plan - consultation report - south...

of 87

Kislingbury Parish

Neighbourhood Development Plan - Consultation Report

Prepared by the NDP Steering Group

of 87

CONTENTS

1.1 Background 3 1.2 Consultation History 3

2.1 Consultation Approach 5 2.2 Village Consultation 5

2.2.1 NDP Availability 6 2.2.2 Consultation Responses 7

2.3 Statutory and Other Consultees 7

3.1 Introduction 12

3.2 NDP Scope 12

3.3 Housing Site Policies 13

3.4 Community Policies 13

3.5 Design Policies 13

3.6 Historic Environment Policies 13

3.7 Traffic Policies 13

4.1 General 14

4.2 Community Policies 14

4.3 Design Policies 14

4.4 Employment and the Local Economy Policies 14

4.5 Housing Policies 15

4.6 Historic Environment Policies 15

4.7 Housing Site Policies 15

4.8 Traffic Policies 15

4.9 Appendices 15

Appendices 15 A. Consultation and Communication November 2012 to December 2015 15 B. Pre-submission Consultation Publicity and Response Items 18 C. Pre-submission Public Consultation Response Matrix 27

Kislingbury Parish Council

The Parish Office

The Paddocks

Baker Street

Gayton,

NN7 3EZ

Email: [email protected] http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/index.php

Section 4 NDP Changes 14

Section 3 Overview of Pre-Submission Consultation Responses 12

Section 2: Pre-Submission Consultation 5

Section 1: Introduction Page 3

of 87

Section 1: Introduction

The Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) is produced by the Parish Council under the Localism Act 2011 and the associated Regulations. This legislation requires Kislingbury Parish Council to carry out a formal public consultation on the Plan for a minimum period of 6 weeks before submitting it to South Northants Council which is able to bring the Plan into force following independent examination and referendum.

In preparing the Plan the Parish Council has tried to go beyond the minimum requirements for community consultation required by law. The Plan has been produced by a Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group made up of volunteers from the community, drawing on professional support at key stages.

This Consultation Report: summarises the entire consultation history; and describes the Regulation 14 (Pre-submission) consultation process, responses and consequent

changes to the Plan.

Planning began in October 2011. From the outset the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group (the Steering Group) determined that the NDP would reflect the views of those living and working in the Parish and consultation formed an early and continuing part of the planning process. Communication and consultation were essential and, in outline, proceeded by: a. identifying what the local community thought before any plan development began; b. using that information to define the aims of the NDP and the key issues that the NDP would address; c. gathering evidence on the local needs for housing, and other features of life in the parish; d. liaising with SNC to include the requirements of their emerging Part 2 Plan and the West Northants JCS

Plan; e. asking local people to state their preferences for the sites which might accommodate the

projected growth and provide for local needs; f. consulting local people on preferred options prior to producing the pre-submission consultation draft

NDP.

In support of this from September 2012 to the beginning of May 2015 the Steering Group: a. publicised the development of the NDP in March 2013 and every Edition since January 2014 of the

Kislingbury Newsletter , the monthly village magazine delivered to every Household in the Village and widely read;

b. created a Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan web page on the Village Web Site http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php in 2014 which published updates and reports and invited comment, and made available all the latest documents related to the NDP;

c. inserted links to the NDP website on the Parish Council website; d. ran three major public meetings: one in March 2014 and one in October 2014 and one in May 2015; e. ran two all-village surveys; one on all aspects of life in the village (January 2013); one on housing

(October 2014); f. met with local groups and organisations; and g. Consulted with landowners, and developers. h. Consulted with Statutory Consultees; i. Consulted with all Neighbouring Parishes and Districts

1.2 Consultation History

1.1 Background

http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php

of 87

In addition: The Steering Group reports to each Parish Council meeting (held monthly).

A more detailed summary of the publicity and consultation activities undertaken during this period can be found in Appendix A.

Copies of the reports from: • the village survey conducted in January 2013; • the public consultation held in March 2013; • the village survey conducted in October 2014 • the public consultation held in October 2014; • the public consultation held in May 2015; and • the public consultation held from September 21 to November 6th 2015 (Reg 14 Consultation)

are available on the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan website


as part of the Evidence Base in support of the Plan.


of 87

Section 2: Pre-Submission Consultation

The pre-submission consultation began on Monday 26th October 2015 and closed at noon on Friday 11th December 2015 giving people 6 weeks and 4 days to respond.

The consultation proceeded along three main lines:

a. consulting those within the Parish (the Village Consultation); and b. consulting the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Planning

(General) Regulations 2012 (the Statutory Consultees). c. consulting with many other organisations and persons who will be affected by the NDP.

The structure of this consultation report reflects this approach.

A complete set of responses from both the Village Consultation and the Statutory and Other Consultees is provided in Appendix C.

This section summarises the programme from 1st October 2015 to publicise the pre-submission consultation.

Date

Media Publicity Notes

1st

October 2015 Kislingbury Newsletter

Announcement of the impending consultation to all readers

Appendix B Figure B-1

13th

October 2015 Leaflet (Distribution #1)

Notification of September Parish Council Meeting on September 15th

t 2015 to all homes

in the village. Announcement of dates of consultation


20th

October 2015 Parish Council Meeting

Formal adoption of the draft Plan by the Parish Council. Presentation summarising the Plan and giving consultation details and response forms

Appendix B

Figure B-5 (a)-(b)

And Figure B-7 (a)-(d)

21st

October 2015

E-mail To Village Email Database

Notification of consultation to all on the Kislingbury Village e-mail list


21st

October 2015

Publicity Board erected around the Village

Publicity Sheet attached to each Board Publicising the Consultation


23rd

, 24th

, 25th

October 2015

Leaflet to all residents. (Distribution #2)

An announcement of the consultation with details of procedure and dates delivered by hand to all households


23rd

October 2015 Website http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_i

ndex.php providing:

All Plan Documents

All Relevant Evidence

From 23rd

October2015

Parish Office Provision of reference copies of the Plan, response forms, and consultation details, and Response Forms

From 23rd

October20152015

Kislingbury Village Hall

Provision of 10 Plan copies for short-term loan, and response forms

2.2 Village Consultation

2.1 Consultation Approach



of 87

From 23rd

October2015

SNC Office and Library

Provision of one reference copy for SNC and 2 for the Library of the Plan, and Response Forms

From 23rd

October20152015

Kislingbury Primary School

Provision of 10 Library copies for short-term loan and response forms

From 23rd

October20152015

Sun Inn and Olde Red Lion

Provision of 2 Plan copies each for Reference and response forms

From 23rd

October2015

KOFS Provision of 4 Plan copies for Reference and response forms

26th

, 27th

, 28th

October 2015

Leaflet to all residents

(Distribution #3)

A 4-page Plan summary and Response form delivered by hand to all households in Kislingbury.

Appendix B Figure B-7(a) - (d)

26th

October 2015

Consultation Starts

Publicity Completed

26th

October 2015

Emails and Letters sent

Email and Letters sent to all Reg 14 Consultees as per List


1st

November 2015

Kislingbury News

Reminder to all readers of ongoing Reg 14 Pre Submission Consultation

Appendix B Figure B-3(a)

1st

December 2015

Kislingbury News

Reminder to all readers of ongoing Reg 14 Pre Submission Consultation

Appendix B Figure B-3(b)

11th

December 2015

Consultation Ends

15th

December PC Meeting Recommendation for Changes passed to Parish Council for approval

Response forms were available online http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php and from the Parish Office, Kislingbury Village Hall, Library at SNC Office, Kislingbury Primary School, Sun Inn and Olde Red Lion, and KOFS.

Comments not submitted on a Response Form were accepted subject to the submitter identifying themselves and their status (resident, agent, etc) and by letter from Statutory and Other Consultees.

2.2.1 NDP Availability

Throughout the consultation period: Hard copies of the draft NDP were available for inspection at the Kislingbury Parish Office,

the Library at SNC Offices, and at the Kislingbury Village Hall. As well as at Kislingbury Primary School, The Sun Inn, and the Olde Red Lion, and copies were available at the Weekly KOFS Meeting.

Hard copies were available for short term loan at the Kislingbury Village Hall and the Kislingbury Primary School.

Electronic copies were available on http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php. Due to an temporary problem with the Server the Web Site was offline for a few days during the Consultation period, but this has not caused an issue with Residents’ and Consultees’ access to copies of the NDP.

In addition, members of the Steering Group were available between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in the Kislingbury Village Hall on the Wednesdays of the Consultation period, starting October 28th and ending on December 9th, to answer questions.

http://www.woodcotendp.org.uk/


of 87

2.2.2 Consultation Response s

The Consultation generated 116 separate responses containing over 120 distinct comments representing the views of:

i. 100 village residents ii. 1 Landowner iii. 2 Representatives of Landowners iv. 1 Local Organisation v. 12 Statutory and Other Consultees

The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 identify the bodies that must be consulted. The following bodies were notified of the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan and asked to comment. Those highlighted in Green responded:

Name Organisation 1st line of

address

2nd line of

address

Town County Post Code E-mail

Mr C Wragg, Transport & Highways

Northamptonshire County Council

Riverside House Riverside Way

Northampton NN1 5NX [email protected]

Ms R Deeming, Land Use Advisor

Natural England

Hornbeam House,

Electra Way

Crewe Business Park

Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ [email protected]

Ms Kerry Ginns, Planning Advisor

Environment Agency

Nene House Pytchley Lodge Industrial Estate

Kettering Northants NN15 6JN [email protected]

Mr M Seldon, NDD Midlands Asset Development Team

Highways Agency

9th Floor, The

Cube,

199 Wharfeside Street

Birmingham B1 1RN [email protected]

Stewart Patience, Planning Liaison Manager

Anglian Water Services Ltd

Thorpe Wood

House

Thorpe

Wood

Peterborough PE3 6WT [email protected]

Mr Mark Chant, Head of Planning Policy


Planning Policy, PO Box 163 County Hall,

Northampton. NN1 1AX [email protected]

Lesley Ann Mather


County Archaeological

Advisor

PO Box 163 County Hall,

Northampton. NN1 1AX [email protected]

Clive Fletcher, Principal Historic Places Adviser

English Heritage

East Midlands Region, 44 Derngate Northampton Northants NN1 1UH [email protected]

Mr Christopher Heaton-Harris

Member of Parliament

House of Commons London SW1A 0AA [email protected]

2.3 Statutory and Other Consultees

mailto:[email protected]


















of 87

Mrs Ann Addison

District Council Member for Kislingbury

The Paddocks Baker Street Gayton Northampton NN7 3EZ [email protected]

Mrs Karen Cooper

District Council Member for Kislingbury

The Paddocks

Baker Street Gayton Northampton NN7 3EZ [email protected]

Councillor Joan Kirkbride

County Council Member for Kislingbury

County Council County Hall Northampton Northants NN1 1AT [email protected]

Mrs Sarah Murphy

Parish, Clerk Rothersthorpe Parish

417 Weedon Road Northampton Northampton NN5 4EX [email protected]

Sally Bramley-Brown

Parish Clerk Bugbrooke Parish

Parish Office Bugbrooke Community

Centre

Camp Close Bugbrooke Northants NN7 3RW [email protected]

Mr Guy Ravine

Parish Clerk Harpole Parish

Old Dairy Farm Upper Stowe

Weedon Northampton NN7 4SH [email protected]

Mrs Ann Addison

Parish Clerk Kislingbury Parish

The Paddocks Baker Street Gayton Northampton NN7 3EZ [email protected]

Mr Mike Essery

Correspondent to Upper Heyford Parish

30 Harmans Way Weedon Northampton NN7 4PB [email protected]

Judith Tonge,

Kislingbury Village Hall

3 Church Lane

Kislingbury [email protected]

Eddie Harley KOFS [email protected]

Neil Tyler Head of Kislingbury CEVC Primary School

[email protected]

Phil Beeston Kislingbury Playing Fields Association

17 Millers Close

Kislingbury [email protected]

Jim Headford Church Warden

St Lukes Church Kislingbury [email protected]

Marilyn Webb

Pastor at the Baptist Church

Mill Lane Kislingbury NN7 4BB [email protected]

Valerie Skidmore, Practice Manager

Bugbrooke Medical Practice

Levitts Road

Bugbrooke Northampton NN7 3QN [email protected]

Andy D’Arcy Lead Officer Planning Policy

SNC [email protected]

Tom James Daventry District Council

Lodge Road

Daventry

NN11 4FP [email protected]

Ed Dade Northampton Borough Council

Guildhall, St. Giles Square,

Northampton, NN1 1DE [email protected]

Stephen Hopewell

Landowner Blakesley Heath Farm Maidford Northants [email protected]




mailto:jkirkbride%40northamptonshire.gov.uk

mailto:jkirkbride%40northamptonshire.gov.uk





























of 87

H Collins Landowner c/o Andrew Cowling,

King West

10 Church Square

Market Harborough

Leics LE16 7NB [email protected]

Mrs P Sanders

Landowner The Green Camp Lane Kislingbury By Hand

R Elliott Landowner Hodges Lane Kislingbury By Hand

Shaun Cummings

Landowner Beech Lane Kislingbury [email protected]

Philip Lawrence

The Coal Authority, Chief Executive and Accounting Officer

200 Lichfield Lane

Mansfield Nottinghamshire

NG18 4RG [email protected]

Andy Rose The Homes and Communities Agency, Chief Executive

Fry Building

2 Marsham Street

London SW1P 4DF [email protected]

Mark Carne, chief executive

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

1 Eversholt Street

London NW1 2DN

John Tuckett, Chief Executive

The Marine Management Organisation

Lancaster House

Hampshire Court

Newcastle upon T yne

NE4 7YH [email protected]

Dan Fitz

Secretary

BT Group plc, and BT OpenReach

BT Centre, 81 Newgate Street,

London EC1A 7AJ

Sally Leonard, Head of Asset Management & Strategy [email protected]

Nigel Cheek, General Counsel Openreach [email protected]

Andrew Johnson, Head of Real Estate Legal Team [email protected]

Victoria McSherry, Director, Planning and Acquisitions

Mono Consultants Ltd

Third Floor

48 St Vincent Street

Glasgow

G2 5TS [email protected]

Steve Holliday, Chief Executive

National Grid, for Electricity and Gas

National Grid House Park

Warwick Technology

Gallows Hill

Warwick

CV34 6DA

Steve Holliday, Chief Executive

National Grid Plant Protection,

Brick Kiln Street, Hinckley, Leicestershire

LE10 0NA [email protected]


















of 87

Basil Scarsella, Chief Executive Officer

UK Power Networks

237 Southwark

Bridge Road,

London SE1 6NP

Robert Symons, CEO

Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) Plc

Avonbank Feeder Road

Bristol BS2 0TB

NHS England Midland and East

Francis Crick House 6 Summerhouse

Road

Moulton Park

Northampton NN3 6BF

Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

Sudborough House, St Mary's Hospital,

London Road,

Kettering NN15 7PW

Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

Cliftonville

Northampton

NN1 5BD

Northamptonshire Racial Equality Council

R Building, Northampton College

Northampton Northamptonshire

NN3 3RF

Northampton Disabled People's Forum

The Guildhall, S t Giles' St, Northampton NN1 1DE

Northamptonshire Chamber of Commerce

Waterside House 8 Waterside Way

Northampton NN4 7XD [email protected]

Adam Simmonds Police and Crime Commissioner for Northamptonshire

Northamptonshire Police,

Wooton Hall Northmpton NN4 0JQ [email protected]

Robin Field, NIA Land Advisor

Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area

River Nene Regional Park CiC The Business Exchange,

Rockingham Road,

Kettering, NN16 8JX [email protected]

Jesus Gonzales, CEO

Cemex Uk Cement Ltd

Coldharbour Lane,

Thorpe, Egham. Surrey. TW20 8TD

West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit

The Guildhall Saint Giles' Square

Northampton NN1 1DE Use Web Form Link at Web Site

Alice Kirkham

Persimmon Homes

[email protected]





http://goo.gl/jlRqRr










of 87

Jim Robinson Davidsons Developments

[email protected]

Bob Heygate Heygates Limited,

Bugbrooke Mills, Northampton NN7 3QH. [email protected]

[email protected]

Colin Boyson

Boyson Construction

Harvey Reeves Road

Northampton NN5 5JR

Sport England [email protected]








of 87

Section 3: Overview of Pre-Submission Consultation Responses

3.1 Introduction

A complete list of the pre-submission consultation responses is provided in Appendix C.

