Kislingbury Parish 14 Dr… · Web viewTo ensure that new development is of high quality design, is built to a high sustainability standard and reinforces local distinctiveness

Basic Conditions Statement

Page 1 of 62

Kislingbury Parish

Neighbourhood Development Plan - Sustainability Assessment

Prepared by the NDP Steering Group

Attachment B: Sustainability Assessment

CONTENTSPage

Section 1 Introduction 41.1 Sustainability Assessment 41.2 The Kislingbury Challenge 41.3 Framework Report 51.4 Sustainability Assessment Approach 51.5 Plan Objectives 71.6 Monitoring 8

Section 2 Strategic Option Assessment 92.1 Potential Sites 92.2 Approach 92.3 Site Assessment against Site Evaluation Criteria 92.4 Site Options Assessment 112.5 Additional Information provided by Consultees 182.6 Site Assessment against Plan Objectives (Preferred Sites) 19

Section 3 Additional Policy Assessment 22 3.1 Introduction 223.2 Common Policies 223.3 Additional Polices 23

Section 4 References 27

Tables 1. NDP Sustainability Objectives 52. Plan and Sustainability Objectives 73. Preliminary Site Option List 94. Site Evaluation Criteria 105. Stage 1. Site Option Assessment 126. Stage 1. Site Option Assessment Summary 147. Stage 2. Site Option Assessment (preferred sites) 158. Stage 2. Site Option Assessment Summary (preferred site) 179. Additional Information 1810. Site Assessment (Preferred Sites) against Plan Objectives 1911. Site Assessment (Preferred Sites)against Plan Objectives Summary 2012. Common Policies 2213. Additional Policies 2314. Additional Policy Assessment against NDP Objectives 2415. Additional Policy Assessment against NDP Objectives Summary 2616. Reasonable Walking Distances 2917. Record Maps 41

Appendices 28

Page 2 of 62

A. Notes to Table 4 28B. Criteria for Site Selection 30C. Site Selection Spreadsheet 36D. Record Maps 41E. Statutory Consultees Responses 46

Kislingbury Parish Council The Parish Office The PaddocksBaker StreetGaytonNN7 3EZEmail: [email protected] http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/index.php

Page 3 of 62

Section 1: Introduction

The Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) identifies the development objectives for the Parish of Kislingbury (the Parish) and sets out planning policies to realise these which, as required by the Localism Act, must comply with the West Northants Joint Core Strategy Plan adopted on December 15th 2014 (JCS Plan).

1.1 Sustainability Assessment

The environmental assessment of plans with a significant environmental impact is a requirement of the EC Directive on the assessment of plans and programmes on the environment (Directive 2001/42/EC), known as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive.

To be in line with the West Northhants Joint Core Strategy Plan a need for a maximum of an additional 50 homes during the plan period 2013 – 2027 has been identified. 40 by way of an Allocated development Site and the remainder through windfall infill developments

Sustainability Assessment is a process to assess the social, environmental and economic impacts of a Plan and is a requirement for local development documents under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This requirement does not extend to neighbourhood development plans. However, because sustainability is important to the Parish Council and local community and because the Parish is located entirely within the Nene River Valley then sustainability has been a paramount consideration in the development of the Plan, and sustainability has guided the decisions and the options have been subject to sustainability Assessment.

A Sustainability Assessment of the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan has therefore been undertaken on the site allocation aspect of the plan. The focus of this Assessment is, therefore, on the detailed proposals for sites and developments for a rural village that is a small part of the District covered by the JCS Plan. Equally in this document an assessment is made of all the Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the NDP against Sustainability criteria in order to demonstrate conformance with the NPPF and JCS Plan.

1.2 The Kislingbury Challenge

The Plan is the response of the Parish Council to the JCS Plan requirement that some 50 new homes be built in Kislingbury between 2014 and 2029. The challenge facing the Parish Council is to identify sites for these houses in a village that is entirely within the Nene River Valley, which does not want development, and is concerned about the impact of expansion upon the natural environment and quality of life and services, and wants to protect the Village from being absorbed by Northampton Borough.

