8BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM Development Committee 7th September 2010 Report of Corporate Director - Development SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT – WORKING PARTY UPDATE 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To update members on progress of the preparation of the Site Specific Proposals

Development Plan Document and to receive the recommendation from the Working Party set up to consider the Plan. The Plan will assist the Council in meeting the PRIDE priorities, most notably ‘Promoting High Quality Growth’ and ‘Enhancing the Environment’.

2 Executive Summary The Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document (the Plan) is being prepared as an important element in the Local Development Framework for the area. The primary purpose of the Plan is to allocate sites for housing, employment and other uses in both the urban and rural areas of the Borough (with the exception of the town centre). The report explains the progress that is being made by the Working Party in both its discussions with various stakeholders and with the development of the Plan and also highlights some of the key issues that have arisen.

3 Appendices Appendix 1 is a copy of the questionnaire sent to the Parish Councils and Meetings Appendix 2 is a copy of an example of the presentation given to the groups listed in paragraph 6.2 Appendix 3 is a copy of a letter dated 23rd July 2010 acknowledging receipt of the petition submitted on behalf of the ‘Save Irchester Countryside Campaign 2010’.

4. Proposed Action: 4.1 The Committee is invited to RESOLVE that officers continue to

work with the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit on the preparation of an interim housing statement and review of the Core Spatial Strategy to produce a new housing trajectory.

4.2 The Committee is invited to RESOLVE that work on the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document - Preferred Options continues to progress in the manner outlined in paragraphs 6.12 to 6.13 of this report.

4.3 The Committee is invited to RESOLVE that the Irchester petition presented to Council be noted and that this will be taken into account as part of this process.

5 Background

5.1 At the present time the Local Development Framework is a folder of plans that are gradually being produced in order to provide planning policy and guidance for the Borough. Collectively, the plans will replace the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan.

5.2 Planning legislation is currently being reviewed; however, the 3 key documents in

the Local Development Framework for the Borough at the moment will be the Core Spatial Strategy, the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan and the Site Specific Plan. The Core Spatial Strategy, adopted in June 2008, provides the spatial vision for North Northamptonshire up until 2021 and other Development Plan Documents, including the Plan, must be consistent with it.

5.3 As the Core Spatial Strategy is strategic, it defines broad locations and areas for

future development. The Plan will include allocations for housing, employment and other land uses that need to be made in accordance with the framework in the Core Spatial Strategy as well as policies to protect certain areas from development and to assist in the determination of planning applications.

5.4 The Plan must go through several stages before it is adopted, although the form

that early participation may take is fairly flexible. The Economic and Environment Committee of 21st December 2005 approved an issues and options paper for the Site Specific Proposals and Town Centre Area Action Plan Development Plan Documents. The next formal requirement is preparation of a Pre-Submission Plan. In view of the length of time that has elapsed since the issues and options stage, and given the importance of the decisions that need to be made, it is considered important to have another stage of consultation before preparing the Plan for consideration by the Secretary of State. This will ensure that all options have been appropriately considered and allow the opportunity to resolve any major issues before the Plan is submitted, thus reducing time spent at the later stages.

5.5 A Briefing Note outlining the key issues to be addressed in the Plan was issued

in July 2009 and this was followed by a training session for Members on 1st Sept 2009.

5.6 The Development Committee of the 25th November 2009 deferred consideration

of the Plan to a future meeting and the Development Committee of 2nd February 2010 deferred consideration to an extraordinary meeting. The Extraordinary meeting on the 16th February 2010 did not have a quorum. The Development Committee of 16th March 2010 recommended the establishment of a Working Party of five Members to consider the Plan in more detail and report back to the Development Committee.

6 Discussion 6.1 The Working Party met on 4th May and 11th August 2010. 6.2 Following discussions at the Working Party on 4th May it was decided that further

consultation ought to take place primarily with Parish Council representatives from those villages where the majority of rural development is likely to be focused before a Plan is released for wider public consultation. As a result, a series of

meetings were set up with Members of the Working Party and officers to explain the process of plan preparation and to listen to views from the community groups. The following meetings took place:

• Irchester Parish Council – 27th May 2010

• Wollaston Parish Council – 9th June 2010.

• Earls Barton Parish Council – 10th June 2010.

• Finedon Parish Council – 14th June 2010.