During the Reg 14 Consultation we received:

116 separate Responses

100 from Residents

16 from Consultees - Statutory and Other

Of the 100 Resident Responses, 80 supported the Plan making no more than general comments in support.

The remaining 36 Responses (including 16 from Consultees) generated more than 120 Comments, all of which can be seen in Appendix C of this Document.

Four key messages emerge:

• The NDP succeeds in indentifying the important aspects, good and bad, of living in Kislingbury.

81.9% (95 of 116) of all Respondents answered Yes to the question “Does the Plan capture the important aspects, good and bad, of living in Kislingbury?”

• The NDP has substantial overall support.

84.5% (98 of 116) of all Respondents Yes to the question Overall, do you support the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan?

• There was some confusion over the scope of the NDP in respect of traffic problems in the village. The

Policy has been rewritten to remove any ambiguity.

• Housing and Housing Related aspects of the Plan were the main focus of Respondents, following

35.5% (of a Total of 124 Comments) of Respondents Comments of a general nature, many expressing support for the Plan and appreciation for the hard work to develop it. 30% of Respondents made comments about Housing Policy, Housing issues in the Plan, and Ste Selection issues.

3.2 NDP Scope

SNC and Highways NCC raised points concerning Policy T1 which sought to control any worsening of traffic problems in the Village due to new development. However, in terms of Traffic issues for the Village it is the through Traffic which is the main problem. For this reason the NDP, in Section 6, outlines the intention of the Parish Council to set up a Traffic Working Group in order to look at ways to mitigate the increasing problem. Policy T1 has been re-written to make it more realistic and to make it compatible with SNC Traffic Policies whilst retaining a link to Traffic created by new development.

Housing and Housing Policies

SNC raised a number of Housing related issues concerned with the position of Kislingbury in the Hierarchy of Settlements of South Northants

SNC pointed out that the Plan should always link viability to Affordable Housing development

SNC stated their support for the Housing Needs analysis and the conclusions reached.

Anglian Water required a condition to be added to those specified for the Allocated site.

There were several other comments related to conditions to be applied to the Allocated Site

Related to the Housing Policies SNC made several comments that Policy was unnecessary as it duplicated Policies at a higher level. We decided to retain all these Polices so that the Plan shows a

of 87

complete picture. The Residents of the Parish, whose aims and wishes the Plan has tried to capture, do not know about the NPPF or the JCS Plan. However, in all cases the Policies in the higher Strategy documents identified by SNC have been specified with the NDP Policy.

SNC made very constructive suggestions to improve wording in a number of Policies which we have adopted.

3.3 Housing Sites

A number of Residents did not support the Allocated site mainly on the grounds that it was not the right place for development.

All the supportive Resident Responses support the Allocated site

The Landowner and Developer of a rejected site submitted long Responses to show that the Plan is wrong and that their site is a better prospect.

SNC suggested removing some Policies as they repeat what is in higher strategies. However, we have retained them for completeness as explained above.

3.4 Community Policies

SNC made comments for improvements to Policies C1 and C2 which has made them more effective.

SNC suggested removing Policies C3 and C4 as they repeat what is in higher strategies. However, we have retained them for completeness as explained above.

3.5 Design Policies SNC made a comment to ensure that our Design Policy complies with future design

requirements in Planning.

3.6 Historic Environment Policy SNC made a comment which significantly improved the effectiveness of the Policy

3.7 Traffic Policies

Policy T2 for Footpaths was supported by Respondents. SNC suggested removing this Policy as it was a duplication of what is in a higher strategy. However, we have retained it for completeness as explained above.

of 87

Section 4: NDP Changes In consideration of the comments from the pre-submission consultation the following changes have been made to the Plan: 4.1 General

1 A new Section 2.5 was added to cover Omissions from the Plan 2 In Section 4.1.11 Heritage added reference to the Kislingbury Conservation Area, 3 And in 4.1.13 to the fact that the landscape has ridge and furrow and medieval

earthworks which enhance the Village 4 In Section 4.13.7 a new bullet point added to reflect the risk of loss important

Landscape values through development 5 In Section 5.2.4 the SNC required the Plan be changed to reflect that the hierarchy of

Villages has not yet been decided within the SNC Part2A Plan. The Plan has been amended to show this.

6 In Section 5.2.11 the word “outsider” was removed. 7 In Section 5.4.3 the SNC required that the Plan be amended to include the test of

Viability of any development delivering Affordable Housing. 8 In Section 5.5.1iii the words relating to Care Homes was changed. 9 In Section 5.7.2 the SNC required a similar amendment concerning the Village position

within the hierarchy of Settlements in South Northants District which has not yet been decided. We have also added that in discussions and meetings with SNC the working assumption has been that Kislingbury would be a Secondary Service Settlement.

10 Section 5.8.4.ii the suggested wording from Anglian Water for water saving was adopted.

11 Section 5.9.1 SNC provided us with more precise information concerning CIL and we have amended the plan to include this information.

12 Section 5.10.2 we have amended the Plan to reflect that the Parish Council will be applying to SNC for a change to the Village Confines outside the process of the NDP

13 In Acknowledgements Sue Deane was recorded as a Parish Councillor and her name moved appropriately

4.2 Community Policies (C)

13 Policy C1 was amended to clarify when it would be appropriate to submit a landscape strategy. Amendment required by SNC

14 Policy C2 was amended to include a list of all the Assets of Community Value using the suggested wording proposed by SNC, with the addition of an extra asset proposed by another response.

15 Policy C3 amended to clarify when a connectivity statement will be required. Relevant JCS Plan Policy identified.

4.3 Design (D) policies

16 Policy D1 amended as suggested by SNC and the wording proposed by them has been used in the Plan.

17 Policy D1 amended by changing the word “refused” to “resisted” as Kislingbury is not a Planning Authority.

4.4 Employment and the Local Economy (EM)

18 Policy EM1 was amended by the insertion of the word “Commercial” between “other” and “uses”.

4.5 Housing (H) policies

of 87

19 Policy H1 was amended by identifying the relevant related Policies in the JCS Plan. 20 Policy H2 was amended to limit the period of preferential access to Local Residents, if

offered by the Developer, to a period of 3 months. 21 Policy H3 was amended by identifying the relevant related Policies in the JCS Plan. 22 PolicyH4 has been amended so that the conditions to be applied to anyone wanting to

be allocated an Affordable Dwelling are those that are applied by SNC who will be responsible for the allocation.

23 Policy H5 has been amended to show that an up to date Housing Needs Survey will be needed at the time of Planning application to determine the mix of size of dwellings required. The relevant related Policy in the JCS Plan was identified

24 Policy H6 has been amended to reflect that the Lifetime Homes Standard may be replaced at some time in the future by new standards. We have used the response from SNC as the basis of the amendment. This change was also proposed by one other response. The relevant related Policy in the JCS Plan was identified.

4.6 Historic Environment (HE)

23 Policy HE1 has been rewritten using the proposed text from SNC. The relevant related Policies in the JCS Plan and NPPF were identified.

4.7 Housing Sites (HS) policies

24 Policy HS1 has been amended by including a reference to the Figures which identify the location of the Allocated Site

25 Policy HS2 has been amended to ensure that the application meets all relevant requirements set out in other policies in this plan and other Development Plan documents covering the Parish, rather than simply the JCS Plan requirements.

26 Policy HS3 has been removed following the comment from SNC with which we agree. 27 Policies HS4 and HS5 have been renumbered after the removal of Policy HS3 28 Policy HS3 (old Policy HS4) was amended by identifying the relevant Policy in the JCS

Plan related to Exception Site Development. 29 Policy HS4 (old Policy HS5) has been completely redrafted so that the conditions

associated with the allocated site are an integral part of the Policy.

4.8 Traffic (T) policies 29 Policy T1 has been reworded following the Comment from SNC and it now reflects the

SNC’s own Saved Local Plan policy. A similar change was proposed by one other Response.

30 Policy T2 was amended to identify the relevant related Policies in the JCS Plan.

4.9 Appendices

30 Baseline Report – 5.19 Page 22 – Text amended to include reference to the Bus to Tesco for Villagers, and the fact that the two bus stops are assets.

31 Baseline Report – 5.21 Page 23 – Distance to Campion School amended from 2 miles to 1.5 miles.

32 Baseline Report – 5.23 Page 24 - Reference to Mothers Union removed. 33 Landscape and Village Character Assessment – Page 13 “South” replaced by “North”

These changes were reviewed and approved by the Kislingbury Parish Council at the meeting held on February 16th 2016.

of 87

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Consultations and Communication November 2012 to December 2015

The Kislingbury Newsletter is distributed free every month to every house in the village. It is widely read and used as a source of information about what is going on in the Village.

The online version of the Kislingbury Newsletter can be accessed at

http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_newsarticles.php

Web-Site The web-site http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php

was launched in 2014 and regularly updated with invitations to events, summaries of the outcome of events, and announcements of other activities, such as surveys, as well as making all documents accessed for the Plan development, as well as the development versions of the Plan, available during the development of the NDP.

Village Hall

Date Time Attendance Questionnaires Returned

March 1st 2014 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. 81 66 Feedback Forms Received

October 18th 2014

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 and 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.

53 13 Feedback Forms Received

A.3 Public Exhibitions and Meetings

A.2 Electronic Communication

Year Month Page 2015 January

February 6

February 6 March 6 April 6 May 6 June 4 July 4

September 5 October 5 November 5 December 5

Year Month Page 2014 January

February 4

February 4 March 4 April 4 May 5 June 5

July 5 September 5 October 5 November 5 December 7

A.1 Kislingbury Newsletter

http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_newsarticles.php


of 87

The Attendance Register and Questions asked during and after the Meeting can be found in the Evidence Material.

The Attendance Register and Questions asked during the first meeting can be found in the Evidence Material. The second meeting was attended by the NDP Steering Group Members.

In addition to Parish Plan and Village Appraisal material two surveys went to all homes in the village. The Analysis of the Responses to these two Surveys can be found in the Evidence Material.

January 2012 NDP Start Survey

October 2014 Supplementary, and HNS

Board of Governors Kislingbury Primary School

Bugbrooke Medical Practice

AnglianWater

Persimmon

Davidsons Homes

NCC Transport

Highways Agency

SNC

KOFS

Opinion Leader Residents on Commercial and Housing Issues

May 12th 2015 1:30 to 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. Meeting for Presentation and Discussion

17 People Attended the Afternoon , and 27 People the Evening Presentation

27 Questions asked during Meeting Q&A. 7 Response Forms Received after Meeting

October 20th Parish Council Meeting

7:30 to 8:15 p.m. 70 People attended to listen to the Plan Outline

11 Questions asked after the Presentation

Year Date Objective of Meeting 2015 October 20th To present the Draft Plan to the Parish Council

and attending Residents, and for the Parish Council to adopt the Draft Plan so it can proceed to Public Consultation

2015 December 15th To Present the Responses from the Reg 14 Consultation and the Recommendations from the Steering Group for Changes

2016 January 9th To Review and Approve Changes to the Plan recommended by the Steering Group following the Reg 14 Consultation.

A.6 Meetings

A.5 Village Surveys

A.4 Parish Council Meeting

of 87

Natural England Historic England Environmental Agency In addition to these Statutory Consultees we consulted with many other Bodies and Individuals: NCC Transport Highways Agency NCC, Minerals NCC, Archaeology AnglianWater Local MP District Council Members County Council Member Neighbouring Parish Councils Neighbouring Districts KOFS Kislingbury Primary School Churches SNC Kislingbury Playing Fields Association Landowners

All the responses received from these Consultees are shown in the Sustainability Assessment.

A.7 Consultation on Site Selection Process

of 87

Appendix B: Pre-submission Consultation Publicity and Response Items

Tuesday October 20th 2015

7:30 p.m. Kislingbury Village Hall

The Parish Council will Host a short presentation on the Draft Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan which runs

through to 2029.

This meeting will announce the formal six week period of Public Consultation which starts on October 26th 2015

The Parish Council and Members of the Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group will present the outline of the Plan which will determine the

future development of our Village and where new housing will be built in Kislingbury up to 2029. After which the Parish Council will adopt the Draft

Neighbourhood Development Plan so that it can pass to the formal consultation phase.

This is your Plan and your chance to speak to your Parish Council about living in the Village.

