such cases appropriate mitigation measures are the second sentence with: ‘Where lighting is required. proposed that requires a planning consent, a Lighting Assessment will be expected to accompany It will be essential to maintain the ‘dark skies’ and the rural feel in the application.’ Tilney All Saints by avoiding the introduction of street lighting as part of new development. Additional street lighting within the Neighbourhood Plan Area will not be supported unless there is a demonstrable improvement for community safety. Any proposed lighting should be limited to specific operating hours and it must be designed so as to minimise the adverse impact on dark skies, local amenity and wildlife. 7 | P a g e
Lighting proposed as part of development proposals, such as security lighting, will be supported provided it is shown to be necessary and minimises the adverse impacts such as on dark skies.
Supporting text:
Artificial light is to be kept to a minimum, consistent with a small rural parish. Where lighting is proposed, such as street lighting, flood lighting or security lighting, a Lighting Assessment will be expected to accompany any application submitted. Where lighting is proposed that requires a planning consent, a Lighting Assessment will be expected to accompany the application.
9 Under the sub-heading “4.5 Affordable Housing”: 9.1 In the first and second paragraphs update the QB/LPA Yes QB will Tilney All Saints remains a much sought after village for families references, and data if required) to the “Local make who are looking to own their own first home or affordable housing. Housing Profile” and “Housing Register”. textual Historically the Borough Council has kept an active list of persons seeking to live in the parish, at the time of writing the list contains changes 14 names (BCKLWN, Local Housing Profile Summer 2017) (BCKLWN, 9.2 Within the third paragraph, and also the second Local Housing Profile January 2019). paragraph of Policy 1.5, replace “local plan” with Replaced “local plan” with ‘Local Plan’. ‘Local Plan’. There are 22 affordable homes registered in Tilney All Saints, comprising 9% of the current housing stock. A review of the 9.3 Add to the third paragraph: ‘Exception Sites may Third paragraph Housing Register (December 2018) indicates that demand for be outside of the ‘development boundaries’ for added with affordable housing in the parish outstrips supply. A third of Tilney All Saints and Tilney High End; these correct applicants on this snapshot of the Housing Register reside within boundaries are shown at Appendix D and are appendix Tilney All Saints. This indicates that there is a desire for people to remain within the community, but that a suitable property is derived from the Policies Map of the BCKLWN referenced. unavailable or they are unable to afford current market prices, SADMP.’
8 | P a g e
Text amended which are relatively high. Home ownership is also high. References 9.4 Within Policy 1.5: as requested. checked and updated, unless you know better. 9.4.1 In the first sentence of the second paragraph replace Text replaced as Exception Sites may be outside of the ‘development boundaries’ “comprising” with ‘comprised’. requested. for Tilney All Saints and Tilney High End; these boundaries are
shown at Appendix C and are derived from the Policies Map of Text added as the BCKLWN SADMP. 9.4.2 In the third sentence of the second requested. paragraph replace Policy 1.5: Affordable Housing “have reasonable sustainable access to village services” with ‘well related to the Text Affordable housing should be provided as part of new development development boundary of Tilney All Saints replaced as schemes where relevant, with the proportion being in line with the or Tilney High End’. requested. local plan requirements. An affordable housing mix that provides opportunities for local people to buy, and schemes for first time 9.4.3 Add after the third sentence of the Third buyers or renters, will be strongly supported, particularly to second paragraph: ‘Affordable houses are paragraph encourage younger people to remain in the parish. to be retained as such in perpetuity.’ moved to be a Developments comprised of only affordable housing will be 9.4.4 In the fourth sentence of the second continuatio supported when related to local need. This includes Rural Exception paragraph replace “priority” with ’first’. n of the first Sites schemes outside of the development boundary. Exception Sites should be well related to existing development and have paragraph. reasonable sustainable access to village services well related to 9.4.5 Move the third paragraph to be a existing development and well related to the development continuation of the first paragraph (since boundary of Tilney All Saints or Tilney High End. Affordable both relate to non-Exception Sites). houses are to be retained as such in perpetuity. Furthermore, for
Exception Sites the priority first allocation of dwellings will be to
those in housing need and with a connection to the parish of Tilney All Saints in accordance with the following sequential criteria: a) Resident of the parish for the previous five years or more; b) Households with a local family connection with that local family having lived in the parish for five years or more;
9 | P a g e
c) Former residents of the parish including those who have had to leave the parish due to a lack of suitable affordable housing; d) People with an employment connection to the parish dating back at least five years; e) Existing residents of the adjoining parishes of Clenchwarton, Terrington St Clement, Terrington St John, Tilney Saint Lawrence and West Lynn who have lived there for more than 3 years; f) Existing residents of the Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk who have been living in the area for more than 5 years.