• Croyland Ward Associations – 1st July 2010. 6.3 These were productive and useful meetings and various suggestions and

comments made by the communities are being investigated further by officers. Questionnaires were sent out to all the other Parish Councils and Parish Meetings on 29th June in order to gauge their views on various aspects of the Plan. In addition, all Members of the Council were written to on 17th May 2010 and invited to raise any issues that they would wish the Working Party to consider. At the time of writing this report only a few responses had been received from either Members or the Parish Councils/Meetings. Nevertheless, these comments have been very useful and a number of changes that have been suggested to the Plan are being investigated by officers.

6.4 A petition from the ‘Save Irchester Countryside Campaign 2010’ was also received by the Mayor at the meeting of the full Council on 20th July 2010. The petitioners wish to see the retention of the Irchester policy line and the protection of the area to the South of the village as an area of restraint in order ‘to protect this stunning countryside for future generations enjoyment. We ask the Borough Council of Wellingborough to reconsider the need for 100 extra homes in the village’. The Campaign has been advised that the petition will be dealt with as a representation under the procedures attaching to the production of Local Development Framework documents (see Appendix 3).

6.5 As a result of queries made to a number of housing sites originally suggested as ‘preferred options’, further evidence is being gathered to ensure that a sound and robust plan is prepared. This will result in a re-evaluation of the housing matrix in the Background Paper titled ’Wellingborough Housing Allocation Methodology and Site Selection’. This is turn is likely to suggest some amendments to the housing sites proposed as ‘preferred options’

6.6 Since the last time that the Committee considered the draft Plan there has been a change of Government, which has resulted in a number of implemented and proposed changes to the planning system. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) has been revoked and the Government is proposing a Decentralisation and Localism Bill to reform the planning system based on principles in the Conservative Green Paper – Open Source Planning. These changes have implications for the preparation of the Plan.

6.7 There have also been a number of other changes since the drafting of the Preferred Options for the Plan. These include a change in the definition of brownfield land and the issuing of some new national Planning Policy Statements. The implications of these changes are also being considered in the redrafting before a revised version of the Plan is put before the Committee for

consideration. 6.8 Whilst the revocation of the RSS has resulted in the removal of ‘top-down’

housing targets, this might not have an immediate impact in Wellingborough because the RSS requirement of 12,800 dwellings for the period 2001 to 2021 remains embodied in the Core Spatial Strategy. This plan is adopted and has a binding nature until it is reviewed. There is a significant level of consented development in Wellingborough and sufficient land for 12,800 can be identified as part of the Plan. Given significant delays in bringing key sites forward for development, work on the delivery of the Plan indicates that development at the pace necessary to achieve this target of 12,800 dwellings by 2021 and maintain a 5 year supply of housing land is problematic. Housing completions for the last year were at the lowest level recorded in recent years.

6.9 In this context, the need to address the housing delivery shortfall is a key issue for the Plan if it is to be progressed to adoption and found ‘sound’ by an Inspector. The housing delivery problem is likely to create pressure to release additional sites for development if committed sites, including the sustainable urban extensions, are not delivering housing at the scale and speed required to meet the targets in the Core Spatial Strategy or maintain a 5 year housing supply. PPS3 indicates that where local planning authorities cannot demonstrate an up to date 5 year supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to other policies in the PPS.

6.10 Advice issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 6th July indicates that the revocation of the RSS is not a signal for local authorities to stop making plans for their area. ‘Local planning authorities should continue to develop LDF core strategies and other DPDs…Adopted DPDs and saved policies will continue to provide the statutory planning framework’.

6.11 Furthermore, the Open Source Planning Green Paper states that the Government intends to ‘legislate that if new local plans have not been completed within a prescribed period, then the presumption in favour of sustainable development will automatically apply. In other words, if a local planning authority does not get its local plan finalised in reasonable time, it will be deemed to have an entirely permissive planning approach, so that all planning applications will be accepted automatically if they conform with national planning guidance.’ In view of this it is not considered prudent to wait for the review of the CSS in the anticipation of a lower growth figure before progressing the Plan.

6.12 Whilst housing requirements will be reassessed as part of the planned review of the Core Spatial Strategy, this process is unlikely to be completed before the end of 2012. In response to the difficulties in delivering sites at the present time, however, the Joint Committee is expected to consider an interim statement on housing provision on 22nd September. This may result in the adoption of an interim position pending the review of the Core Spatial Strategy.