Figure B-1 Notice of Parish Council Meeting to Adopt NDP In Kislingbury News October Edition

of 87

Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan

You are invited to attend the Presentation by the Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group at the Parish Council Meeting on Tuesday October 20th at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall. The presentation will outline the main points of the Plan. The Plan aims to:

Stop large scale Housing Development

Protect the Rural look and feel of the Village

Provide Affordable Houses for those who need them

Provide low cost starter houses for local people to buy

Give locals housing preference

Maintain the integrity of the gap between the Village and Northampton

The Parish Council will Vote to adopt the Draft Plan for Consultation with Residents.

This Consultation will commence on October 26th and end at Noon on December 11th 2015.

Hard copies will be available at several locations in the Village and other locations, both for Reference and short term Loan.

Plus, Electronic Copies of all Plan documents will be available at http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php - Pre-Submission Consultation - Plan Documents - from 26th October 2015.

Prior to the Start of the Consultation period more information will be distributed to tell you where you will be able to find Hard Copies of the Plan Documents.

We need your comments – positive as well as negative – to make sure that the final version of the Plan reflects, as accurately as possible, your views.

Response forms will be available on line at the same site http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php

from the Parish Office, and at all the locations where the Plan can be viewed.

Please Attend this Parish Council Meeting to show your support for the Plan

Figure B-2 Leaflet Notice of Parish Council Meeting to Adopt NDP distributed to all Houses 13th October 2015


http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2015_presubdocs.php



of 87

Figure B-3 (a) Figure B-3 (b)

Your Neighbourhood Plan

Formal Consultation Started on your Plan on October 26th and will continue

until Noon December 11th 2015

The NDP Steering Group has completed the development of the Plan taking

account of all the Views that have been expressed from:

Kislingbury Residents

Statutory Consultees

Landowners and Developers

Village Organisations and Societies

And many more

The Parish Council adopted the Draft Plan for Consultation at its meeting on

October 20th 2015. On October 26th a period of 6 weeks Formal Consultation

started. At the end of this period the Steering Group will assess all the feedback,

comments and critiques and take decisions on how to act on these. The Plan will

be adopted by the Parish Council and sent to SNC to appoint an Examiner, and

finally to organise the Referendum of Village Residents to Vote on whether or not

to accept the Plan.

Copies of the Plan can be found at:

Village Hall – Copies available for short term loan

The Kislingbury Primary School – Copies available for short term loan

The Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion – Reference Copies will be available

Weekly KOFS Meeting – Reference Copies will be available

The Parish Council Office

The SNC Offices in Towcester, and the Library at those Offices

Each Wednesday (starting October 28th) , between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. there will be a Steering

Group Member at the Village Hall to answer any questions you have on the Plan.

At each location there will be a supply of Response Forms. Please use these as we need your

feedback.

The Plan and Response Form are also be available on the Plan Page of the Village Web Site.


You can download either or both as you require.

Please Support Your Plan

Your Neighbourhood Plan

Formal Consultation Started on your Plan on October 26th and will continue

until Noon December 11th 2015

It is now nearly ended!

This is your Plan

Make your opinion

known Copies of the Plan can still be found at:

Village Hall – Copies available for short term loan

The Kislingbury Primary School – Copies available for short term loan

The Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion – Reference Copies will be available

Weekly KOFS Meeting – Reference Copies will be available

The Parish Council Office


At each location there will be a supply of Response Forms. Please use these as we need your

feedback.

The Plan and Response Form are also be available on the Plan Page of the Village Web Site.


You can download either or both as you require.

Each Wednesday (starting October 28th), between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. there a Steering Group

Member has been at the Village Hall to answer any questions you have on the Plan.

Please Support Your Plan

Figure B-3 Kislingbury Newsletter Updates in November and December Editions

of 87


Front Back


At the Meeting on Tuesday October 20th The Parish Council adopted the Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan for Consultation with Residents. The Plan aims to:

Stop large scale Housing Development

Protect the Rural look and feel of the Village

Provide Affordable Houses for those who need them

Provide low cost starter houses for local people to buy

Give locals housing preference

Maintain the integrity of the gap between the Village and Northampton

Consultation with all Residents and Other Interested Parties will start on October 26th and end at Noon on December 11th 2015.

Hard copies of the Plan can be viewed at:

The Village Hall – 12 copies available for short term loan,

The Parish Council Office,

The SNC Offices in Towcester, and the Library at those Offices,

The Kislingbury Primary School – 12 copies available for short term loan,

The Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion – Reference Copies will be available,

and at Weekly KOFS Meeting – Reference Copies will be available. Electronic copies will be available on http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php - Pre-Submission Consultation - Plan Documents - from 26th October 2015

We need your comments – positive as well as negative – to make sure that the final version of the Plan reflects, as accurately as possible, your views.

Response Forms will be available at all Locations where the Plan can be read, as well as online at http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php, and from the Parish Office.


Dear Resident

The Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan has been produced to help match the development of the Village’s aspirations with its needs for the period to 2029. Unlike the Parish Plan of 2005, which fed into this plan, the Neighbourhood Development Plan is a statutory document that will become part of the South Northants Plan, and which must be used by them when determining planning applications.

The Plan has been produced by local residents with the support of the Parish Council, using the views of the Residents of Kislingbury. This Steering Group has consulted with, and listened to the community and local organisations, over the past two and half years to ensure that the Plan reflects the views of the majority of Kislingbury Residents.

Though most of the Community would prefer no development, that is not an option. We have to contribute our share of the new homes that are scheduled to be built in the District as part of the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. We have agreed with SNC that Kislingbury will contribute at least 50 new homes to be built by 2029. The Plan:

Keeps the total number of new homes to approximately 50

Protects the Village from uncontrolled development

Maintains the integrity of the gap between the Village and Northampton

Gives residents preferred access to many of the new houses

Protects the rural look and feel of the village

We now need your comments on the draft Plan. These are important and will be used by the Steering Group and the Parish Council to inform the final version of the Plan.

This is a unique opportunity for those of us who live in the Village, rather than developers, to determine development in Kislingbury. After independent examination the final plan will be put to a Village Referendum and if approved will come into immediate effect and provide immediate protection against unwanted over development.

Thank you

Alison Ward Kay Longland

Chair, Kislingbury Parish Council Chair, Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Figure B-4 Leaflet Promoting the Consultation to be Distributed to all Houses 23/24/25 October 2015

of 87


Front Back

Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014-2029

Reference Number Date Office Use Only

Draft Plan: Public Consultation Response Form

Please

1. Use this Form to Comment on the Draft Plan – Download if accessing online. 2. Return the Form to Kislingbury Parish Council by Hand (leave in Collection Box),

or Post to: Kislingbury Parish Council, The Paddocks, Baker Street, Gayton, NN7 3EZ. Or Email as an attachment to [email protected]

3. Complete, fully, the Personal Details Section. Any Forms that do not have the Personal Details Section fully completed will be logged but not considered.

4. Note that all Forms must be available for Public Inspection

Thank You

All Comments MUST be received by Noon on Friday 11th December 2015

Personal Details

Name, and Age if under 18

Address

Are You a Resident, Agent, or Organisation – state which and name of Organisation

If Responding as an Agent, Name of Client

Email address (Optional)

Does the Plan Capture the Important aspects, both good and bad, of Living in Kislingbury – Type or Write X in Box you choose.

(Please add any Comments you wish to make Overleaf)

Yes No

Overall, do you support the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan Yes No

Closing Date for Comments – Noon December 11th 2015 – Late forms will be logged but not considered

Continued Overleaf

Page 1 of 2

If you would like to Comment on a particular Plan Document Section or Policy then please state the Document Name and Reference Number or the Policy Number, indicate whether you Agree or Disagree, and add your comments and/or suggested Changes.

NDP Document Name & Section Reference, or Policy Number

Do you Agree or Disagree

If you disagree what changes would you suggest should be made to the Plan. Or make a Comment

Additional Comments

Closing Date for Comments – Noon December 11th

2015 – Late forms will be logged but not considered

Page 2 of 2

Figure B-5 Consultation Response Form accessible Online and at all Places where a Hard Copy of the Plan is available for Study.

of 87

Figure B-6 Email Text

Email to be Sent to Email Database to Announce the Reg 14 Pre Submission Consultation

Consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan will start on 26th October 2015

It will run until Noon 11th

December 2015.

On 20

th October the Parish Council, after a presentation on the outline of the Plan attended by Villagers, adopted the Draft Plan for Consultation. All Residents of Kislingbury Parish are now invited to comment.

The Plan, Maps, and other Key Documents as well as the Consultation Response Form are on the Village web Site at

http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2015_presubdocs.php Hard copies of the Plan can be viewed at:

The Village Hall – Copies available for short term loan,

The Kislingbury Primary School – Copies available for short term loan,

The Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion – Reference Copies will be available,

Weekly KOFS Meeting – Reference Copies will be available.

The Parish Council Office,


At all these Locations there will be Response Forms to be used to send feedback to the Steering Group.

The Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan has been created by a Steering Group, made up of Parish Councillors and Volunteers, mandated by the Parish Council.

The aim of the Plan is to give You the ability to decide where and what type of houses should be built, rather than let Landowners, their Agents and Developers do that.

The Draft Plan is based on feedback received from the Village at the time of the Parish Plan in 2005, and from many forms of Consultation since the decision to develop a Plan was taken in October 2011. It:

Identifies the Site for development.

Specifies that a single development of approximately 40 houses will be supported on that site

Specifies that Infill development that meets the Plan Policies will be supported

Specifies that the mix of Housing will be suitable for young families, people wanting to downsize, and people needing Social Housing

Recommends that new houses are made available to Kislingbury Residents on a preferential basis

Maintains the integrity of the gap between the Village and Northampton

Ensures that new traffic as a result of development does not exacerbate the traffic problems in the Village

All your Responses will be formally logged and reviewed. The Plan will be changed where there is a strong sense from the Comments that change is needed. The final Plan will represent the views of the majority of the Residents.

Please read and study the Plan, which is YOUR Plan, and make your comments on the Response Form provided either online or at the locations mentioned above.

After this Consultation the Plan will be finalised and there will not be a further chance for Residents to influence its content. In this final state it will be adopted by the Parish Council and submitted to SNC who will appoint an Examiner to ensure that the Plan complies with all relevant Legislation and other Plan Strategies which have to be taken into account.

When the Examiner has passed the Plan it will then be presented to all the Residents of the Village who will be able to Vote in a Referendum in support or against the Plan.

This is Your Plan. Make sure it reflects your Views. Send in your Feed-back.

Thank you

The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Figure B-6 E-mail Announcement to be sent to Email Database on 21st October 2015


of 87

Figure B-7 (a) Front Page Figure B-7 (b) Back Page

Figure B-7 Plan Summary Leaflet for all Households to be available at PC Meeting and Distributed to all Houses 26/27/28 October 2015

Kislingbury

Neighbourhood Development Plan

to 2029

Outline Version

• This Outline sets out only the key points of the Plan. The full version of the draft plan can be viewed at http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php - Pre-Submission Consultation - Plan Documents

Also:

• 12 Printed copies are available at the Village Hall for short term loan, • The Plan can also be viewed at the Parish Office, • SNC Offices, and the Library at the SNC Offices in Towester, • At the Kislingbury Primary School where 12 Copies will also be available for Short term

Loan. • Copies will be available to read at the Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion, • And each week there will be 2 Copies available at the KOFS Meeting.

• This Plan is based on your Views and Opinions of what you would like to happen in the Village – please tell us what you think.

• ANY Resident of Kislingbury can send in their views. Please give us your age if you are under 18

The enclosed Consultation Response Form, which can also be downloaded from the web

site shown above, must be returned by Noon on Friday 11th December 2015. Completed

Forms can be left at the Parish Office, or sent by Post to The Parish Council, The Paddocks,

Baker Street, Gayton, NN7 3EZ, or as an email attachment to [email protected] or

left in the Collection Boxes which will be found at the locations where the Plan can be

viewed.

October 2015

of 87

Figure B-7 (c) Inner Left Hand Page Figure B-7 (d) Inner Right Hand Page

Key Points

The Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP)

Has been produced by Kislingbury Residents Uses the 2005 Parish Plan information as a start point, and adds the input from the many

forms of Consultation carried out since the start of the Plan development Puts the future of the Village in the hands of its Residents

If accepted by Residents at the Referendum, the NDP

Allocates a Site acceptable to the majority in the Village for development Allocates the Site that has been selected by the Residents, not by Developers or Landowners Restricts the number of new houses in the Village to approximately 50, of which approximately

40 will be on the Allocated site, the rest coming by way of Infill development. Will be integrated into the SNC Part 2 Plan under the West Northants Joint Core Strategy Plan

for housing development and must be used to determine planning applications.

The NDP will:

Protect the Nene River flood plain and the Rural Nature of Kislingbury Maintain the integrity of the Gap between the Village and Northampton Increase the number of Affordable Houses for Social Housing Give Local people the first opportunity to Buy or Rent Increase the availability of less expensive 2 to 3 bedroom houses Give access to development generated funding (S106) to improve local facilities Maintain the Character and Vitality of the Village

The NDP proposes a Parish Action Plan to:

To address Residents’ concerns about Traffic Volumes and Traffic congestion in the Village

To Deliver all the Goal and Objectives the NDP sets out 20 Policies covering:

The allocated Development Site Housing Traffic and Transport Community and Well-being Design Employment and the Local Economy

These Policies are set out in the full Plan. Copies are available from the Web site shown on the front

page, or hard copies can be borrowed from the Village Hall and The School on short term loan, and

be read at The Sun Inn, The Olde Red Lion, and at other locations which will be publicised.

New Houses and Sites

Following the development of the Plan based on feedback from Kislingbury Residents one site

has been selected and supported by Residents as the most suitable to be developed for housing.

The Land behind Watts Close accessed from Rothersthorpe Road approximately 40 Houses - this will be supplemented by

Limited Infill Development that conforms to NDP Policies approximately 10 Houses

Residential Development will be permitted on the Allocated site and approved Infill Sites.

Residential development will not be permitted elsewhere. At some time in the future it may

become necessary to create an Exception Site for more Affordable homes to meet Village needs.

The location of the Allocated Site is shown on the map on the back page, highlighted in Green.

Part of that site as shown on the Map has already been used to develop Watts Close.

Specific planning conditions will apply to the site to regulate such matters as the type of housing,

acess, environmental and landscape protection, and the look and feel of the developments.

These can be seen in the full version of the proposed plan.