An affordable housing mix that provides opportunities for local people to buy, and schemes for first time buyers or renters, will be strongly supported, particularly to encourage younger people to remain in the parish.
For the whole of this policy, separate proposals on contiguous sites that are in the same ownership and/or control, or have a planning history indicating that they have been considered together, will be considered as a single proposal.
10 Under the sub-heading “5.1 Heritage Assets”: QB/LPA Yes QB make Policy 2.1: Heritage 10.1 Move the first post-Policy paragraph to provide textual a preamble to changes New development in close proximity to either: Policy 2.1; within that paragraph alter the a) Designated heritage assets, or non-designated heritage assets referencing of “Appendix C” to ‘Appendices B & C’. The first post- as identified in Appendix C; or b) Archaeological remains (either known or with potential) 10.2 Reword Policy 2.1 as follows: Policy paragraph
‘Development proposals that will impact on the moved to provide a should take account of the historic nature of the asset and following including their settings: preserve or enhance its character and setting. a) designated heritage assets, as shown in preamble to Policy 2.1. Appendices B & C, or To achieve this, the Heritage Statement should be provided in b) non-designated heritage assets as now identified support of development proposals. This should outline details of in Appendix C; or heritage assets affected and any adverse impacts the 10 | P a g e
c) archaeological remains ((including areas with Altered the development may have on these, including views to and from the potential for finds), should ensure that they are referencing of asset, as well as any mitigation measures proposed. conserved in a manner appropriate to their “Appendix C” to significance. ‘Appendices A & ‘Development proposals that will impact on the following To achieve this, proposals must identify and B’. including their settings: address any adverse impacts the development may have, including on views to and from the asset, and Reworded Policy d) designated heritage assets, as shown in Appendices A & B, any appropriate mitigation measures.’ 2.1 and updated or referencing of e) non-designated heritage assets as now identified in 10.3 Add an additional paragraph to the post-Policy appendices. Appendix B; or text as follows: f) archaeological remains (including areas with potential for ‘Developers with concerns about how their Additional finds), paragraph development may affect the historic environment should ensure that they are conserved in a manner appropriate to added. should contact Norfolk County Council their significance. Environment Service historic environment strategy and advice team To achieve this, proposals must identify and address any adverse directly for pre-application advice to identify impacts the development may have, including on views to and archaeological implications. The historic from the asset, and any appropriate mitigation measures. environment strategy and advice team will continue to examine all planning applications and make Supporting text added: recommendations to the local planning authority on Developers with concerns about how their development may archaeological mitigation if required.’ affect the historic environment should contact Norfolk County
Council Environment Service historic environment strategy and advice team directly for pre-application advice to identify archaeological implications. The historic environment strategy and advice team will continue to examine all planning applications and make recommendations to the local planning authority on archaeological mitigation if required.