The Plan is largely, albeit not exclusively, about housing so it is housing options and the implementation of the preferred option that is the primary focus of the Assessment. Other aspects of living and working in Kislingbury are important and are considered but, as the baseline data and consultations demonstrate, housing is by far the issue that most concerns residents.

Page 4 of 62

1.3 Framework Report

A Sustainability Assessment Framework report (the Framework Report) was produced in May 2015. This outlined the relevant planning policies and documents that apply to the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan and presented baseline data, in an attachment, under a number of different headings, including:

Parish Demographics Housing Need and Provision Environment and Conservation Transport, Traffic, and Travel Community Services and Youth Flooding and Groundwater Employment and the Economy

1.4 Sustainability Assessment Approach

A starting point for appraising the effects of the proposed Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan is provided through the identification of overriding sustainability objectives. These were identified in the sustainability Assessment Framework Report and are set out below in Table l – i. Those that are not applicable to the NDP have been removed.Table 1 NDP Sustainability Objectives

SA Objective A SA1 Reduce the need to travel and facilitate modal shift B SA2 Reduce / minimise the potential increase in congestionC SA3 Avoid sensitive development within areas of high noise levels or poor air qualityD SA4 Protect the fabric and setting of designated and undesignated heritage assetsE SA5 Maintain and enhance the structure and function of habitats and populations of species, including

those specifically protected.F SA6 Enhance and protect greenspace networks and habitat connectivity, including river and stream

corridors, to assist in species migration and dispersal.G SA9 To improve community safety, reduce crime and the fear of crimeH SA12 Continue to improve energy efficiency of dwellingsI SA16 To improve health and reduce health inequalitiesJ SA17 To create high quality employment opportunities and develop a strong culture of enterprise and

innovationK SA18 Ensure that the quality, character and local distinctiveness of the landscape, and the features within

them are conserved and enhanceL SA19 Enhance the form and design of the built environmentM SA20 To ensure that the housing stock meets the housing needs of the local peopleN SA21 To develop and maintain a balanced and sustainable population structure with good access to services

and facilitiesO SA22 To reduce spatial inequalities in social opportunitiesP SA25 Maintain and continue to improve the quality of ground and river waterQ SA26 Reduce risk of floodingR SA27 Improve efficiency of water useS SA28 Identify opportunities to implement strategic flood risk management options/measures to reflect the

objective in the River Nene Catchment Flood Risk Management Plan

Page 5 of 62

These objectives are derived from the sustainability objectives which were used to appraise the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. An exercise was undertaken at the early stage of Sustainability Assessment to identify from the JCS Plan the sustainability objectives most relevant and useful for appraising the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan. This exercise is reported on in Sections 5 and 6 of the SA Framework Report. Whilst the Core Strategy sustainability objectives operate well at the level of the West Northants, which includes the South Northants District, the resulting sustainability objectives set out above in Table l-I required further development in order to provide a useful tool for assessing the individual sites.

Thus to ensure a proper Sustainability Analysis of the Kislingbury Plan the following approach has been used:

1. The Kislingbury Sustainability Objectives (Table I-i) were used to inform the development of Plan Objectives for the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan. Table l-ii shows the compatibility between the sustainability objectives and the Plan objectives.

2. The Core Strategy, and hence the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan, requires the allocation sites for development. The use of the Kislingbury Sustainability Objectives listed in Table I-i were considered insufficient as a tool for distinguishing the sites on the basis of their sustainability credentials. Therefore the sustainability objectives were used to develop site evaluation criteria. The site evaluation criteria used is set out in Table V under Section 3 of this report.