Finally

This Plan has been developed with your support and advice from a series of surveys and

consultations. We now welcome any further comments to ensure the plan matches, as closely as

possible, what the Residents of Kislingbury want.

Please tell us what you think:

Have we identified the important aspects, good and bad, of living in Kislingbury?

Overall, do you support the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan?

What Policies do you agree with, and what would you change?

All Response Forms received by Noon on Friday 11th December 2015 will be considered by the

Steering Group and the Parish Council, and where it is considered necessary the Plan will be

modified to take account of the views of Residents.

of 87

Figure B-8 Outside Publicity Sheet on Boards throughout the Village prior to Consultation Start and During Consultation

of 87

See Section 2.3 for names of all Receipients of this Email/Letter

South Northants Council, Planning Dear Mr D’Arcy I am writing to you as a member of the Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group for Kislingbury Parish. The Steering Group was set up by the Parish Council to create the Neighbourhood Development Plan on behalf of all the Residents of the Parish. Our Plan has now reached the stage where we have to Consult with the Community, Statutory Consultees, and Other Organisations. This Formal Public Consultation on the Neighbourhood Development Plan for the Parish of Kislingbury in South Northants commenced on October 26

th 2015 and will finish at Noon on 11

th December 2015. Any responses

received after this time and date will be logged but not acted on. You have been identified as a representative of an organisation with which we need to consult in order to ensure that the Plan meets the expectations you have for such documents. You will be able to find the Plan, The Plan Appendices which are integral to the Plan, as well as the key Evidence that backs up the Plan Policies and recommendations at http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2015_presubdocs.php

In addition you will find at the same address a Response Form which you can use to give us your feedback and views. This can be downloaded and printed to be sent to the address on the Form, or completed and then emailed to the address on the Form. Alternatively, you may wish to send your comments to us in some other way, to the address on the Form. It is important that Responses are sent to that address and not to me at the address on this email. These addresses are: Kislingbury Parish Council, The Paddocks, Baker Street, Gayton, NN7 3EZ. Or Email as an attachment to [email protected] If there is any aspect of the Plan, and its attachments, which you wish to have clarified please contact me at the address on this email. We look forward to getting your response in good time. (In the meantime, if you are able to give us a response to our SEA Screening Request that will be greatly appreciated.) Only in this email.

Figure B-9 Text of Email/Letter sent to Statutory Consultees and Others announcing Reg 14 Consultation



of 87

Appendix C: Pre-Submission Public Consultation Response Matrix

Analysis • All pre-submission forms, however and in whatever format received, were given a unique number and logged by the Parish Clerk. • All comments were mapped to the appropriate section of the NDP and grouped together. • Where identical comments were received (as, for example, when individuals in a family each submitted identical but separate forms) these are counted separately but

shown together.

Each comment can thus be mapped back to the original form using the comment number.

NDP Steering Group Responses to comments received during Consultation

NCR – No Change Required - Many comments, such as those agreeing with a policy, statement or other part of the Plan, need no change to the NDP. These are marked as NCR

Where a change is required this is documented in the Comments and the Change is shown.

The Matrices that follow are structured on the Plan Format.

First Section is titled General and all Responses are logged there.

This is followed by a Section for each of those in the Plan and comments related to the Section are logged there.

Then there are Sections for each of the Policy Categories – C, D, EM, H, HE, HS, T – and Responses relating to each Policy are logged appropriately

Finally there is a Section for the Appendices and the Acknowledgments Page for responses on these to be logged.

All Responses are Logged with their unique number allocated by the Parish Clerk.

Introduction

of 87

General

Response from/Form

Number

Document Reference/Policy Number

Name of Organisation Responding Comment Plan Response

1 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and Bad. Supports the Plan NCR

2 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and Bad. Supports the Plan. NCR

3 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan NCR

4 Plan

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Kislingbury is a lovely Village. It is important that we avoid getting swallowed up and surrounded by the rest of Northampton - please protect our lovely village! NCR

5 Plan UK Power Networks Refers us to Western Power Distribution NCR

6 Plan Sport England Refers to various Planning Links which cover the Protection of Playing Fields. NCR

7 Plan National Grid

Identifies one Gas HP Line in the Parish but this does not interact with the proposed development site. Refers us to the Plant Protection Division which has also been consulted. NCR

8 Plan

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Thank you to those who presented and answered questions at the Parish Council meeting. It was very informative and well organised. I fully support the Plan. NCR

9 Plan

Marine Management Organisation

The MMO concerns itself with all aspects of Marine management. Will respond more fully if the Plan warrants. NCR

10 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Thank you KNDP Steering Group for your NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



hard work in producing a realistic and comprehensive Plan for the future of our lovely Village









19 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. A well conceived plan. NCR




23 Plan Cemex

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. The Company thanks you for the opportunity to comment NCR

24 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



the Plan. I totally agree with NDP document as it has been put forward October 2015




28 Plan

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. I would like to see a ban of large Transport Lorries through the High Street in the Village and also speed control features introduced such as speed bumps and a 20 mph zone from the Dual Carriageway through to the bend at the top of the high street. NCR




32 Plan

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. If the ProLogis development is to continue to advance towards Kislingbury then perhaps to compensate for the ugly intrusion into Village Views, they could be persuaded to resurface the Camp Lane Bridleway to the benefit of the Village walkers and cyclists. NCR


34 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



the Plan

35 Plan Highways England

Highways England notes that limited growth is planned in Kislingbury; indeed only 50 dwellings are planned to come forward over the plan period. This scale of growth should not have any significant impact on the operation of the strategic road network. Highways England welcomes the sustainable measures proposed by the Council such as ensuring that development is located in areas where it will not exacerbate congestion and integrating housing into existing neighbourhoods to support a more pedestrian and cycle friendly neighbourhood. NCR

36 Plan

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Can it say "may take up to 40 Houses" rather than stating that we will take 40 houses throughout the plan. As a village we need improved Broadband.

NCR. The Plan will say consistently "approx. 40 Houses".



39 Plan Supports the Plan NCR





of 87

Response from/Form

Number





46 Plan

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. My property backs on to an area marked "SNC276" which is a paddock in between the flood defences and several properties in Church Lane among others. I’m not sure what this reference indicates and I would appreciate some clarification NCR. Responded to Question 7/12/15

47 Plan Supports the Plan NCR







54 Plan General (Formatting) SNC

Paragraph numbering would assist navigation of the Plan

All paragraphs numbered

55 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan NCR


57 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. We opposing to any plan to develop areas NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



SNC340, SNC365, SNC636, SNC581 as those areas protect the rural feeling of the Village and the road is only a single track so would not take too many cars

58

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. We opposing to any plan to develop areas SNC340, SNC365, SNC636, SNC581 as those areas protect the rural feeling of the Village and the road is only a single track so would not take too many cars NCR

59

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. I am pleased to see that we plan to draw a line between Northampton and Kislingbury (i.e. no development beyond Playing Fields) and any new housing to be situated beyond Charles Church houses. NCR


61 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Overall a good sensible plan. NCR




65

Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and bad. Does not Support the Plan. Disagrees with Allocated site behind Watts Close for 40 Houses. Land near Playing Fields much better - Area SNC636 NCR

66 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



the Plan










76

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. I wish to comment on the "New Houses and Sites" in the outline Plan. It states approximately 40 houses and approximately 10 houses. This should read maximum 40 and maximum 10 as this is open to interpretation. Another Loop hole which should be addressed is the comment "at some time in the future it may be necessary to create and exception site for more affordable homes to meet village needs, This is a very open statement and could easily be abused by a developer. Surely the object of this development

NCR. The Plan cannot state a maximum. The examiner would not allow this to pass. Our advice is to use the word approximately. Exception Sites are subject to very strict controls and can only be allocated in specific places and only for Affordable Housing. Developers would not find this attractive.

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



consultation is a Plan for now not further development in the foreseeable future.

77

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan, Kislingbury Web site not accessible 30/11, 1/12, 2/12, 3/12, possible more dates. Why?

NCR. The Server crashed and was only rebuilt 7/12. Hard copies of the Plan were available at many locations during the full 6 weeks.




81

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. I support this Plan. Thanks to all for the hard work put in NCR

82

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Overall I think that the plan makes a reasonable compromise avoiding excessive and out of character development while recognising the need for change in terms of housing development that is sustainable and permits the continuation of a good social mix. NCR





87 Natural England Thank you for consulting us on this plan. Natural England was previously consulted by SNC on the SEA NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



and HRA screening report for the plan. We confirmed in our letter dated 27th august that we had no concerns with the measures to be included in the plan as they would not affect any statutory conservation sites for which Natural England has a responsibility to protect. I confirm that our position on this remains the same and we have no further comments to make on the draft plan.

88

Planning Services Northamptonshire County Council Supports the Plan NCR








96

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Old part of sewerage pipes and drains in old part of village BADLY need replacing. The strain of new homes on them is too much in their poor state NCR

97 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



the Plan. The amount of work put into this plan is HUGE. We are so lucky to have such dedicated and committed residents here in Kislingbury. THANK YOU TO ALL INVOLVED

98

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. The major problem is the amount of traffic passing through daily. No official wants to recognise this and it is getting worse. There is an increase in 40 ton HGVs that now run through to and from Bugbrooke 24/7. We need to keep the rural aspect of the Village - that's why I came to live here. We do not want to join up with Northampton Borough. the gap must be retained NCR

99

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Old pipes in Village. Ie. Sewerage and drains have for many years have had problems, and need updating. The increase of new current homes in village have put more strain on them. The need replacing NCR


101 Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and bad. Does not Support the Plan.

101

SNC 276. This area is constantly prone to flooding despite the flood alleviation scheme. Reason: The ground beneath allows the water table to rise with the river and it therefore provides essential flood storage and makes it unsuitable for development (photos available)

NCR. Site not considered for development for reasons made in the response and identified during the site selection process.

101

SNC581, SNC635, and SNC581. These are all part of the flood plain (many photos available). Whoever earmarked these areas for development clearly

NCR. Sites not considered for development for reasons made in the response and identified during the site selection process.

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



knows nothing. Try overlaying 1998 flood map and you will see.

101

The NDP would be OK until overridden by Local/National Government dictat. The plan which "must be used to determine planning applications" is all very well until WNJSCP for housing development decide not to follow their promises, as they will, due to HMG's Urgent need for more houses.... Beware NCR

101

Re Protecting the Flood Plain, see comments re Flood Storage above. Re maintaining the Gap between Kislingbury and Northampton. How? There will probably be an appeal and developed will win NCR

101 Giving Local people the opportunity to buy or rent. How is this possible? NCR

101

Increasing Social Housing. This has caused antisocial behaviour in other local areas where it has been done such as Duston and Upton. Is this a social Experiment? NCR

101

Re S106 Funding. Believe it when you see it! Developers hold this as a "carrot". A lure which they regularly fail to comply with many years later. Google this subject for proof NCR

101

Re Traffic we do not want traffic lights on the bridge or elsewhere and no yellow lines which destroy the rural character of a village. Lorries and HGVs are the biggest problem. Build a link road from Heygates Mill to Junction 16 with the S106 money NCR

101

Ref Selected by Resident. There is no guarantee that a planning inspector won’t make an appeal and allow further erosion of our greenfield sites to greedy landowner, especially given HMG's recent NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



promise of 400,000 new homes. To believe anything less is naive

102 Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and bad. Does not Support the Plan. NCR

103

Northamptonshire County Council - Planning Policy No Comment of Support for the Plan NCR

104

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Does not Support the Plan. Personally whilst we are "outsiders" and are clearly living in one of the new houses which many village people may have objected to, indeed we would have objected to this development. However, this site was approved and once we had seen it, it was our dream to move to our new home in Kislingbury. We invested a very substantial sum of money to purchase our home on this edge of village location and it would be extremely disappointing for us personally for this location to be ruined by further development, possibly devaluing our property and the "village" idyll. NCR

105

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Does not Support the Plan. Personally whilst we are "outsiders" and are clearly living in one of the new houses which many village people may have objected to, indeed we would have objected to this development. However, this site was approved and once we had seen it, it was our dream to move to our new home in Kislingbury. We invested a very substantial sum of money to purchase our home on this edge of village location and it would be extremely disappointing for us personally for this NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



location to be ruined by further development, possibly devaluing our property and the "village" idyll.

106 Persimmon Homes

Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and bad. Does not Support the Plan. NCR

107 Landowner

Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and bad. Does not Support the Plan. Firstly I acknowledge and respect the amount of time and energy that has been applied to the draft Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan. However, my response is to highlight that I feel site SNC340 is a better site for the short/medium term development that is proposed for Kislingbury. I have read the criteria applied for the site option assessment questionnaire and subsequent scoring matrix which I am sure we all agree is still somewhat subjective. Surely the matrix could have accommodated a question along the lines "What does the site give to the Village?” particularly as the KNP Steering group were made aware of what SNC 340 was prepared to offer the village. As we all know site SNC340 is offering a sizeable part of the site as a gift to the village ad infinitum. In particular I would have thought that the Kislingbury Playing Field support for the site would have added weight to the inclusion of this question within the matrix? A recurring comment as part of the process has been the need to protect the gap between Kislingbury and Northampton. This proposal gives the Village ownership and control of a large piece of land which in tandem with the Playing field and the cricket pitch gives a large piece of green buffer for as long as

NCR. Comment is made by the owner of SNC340. Site selection was made on Site related Criteria, which are known and fixed. The selection cannot take account of a proposed development which has not been approved and can be subject to change. All developments offer incentives for the adoption of that plan and this is the case here.

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



Kislingbury want this. in fact it is surprising that (unless I have missed it) there was no mention whatsoever of this proposed gift anywhere in the proposed plan. The Steering Group and Kislingbury residents currently have the ability and opportunity to create their own perpetual gap for future generations. this is an opportunity that is available now but may not always be the case

107 Landowner

Comments Continued: Integration This was a term used by the Steering Group at the presentation of the Neighbourhood plan on the 20th October "village getting older so better if land integrated". I think we all agree that taking a plan view of both sites (SNC340 and SNC397) they are very similar in terms of a suitable bolt on for the Village. However, I think it extremely hard not to argue how integrated site SNC340 currently is to the village. It is surrounded by an existing boundary of Playing fields and cricket pitch. The playing fields (by which I include the cricket pitch) are already a vibrant and lively part of the village. Furthermore site SNC340 is closer to the majority of the Village amenities, the school, the butchers, and two of the public houses and equal distance to the shop. Additionally despite losing points (in the scoring matrix) on its location to cycle paths and bus stops there are already existing and extensively used paths all around SNC340 creating further natural integration. Some of the reasons why I would suggest as to why Kislingbury Playing Fields support this site.