11 Under the sub-heading “5.2 Flood Risk and QB Yes The first post- Policy 2.2: Flooding and Surface Water Drainage Drainage”: Policy paragraph
11 | P a g e
11.1 Move the first post-Policy paragraph to provide moved to Development proposals must be designed so as to manage flood a preamble to Policy 2.2. provide a risk effectively and not increase, and wherever possible reduce, preamble to the overall level of flood risk both to the site and elsewhere. 11.2 Reword Policy 2.2 as follows: Policy 2.2. Proposals designed specifically to improve surface water drainage, ‘Development proposals must be designed so as to such as works to reinstate an effective drainage scheme, are manage flood risk effectively and not increase, and Policy 2.2 encouraged. wherever possible reduce, the overall level of flood reworded as risk both to the site and elsewhere. Proposals requested. Any new development, or significant alteration to an existing designed specifically to improve surface water building that requires planning permission, should be drainage, such as works to reinstate an effective Second post- accompanied by an appropriate and proportionate Flood Risk drainage scheme, are encouraged.’ Policy paragraph Assessment. This should give adequate and appropriate deleted. consideration to all sources of flooding and proposed surface water drainage to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding 11.3 Delete the second post-Policy paragraph. Opening (from any source) either on the development site itself or to an
sentence existing property as a result of the development. This assessment 11.4 Amend the opening sentence of the third post- amended as should include appropriate allowances for climate change. Policy paragraph to read: requested. ‘With regard to surface water flooding the All development proposals coming forward within the areas of expectation of the lead Local Flood Authority is that Final sentence high, medium and low risk from surface water flooding, as development will:’. of the last identified by the Environment Agency and/or Borough Council of paragraph King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 11.5 Delete the final sentence of the last paragraph. deleted. (SFRA) 2019, but not limited to those so identified, will need to be accompanied by a Surface Water Drainage Strategy.
This should demonstrate that the proposal will not result in any increase in the risk of surface water or groundwater flooding on site or elsewhere off-site.
The Surface Water Drainage Strategy, including any necessary flood risk mitigation measures, should be agreed as a condition of the development before any work commences on site.
12 | P a g e
Planning applications that improve surface water drainage in the Neighbourhood Plan area will be supported.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be considered for all planning applications as the use of SuDS would help to reduce the risk of surface water and sewer flooding.
Proposals that create new culverts, result in the loss of an open watercourse, or fill existing balance ponds will not be permitted unless the culvert is essential to the provision of an access and it can be demonstrated that the culvert will have no adverse impact on the ability to manage and maintain surface water drainage in the Neighbourhood Plan area.
Appropriate on-site water storage shall be incorporated into drainage schemes to intercept, attenuate or store long term surface water run-off.
All new development will have to provide an effective and sustainable private sewerage plan to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in advance of development commencing. Such a plan must be implemented prior to the occupation of the first dwelling.
Supporting text:
The Environment Agency advises the extent of its flood risk zones does not take account of climate change. As a result, Policy 2.2 requires a surface water drainage strategy not only for high and medium risk zones but also for sites within low risk zones as the low risk zones can demonstrate a possible climate change scenario. This is considered appropriate additional protection in light of actual flooding events in the parish. 13 | P a g e
With regard to surface water flooding the expectation is that development will:
Para 2: With regard to surface water flooding the expectation of the lead Local Flood Authority is that development will:
The community are keen to ensure that any future development is able to demonstrate there is no increased risk of flooding and that mitigation measures are implemented to address surface water arising from development. They are also keen to protect existing water courses and ensure that additional development does not exacerbate existing problems relating to these. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to contribute towards strategic multi- agency efforts to reduce the risk of flooding from all sources in the Plan area.