3. The Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan includes planning polices specific to the Parish which although compliant with those in the JCS Plan are not present in that Strategy. These additional policies are detailed, apply only to Kislingbury and, again, the Kislingbury Sustainability Objectives listed in Table I-i operate at too general a level to be useful for assessment. These additional policies are, therefore assessed against the Plan Objectives listed in Table I-ii

In summary, Assessment proceeds by:• appraising the site options using a set of site evaluation criteria which are derived from the

Kislingbury Sustainability Objectives and which were the subject of community input during two open village workshops in July 2012,; and

• appraising additional policies against the Plan Objectives.

Page 6 of 62

1.5 Plan Objectives

Table 2 lists the Plan objectives and shows how these deliver the Sustainability Objectives. (Source NDP and Sustainability Framework))Table 2: Plan and Sustainability Objectives

Plan Objective Sustainability ObjectivesA B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

POH1 To provide a limited amount of new housing to meet local needs; including a greater range of affordable/low cost housing for Kislingbury residents.

POH2 To provide a mix of housing types including smaller homes for elderly villagers wishing to downsize and for young singles, couples or families needing their first home.

POH3 To ensure that new development is of high quality design, is built to a high sustainability standard and reinforces local distinctiveness.

POH4 To ensure that the design and location of new development is resilient to the effects of climate change and flooding.

POE1 To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces. POE2 To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views.

POE3 To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village. POE4 To conserve and enhance biodiversity. POE5 To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land.

POE6 To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution from traffic congestion.

POT1 To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths, where appropriate.

POT2 To position new development such that current problems with congestion, parking and road safety are not exacerbated and, if possible, reduced.

POEC1 To encourage and support home working.

POEC2 To provide local affordable housing for local employees.

POC1 To give preferential access to some new homes for people with a strong local connection.

POC2 To integrate new housing into Kislingbury such that today’s rural look and feel is maintained.

POC3 To provide homes for younger people and young families and so counter the growing demographic imbalance.

POC4 To preserve important village assets.

Page 7 of 62

1.6 Monitoring

Monitoring of this SA will be carried out by South Northants District Council. The district council will look at the significant effects identified in this SA and compare them to its own SA monitoring framework. If the significant effects identified are not covered by the district council's SA monitoring framework then the district council will need to add additional indicators to its SA monitoring framework.

Page 8 of 62

Section 2: Site Option Assessment

2.1 Potential Sites

Initially 11 potential sites were identified all from the West Northants JCS Plan SHLAA. These are listed in Table IV.

These sites have a potential capacity some 35 times that required (at the Core Strategy density of 35 homes/hectare) for the new housing requirement. However, many of them are completely unsuitable due to Environmental considerations.

Table 3: Preliminary Site Option List

Site Id SHLAA Ref. Description Size HA1 SNC561 Willow View 0.282 SNC276 Mill Road 0.743 SNC635 Beech Lane East 6.604 SNC581 A4500 South 6.525 SNC340 Camp Lane 1.346 SNC636 Hall Farm Camp Lane 10.257 SNC301 Rothersthorpe Road East 6.088 SNC397 Rothersthorpe Road 4.289 SNC637 Millers Lane 1.82

10 SNC302 Rothersthorpe Road West 1.6211 SNC596 Pineham 11.25

2.2 Approach

Sustainability is, and has been, a major consideration throughout the Plan and potential sites were assessed using both the site evaluation criteria presented in the Framework Report (reproduced as Table V) and the Plan Objectives to identify the sites with the greatest sustainability credentials. As explained in Section 5 of the SA Framework Report, these site evaluation criteria have been derived from the sustainability objectives identified in the Sustainability Assessment for the South Northants District Council. The preferred sites were then further evaluated against the Plan Objectives to ensure both thoroughness and consistency.

2.3 Site Assessment against the Site Evaluation Criteria

Kislingbury is a small village and not all site evaluation criteria are equally useful when assessing relative sustainability. For example, in a village the size of Kislingbury distances to essential services are all within the acceptable limits, but its location makes conservation and improvement of the environment very significant. It is also located on and very close to Zone 3 Flood Zones, which makes some sites very difficult.