NCR. The majority of the Village supports the Allocation of the site SNC397 and Residents are opposed to development on site SNC340. What may or may not be offered as part of a proposal cannot be taken into account when making a site selection for development. The KPFA Response (see 115) supports the NDP and does not specifically support SNC340.

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



Previous Applications I would also like to refer to the continuous verbal and written references to the sites previous planning refusals. I cannot see the relevance of this. Back in 2010 the site was refused due to Charles Church having been granted planning one month earlier for the Watts Close development and consequently absorbing the housing allocation made available as part of the interim housing policy. Site SNC340 had satisfied all other formal planning requirements. The same applies to the more recent application - the site (as all other sites in your current plan) was outside the Village confines - again all of the other planning criteria have been satisfied. To stress and contrary to the seemingly current thinking, SNC340 satisfies both the flooding and highway requirements. I can certainly see the value of a neighbourhood Plan but feel site SNC340 offers a good deal more to the village in terms of both location and its gift to the village. My intention is to try to ensure that the village is aware of the various benefits of the site and I am not sure the plan fully reflects this. I hope the NPSG will consider my comments, and as was said at the NP presentation "it is not too late to change"


109 Environment Agency

The Plan area falls mostly within Flood Zone 1, defined by the Planning Practice Guideline (PPG) as having low probability of flooding. Drainage from new development must not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere. Government policy NCR.

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



strongly encourages a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) approach to achieve these objectives. Guidance on how to address specific local surface water flood risk issues may also be available through the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment or Surface Water Management plans produced by your Authority. The northern part of Kislingbury falls within Flood Zone 3 defined by the PPG as having a high probability of flooding. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from the areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. All development proposals in this zone should be accompanied by a flood risk assessment. Prior to investing resources in completing a FRA, applicants are advised to contact the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and discuss the flood risk. Sequential Test as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will affect the proposed development. It is possible that the development will be inappropriate and be refused planning permission irrespective of any FRA.

110

Bidwells on Behalf of Davidsons Developments Ltd

I write on behalf of Bidwells' client Davidsons Developments Limited (DDL) in response to the Kislingbury Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Plan. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Steering Group and Kislingbury Parish Council on reaching this stage and preparing a comprehensive, evidence-based plan in addition to the positive, proactive working relationship they have forged with my client. We are supportive of the rights of communities, such as Kislingbury, to prepare Neighbourhood Plans. Such plans, where they are prepared positively, have the potential to provide an

NCR. We are grateful for the overall support in this Response (Representing the Developer with the option on the Allocated Site). We do not agree that this Plan is premature, and nor is that the view of SNC who have been very supportive in the preparation of the Plan. The Plan proposes an allocated site on which will be built approximately 40 Houses. This is the identified need for Kislingbury and it is very unlikely that the Parish

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



additional local level of detail that may not be captured in those plans prepared by the District or Borough Authority. In particular, for communities such as Kislingbury, which are near to major development, they also provide a level of comfort to ensure that the village retains the character and features that existing residents of the village value. The current Development Plan for South Northamptonshire includes the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and the saved policies of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan (1997). The WNJCS sets the strategic development needs for the authorities of South Northamptonshire, together with Northampton and Daventry. The policies of the Neighbourhood Plan are broadly consistent with those set out in the WNJCS. In terms of housing, the WNJCS provides an up-to-date housing requirement for the rural area of South Northamptonshire, albeit a number of decisions, including the rural settlement hierarchy and the number of homes for each village are delegated to the South Northamptonshire 'Part 2' Local Plan, which is presently being prepared. Whilst not a formal requirement of the basic conditions, DDL is pleased to see that the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan has utilised the evidence being used to support the South Northamptonshire Part 2 Local Plan, including the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). This will help to ensure consistency between the documents once the Part 2 Plan is complete. However, whilst this document is at an early stage the Neighbourhood Plan may be perceived by some as being 'premature' or inconsistent with National Policy in respect of the need to 'boost significantly' the supply of housing. To overcome this criticism, the Parish Council could consider a policy that allows for an additional 30 dwellings on the aforementioned site should emerging evidence suggest that this is required or appropriate. DDL would be willing to discuss such options with the Parish Council should this be of assistance. Meeting of prescribed conditions: Unfortunately, during the consultation period, a number of

Council would consider a case justified for more than that. The Village web site was offline for a few days but hard copies of the Plan were available throughout the consultation period, which exceeded the minimum required, at many locations and the Responder would have been able to obtain a copy at any time. We do not believe that there is a requirement for a web site to be available as part of the Consultation process.

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



difficulties in accessing the electronic copy of the plan and supporting materials via the 'Kislingbury Online' website have been experienced. To help mitigate the potential of a legal challenge or failure at examination, we strongly recommend that the whole consultation period is extended to cover the full six weeks now that difficulties with the website are resolved. This will ensure that the plan fully complies with the requirement of Regulation 14, as set out in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) 2012 regulations. Summary: Should you have any questions on matters raised in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me, or my colleague Mr David Bainbridge on the number above. Once again, on behalf of DDL I would like to congratulate the Parish Council on preparing a comprehensive Neighbourhood Plan for their local area and I look forward to working with you as the site is brought forward and your plan progresses towards examination. This Comment is an edited Version of the Full Response from Bidwell. The Full response is shown in the Consultation Statement.

111

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. The development Plan is excellent - I fully support it and have no issues. Many thanks to all those concerned NCR

112 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. NCR



115

Kislingbury Playing Fields Association

Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. Firstly the Trustees congratulate the Working Group on producing such a comprehensive and well presented analysis of the options available NCR

of 87

Response from/Form

Number



to the village. For the KPFA protecting the Playing Fields for the long term benefit of all the Residents of Kislingbury is an important consideration and the proposed development has no direct impact on the KPFA. Any adjacent development may propose a number of benefits, but would also create a number of issues from the close proximity to the playing areas. Future development should increase the number of people benefitting from the KPFA's facilities and would support the KPFA objective of being a well used facility for as many people from the village as possible. We noted the intention to connect the preferred development to the existing pedestrian ways within the village, we see this as very important so that people of all ages can safely access the playing fields.

116

Northamptonshire County Council - Transport Planning

No Comment of Support for the Plan. General observations about the Plan refer to the written style/presentation. The language within the plan appears challenging and the plan does not present sufficient justification within the document for the policies presented. This makes it difficult to understand what points the authors are trying to get across. NCR

of 87

Section 1

Response from/Form Number



of 87

Section 2




54 Plan. General (Omissions) SNC

The Council notes that the Plan does not propose any of the following that could be included in a Development Plan. • Alterations to the village confines • Local Green Spaces • Green Wedges • Provision for Starter Homes • Provision for Self-build plots • Local employment opportunities • Gypsy and Traveller site allocations These will be considered in the Councils Part 2A Local Plan and where appropriate policies included for Kislingbury Parish.

A new section will be added to the Plan to read as follows: 2.5 Omissions The Kislingbury NDP does not contain Policies which address the following Issues: 1. Alteration to the Village Confines. The Parish Council will address the need for a change to the Confines outside the NDP. 2. Local Green Spaces. There are no sites that match the criteria in Clause 77 of the NPPF, or for which the landowners would agree to the designation. 3. Green Wedges. Whilst these in theory could provide a blocking mechanism to closing the gap between the Village and Northampton a far more effective barrier is the flood plain along the course of the River Nene. There are no sites which would create a more effective block than that. Again land ownership issues would make creating the designation very difficult. 4. Provision for Starter Homes. This is a very new form of Social Housing launched by the Government at the end of the plan development period. What Starter Homes will be and how they will work is not yet clear. 5. Provision for Self-Build Plots. Due to the very limited number of dwellings proposed in the NDP there is no need for a specific Policy for Self-Build Plots. Policy HS2 allows for limited infill development. 6. Local Employment Opportunities. The results of the Village Questionnaires show that the Residents have no appetite to see commercial activity grow in the Village. The proximity of Kislingbury to Northampton, Towcester, and Daventry mean that residents of the Village have access to many employment opportunities. 7. Gypsy and Traveller site allocations. This was not considered as an issue to address in the NDP. As indicated in their Response to the Reg 14 Consultation SNC will consider these in their Part 2A Local Plan and where appropriate include Polices for Kislingbury Parish.

of 87




of 87

Section 3




28 Section 3 Table 3.iv POT2

Agree. Traffic Especially Lorries are already an issue. Work Trucks and Lorries could increase congestion and pollution NCR



The objective is supported by the Authority, however the objective connects to the wider village goal is not understood. As it seems likely that village community spirit enhancement has far wider social values than being able to walk to the village centre, therefore this goal needs further explanation NCR



The objective appears sensible and is supported by this authority, however the goal is beyond the control of the Plan, and therefore should be removed or altered. Road usage across the county in the next 15 years is anticipated to increase by at least 25% and Kislingbury will not be unaffected by this trend, hence it would be more appropriate to have a goal that leads the plan promoting sustainable travel options instead of ensuring something that is not achievable

NCR. POT2 relates solely to the impact on road conditions of new development within the Parish and as such is within the remit of the Plan.

of 87

Section 4




10 Section 4.3.7

I would like to see reference for a Working Group to be set up to address the unnecessary use of HGVs through the Village. NCR

54 Section 4.1 Page 16. Heritage SNC

There are 33 listed buildings within the Parish, of which one is St Lukes Church, which is a Grade 1 Listed building dating from the 14th Century still in use. Reference should be made to the recently revised and adopted Kislingbury conservation area and Management Plan

Now 4.1.11. Text has now been revised to read: There are 33 listed buildings within the Parish, of which one is St Luke’s Church, which is a Grade 1 Listed building dating from the 14th Century still in use. These building are shown in the map below and are all within the Kislingbury Conservation Area which was reviewed in late 2013 and the Management Plan adopted in January 2014.

54 Section 4.3.7 SNC

The NDP could include a policy that proposes maximum parking standards for new housing development. For example this could be: 5 bed plus: 3 spaces per dwelling 3 & 4 bed: 2 spaces per dwelling 1 & 2 bed: 1 space per dwelling

No change made to Plan. In an early Draft we had a Policy similar to this suggestion. In discussion with SNC we were informed that we had to have a study and evidence to back up our Policy. As we did not we removed the policy.

54 Section 4.3.10 SNC

This ‘Gap’ Is also referred to in para 4.3.2 of the NDP. There is no policy on the Gap. If there should be one it would need careful consideration and justification.

NCR . There is no Policy on the Gap as the Site Allocation ensures that the Gap is protected.

88 Section 4.1 Heritage Page 16

Planning Services Northamptonshire County Council

Comment on the Heritage Section only make reference to the Village not the surrounding landscape. The landscape contains extensive areas of ridge and furrow medieval earthworks which enhance the village setting especially on the eastern side of the village

Now 4.1.13. This section will be amended and a new paragraph added to read : The landscape contains extensive areas of ridge and furrow medieval earthworks which enhance the village setting especially on the eastern side of the village.

of 87




88

Countryside and Environment Page 22, Section 4.3.10


Development could result in the loss of landscape, important views, open countryside, historical legacy this could also include reference to loss of ridge and furrow. As detailed in the WNJCS Local Plan Policy BN5 - The Historic Environment and landscape 1b)

Now 4.13.7. Agree. Plan will be amended and a new bullet point added to reflect the comment.

88

Historic Environment Page 22 4.3.11


Policy HE1 should also make reference to undesignated assets rather than specifying designated assets. The policies within the NPPF Paragraph 128, 141 cover the procedure with regard to the treatment of designated and undesignated assets and do not need to be repeated in this document. I have attached a copy of the draft Wollaston Plan Historic Environment Policy as a guide to how you should phrase your policy with regard to the Historic environment

Now 4.14. Policy HE1 has been amended along the lines suggested by this Response following a similar comment from SNC. See Section Policies HE.

102 Section 4.3.7

Disagree. This section is too vague and fails to mention the potential link road to J16 from Bugbrooke Mill. No one wishes to harm a local employer but Heygates need to be encouraged to build this link road and the Parish Council should both encourage - through supporting applications for subsidies from central and local government - and discourage them from dragging their feet - through working towards a weight limit on the Nene Bridge. Hoping they will do this is a recipe for nothing to happen. NCR

103 Section 4.3.10

Northamptonshire County Council - Planning Policy

Section 3.1 includes the goal "to minimise the impact of development on the surrounding countryside, landscape and ecosystems" Table 3.iii supports this goal with Objective POE4 "to conserve and enhance biodiversity". Section 4.3.10 then states that "conservation is a high priority and

NCR. The Plan meets the Goal and Objectives through the Site selection criteria which considered environmental and ecological aspects of all the sites considered. It was not seen as the role of the Plan to designate a Wildlife Site. The aim of the Plan is to set the target and limit for new

of 87




protection of the countryside and environment are major considerations .... Kislingbury residents place a high value on the environment of the Nene River Valley. Despite this support for the environment there is no specific environmental Policy in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Section 4.3.10 points out that "there are no local level designations" in the Village. There is however, a Potential Wildlife site - Kislingbury North meadows - in the north of the Parish along the river, and which forms the westernmost of a chain of designated and undesignated sites leading along the Nene through Northampton to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection area. Kislingbury is therefore in an ecologically strategic position, one which warrants a policy response. With this in mind I would recommend inserting a policy designed to resist development which would compromise the ecological integrity of Kislingbury North meadows and the wider riverside environment. Such a policy would have the added advantage of strengthening the gap between Kislingbury and Northampton, which I know to be an important issue for the Parish.

development in the Parish. The site allocated does not reduce the Gap between the Village and Northampton Town, and has minimal impact on the environment, landscape and ecological systems. SNC will consider the designation issue in their Part 2A Local Plan

116 Section 4.3.9


In the second paragraph the plan talks about limited broadband speed in the village, a policy supporting broadband improvements would support those who work from home, and this in turn would be one of the sustainable measure that could help reduce future traffic within the Village

NCR. Policy C3 meets most of the requirements of this comment.

of 87

Section 5




36 Plan Section 5.2 Disagree. The word "outsiders" is very offensive. Use "people who do not live in the Village"

Now 5.2.11. Plan wording will be changed as proposed

36 Plan Section 5.5

Disagree. Residents don't have to move to Northampton. Take out word "must" and replace by "Residents would have to move out of the Village to seek permanent specialist care as there is no provision in the Village"

Now 5.5.1 (iii). Plan wording will be changed as proposed

47 Plan Section 5.8 Anglian Water Services Ltd

Agree (with comments). We welcome the reference to sustainable drainage for the proposed residential allocation site. However, it is important to note that foul drainage is distinct from sustainable drainage systems which are used to manage surface water run-off. Therefore the wording under point ii should be amended as follows: "promote waste water management both in respect of sustainable drainage and water capture (for use in activities such as gardening, car washing)"

Now 5.8.4 (ii). Plan wording will be changed as proposed

50 Section 5.11

Disagree. Concern about proximity of development to Village Hall. We would like to suggest a fenced buffer zone on the east Side of the Village Hall be incorporated into any future Plans. This would help alleviate potential problems to Residents

We accept the comment. Policy HS5 (Renumbered HS4) will be amended to include a condition which will read: HS4 xi. If the development Plans locate dwellings in close proximity to the Village Hall the proposals should recognise the potential problems arising from Noise Nuisance and include measures to alleviate this.