12 Under the sub-heading “5.3 Natural Environment & QB Yes Landscape”: Text amended Policy 2.3: Natural Environment - Farmland 12.1 In the first sentence of the second paragraph as requested. replace “entire” with ‘vast majority’ (I will address The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect the current farming the matter of Appendix H later in this Report). Policy 2.3 integrity of Tilney All Saints. Development proposals on Grade 1 reworded as Agricultural Land outside of the settlement limit will need to show requested. that: 12.2 Reword Policy 2.3 as follows:
‘To protect the farming integrity of Tilney All Saints, Post-policy a) The land is not currently in active farming use and there is development proposals on Grade 1 Agricultural paragraph supporting evidence that it has not been farmed for at least 3 years: Land should normally be limited to those that will deleted. or contribute towards an agricultural benefit, such as b) The plot is too small to be in viable agricultural use; or provision of necessary agricultural dwellings for essential rural workers or other types of 14 | P a g e
development within the countryside that may be First sentence c) The development will contribute towards an agricultural benefit, acceptable within the NPPF.’ amended as such as provision of necessary associated agricultural dwellings for requested. essential rural workers. 12.3 Delete the post-Policy paragraph. Text amended To protect the farming integrity of Tilney All Saints, development as requested. 12.4 Within Policy 2.4: 12.4.1 Amend the first proposals on Grade 1 Agricultural Land should normally be limited
sentence to read: ‘Where appropriate, to those that will contribute towards an agricultural benefit, such development proposals are encouraged as provision of necessary agricultural dwellings for essential rural to the deliver enhancement of workers or other types of development within the countryside that ecological networks, especially where may be acceptable within the NPPF. they improve habitat connectivity Supporting text: within the Neighbourhood Area.’
The entire vast majority parish is classified according to Natural 12.4.2 Replace the last two sentences with England as Grade 1 Agricultural Land (see Appendix H), which one, as follows: means it is of excellent quality. This places constraints on where ‘Net gains in biodiversity should be further housing growth can be delivered. Farmland also retains achieved such as through the creation of a number of native hedges which act as corridors for wildlife. high-quality habitats, improved This includes hedgerow around the Allocated Site within the connectivity to other habitats, and the BCKLWN Core Strategy. There is one Tree Preservation Order inclusion of design features that enable covering two trees in the historical core of the village, on land animals, especially species in decline, to behind The Vicarage, Church Road. There have also been recent move between habitats unhindered.’ sightings of Great Crested Newts within the community, as recorded by the Parish Council.
To support achievement of Policy 2.3 the Parish Council are able to provide local evidence on the current and recent use of agricultural land within the parish. Where land has not been used for farming there should be a good reason for this; leaving it fallow to increase development potential is not considered a good reason.
15 | P a g e
Policy 2.4: Natural Environment – Ecology
Proposals that lead to the enhancement of ecological networks will be supported, especially where they improve habitat connectivity within the Neighbourhood Plan Area. Where appropriate, development proposals are encouraged to the deliver enhancement of ecological networks, especially where they improve habitat connectivity within the Neighbourhood Area.
Wherever possible, existing natural features such as trees and hedgerows should be retained unless their removal results in an ecological gain or an improvement to important views or green open space. Supplementary planting with mixed native species which strengthens the existing network of hedgerows will be supported.
Where a biodiversity asset is lost as a result of a development it will be expected to be compensated for elsewhere within the site, to a greater ecological value. Where this is not possible, then compensation should take place elsewhere in the vicinity or within the Neighbourhood Plan Area. Net gains in biodiversity should be achieved such as through the creation of high-quality habitats, improved connectivity to other habitats, and the inclusion of design features that enable animals, especially species in decline, to move between habitats unhindered.
Development overall should achieve a net gain in biodiversity such as through the creation of high-quality habitats, improved connectivity to other habitats, and the inclusion of design features that enable animals, especially species in decline, to 16 | P a g e
move between habitats unhindered. Great weight will be given to proposals that would result in a significant ecological benefit, especially with respect to animals that are in decline as a species.
13 Under the sub-heading “6.1 Community Assets”: LPA/QB Yes 13.1 Add to the pre-amble paragraph under the sub- Text added as Policy 3.1: Tilney All Saints Primary School heading “6.1.1 Tilney All Saints Primary School” as requested. follows: ‘The site has sufficient capacity to The Neighbourhood Plan will support proposals that recognise accommodate further buildings to accommodate Policy 3.1 and provide for the development of a permanent extra classroom expansion and/or improvements.’ reworded as at Tilney All Saints Primary School. Proposals to create additional requested. work space areas will also be supported provided the
development is sympathetically designed and appropriate to the 13.2 Reword Policy 3.1 as follows: First sentence needs of the school. ‘Development at Tilney All Saints Primary School of deleted and a permanent extra classroom and/or additional second Development at Tilney All Saints Primary School of a permanent work space areas will be supported provided the sentence extra classroom and/or additional workspace areas will be development is sympathetically designed and amended as supported provided the development is sympathetically designed appropriate to the needs of the School.’ requested. and appropriate to the needs of the School.