From the Questionnaires and the Village Meetings we have been able to distil the key issues that concern the Village. Some criteria are seen as more important than others to sustainable life in the village. These are:• a strong preference for sites that maintain the gap between the Village and Northampton;• a strong preference for sites on which the Housing need of the Village can be met;• a strong antipathy for development that exacerbates existing traffic problems in the village; and• a desire for development to be inside the ‘village envelope’, not necessarily within the existing Village

Confines.

Page 9 of 62

This, together with the different usefulness of tests, suggests a two-stage application of the Evaluation tests in which:• in Stage 1 all sites are appraised using the most significant tests (site evaluation criteria) to

produce an initial sustainability ranking and thus, preferred sites; and then• Stage 2 further appraises the preferred sites using the remaining site evaluation criteria.

Table V lists the site evaluation criteria tests (in Stage 1 and Stage 2 groups) and gives notes on their assessment method. These notes are further elaborated on in Appendix A to this document.

Table 4: Site Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Tests (Stage 1) Method of Assessment

1 Is the Site Available? From SHLAA assessment and Landowner Responses

2 Is the site a Brownfield or green field site? Included as it is a key criteria in the NPPF. Assessed by site visit.

3 Is the site within the existing built up area of the village From SHLAA Map.

4 Is the Site Contiguous with the existing Village Confines? From SHLAA Map

5 Is the site free from flood risk? Information supplied by Environment Agency

6 Is the site particularly sensitive from a landscape standpoint? Information from NCC Archaeological Dept, and Natural England

7 Is the site highly sensitive environmentally or ecologically? Information from Natural England

Evaluation Tests (Stage 2)8 Does the Site lie between the Village and Northampton? From SHLAA Map 9 Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to the site? From SHLAA Map and Site Visit

10 Are there tree preservation orders? Assessed using Tree Preservation Order Map

11 Is the site of archaeological significance or interest? Assessed using advice from NCC Archaeological Dept

12 Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets? Information from Historic England13 Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to moderate agricultural

land, or worse)Landowner Information, and site assessment

14 Does the site have any infrastructure deficiencies? Information from NCC Highways and AngliaWater

15 Will the local traffic impact be acceptable? Assessment from SHLAA Map and Site Visit16 Is the Site subject to constraints regarding feasibility and health

factors, i.e. pollution Assessed by Site Visits and Landowner Information

17 Offer easy pedestrian access to amenities All sites are equally feasible assessed against these criteria. They are included as they demonstrate necessary attributes of Sustainability. See Appendix A

18 Is community healthcare reasonably accessible?19 Is a bus stop reasonably accessible?20 Are shops reasonably accessible?21 Are community facilities reasonably accessible?22 Are local schools reasonably accessible?

SHLAA Map can be seen in Appendix D

Page 10 of 62

2.4 Site Options Assessment

Stage 1 of the Site Option Assessment:

• applies the site evaluation criteria that, as described earlier, are most important to the Parish and most useful in distinguishing the sustainability credentials of sites; and

• applies the tests (site evaluation criteria) to all the sites that have been identified in the JCS Plan SHLAA process.

Table VII-i assesses the sustainability factors as:• PP - Very Positive• P – Positive• Neutral• N - Negative• NN - Very Negative

Table VII-ii summarises the Stage 1 Assessment.

Stage 2 Site Option Assessment (preferred sites)

Stage 2 of the Site Option Assessment applies the Framework tests (site evaluation criteria):

• that, as described earlier, are important but less use in separating sites on sustainability considerations;

• only to those sites that have emerged as the preferred locations for new housing.

In this assessment:

• all tests are significant, and the impact is assessed as : PP - Very Positive; P - Positive; Neutral; N - Negative; or NN - Very Negative.

• reasonable walking distances are specified in Table X in Appendix A.