54 Section 5.2 SNC

The Local Plan Part 2A is yet to determine how the housing allocations across the villages in the District. Allocations may extend beyond primary and secondary service villages. These villages are yet to be identified.

We take on board the points made regarding the Hierarchy of Villages and have amended the text of the Plan to remove the statement that we are already designated a Secondary Service Village. The mention of Green Belts has been removed. We welcome the confirmation that our assessment of the need for approximately 50 houses is

of 87




The Council has yet to decide the scale of housing growth that each Parish will be expected to deliver. The reference to the proportion of existing dwellings is one option that the Council will be considering. There are no ‘Green Belt’ designations in South Northamptonshire. This will not be a determining factor in determining the scale or location of future growth. The Council has considered the methodology that concludes that here is a local need for 50 dwellings in Kislingbury and supports this conclusion. The proposed figure is considered to be consistent with the general provisions of the WNJCS. The Council also supports the proposed delivery of the housing on a single allocation and smaller windfall developments on unidentified sites. It is noted that the KNP does not propose to amend the existing village confines and so it is uncertain that there are sufficient suitable, available and deliverable sites within the existing confines to deliver these 10 dwellings.

based on sound methodology. We welcome the support for an allocation site for the bulk of the housing with the rest coming through infill. We are confident that the number of 10 will be met. The text of the Plan has been changed and now reads: (5.2.3 to 5.2.7) The Number of New Homes In the first survey for the NDP carried out in January 2013 a majority of residents responded against the need for a large new housing development in Kislingbury. However, following a review of the needs of the Parish for housing it became apparent that without at least one development we would neither be able to meet our obligations to the District for new houses, but more importantly, nor we would be able to deliver the smaller, low cost, and Affordable Houses that the Residents said were needed. In a second survey carried out in October 2014 80% of Villagers supported the need for such a development and for dwellings of the type needed. The West Northants JCS Plan allocates 2360 homes to be developed within the Rural Area of South Northants. SNC have yet to determine the allocation of housing amongst the Rural Settlements within the District. Nor have they finalised which settlements fall into the different tiers of the hierarchy of Settlements as set out in the JCS Plan. SNC has yet to decide the scale of housing growth that each Parish will be expected to deliver and there are a number of ways that this assessment may be calculated. In discussions with SNC we have demonstrated the methodology used to assess the current housing needs within the Parish and SNC has accepted the conclusions of the Housing Needs Survey (Appendix D of this Document) for approximately 50 dwellings in the Village. They have confirmed that they support this figure and that it is considered to be consistent with the general provisions of the JCS Plan. The Kislingbury NDP identifies and allocates a site for approximately 40 new homes to be built in the village by 2029.

of 87




The additional 10 houses to be developed on infill sites will be proposed by site owners during the Plan period. This will make the total of approximately 50 houses. (See Appendix F – Attachment B Sustainability Assessment for details on Site Selection). SNC has also confirmed that they support the proposed delivery of the housing on a single allocation and smaller windfall developments on unidentified sites. Planning permission will be granted for approximately 40 new homes to be built in Kislingbury in the period 2014 to 2029 on the site specifically allocated in the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (Policy HS4) in order to meet the targets set in the West Northants JCS Plan. Planning permission will be granted for at least 10 Houses on Infill sites that meet the planning requirements (Policy HS2)

54 Section 5.4 SNC This should also refer to the need for a development to be viable under the provisions of the NPPF.

Agree. The Plan has been changed and the Plan now reads: (5.4.3) Overall, the NDP delivers the requirement for Affordable Housing while maintaining the flexibility needed to meet the specific requirements of the Parish within the housing developments. Any proposed development of 5 or more Dwellings will be subject to a Viability assessment as specified by the planning requirements for Affordable Housing.

54 Section 5.7 SNC

The Settlement Hierarchy, including the position of Kislingbury, has yet to be agreed in the Part 2A Local Plan. This statement should therefore be removed from the Plan

We agree that the text in the Plan is incorrect. We have replaced it and the Plan now reads: (5.7.2 and 5.7.3) In developing the NDP we have consulted extensively with SNC on many aspects of the Plan. During the course of the Consultations the working assumption has been that Kislingbury would be designated a Secondary Service Village in the hierarchy of Rural Villages in South Northants. The Plan has been developed based on this assumption. However, we acknowledge that the Settlement

of 87




Hierarchy, including the position of Kislingbury in it, has yet to be agreed in the SNC Part 2 A Local Plan. The JCS Plan allows for limited infill in a Secondary Service village and in Policy R1 specifies that development should have regard to the character of the Settlement. Only suitably designed and located development at an appropriate scale that facilitates the economic and social well-being of the area will be supported. The Kislingbury NDP draws attention to this part of the policy in order to reflect the strong views of local residents. (See Appendix G for Landscape and Character Assessment)

54 Section 5.9 SNC

This will only be applicable if the application for the allocated site is approved on or after April 1st 2016 and if the NP is adopted before the application is approved. The charges that would be applicable have now been agreed by the District Council. For this development the charges would be: £100 per square metre (gross internal area)

We have amended the text of the Plan to reflect the information contained in the comment. The Plan now reads: (5.9.1) Communities with a NDP will receive 25% of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This is a new charge that Local Authorities can levy on new developments in their area. The charges are set by the local council and are based upon the size and type of development. This will only be applicable if the application for the allocated site is approved on or after April 1st 2016 and if the NDP is adopted before the application is approved. The charges that would be applicable for this development would be £100 per square metre (gross internal area)

54 Section 5.10 SNC

It is noted that the Plan does not propose any changes to the village confines but effectively leaves that work to this Council through the Part 2A Local

The Plan states, though not in a Policy, in 5.10.2 on that "Following completion of the Development on the Allocated Site the Parish Council will apply to

of 87




Plan. The Council will therefore reserve the right to amend the confines as it considers appropriate over and above including the 2 identified sites at Watts Close and the allocated site in the KNP.

SNC for the Confines to be redefined to incorporate the new Development, as well as the existing Watts Close development, into the Village Confines." The Parish Council may decide prior to the adoption of the NDP to proceed with this application to redefine the Confines in which case the text will be amended in the Submission Version of the Plan.

54 5.11 SNC

The Plan should clarify the preferred access point for the proposed allocated development. The text refers to access from Rothersthorpe Road but then states that the existing hedge along the full length of the site adjacent to Rothersthorpe Road will be retained with no additional vehicle access provided from Rothersthorpe Road; Suggest that policies HS1, HS3, HS5 and supporting text be merged into a new single policy as follows: The boundary of the 4.28ha, Kislingbury Village housing allocation (Ref KNP01) on land at Rothersthorpe Road is shown on Figure X. The development will make provision for: • 40 dwellings including 20 Affordable homes • All built development on the site will be sited at least x m away from the rear of the properties in the Watts Close site so as not to crowd in on Watts Close • No vehicular access for the development to be taken through Millers Close, except for Emergency Vehicles; • Access to the site will be taken from Rothersthorpe Road; • A landscaping scheme to be submitted including appropriate planting to the East to provide some screening from adjacent fields and Pineham Warehouse extension; • The existing hedge along the full length of the site adjacent to Rothersthorpe Road will be retained with no additional vehicle access provided from Rothersthorpe Road; • A pedestrian footpath to be provided through the site to link with the pedestrian ways in the rest of the Village; • An Archaeological and Ecological assessment of the site and required mitigation

We agree with the suggestion to re-word Policy HS5(renumbered HS4). Please see Section Policies - HS for the new wording of this Policy.

of 87




• A mix of house types and sizes to include 2 and 3 bed houses to meet local needs Necessary Infrastructure will be required to be phased alongside the delivery of the development Any applications for this development will be considered against this Policy and other relevant development plan documents

of 87

Section 6




116 Section 6.2


Having Traffic issues as the only future issue for the Neighbourhood Plan to take forward seems limiting/negative for the Village's future. This section of the Plan should be expanded to describe how the Plan will take forward the Goals and objectives presented earlier in the document. As detailed in my response above to POT2 traffic will increase in the future and the Plan should positively encourage the village to look at sustainable transport measures as a means of mitigating the increase in traffic.

NCR. This Section refers to the Action Plan to be taken forward by the Parish Council by the formation of a Traffic Working Group to address all Traffic related issues.

of 87

Policies C



Name if Organisation Responding Comment Plan Response

36 Policy C2 Need to List assets i.e. Shop, Village Hall, Allotments, school etc.

Agree. This Policy will be reworded to show all assets

54 Policy C1 SNC

Clarification should be given as to when it will be ‘appropriate’ to submit a landscape strategy. It is unlikely that such a strategy will be required with ‘all development proposals’.

Policy C1 now reads: C1: Green space and Landscaping For any Housing development proposals for 10 or more dwellings a landscape strategy shall be submitted which will incorporate the following details: (i) existing and proposed hard and soft landscaping; (ii) a condition survey of all existing trees and hedgerows; (iii) an outline of the measures to be taken to protect existing trees and hedgerows during construction; (iv) consideration of both near and distant views of the development from the Conservation Area vantage points (see Map Appendix J) showing existing landscaping and how it will appear after 10 years; and (v) details, where appropriate, of how those areas to be retained for open space, as well as any retained trees and hedgerows, will be managed in the future.

54 Policy C2 SNC

It is unclear as to what the Plan considers to be ‘Assets of Community Value’ that the policy is seeking to protect. These should be clearly stated in the Policy. The loss of an asset would be considered as ‘significant harm’. Therefore the inclusion of ‘loss’ is considered to be unnecessary. The Policy should also be considered in the context of the NPPF and the Impact Assessment to the Framework. Paragraph 70 of the NPPF relates only to development proposals directly affecting (i.e. through redevelopment or change of use) the essential facilities and services involved. Paragraph 70’s second bullet point specifically relates to “guarding against” the unnecessary loss of facilities and services,

Policy C2 now reads: C2: Assets of Community Value The redevelopment or change of use of the following essential facilities and services that meet community needs and support well-being will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that: a) The service or facility is no longer needed; or b) It is no longer viable to retain them; or c) The proposals will provide sufficient community benefit to outweigh the loss of the existing facility or service, meeting evidence of a local need. Kislingbury Parish essential services and facilities: • Kislingbury Village Hall • Kislingbury Playing Field and equipped Play Area • Sports Grounds for Bowls, Cricket, and Football

of 87




particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs. Government’s Impact Assessment of the Framework which at the second paragraph on page 59 explains: “This policy will help communities prevent the loss existing buildings and developments, which are locally important, valued and viable community facilities and services, to alternative higher value developments such as private housing and business. Planning policies may identify specific buildings or developments and / or set out criteria for assessing planning applications. Criteria may require applicants demonstrating the current building or development is no longer required or viable for use by a community facility of service. The redevelopment and reuse of buildings and developments which are no longer viable, for community uses, will also be supported by the proposed policy”. Suggested re-wording: The redevelopment or change of use of the following essential facilities and services that meet community needs and support well-being will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that: a) The service or facility is no longer needed; or b) It is demonstrated that it is no longer viable to retain them; or c) The proposals will provide sufficient community benefit to outweigh the loss of the existing facility or service, meeting evidence of a local need. Insert list of identified essential services and facilities • Kislingbury Village Hall • Kislingbury Playing Field and equipped play area • Sports Grounds for Bowls, Cricket and Football • Allotment gardens • Shops • Public Houses

• Allotment Gardens • Shops • Public Houses • Places of Worship • Post Office

• Village Greens The Parish Council will work positively with local communities and support proposals to retain, improve, or re-use essential facilities and services.

of 87




• Post Office The Parish Council will work positively with local communities and support proposals to retain, improve or re-use essential facilities and services. The Parish Council will be aware of the measure to give local communities greater control over the protection of valued local facilities under the Localism Act 2011. This provides community groups with the opportunity to nominate a local asset (such as a local pub) for listing as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). The local planning authority must list any nominated building or other land as an ACV if it considers that (i) its current or recent use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and (ii), it is realistic to think that its future use will do the same (whether or not in the same way). The listing of an asset as an ACV provides the community with an opportunity to safeguard its future. First, an asset’s status as an ACV should be treated as a material consideration in the determination of any planning application for development that would involve its loss. Second, if the owner of an ACV puts it up for sale, the community group can request a six- month moratorium on the sale and thereby gain time to raise funds and negotiate buying the asset. At present there are no designated community assets on the Register in Kislingbury Parish. The Parish Council is recommended to consider which of the identified facilities it considers should be included on the Register as this will provide for some additional protection over and above the development plan policy.

54 Policy C3 SNC

This is covered by Policy C1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. The Policy is therefore not necessary. If retained the Policy will need to set out which types

Policy is retained for reasons of completeness, and reference has been included to the Policy mentioned in SNC response. The policy has been changed to specify type of development and now reads: C3: Broadband – fibre to the premises

of 87




of ‘development’ require a connectivity statement – For example is it just for housing or would any commercial, industrial or community facility type development be included?

Housing development Proposals which seek the expansion of electronic communication networks and high speed broadband along with improvements to connectivity will be supported, so long as it is consistent with an efficient operational network without harming the character or appearance of the Village. Applications for Housing development must contain a ‘Connectivity Statement’ and will provide for appropriate facilities to enable more than one service provider to provide a fibre connection to individual properties from connection chambers located on the public highway, or some alternative connection point available to different service providers.