13.3 Delete the first sentence of the second Supporting text for 3.1: paragraph post-Policy 3.2 and amend the second to read: ‘The site of the present village hall has the The school is situated on the corner of Shepherdsgate Road, School capacity to accommodate extension or Road and Church Road, next to a car park maintained by the Parish redevelopment in ways that are suitable to a rural Council, it is popular and is used by parents from outside the village location.’ who drop their children while parking next to the Millennium Green. The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate further buildings to accommodate expansion and/or improvements.
Supporting text for 3.2:
17 | P a g e
The policy identifies those uses that the local community strongly favours and wishes to retain. The site of the present village hall has the capacity to accommodate extension or redevelopment in ways that are suitable to a rural location. However, the policy requires that proposals avoid increasing the use of the village hall to the extent that they may harm the amenities of adjoining residential properties, for example through traffic movements, on-streetcar parking and noise or light pollution.
14 14.1 In the third paragraph replace the first LPA/QB Yes First sentence of sentence with: ‘The Neighbourhood Plan designates third paragraph Policy 3.3: Local Green Space three Local Green Spaces.’; amend the related map amended as on page 26. requested. The following existing open spaces are designated as Local Green Spaces: If you can let me 14.2 Reword Policy 3.3 as follows: • Glebe Estate Playing Field; have an ‘The following existing open spaces are designated • The Willows; and amended map as Local Green Spaces: • Medieval Settlement in jpeg format I • Glebe Estate Playing Field; will upload to These are shown in detail at Appendix I. • The Willows; and the document. Development proposals that harm the reason for their • Medieval Settlement designation or undermine their openness and amenity value These are shown in detail at Appendix H. Policy 3.3 will not be acceptable unless in very special circumstances. reworded and Development proposals that harm the reason for the correct their designation or undermine their openness and appendix All proposals relating to these or new open spaces should be amenity value will not be acceptable unless in very referenced. designed to a high standard to fit with the character of the Parish special circumstances. and, where possible, to connect with other amenity land. Millennium All proposals relating to these or new open spaces Green, All proposals for new residential developments are required to should be designed to a high standard to fit with the Allotment Land make a financial contribution towards a new Children’s Play Area character of the Parish and, where possible, to and the Eagles and associated equipment on the Millennium Green and enhance connect with other amenity land.’ Golf Centre the play area at the Glebe. All payments will be made through the moved to sit in 18 | P a g e
support of Community Infrastructure Levy and managed by the Parish 14.3 Move and renumber appropriately the post- Policy 1.1 and Council. Policy content relating to Millennium Green, all renumbering Allotment Land and the Eagles Golf Centre to sit in applied. All proposals involving new or existing open space will be support of Policy 1.1. designed to a high standard to fit with the character of the parish Policies 3.4, 3.5 and where possible connect with existing amenity land. 14.4 Delete Policies 3.4, 3.5 & 3.6 and renumber the & 3.6 deleted The following existing open spaces are designated as Local Green remaining content relating to Glebe Estate Playing and Spaces and should be protected from development: Field, the Willows and the Medieval Settlement. renumbering undertaken. • Millennium Green; • Glebe Estate Playing Field; • The allotment land ; • Eagles Golf Centre • The Willows; and • Medieval Settlement
These are shown at Appendix I.
Proposals that harm the reason for their designation or undermine their openness and amenity value will not be acceptable unless in very special circumstances.
Supporting text:
The Neighbourhood Plan will designate six Local Green Spaces. The Neighbourhood Plan designates three Local Green Spaces. These are described below. The designation of land as Local Green Space through neighbourhood plans allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. Designation of Local Green Spaces can afford the same level of protection as Green Belt.