Each Assessment was given a Score and the Site Selection was driven by those that achieved the highest positive score.

A copy of the Guidance Notes used for assessing each Site is shown in the Appendix.

A copy of the Spreadsheet recording the site assessments is attached in the Appendix

Page 11 of 62

Table 5: Stage 1 Site Option Assessment (See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)

Site NumberName

Framework Test

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596 **

1 Is the Site Available? SHLAA assessment is that this site would be suitable if available

Impact: N -5

Identified as available in SHLAA. Confirmed as available by Owner.Impact: PP 10

SHLAA identified the site as unavailable and unsuitable and excluded it from consideration

Impact: NN -50

SHLAA identified the site as unavailable and unsuitable and excluded it from considerationImpact: NN -50

Available confirmed by owner

Impact: PP 10

SHLAA assessment is that this site would be suitable if available

Impact: N -5

Identified as available in SHLAA. Confirmed available by Owner

Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10

SHLAA identified the site as unavailable and unsuitable.

Impact: NN -50

Identified as available in SHLAA

Impact: P 5

SHLAA identified the site as unavailable and unsuitable and excluded it from considerationImpact: NN -50

2 Is the site a Brownfield or Greenfield site?

Greenfield

Impact: N N - 1 0

Greenfield

Impact: NN -10

Greenfield

Impact: N N - 1 0

Greenfield

Impact: NN - 1 0

Greenfield

Impact: NN -10

Brownfield some contaminationImpact: P 5

Greenfield

Impact: NN - 1 0

Greenfield

Impact: NN - 10

GreenfieldImpact: N N -1 0

Greenfield

Impact: NN -10

Greenfield

Impact: NN -10

3 Is the site within the existing built up area of the village

Outside built up area but with one boundary contiguous to Built up area

Impact: N -5


Impact: N -5


Impact: N -5

Outside built up area with no boundaries contiguous

Impact: NN -10


Impact: N -5


Impact: N -5


Impact: N -5


Impact: N -5


Impact: N -5

Outside built up area with no boundaries contiguous

Impact: NN -10

Not Applicable

4 Is the Site Contiguous with the existing Village Confines?

Outside Confines but with one or more boundaries contiguous with ConfinesImpact: N -5



Outside of Confines with No Boundaries Contiguous with Confines

Impact: NN -50






Outside of Confines with No Boundaries Contiguous with ConfinesImpact: NN -50

Not Applicable

5 Is the site free from flood risk?

Potentially poorly drained soil saturated after rain. Flood Zone 3

Impact: NN -55

Potentially poorly drained soil saturated after rain. Flood Zone 3, protected by BundImpact: N -10

Potentially poorly drained soil saturated after rain. Flood Zone 3

Impact: NN -55

Potentially poorly drained soil saturated after rainFlood Zone 3.

Impact: P 15

Mostly drained soilNo Risk of Flood

Impact::PP 20

Well drained soilNo Risk of Flood

Impact: PP 20


Impact: PP 20


Impact: PP 20


Impact: PP 20

Potentially poorly drained soil saturated after rain. No Risk of Flood

Impact: P 5

Not Applicable

Page 12 of 62

Site NumberName

Framework Test


6 Is the site particularly sensitive from a Geodiversity and Landscape standpoint? (2 Criteria)

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Landscape Issues. Major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. There are no environmental constraints on this site

Impact: NN -10

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Landscape Issues. Major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. There are no environmental constraints on this siteImpact: N -5

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. Large amount of significant hedgerows and trees

Impact: NN -25

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. Large amount of significant hedgerows and trees

Impact: NN -25

No geological or Landscape issues. Medium impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. Small amount of significant Hedgerows or Trees

Impact: PP 10

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Medium impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. Small amount of significant Hedgerows or Trees

\impact: N - 5

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. Small amount of significant Hedgerows or Trees

Impact: N -10

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Medium impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. Small amount of significant Hedgerows or Trees