6.13 Whilst such a statement would be of limited weight when being considered by an Inspector, it may provide a helpful interim context for the scale of development proposed in the Plan. It may assist in defending the Council against likely pressures to allocate further land in an attempt to secure the scale of growth envisaged in the Core Spatial Strategy and, to grant planning permission for sites that are not in accordance with the emerging Plan in the absence of a 5 year

supply of deliverable housing land when measured against the targets in the Core Spatial Strategy. Accordingly, it is considered prudent to await consideration of the statement by the Joint Committee prior to finalising the Site Specific Plan – Preferred Options for consultation. It is therefore anticipated that a report incorporating proposed amendments will be brought to the Development Committee on 12th October 2010 for consideration.

6.14 Further consideration will need to be given to the context and scale of development that the Plan should seek to deliver before the Proposed Submission version is submitted to the Secretary of State. This will need to take account of factors such as work on the Core Spatial Strategy review; further policy and guidance from the Government; and consultation responses.

7 Legal Powers 7.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated Regulations.

8 Financial and Value For Money Implications 8.1 Budgetary provision has been made for the printing of documents and the cost of

public consultation in the current financial year. Additional resources will, however, need to be sought should further work on the evidence base need to be commissioned. The cost of the Public Examination is likely to be incurred during 2011/12 or 2012/13 and appropriate provision for this will need to be made.

9 Risk Analysis Nature of risk Consequences

if realised Likelihood of occurrence

Control measures

Failure to produce a sound plan (e.g. not in accordance with the Core Spatial Strategy).

An inspector will reject the Site Specific Plan or make changes to make it sound.

High Use the soundness self assessment toolkit produced by PAS to ensure that evidence requirements are met and compliance with statutory requirements.

Waiting for the review of the Core Spatial Strategy before preparing the Plan.

There will be considerable delay in preparing the Plan. Some existing evidence base may become out of date and need to be

Medium Continue working on the Plan whilst the Core Spatial Strategy is being reviewed.

Nature of risk Consequences if realised

Likelihood of occurrence

Control measures

redone. In the absence of an adopted Plan and a 5 year supply of housing land, the Council would be more at risk from speculative applications.

Applications for planning permission on land not recognised or allocated for development during this plan period.

Applications refused in the absence of an approved strategic land use document will expose the Council to costs incurred in defending the decisions to refuse speculative applications.

High

Complete the work on producing the Plan.

10 Implications for Resources 10.1 The Council has land and property affected by the proposals in the Plan.

11 Implications for Stronger and Safer Communities 11.1 Health improvement, community cohesion, and community safety are all matters

dealt with in the Plan and are explicitly considered by the Sustainability Appraisal.

12 Implications for Equalities 12.1 The impact of the Plan on different groups in society has been considered as part

of the Sustainability Appraisal. An Equalities Impact Assessment Screening has also been undertaken

13 Author and Contact Officer Sue Bateman, Senior Planning Officer

14 Consultees James Wilson, Corporate Director

Steven Wood, Head of Built Environment Andrew Longley, Planning Manager – Joint Planning Unit

15 Background Papers Wellingborough Housing Allocation Methodology and Site Selection – Background paper for SSPDPD

Parish Council/Meeting Survey An early draft of the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan has been prepared in order to enable consultation to take place on what might be the best way forward. The draft Plan sets out what the ‘preferred options’ are considered to be, based upon the current evidence available. Other options considered are also explained in the draft Plan, which is available to view at: http://wellingborough.limehouse.co.uk/portal/sspdpd. The Borough Council wishes to consult with Parish Councils/Meetings and consider their responses prior to making a decision to undertake wider consultation with the wider community. Settlement Hierarchy The Core Spatial Strategy indicates that development should be focused on villages that perform a sustainable local service centre role whilst Restraint Villages, where conservation is the primary consideration, should also be identified. Three categories of villages are suggested in the draft Plan with development limited to an appropriate scale and form as follows:-

Limited Service Role Villages: The majority of rural development should be focused within the boundaries of these villages; (Earls Barton; Finedon; Irchester; Wollaston) Network Villages: Development will be limited to minor infill and windfall development (Bozeat; Great Doddington; Great Harrowden, Grendon; Ecton; Isham; Little Harrowden; Little Irchester; Mears Ashby; Orlingbury; Sywell (excluding the old village); and Wilby): Restraint Villages: Development will be restricted, with priority given to conservation considerations (Easton Maudit; Hardwick; Strixton; Sywell old village):

Do you agree that a hierarchy should be identified and are the categories suggested appropriate? Please explain the reasons for your response. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *See preferred option 1 of the draft Plan at: http://wellingborough.limehouse.co.uk/portal/sspdpd. for further detailed information.