19 | P a g e
15 Move sub-section “6.3 Community Infrastructure QB Yes Sub-section Sub-section moved and promoted to a section in its own right Levy” to a new section toward the end of the Plan moved and entitled “9.0 COMMUNITY ASPIRATIONAL POLICIES”. titled ‘Community Aspirational Policies’ to include promoted to a “Community Policy 1: Community Infrastructure section in its Levy”. own right entitled “9.0 COMMUNITY ASPIRATIONAL POLICIES”.
16 16.1 Reword Policy 4.1, incorporating elements of LPA/QB Yes Policy 4.1 Policy 4.1: Sustainable Transport Policy 4.3 as appropriate, as follows: reworded as 20 | P a g e
‘In order to support more sustainable travel choices requested and New developments will be expected to encourage and enhance development proposals are encouraged, on a scale Policy 4.3 broader and more sustainable travel choices. appropriate to the proposal, to: deleted. a) Provide the infrastructure for electric Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan robustly supports cleaner vehicle charging and other emerging energy technologies. The installation of electric charging points technologies for transport; and other emerging technologies for transport will be expected in b) Demonstrate safe and sustainable new developments, and appropriate adaptations to existing transport connectivity, especially walking properties if requiring planning permission will be supported. and/or cycling links to key local services and community facilities, particularly to Development proposals must demonstrate safe and sustainable the primary school, and to bus stops; transport connectivity, especially walking and/or cycling links to c) Address and improve walking and cycling key local services and community facilities, particularly to the connectivity towards neighbouring villages, primary school. King’s Lynn, Wisbech and the countryside; d) Take all reasonable opportunities to Development proposals for the school will need to be supported promote the use of public transport, such by a School Travel Plan setting out how sustainable access to the as improving bus waiting facilities and school will be improved and promoted. This could include car improvements to bus services. sharing.
16.2 Delete Policy 4.3. Where necessary the developer must provide safe and good quality sustainable transport links between their site and existing provision, ensuring the residents can walk safely to bus stops, to the school and other village facilities. Proposals that include improved connectivity towards neighbouring villages, King’s Lynn and Wisbech for sustainable modes of transport, especially cycling, will be viewed favourably. Development will take all reasonable opportunities to promote the use of public transport, such as improving bus waiting facilities. This could include improvements to bus services.
Policy 4.1: Sustainable Transport
21 | P a g e
In order to support more sustainable travel choices development proposals are encouraged, on a scale appropriate to the proposal, to:
e) Provide the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging and other emerging technologies for transport; f) Demonstrate safe and sustainable transport connectivity, especially walking and/or cycling links to key local services and community facilities, particularly to the primary school, and to bus stops; g) Address and improve walking and cycling connectivity towards neighbouring villages, King’s Lynn, Wisbech and the countryside; h) Take all reasonable opportunities to promote the use of public transport, such as improving bus waiting facilities and improvements to bus services.
Policy 4.3: Transport Infrastructure and Services
The following improvement priorities should be considered when making decisions on development proposals: a) Improved footway provision in and between the two settlements; b) Improved cycle provision, including into the countryside; c) Improvements to, and better maintenance of, the Public Rights of Way to improve access to the countryside; and d) Improved car parking management/ arrangements.
17 Reword Policy 4.2 as follows: LPA/QB Yes Policy 4.2 Policy 4.2: Car Parking ‘Residential development proposals are encouraged reworded as to include provision for a minimum of one off-road requested. Residential development proposals are encouraged to include car parking space per bedroom. Where this provision for a minimum of one off-road car parking space per 22 | P a g e
standard cannot be met because of design or bedroom. Where this standard cannot be met because of viability constraints, and where there is a potential design or viability constraints, and where there is a potential for on-street parking to occur because of the needs for on-street parking to occur because of the needs of visitors, of visitors, streets will need to be designed to safely streets will need to be designed to safely accommodate some accommodate some on-street parking, which may on-street parking, which may include parking facilities such as include parking facilities such as laybys. Well- laybys. Well-designed on street parking schemes on through designed on street parking schemes on through routes that function as informal traffic calming measures to routes that function as informal traffic calming help slow traffic will be supported. measures to help slow traffic will be supported. Proposals by existing householders to create additional off- Proposals by existing householders to create road car parking spaces, where a planning consent is required, additional off-road car parking spaces, where a will be supported as long as it is not to the detriment of the planning consent is required, will be supported as environment or flood risk. long as it is not to the detriment of the environment or flood risk.’ Proposals for all new residential development should include provision of a minimum of one off-road car parking space per bedroom. This proposal was supported by 95% of responses received from villagers when asked the question.