Impact: N - 5

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. There are no environmental constraints on this site

Impact: N -5

Mineral Deposits of Medium Significance. Major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views. There are no environmental constraints on this site

Impact: N -5

Not Applicable

7 Is the site highly sensitive environmentally or ecologically?

Very little or no plant life, animal life or insect life of significance on this site

Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10

Plant life, bird life, insect life of major significance on this site

Impact: NN -10


Impact: NN -10


Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10


Impact: Pp 10

Not Applicable

** SNC596 is excluded from the Assessment as it is the Subject of a Planning Approval for an Extension of the Pineham Industrial Estate and therefore no longer available.

Page 13 of 62

Table 6: Stage 1 Site Option Assessment Summary (See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)

Site Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Test SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596 **

1 Is the Site Available? N -5 PP 10 NN -50 NN -50 PP 10 N -5 PP 10 PP 10 NN -50 P 5 NN -50

2 Is the site a Brownfield or green field site?

NN -10 NN -10 NN - 10 NN -10 NN -10 P 5 NN -10 NN -10 NN -10 NN -10 NN -10

3 Is the site within the existing built up area of the village

N -5 N -5 N -5 NN -10 N -5 N -5 N -5 N -5 N -5 NN -10

4 Is the Site Contiguous with the existing Village Confines?

N -5 N -5 N -5 NN -50 N -5 N -5 N -5 N -5 N -5 NN-50

5 Is the site free from flood risk? NN -55 N -10 NN -55 NN -55 P 15 PP 20 PP 20 PP 20 PP 20 P 5

6 Is the site particularly sensitive from a Geodiversity and Landscape standpoint? (2 Criteria)

NN -10 N -5 NN -25 NN -25 PP 10 N -5 N -10 N -5 N -5 N -5

7 Is the site highly sensitive environmentally or ecologically?

PP 10 PP 10 NN -10 NN -10 PP 10 PP 10 PP 10 PP 10 PP 10 PP 10

Score -80 -15 -160 -210 25 15 10 15 -45 -55

** SNC596 is excluded from the Assessment as it is the Subject of a Planning Approval for an Extension of the Pineham Industrial Estate and therefore no longer available.

Key Impact Impact CodeStrong Positive PP Positive P Neutral -Negative N Strong Negative NN

This Assessment produced a preferred list containing sites SNC340, SNC636, SNC301, and SNC 397. These were then further assessed using the Stage 2 criteria.

Page 14 of 62

Page 15 of 62

Table 7: Stage 2 Site Option Assessment (preferred sites) (See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)

Site NumberName

Test

1 2 3 4SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397

8 Does the Site lie between the Village and Northampton?

The site adjoins a built up area of the Village

Impact: P 5


Impact: P 5


Impact: P 5


Impact: P 59 Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to

the site?Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sidesImpact: PP 10

Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides

Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10

Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sidesImpact: PP 10

10 Are there tree preservation orders? No Tree Preservation Orders

Impact: PP 10

No Tree Preservation Orders

Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10


Impact: PP 10

11 Is the site of archaeological significance or interest?

Some evidence of archaeological features ground works or depositsImpact: N -5




12 Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets?

Some Impact on Conservation areaImpact: N -5

Major Impact on Conservation AreaImpact: NN -10

Major Impact on Conservation AreaImpact: NN -10

No Impact on Conservation AreaImpact: P 5

13 Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to moderate agricultural land, or worse)