Do you agree with the suggested classification for your village? Please explain the reasons for your response. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *See preferred option 1 of the draft Plan for further detailed information Village Boundaries Village boundaries are drawn in order to distinguish where open countryside and settlement policies apply. Development outside the Boundaries is severely restricted. The draft Plan is proposing to identify Village Boundaries which relate closely to the main built up areas of the villages based on the following criteria:

A. Existing employment uses or leisure uses on the edge of villages which are obviously detached from, or peripheral to, the main built up area will be excluded;

B. Caravan sites and Rural Exceptions Sites will be excluded; C. Free standing, individual or groups of dwellings, nearby farm buildings or

other structures which are obviously detached from, or peripheral to, the main built up area will be excluded;

D. Public open spaces and undeveloped areas of land on the edge of villages will be excluded;

E. The curtilages (e.g. gardens and parking areas) of dwellings will be included unless the land has the capacity to extend the built form of the village;

F. Areas of land with planning permission at 1 April 2010 which adjoin the built up area will be included; and

G. Proposed allocations will be included. Village Boundaries are not proposed to be identified in the Plan for the Restraint Villages of Easton Maudit, Strixton, Sywell Old Village and Hardwick.

Do you agree with the criteria above? Please explain the reasons for your response. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *See preferred option 3 of the draft Plan for further detailed information The suggested Village Boundaries are shown on the draft Proposals Map in Appendix E of the draft Plan and a copy is provided with this questionnaire.

Do you agree with how the Village Boundaries have been drawn for your village? If not, please show amendments on the plan provided and give a brief explanation of why the boundary should be amended. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ New Development in the Countryside In accordance with the Core Spatial Strategy some types of development could be permitted in the open countryside outside of the Village Boundaries. This could include small scale development that could not be accommodated in the town or villages, the re-use of existing buildings or replacement dwellings. The draft Plan sets out criteria to establish when this development would be acceptable. Do you agree with the approach of setting criteria? Please explain the reasons for your response. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *See preferred option 4, 5 and 6 of the draft Plan for further detailed information.

New Development in the Countryside It is suggested that new development is only allowed in the countryside where:

A. It can not be accommodated in either the town or the villages; B. It is small scale and involves no more than a limited number of

buildings or structures; C. It is designed and sited to minimise adverse impact on the character of

the countryside; and D. It will not result in coalescence between settlements

Do you have any comments on the draft criteria suggested? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re-use of buildings in the Countryside It is suggested that the Plan support the re-use of existing buildings for employment, leisure or tourist uses (including tourism accommodation) provided that:

A. The character of the original buildings are conserved; B. The original buildings are substantially intact – this should be supported

by a structural survey; and C. Future expansion options are controlled through planning conditions.

Do you have any comments on the draft criteria suggested? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Replacement Dwellings It is suggested that replacement dwellings are only supported where:

A. The original dwelling has not been abandoned or allowed to fall into a state of dereliction.

B. The original dwelling is not a temporary or mobile structure; and C. The replacement dwelling is of a similar scale, size and massing to the

original dwelling.

Do you have any comments on the draft criteria suggested? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Environmentally Important Open Space The draft Plan is suggesting that sites within or on the edge of settlements should be identified as Environmentally Important Open Space (EIOS) on the Proposals Map where they meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Land that contributes positively to the existing form or character of the settlement; B. Land that contributes to the setting of a listed building, an ancient monument or the character of a Conservation Area; or C. Land that allows views into the settlement from approach roads or open countryside, views into the open countryside from within the settlement and/or views across the settlement.

Sites identified as EIOS would be protected from future development. Do you agree with the criteria for designating areas of open space as EIOS? Please explain the reasons for your response. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *See preferred option 12 of the draft Plan for further detailed information. Do you agree with the sites that have been suggested for designation as EIOS in your village? Please explain the reasons for your response. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Are there any additional sites that you think should be identified as EIOS? If so, please identify them on the map provided. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Important Amenity Areas The draft Plan is suggesting that recreational open space comprising recreational/sports grounds (including school sports grounds), playing fields, the town linear park system, formal town parks, pocket parks, allotments, informal open space and children's play areas be identified as Important Amenity Areas (IAA) on the Proposals Map It is proposed that sites designated as Important Amenity Areas are normally retained but that exceptions be permitted if:

A. The site is not also identified as Environmentally Important Open Space; and B. There is sufficient open space of all types within the locality as defined in

'Quality of Open Space'; or C. Provision is to be made on an alternative and appropriate site which is easily

accessible and provides equivalent community benefit; or D. Development relates to a small part of the site where this is agreed to

represent the best means of retaining sports and recreation facilities; or E. The site can not be enhanced to meet the quality standards as defined in

'Quality of Open Space' and development represents the best option for achieving an alternative open space elsewhere; and

F. Loss of the site will not result in a break of connection in the Green Infrastructure Corridors

Do you agree with the sites identified as Important Amenity Areas in your village? If not, please explain. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Are there any additional sites that you think should be identified as IAA? If so, please identify them on the map provided. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Do you agree with the criteria allowing for the loss of IAA in certain circumstances? Please explain the reasons for your response. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *See preferred option 13 of the draft Plan for further detailed information. Employment The draft Plan is suggesting that certain employment areas within the rural area should be safeguarded for employment uses, including:

• Finedon Sidings • Sywell Aerodrome

Do you agree that these sites should be safeguarded for employment use? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Are there other sites which should be safeguarded for employment use within your village? If ‘yes’, please explain ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The draft Plan is not proposing to allocate any new sites for employment in the rural area. Do you agree with this approach? If not, please identify any sites that might be suitable for new employment? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Has the draft Plan addressed all of the land use planning issues in your village? If not, what else do you believe the Plan should deal with? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Has a need been identified for any additional services or facilities in your village (e.g. medical, education, community facilities, sports provision)? If ‘yes’, please explain. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please comment on any other parts of the draft Plan that are not covered by this questionnaire, either here or separately.

Any other Comments___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please insert the name of your Parish ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Do you currently have a Parish Plan? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Is a Parish Plan proposed? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What will happen to your comments?

• Your comments will be acknowledged either in writing or by email. • A summary of the results of the consultation will be publically available. • Your comments will be considered by the Council before a revised version of

the Plan is prepared. • All comments will be made available for public viewing. Your personal details

except for your name will however remain confidential. • In accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 your details will be retained

on our database for the purposes of preparing the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document and other related planning policy issues, they will not be used for any other purpose.

Please return by 30th July by email to: sbateman@wellingborough.gov.ukor in writing to: Planning Policy Team, Borough Council of Wellingborough, Council Offices, Swanspool House, Wellingborough, Northants, NN8 1BP

Thank you

Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document

Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document

The Plan currently being prepared by the Council is one of a number of documents that will guide the future planning of the area. Together these documents are known as the Local Development Framework (LDF).

The Plan will:

• Include policies and proposals that relate to specific areas of the Borough

• Allocate land for particular uses• Protect land for particular uses• Help to determine planning applications

There are a number of stages the Plan will go through before being adopted:

Consultation on issues and options – Feb/March 2006Consultation on preferred options – Autumn 2010Consultation on proposed Submission Plan – Spring 2011Submission to Secretary of State – Summer 2011Examination hearing – Winter 2011Adopted – Summer 2012

Tests to be applied to the PlanLegislative TestThe Planning Inspector will check that the Plan: • has been prepared in accordance with the Local

Development Scheme and is in compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement and the Regulations;

• has been subject to sustainability appraisal;• has regard to national policy;• conforms generally to the Regional Spatial Strategy; and• has regard to any sustainable community strategy for its area

(i.e. county and district).

Soundness TestTo be “sound” the Plan must be JUSTIFIED, EFFECTIVE and

consistent with NATIONAL POLICY.

“Justified” means that the Plan must be founded on a robust and credible evidence base and the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

“Effective” means that the Plan must be deliverable, flexible and able to be monitored’

“Consistent with National Policy” means that the document must be consistent with national planning policy; the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy; and the North Northamptonshire Core Strategy.