54 Policy C4 SNC

Each aspect of this policy is already covered by existing policies of the WNJCS – namely a combination of Policies S10, C5, RC2, BN9, and Policy G3 of the Saved Policies of the 1997 Local Plan as well as Paragraph 28 of the NPPF. The Policy is considered to be too restrictive. There are examples where community services are appropriate on sites outside but adjoining the village confines, For example if a proposal for a community facility was made on a suitable site outside but adjoining the confines it would be contrary to this Policy. As worded it is highly unlikely that sites will be made available within confines where land values will be

This Policy was retained for reasons of completeness, and reference has been made to the Policies shown in SNC Response. The wording of the Policy is unchanged as there is very little likelihood that a site outside the Village Confines would ever be considered suitable, or become available.

of 87




significantly higher for other uses including housing.

Policies D




54 Policy D1 SNC

This is a general policy on design that could be equally applied to any area of the District. Much of its content is covered by policies in the WNJCS and Saved Policies of the Local Plan. Suggest the policy is revised to include local distinctiveness by drawing on aspects from the Conservation Area Management Plan, Landscape and Character Assessment and existing village design statement. The bullet points on pages 28/29 could be incorporated into a revised policy on Design together with references to local characteristics. If KPC wish to retain a more generic policy then the following wording is suggested: Proposals for all forms of new development must plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design, at the same time demonstrating they have sought to conserve and reinforce local distinctiveness and the aesthetic qualities of traditional patterns of development, buildings (proportions, architectural detailing and

Policy is retained for Completeness, but re-worded as suggested. Policy D1 now reads: D1: Good Design Proposals for all forms of new development must plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design, at the same time demonstrating they have sought to conserve local distinctiveness and the aesthetic qualities of traditional patterns of development, buildings (proportions, architectural detailing and materials) and settings (including man-made and natural features, important views and heritage). Proposals for unsympathetic designs which fail to respect the connections between people and places, or are inappropriate for the location, or pay inadequate regard to issues of renewable energy technologies, landscape and biodiversity considerations will be refused.

of 87




materials) and setting (including man-made and natural features, important views and heritage) . Proposals for unsympathetic designs which fail to respect the connections between people and places, are inappropriate in location, or pay inadequate regard to issues of parking and access, minimising or reducing the risk of crime, renewable energy technologies, landscape and biodiversity considerations will be refused.

103 Policy D1 Northampton County Council

As Kislingbury is not a Local Planning Authority it may not refuse planning applications. I recommend changing the last word on the policy from “refused” to “resisted”

Agree. This Policy has been significantly rewritten following SNC Comment and suggested wording. However the word “Refused” will be changed to “resisted”

108 Policy D1, 2, 3 Agree NCR

of 87

Policies EM




54 Policy EM1 SNC

The site allocated at J16 of the M1 in the WNJCS will need to demonstrate that it does not result in severe negative traffic impacts in accordance with the NPPF. This Policy is therefore consistent with this approach. The Policy is a broad replication of the guidance contained in Policy C2 of the WNJCS.

We welcome the confirmation that the Policy conforms to the NPPF and also that in the JCS Plan. The Policy is retained for Completeness, and reference has been made to the Policy shown in the SNC Response.

108 Policy EM1 Agree NCR

116 Policy EM1


Heavy Goods Traffic insert "commercial" between the words other - uses. This policy would also benefit from some explanatory text setting out the current problems the village experiences with regard to lorries and HGVs.

The Word "Commercial" will be inserted as suggested.

of 87

Policies H




54 Policy H1 SNC

This is entirely covered by Policies H1 and H2 of the JCS. The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does not add local value and is therefore unnecessary

We have decided to retain this Policy for completeness.

54 Policy H2 SNC

I am not aware of any legal mechanism to tie market housing to local ownership. The Plan should state how this policy will be enforced. As the Plan states I am not sure that this could be included as a planning condition or in a S106 agreement (if it could be then evidence would be helpful). Evidence of any discussions with the landowner / developer of the allocated site on this requirement would also be useful as any such requirement is more likely appropriate as a separate agreement between the developer and KPC outside the planning system. If retained perhaps the requirement should be time limited to 3 months

We have met with the Developer of the Allocated Site and following their feedback changed the wording of the policy on an earlier Draft. We accept the suggestions for a 3 month limit. Policy H2 now reads: H2 Homes for Sale to Local Residents Proposals for housing on the allocated site which aim to give Local Residents, in whatever way possible, preferential access to Waiting Lists, or released phases for Sale, of the development will be supported. If the Developer is willing to do this we would suggests that this period does not exceed 3 months.

54 Policy H3 SNC

This appears to duplicate Policy H1 of the KNP and is also covered by Policy H2 of the WNJCS. The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does not add local value and is therefore unnecessary

We agreed to retain the policy for completeness, but reference has been made to the Policy shown in the SNC Response.

54 Policy H4 SNC All new affordable housing is already subject to a nominations process including those with a local connection.

We agree with this comment and have re-worded the Policy. Policy H4 now reads:

of 87




The initial test that the Local Authority would do for determining local connection for access to the housing register, would not conflict with the connection set out in this policy as the as this connection is much more restrictive. However it should be made clear that on the organisation that would be nominating to any new build affordable homes that come forward within the Parish. It is South Northants Council’s responsibility to hold a housing register and allocate via its Allocation policy to affordable homes across the District. The policy has provisions to engage with local lettings plans to allocate social housing to reflect local circumstances. Any local connection criteria attached to a development should be drafted into a legal agreement for example a S106 or nominations agreement. The Council’s current Allocations Policies local connection is as follows: “In order to be considered to have a local connection to the Council’s district the applicant will need to meet at least one of the following criteria: i)The applicant has lived in the Council’s district for a period of at least 6 out of the last 12 months continuously prior to acceptance onto the Housing Register; ii) The applicant has previously lived in the Council’s district for 3 continuous years out of the past 5 years; iii) the applicant has permanent employment within the Council’s district; iv) the applicant has immediate family members who have lived in the Council’s district continuously for at least 5 years immediately prior to the date of application; or

H4: Allocation of Affordable Housing All new Affordable Housing in Kislingbury developed after the Policies of the NDP are adopted will initially be subject to a local connection. This means that people with a strong local connection to the Parish, and whose needs are not met by the open market, will be the first to be nominated (by the Council) accommodation for either rent or shared ownership. In this context a strong local connection means an applicant(s) who meets at least one of the following criteria: i) The applicant has lived in the Parish for a period of at least 6 out of the last 12 months continuously prior to acceptance on to the Housing Register: ii) The applicant has previously lived in the Parish for 3 continuous years out of the past 5 years: iii) The applicant has permanent employment within the Parish: iv) The applicant has immediate family members who have lived in the Parish continuously for at least 5 years immediately prior to the date of application: v) The applicant has a special reason for needing to live in the Parish.

of 87




v) the applicant has special reason for needing to live in the Council’s district” I suggest that the Policy is amended to reflect the Council’s policy. The inclusion of an employment criteria would also be consistent with the objective (POE C2) is to provide low cost housing market to local employees. As drafted the Policy does not correspond with this and only relates to people currently living in the parish?

54 Policy H5 SNC

The mix of house type and sizes could change over time and would best be informed by the latest available evidence at the time of application. This is covered by policy H1 of the WNJCS The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does not add local value and is therefore unnecessary

This Policy is retained for completeness. We have re-worded it to include a reference a Housing Needs Assessment. Policy H5 now reads: H5: Size of Homes This policy directs that new development on the Allocated Site should favour smaller dwellings which would be suitable for Starter Homes for Local people and Homes for Villagers wishing to downsize and stay in the Village. The mix of size of Dwellings in the development will be determined by an up to date Housing Needs Survey established at the time of the Planning application. (See also Section 5.2.8 in relation to Policy H1).

54 Policy H6 SNC

Policy H4 of the WNJCS states that residential developments must be designed to provide accommodation that meets the requirements of the Lifetime Homes Standard subject to viability on a site by site basis. The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does not add local value and is therefore unnecessary In future, planning authorities will be able to specify

This Policy is retained for completeness, but reference is made to the Policy identified in the SNC Response. We have re-worded the Policy to reflect the comment made by SNC regarding different standards which may apply in the future. Policy H6 now reads: H6: Lifetime home standards All development proposals for New Houses should meet current Lifetime Home standards, or those in the future to be applied by the Planning Authorities

of 87




only housing standards provided in the ‘New National Technical Standards’ which provide specifications for accessible homes in three categories, ranging from a base line largely aligned with the existing Part M of the Building Regulations to a category designed to meet the needs of wheelchair users as occupants. Should the KNP seek to set different standards, other than the base line standard, and if so what evidence is available to demonstrate that the standards are required to “address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Guidance’.

specified by the “New National Technical Standards” which will provide specifications for accessible homes in three categories ranging from a baseline largely aligned with the existing Part M of the Buildings Regulations, to a category designed to meet the needs of wheelchair users as occupants, unless viability or other local factors show a robust justification for a different design.

97 Policy H4

Agree. This should be extended to also cover people who grew up in the village but had to move away for a while. E.g (iii) Anyone who has previously lived in the Village for more than, say, 10 years.

NCR. This Policy has been completely rewritten to conform with the criteria that will be used by SNC who are the allocating body for Affordable Homes

106 Policy H6 Persimmon Homes

In an attempt to streamline housing standards the government has indicated that Development Plan policies relating to housing standards should now align with the new national Technical Housing Standards. The equivalent standard for Lifetime Homes is now contained within the optional accessibility standards in Building Regulations M4(2) and should be fully evidenced in terms of need and viability before being required in planning policy.

Agree. This Policy has been reworded along the lines suggested following a similar comment from SNC.

108 Policies H1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Agree NCR

of 87

Policies HE




54 Policy HE1 SNC

It is not considered appropriate or reasonable to seek to conserve or enhance areas that ‘may be created’ at some point in the future. An area is either an Historic Asset or not. The general thrust of the policy is in line with sustainable development principles although it is significantly covered by Section 12 of the NPPF and Policies S10 and BN5 of the JCS. The Policy is considered unnecessary but if retained then suggest the following: Any designated and non designated heritage assets and their settings, in the Parish will be conserved and enhanced for their significance and their importance to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place.

We agree and have adopted the suggested wording. Policy HE1 now reads: HE1: Historic Environment Any designated and non designated historic heritage assets in the Parish and their settings, both above and below ground and including listed buildings, and any monuments that have been scheduled, or conservation areas that have been created, will be conserved and enhanced for their historic significance and their importance to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place.

108 Policy HE1 Agree NCR

of 87

Policies HS




8 Policy HS1

SNC 397. I believe that more than 40 Dwellings should be built on this site. It is a large area and should be used to its full potential. It is a 4.28 hectare site and standard densities are 35 dwellings per hectare. NCR

47 Policy HS4 Anglian Water Services Ltd

Agree. Policy HS4 identifies the land at Rothersthorpe Road as the Parish Council's preferred allocation for Residential development. Anglian Water has no objection to the principle of housing development on this site. However, it is important to note that the improvements to the existing water supply and foul sewerage networks are expected to be required to enable this development. In accordance with the adopted Core Strategy the applicant will need to demonstrate that capacity within the water supply and foul sewerage networks can be made available as part of the planning application process.

The Conditions associated with policy HS5 (renumbered to HS4) will be amended to include this provision. (HS4 x)

54 Policy HS1 SNC

This Policy is unnecessary. It can be merged with other policies in the Plan. If retained the Policy should refer to a Plan that shows the location and boundaries of the allocated site.

Policy is retained and amended as suggested. Policy HS1 now reads: HS1: Scale of New Development Planning permission will be granted for approximately 40 new homes on the site identified in this Plan. Please refer to Figures 6.i and 6.i.1 for the Location of the Allocated site.

54 Policy HS2 SNC

This Policy is supported. Suggest amending ‘meeting all relevant requirements set out in other policies in this plan and the JCS Plan’ to ‘meeting all relevant

We welcome support for this Policy. We accept the suggested amendment and the need for clarification. Policy HS2 now reads: HS2: Infill Housing Applications for small residential developments on infill and redevelopment sites within the Kislingbury Village Confines will

of 87




requirements set out in other policies in this plan and other Development Plan documents covering the Parish’ There is a need to clarify ‘within Kislingbury’. If this means within the village confines for Kislingbury then this should be clarified.

be supported subject to proposals being well designed and meeting all relevant requirements set out in other policies in this plan and other Development Plan documents covering the Parish, and where such development: a) fills a small, restricted gap in the continuity of existing frontage buildings or on other sites within the built-up area of the village where the site is closely surrounded by buildings. b) will not involve the outward extension of the built-up area of the village; c) is not considered to be intrusive development that requires unsuitable access, reduces the privacy of adjoining properties or is inconsistent with the character of the locality

54 Policy HS3 SNC

This is covered in far greater detail by INF1 and INF2 of the JCS. Aspects are also covered by RC2 of the JCS. The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does not add local value and is therefore unnecessary

We agree and the Policy has been removed from the Plan. NB: Policies HS4 and HS5 will be re-numbered in the Submission Version.

54

Policy HS4 (renumbered to HS3) SNC

This Policy is covered by policies HS2, HS5. Exception site development is covered by H3 of the WNJCS. The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does not add local value and is therefore unnecessary This Policy is retained for completeness.

54

Policy HS5 (renumbered to HS4) SNC

This Policy could be included in a new Policy that brings together all the polices concerned with the allocated site for housing. As stated it is not a Policy.

We agree, and the Policy has been re-worded to incorporate the changes suggested in SNC Comment related to Section 5.11 (See Section 5). Policy HS5 (renumbered to HS4) now reads: HS5: The Boundary of the 4.28 ha Kislingbury Allocation (Ref KNP01) (Policy HS4) on Land at Rothersthorpe Road is shown on figures 6.i and 6.i.1. The development will make provision for: • Approximately 40 dwellings of a Tenure and Mix to meet the needs of the Village as identified in the Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix D) • All built development on the site will be sited at least 5 meters away from the rear of the properties in the Watts Close site so as not to crowd in on Watts Close

of 87




• No Vehicular access for the development to be taken through Millers Close, except for Emergency Vehicles. • Access to the Site will be taken from Rothersthorpe Road. • A landscaping scheme to be submitted including appropriate planting to the East to provide some screening from adjacent fields and the Pineham Warehouse Extension • The existing hedge along the full length of the site adjacent to Rothersthorpe Road will be retained with no additional vehicle access provided from Rothersthorpe Road. • A pedestrian footpath to be provided through the site to link with the pedestrian ways to the rest of the Village • An Archaeological and Ecological assessment of the site and required mitigation • A mix of house types and sizes to include 2 and 3 bedroom houses to meet local needs Necessary Infrastructure will be required to be phased alongside the delivery of the development Any applications for this development will be considered against this and other Policies in this NDP, and other relevant development Plan documents.