Where these standards cannot be met or where there is a potential for on-street parking to occur because of the needs of visitors, streets will need to be designed to safely accommodate some on-street parking, which may include parking facilities such as laybys. Well-designed on street parking schemes on through routes that function as informal traffic calming measures to help slow traffic will be supported.
Proposals by existing householders to create additional off-road car parking spaces will be supported as long as it is not at the detriment of the environment or flood risk.
23 | P a g e
18 Reword Policy 5.1 as follows: LPA/QB Yes Policy 5.1: Economic Development ‘New economic development within the Policy 5.1 New economic development within the development boundary development boundary that comprises a micro or reworded. that comprises a micro or small business, at a scale appropriate to small business, at a scale appropriate to the rural the rural setting, is encouraged subject to it being demonstrated setting, is encouraged subject to it being that the following have been assessed and appropriately demonstrated that the following have been addressed: assessed and appropriately addressed: a) Design that is appropriate to the location; f) Design that is appropriate to the location; b) Any adverse impact on residential amenity; g) Any adverse impact on residential amenity; c) Any adverse impact on the transport h) Any adverse impact on the transport network; network; i) Accommodation of all related parking within its site, d) Accommodation of all related parking including for visitors; and within its site, including for visitors; and j) Any other environmental impacts, including impacts on the e) Any other environmental impacts, historic environment. including impacts on the historic environment.’ New economic development within the development boundary that comprises a micro or small business will be encouraged and supported, conditional on appropriate mitigation and design. Any proposal for an employment-generating use will need to demonstrate that:
a) It will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity; b) It will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the transport network; c) It can accommodate all related parking within its site, including for visitors; and d) It will not have any other unacceptable environmental impacts, including impacts on the historic environment.
19 Reword Policy 5.2 as follows: LPA/QB Yes Policy 5.2: Broadband
24 | P a g e
‘Development proposals should, on a scale Policy 5.2 Development proposals should, on a scale appropriate to the appropriate to the proposal, incorporate reworded as proposal, incorporate infrastructure to accommodate the latest infrastructure to accommodate the latest requested. generation of broadband connectivity. generation of broadband connectivity.’ Proposals to provide access to a super-fast broadband network to serve the village and to improve the speed of existing services, will be supported, provided that wherever possible, the location and design of any above-ground network installations reflect the character of the local area.
20 Under the sub-heading “8.3 Renewable Energy”: LPA/QB Yes Text amended Policy 5.3: Renewable Energy 20.1 Replace the first sentence with: ‘Renewable as requested. energy in the village context is currently limited to Proposals to increase the use of renewable energy will be wind turbines, solar panels, air and ground source Policy 5.3 supported, provided that they do not detract from the general or heating.’ reworded as historic environment. requested. Development proposals for renewable energy, including any 20.2 Reword Policy 5.3 as follows: emerging technology thereof, are supported provided they are of ‘Development proposals for renewable energy, a size and scale that does not detract from the rural or historic including any emerging technology thereof, are nature of Tilney All Saints. supported provided they are of a size and scale that does not detract from the rural or historic nature of Supporting text: Tilney All Saints.’ Renewable energy in the village context is limited to wind turbines and solar panels. Renewable energy in the village context is currently limited to wind turbines, solar panels, air and ground source heating. The surrounding agricultural land in this parish is Grade 1 and consists of some of the most productive farmland in Britain. It is therefore unsuitable for the construction of large arrays of ‘solar farms’ but we do have a number of small wind turbines about 3.5 metres tall in the parish. Local opinion strongly opposes developments involving
25 | P a g e
the larger type of wind turbines, not least because of its impact on the open landscape and long views.