Specific key requirements have already been set by other documents. The Plan will cover the period 2001 – 2021 and must provide for: • 11,590 dwellings within the town • 1,210 dwellings within the rural area• A net increase of 12,400 jobs in the borough• Sustainable Urban Extensions to the east and north west

of Wellingborough• High quality development and the protection and

enhancement of valuable built and natural resources to benefit existing and new communities

• Development of the evidence base• Initial discussions with stakeholders• Sustainability Appraisal

Work undertaken to date

• Background Papers (e.g. Settlement Hierarchy, Housing Allocations, Sports Village, EIOS, and IAA)

• Employment Land Studies for Wellingborough and Northants(e.g. SELA)

• Open Space and Sports Facilities Strategies• Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHLAA)• Environmental Character • Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

Evidence Base

• Initial consultation at Issues and Options Stage• Education Authority• Primary Care Trust (PCT)• Highways

Further discussions and consultation are proposed as part of the next consultation stages

Discussions with Stakeholders

A fundamental part of the Plan making process which assesses all of the reasonable alternatives and assists in determining which should be the ‘preferred option’

Assesses each option against 23 objectives• Social• Environmental• Economic

Sustainability Appraisal

Housing Sites – Selection ProcessThe Plan needs to provide for 1210 new dwellings between 2001 and 2021. 734 dwellings have already been built and a further 169 have planning permission (April 09), so the Plan needs to allocate sites for 307 new dwellings in the rural area.•Focus on villages that perform a sustainable local service centre role •Identify ‘Restraint Villages’ where conservation is the primary consideration.

Rural Settlement Hierarchy•The Rural Settlement Hierachy Paper: An assessment of:

•Existing village services/facilities

•Available data that describes how people use the villages

•Constraints/capacity

•Specific village needs (Parish survey 2006)

Rural Settlement Hierarchy

The following three categories of villages have been suggested:Limited Service Role Villages (Earls Barton; Finedon; Irchester; Wollaston) where the majority of rural development should be focused;

Restraint Villages (Easton Maudit; Hardwick; Strixton; Sywell old village): where development will be restricted on the basis of conservation priorities; and

Network Villages (Other villages): where development will be limited to minor infill and windfall development.

Housing Sites – Selection Process

•A large number of sites (over 0.25ha) have been assessed in/adjoining the Limited Service Role Villages to identify which are the best for new housing.

•Priority has been given to previously used land and buildings and sites within villages before looking at sites adjoining villages (the sequential approach).

Housing Sites – Selection ProcessEarls Barton

Finedon Irchester Wollaston

completions 111 165 64 176Outstanding permissions

14 53 14 29

Preferred sites (brownfield)

53 103 0 55

Total  178 321 78 261

Housing Sites – Selection ProcessAssessment Criteria are derived from the Sustainability Objectives and include:

• Pedestrian/vehicular access to village services

• impact on existing sport, recreation and other community facilities

• any risks to public health and safety

• potential noise or smell nuisance

• impact on wildlife habitats

• Landscape sensitivity

• Impact on historic environment

Housing Sites – Selection Process•Impact on the character and form of the village

• Potential impact on water quality

• Flood risk

• loss of agricultural land

• Any land stability issues

• Potential loss of employment

• Physical constraints

• Availability

Housing Sites – Selection Process•Impact on the character and form of the village

• Potential impact on water quality

• Flood risk

• loss of agricultural land

• Any land stability issues

• Potential loss of employment

• Physical constraints

• Availability

-EB/12 8 10 2

EB/14 8 10 2

EB/3 6 12 2

EB/6 5 13 2

EB/7 5 13 2

EB/2 7 10 3

EB/11 6 11 3

EB/13 6 11 3

EB/16 6 11 3

EB/5 5 12 3

EB/18 5 12 3

EB/19 5 12 3

EB/8 3 14 3

EB/4 7 9 4

EB/17 5 11 4

EB/20 5 11 4

EB/9 4 12 4

EB/22 4 11 5

EB/15 3 12 5

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 DX 12865 www.wellingborough.gov.uk

Chris Pittman Head of Policy, Partnerships and Property T: 01933 231710 F: 01933 231762 E: cpittman@wellingborough.gov.uk

Mr T Skipper Date: 23 July 2010

Your Ref:

93 Woodlands Rd Irchester Northamptonshire

NN9 7BU Our Ref:

Dear Mr Skipper Irchester Village Petition I write to acknowledge receipt of your petition by the Mayor at the meeting of the full Council on 20 July 2010. Because the petition relates to a planning matter it is dealt with outside of our petitions scheme. The petition will therefore be dealt with as a representation under the procedures attaching to the production of local development framework documents and I have passed the petition to the appropriate Officer in the Built Environment Service for their attention. It is my understanding that the matter to which the petition relates will be considered formally by the Council’s Development Committee later this year. Yours sincerely Chris Pittman Head of Policy, Partnerships and Property

Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1BP Tel: 01933 229777 DX 12865 www.wellingborough.gov.uk