97

Policy HS5 (renumbered to HS4)

Agree. SNC397 is the best site. Not SNC340 as is being pushed by Charles Church. NCR

102


Disagree. 40 houses on a single site is against the wishes of the Village. The 2013 questionnaire indicates the 95%+ of respondents did not want developments larger than 30 houses (C14). Smaller developments gained a much better degree of agreement. It seems far more sensible to build on 2-3 sites- we can insist that these include "green barrier" owned by the Parish that will prevent further gap closure. If a site can be built on it will be built on in time - surely it is best to close off as many edges as possible as a condition of granting

NCR. This response ignores the fact that there was a second questionnaire in 2014 which asked the Residents to support or otherwise a single development of around 40 houses in order to have the mix of houses that the Residents said is needed. A large majority of Residents supported this.

of 87




planning permission? Multiple sites give us more opportunity to control the permitted housing types. Housing for elderly villagers would be better concentrated in one area (Warden Controlled? Like Harpole) than interspersed with starter homes and larger properties. A big mixed up site with no current mains sewage, suffering from motorway noise is going to be very difficult to develop and if it isn't practical, the neighbourhood plan can be ignored! Far better a small site (20?) off Rothersthorpe Road that fills the gap behind Watts Close to Millers Close, combined with the Beech Lane site and possible Willow View (elderly housing only)

103


Northamptonshire County Council - Planning Policy

Agree. At present I have no issues with the allocation of this site for development NCR

104 Policy HS1

Disagree. We object to the planned proposal in land adjacent to Watts Close. In the Kislingbury HNS Report 2015 Version 5.00 72% of the Village opposed expansion on the edge of the Village and the proposed site is beyond the Confines of the Village Plan.


105 Policy HS1

Disagree. We object to the planned proposal in land adjacent to Watts Close. In the Kislingbury HNS Report 2015 Version 5.00 72% of the Village opposed expansion on the edge of the Village and the proposed site is beyond the Confines of the Village Plan.


106 Policy HS4 Persimmon Disagree. Allocation of the Site at Beech lane NCR. Persimmon are acting for the Landowner of

of 87




(renumbered to HS3)

Homes (SNC340) as well or in place of the site allocation at Rothersthorpe Road (SNC397). We feel the site assessment work that concluded that SNC397 is to be preferred has some serious shortcomings and these are outlined further under Additional Comments section below.

SNC340 and will therefore be objecting to the allocated site in principle. The Site assessment was carried out with no bias, has been reviewed several times, and is supported by the fact that the majority of Residents want the allocated site to be SNC397.

107

Policy HS4 (renumbered to HS3) Landowner Disagree. See General Comments for 107 NCR

108 Policies HS1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 Agree NCR

110



The proposed allocation of land off Rothersthorpe Road, through policy HS4 and HS7 for 40 dwellings is supported. My client is confident that this site can be brought forward for residential development within the next five years to help meet the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan. NCR

110



DDL supports the allocation of the site KNP01 within the Neighbourhood Plan for 40 Dwellings.

The site is a sustainable extension to the village and is located away from areas of flood risk (north of the Village). It is deliverable within a five year period, subject to planning permission

DDL remain committed to proactively working with the Steering Group and the Parish Council to deliver the site and help meet the Vision of the Neighbourhood Plan. We concur that Site KNP01 forms a logical extension to the settlement, whilst meeting the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan. Policy HS7 is supported and DDL will continue to work with the Parish Council as a planning

NCR. HS7 is Policy from an early Version of the Plan. It is now HS5 (renumbered HS4). The criteria "I" has been removed following a meeting with the Developer.

of 87




application is prepared in time. In respect of criterion 'i' there are some reservations as to how the sole opportunity for local residents to purchase Open Market Housing can be implemented or enforced through a planning condition. Whilst DDL is willing to work with the Parish Council to meet an appropriate objective, it is suggested that the text is removed from the policy wording, redrafted and incorporated into the supporting text.

Policies T




10 T1, Section 4.3.7

I would like to see reference for a Working Group to be set up to address the unnecessary use of HGVs through the Village. NCR

54 Policy T1 SNC

This Policy is not supported as it is considered overly restrictive and contrary to the NPPF. There will inevitably be increased traffic movements from new development. Effectively this Policy places a blanket ban on any development proposals that generates one or more car movements in those areas identified in the Policy. To justify this Policy evidence will be required that demonstrates that traffic congestion in these areas is already a problem and that critically that the problem is such so as to justify no further increase in movements.

The Policy has been retained but the Comment concerning it being overly restrictive has been taken on board. Policy T1 now reads: T1: Traffic Congestion Proposals that accord with the policies in the NDP and do not unduly affect the existing or proposed Transportation Network will be supported.

of 87




It is also likely that some form of transport statement will be required as a result of this policy for developments that generate one or more trips per day – this may be disproportionate to the development proposed. Policy C2 of the WNJCS and G3(f) of the saved Policies of the Local Plan considers the highway implications of proposed developments. In addition the policy could be considered to be more restrictive than para 32 of the framework that states that Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

54 Policy T2 SNC This policy is unnecessary as it is covered by Policies C2 and R3 of the WNJCS. This Policy is retained for reasons of completeness

108 Policies T, 1,2,3,4,5,6 Agree NCR

116 Policy T1


Traffic Congestion policy is difficult to understand and either requires further explanatory text previous to the Policy or similar text within the policy so that anyone looking to use or apply the policy understands why additions traffic in these locations is not supported by the plan

This Policy has been completely re-written following a comment from SNC.

116 Policy T2


Policy is supported by this authority. The paragraphs both before and after T2 read as though they are additional Policies - it is therefore suggested that they are expanded and included as further policies NCR

of 87

Appendices and Acknowledgments




23

Sustainability Assessment - Section 2.1 Cemex Ltd

The Company has a pipeline which runs 30 meters from the northern bound carriageway of the M1 which runs along the southern boundary of the Village. That pipeline requires a 20M standoff. The Company would oppose any housing in SNC637, SNC302, SNC301, and SNC596. NCR

36 Acknowledgements

Sue Deane needs "PC" after her name as she is a Councillor Change

36 Baseline Report 5.21 Page 23 5.21 Campion School is 1 mile away not 2 Text will be changed to 1.5 Miles

36 Baseline Report 5.23 Page 24 There is no Mothers Union in the Village now. Change

36 Baseline Report 5.19 Page 22

Include there is a Bus to Tesco's. Access to Public Transport - both stops are an asset Change

77

Landscape and Village Character Assessment Appendix G P13.

Disagree. Dukes Green Road, Nene Way, and Willow View are North not South of Bugbrooke Road Agree. South will be changed to North.

106 Sustainability Assessment

Persimmon Homes

We have a number of concerns relating to the site assessment criteria within the Sustainability Assessment. These can be summarised as relating to the criteria themselves, the scoring attributed to each category, and the specific observations made in respect of certain sites against the criteria. The Criteria Our view is that a key consideration is missing from the site assessment and that is a criterion relating to the benefits that development of the site can bring to the village. The criteria generally relate to the

NCR. Site selection cannot include criteria which relates to a development Plan which does not exist and has not been approved

of 87




consideration of constraints to development but having a part of the assessment that relates to the benefits of development would help in weighing up the overall advantages and disadvantages of the site options. A key benefit is offered by SNC340 that cannot be realised through the development of the other site options, which is to provide a significant amount of public open space next to the existing village playing facilities (please see enclosed indicative masterplan). This area would not only contribute to the green infrastructure of the village and thereby supplement a valuable asset, but would also provide an everlasting safeguard to prevent future development to the east of the Village in the direction of Northampton. Our view is that these benefits should feature in the assessment process for different site options.


Persimmon Homes

Scoring Methodology The scoring against each criterion appears wholly arbitrary and without explanation. For example, under Stage 1 Assessment Test 5 (Flood Risk the sites 340/636/301/397/637/ are all categorised as PP (Very Positive) however in the scoring all these sites are given 20 except SNC340 which is only awarded 15. All the sites lie within the Flood Risk Zone 1 (Low risk of flooding) on the EA Flood Map for Planning and therefore should be awarded the same score. Indeed, the flood maps indicate that the eastern part of SNC397 could be prone to surface water flooding while no part of SNC340 is shown as being at risk of surface water flooding.

The Assessment of the Flood Risk was based on Local knowledge of the sites where SNC340 often shows Surface flooding at the Northern end whereas the others do not. Environment Agency puts SNC340 in Flood Zone 2 and SNC397 in Flood Zone 1. NCR

of 87




Similarly under Stage 2 Assessment Test 19 (bus stop accessibility) there is a significant 10 point difference between a site within 10 minutes of a bus stop and a site within 5 minutes walk. Site SNC 340 is shown as being within 10 minutes walk on the assessment but according to Google maps this journey would take approx 5 minutes on foot: Additionally there is a shorter route available for Pedestrians via Hall Close, as shown indicated on Orange on the above Map (included in the Consultation Statement) which we have determined takes around 3-4 minutes to walk. While it is acknowledged that this would be from the edge of the site, the fact that 1 or 2 minutes extra walk from within the site could make a difference of 10 points seems rather unreasonable.


Persimmon Homes

Scoring Results We have noted a number of areas where the results of the scoring are inconsistent with our knowledge of the sites, which is explained in more detail below. We are also concerned about the way in which Stage 1 and 2 Assessments disproportionately prejudice the prospects for site SNC340, which is ranked highest of all the sites after the Stage 1 assessment but joint third after the Stage 2 Assessment. If the scores were to be adjusted in line with our comments below and added together for the two stages then the results for the remaining sites would be as follows: SNC340 = 65 SNC301 = 15 SNC397 = 40 Stage 1 Assessment

NCR. The two stages are not designed to be combined. The first eliminates the sites that are not worth considering and the second ranks those that are. The fact that SNC340 came first in Stage 1 shows that the scoring is not disproportionately prejudiced against this site. The Site does not meet the definition of a Brownfield site as set out in the NPPF. The Environment Agency consultation response included in the Sustainability Assessment states that SNC340 is in Flood Risk Zone 2. This justifies the 5 point difference.

of 87




Test 2 (Brownfield) - Part of the western side of the site SNC340 is previously developed land , with evidence of existing buildings, structures still visible on site. Our suggested amendment would be to adjust the score for SNC340 to N-5 Test 5 (Flood Risk) - The site is located in Flood Risk Zone 1 there is no reason why it should not be awarded the same number of points as the other sites in this category. Our suggested amendment would be adjust the score for SNC340 to PP +20


Persimmon Homes

Stage 2 Assessment Test 16 (Health Factors) - Assuming the un-neighbourly effects of SNC340 relate to the noise from the grain driers at Hall farm, a technical solution for mitigating the noise has been identified. If implemented as part of the development, these noise mitigation measures would also benefit existing residents in the surrounding area that currently experience the noise. Our suggested amendment would be to adjust the score for SNC340 to P+5 Test 19 (Bus Stop Accessibility) - see comments under Scoring Methodology above. Our suggested amendment would be to adjust the score for SNC340 to Neutral 0 Bullet points at the end of the assessment indicate that the most crucial part of the assessment is for the site to fit to the confines of the Village. the fact that SNC340 is virtually surrounded on three sides by existing development and Village facilities means it is arguably the most well integrated with the existing form of the Village. The bullet point specifically relating to SNC340 refers directly to the previously refused planning applications, however these were decided under the planning policy regime before more homes were identified as needing to be delivered in Kislingbury. Also

NCR. Mitigations were claimed at previous planning applications and not accepted by the LPA. The site selection is based on what is known, and not what might or could be.

of 87




further technical work has shown that suitable solutions could be put in place to satisfy the specific concerns relating to highways, noise, and infrastructure contributions. Finally, we would contend that the proposed development of SNC340 would "reduce the gap between the village and Northampton significantly", as shown on the enclosed indicative masterplan the developed area of the site would not extend significantly into the gap with Northampton and a large part of the site would be dedicated to public open space which would be protected from further development.


Persimmon Homes

Additional Information from Consultees Environment Agency - Result for SNC340 shown as being within Flood Zone 2 but all parts of the developable area lie within Flood Zone 1 on the EA Flood Map for Planning Other - Comments under SNC340 indicate that Village Hall has many issues with this site if chosen for development". Who is the Village Hall organisation? Assessment against Plan Objectives POH4 (Flooding) - No part of SNC340 is shown at risk of surface water flooding on EA map (there is an area at risk just north east of the site but this is within the playing fields land), while SNC397 has an area along its eastern side shown as at risk from surface water flooding POE2 (Landscape) - Development of the site SNC340 would have localised impact on the landscape, in a similar way to SNC397, therefore both should be described as having minimal impact. The description of "Encroaches on Gap" is equally applicable to SNC307, which would also take the edge of the Village closer to the Approved Pineham extension. The advantage of site SNC340 is that a significant area of land has been offered to be transferred to the Parish Council/Playing Fields Association which would remain in their ownership in perpetuity and therefore provide a protected gap between the village and Northampton in conjunction with the existing playing and public open space facilities to the east.

We can only be guided by what he Environment Agency tell us. None of the other comments make a compelling case to choose SNC340 in preference to the Residents' preferred site of SNC397. NCR

of 87




POE6 (Traffic) - To our knowledge there has been no assessment of the relative impact of different development options on key junctions/"choke points". A traffic assessment has been produced in relations to SNC340 and County Council Highways Authority have confirmed they have no objection to the proposals POC2 - Integration - Site SNC340 provides the opportunity for the Gap to Northampton to be safeguarded from future development, with only a proportion of the site proposed to be developed and the remainder to be given over to public open space (Please see enclosed indicative masterplan and green infrastructure plan). Site SNC397 has been rated positive in this regard, but development in this location would reduce the gap to Northampton, particularly the approved Pineham Extension

Related Material for Response 106 from Persimmon Homes.

Full Response and attachments from Bidwells representing Davidsons Development