21 At the heading “9.0 Implementation LPA/QB Yes “Implementatio As part of the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, an and Monitoring”: 21.1 Remove n and” removed Implementation Plan will be developed. This will require the “Implementation and” from the from the title. coordinated input of the community and statutory agencies. Tilney Final paragraph All Saints Parish Council will lead, and monitor the implementation title. reworded as of, the Neighbourhood Plan.
requested. 21.2 Reword the final paragraph as follows: Tilney All Saints Parish Council will lead the monitoring of the ‘Tilney All Saints Parish Council will lead the Neighbourhood Plan. This will involve the coordinated input of monitoring of the Neighbourhood Plan. This will the community and statutory agencies. involve the coordinated input of the community and statutory agencies.’
22 At Appendix A alter the two titles and the key of the QB Yes QB make Appendix A will now become Appendix D. map to read: textual/map ‘Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Area’. changes Map has been update as requested.
23 At Appendix B correct the title to ‘Scheduled Yes Appendix B will now become Appendix A. Monument’ and amend the key to show QB ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish The title has been amended. Boundary”. Map has been update as requested.
24 At Appendix C: Yes LPA and QB Appendix C will now become Appendix B. LPA/QB make 24.1 Provide a numerical cross-reference between textual/map Non-designated descriptions are now all in place the map of the Listed Buildings and the illustrated changes schedule that follows; amend the map key to show
26 | P a g e
‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
24.2 For the section on Non-Designated Heritage Assets provide a schedule that lists and provides brief details (one or two sentences) setting down the significance of each asset, each titled to read across to the map; amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
25 At Appendix D: Yes LPA make 25.1 Correct the title to ‘Development Boundaries’ LPA textual/map Title corrected and renumbering of appendices done. changes 25.2 State on the map the BCKLWN Site Allocations Map updated. and Development Management Policies Plan source of the defined boundaries and the identified housing allocation.
25.3 Overlay the “Strategic Gap” that is the subject of Appendix E onto the Appendix D map.
25.4 Delete Appendix E and renumber subsequent Appendices accordingly.
26 At Appendix H (as now renumbered G): LPA/QB Yes QB make Appendix H is still Appendix H in the renumbered system. 26.1 Correct the data mapping and declare the data textual/map source. changes Map has been update as requested.
26.2 Amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
27 | P a g e
27 At Appendix I (as now renumbered H) replace the LPA Yes LPA make Appendix I is still Appendix I in the renumbered system. Local Green Spaces map with two at a larger scale textual/map (as supplied by BCKLWN) and amend the map key to changes show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
28 At Appendix J (as now renumbered I) provide a QB Yes QB make Appendix J will now become Appendix E. source reference for the map data presented and textual/map amend the map key to show ‘Neighbourhood Area’ changes Map has been update as requested. boundary in place of “Parish Boundary”.
28 | P a g e
Decision
4.1 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 requires the local planning authority to outline what action to take in response to the recommendations that the examiner made in the report under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to the 1990 act (as applied by Section 38A of the 2004 Act) in relation to a neighbourhood development plan.
4.2 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council have carefully considered each of the recommendations made in the examiner's report and the reasons for them and have decided to accept most of the modifications to the draft plan.
4.3 Following the modifications made, the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Development Plan will meet the basic conditions:
• Having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the plan; • The making of the neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development; • The making of the neighbourhood plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan - Core Strategy • (2011) and Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016); • The making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach and is otherwise compatible with EU obligations; and; • The making of the neighbourhood plan is not likely to have a significant effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
4.4 It is recommended that the Tilney All Saints Neighbourhood Plan progresses to referendum. Consideration has been given as to whether the area should be extended beyond that of the neighbourhood area. The Borough Council concurs with Examiner's conclusion that nothing has been suggested which would require an extension of the area beyond that originally designated (14/06/2016).
Decision made by: Geoff Hall Executive Director Environment and Planning 25.05.21