Very Good Soil QualityImpact: N -5

Excellent Soil QualityImpact: NN -10



14 Does the site have any infrastructure deficiencies?

Minimal Investment needed to access ServicesImpact: P 5

Access to all services already

Impact: PP 10

Minimal Investment needed to access Services

Impact: P 5

Minimal Investment needed to access ServicesImpact: P 5

15 Will the local traffic impact be acceptable? Traffic will increase volumes at Village Congestion pointsImpact: N -5

Traffic will increase volumes at Village Congestion pointsImpact: N -5



16 Is the Site subject to constraints regarding feasibility and health factors

At least 50 meters from un-neighbourly effectsImpact: NN -10

At least 50 meters from un-neighbourly effects

Impact: NN -10


Impact: NN -10

At least 100 meters from un-neighbourly effectsImpact: NN -5

17 Rights of way and Footpaths (2 Criteria) No Rights of way. No existing footpaths/pavements but can be createdImpact: P 5

No Rights of way. There are existing footpaths roads

Impact: PP 20

No Rights of way. No existing footpaths/pavements but can be created

Impact: P 5

No Rights of way. No existing footpaths/pavements but can be createdImpact: P 5

18 Is community healthcare reasonably accessible? There are Health Care facilities within a 15 minute car driveImpact: N -5

There are Health Care facilities within a 15 minute car driveImpact: N -5



19 Is a Bus Stop reasonably accessible and are there Cycle Paths? (2Criteria)

Bus stop within 10 minutes walk. No existing Cycle paths or roads for cycling but a new cycle path could be created to meet existing paths or roadsImpact: N -10

Bus stop within 10 minutes walk. No existing Cycle paths or roads for cycling but a new cycle path could be created to meet existing paths or roads

Impact: N -10

Bus stop within 5 minutes walk. No existing Cycle paths or roads for cycling but a new cycle path could be created to meet existing paths or roads

Impact: Neutral 0

Bus stop within 5 minutes walk. No existing Cycle paths or roads for cycling but a new cycle path could be created to meet existing paths or roadsImpact: Neutral 0

20 Are shops reasonably accessible? Shops within 10 minutes walk of the siteImpact: P 5

Shops within 10 minutes walk of the site

Impact: P 5


Impact: P 5

Shops within 10 minutes walk of the siteImpact: P 5

Page 16 of 62

Site NumberName

Test

1 2 3 4SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397

21 Are community facilities reasonably accessible? There are cultural, religious and recreational facilities within 10 to 20 mins walk of site

Impact: P 5

There are cultural, religious and recreational facilities within 10 to 20 mins walk of site

Impact: P 5


Impact: P 5


Impact: P 522 Are local schools reasonably accessible? There are schools with available

places within 10 to 20 mins walk or cycle from the siteImpact: P 5

There are schools with available places within 10 to 20 mins walk or cycle from the site

Impact: P 5

There are schools with available places within 10 to 20 mins walk or cycle from the site

Impact: P 5

There are schools with available places within 10 to 20 mins walk or cycle from the siteImpact: P 5

Page 17 of 62

Table 8: Stage 2 Site Option Assessment Summary (preferred s i t e s ) (See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)

Site Number

Test

SNC340 SNC636 ** SNC301 SNC397

8 Does the Site lie between the Village and Northampton? P 5 P 5 P 5 P 59 Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to the site? PP 10 PP 10 PP 10 PP 10

10 Are there tree preservation orders? PP 10 PP 10 PP 10 PP 1011 Is the site of archaeological significance or interest? N -5 N -5 N -5 N -512 Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets? N -5 NN -10 NN -10 P 513 Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to moderate agricultural land, or worse) N -5 NN -10 NN -10 NN -1014 Does the site have any infrastructure deficiencies? P 5 PP 10 P 5 P 515 Will the local traffic impact be acceptable? N -5 N -5 N -5 N-516 Is the Site subject to constraints regarding feasibility and health factors NN -10 NN -10 NN -10 N -517 Rights of Way and Footpaths? (2 Criteria) P 5 PP 20 P 5 P 518 Is community healthcare reasonably accessible? N -5 N -5 N -5 N -519 Is a Bus Stop reasonably accessible and are there Cycle Paths? (2 Criteria) N -10 N -10 Neutral 0 Neutral 020 Are shops reasonably accessible? P 5 P 5 P 5 P 521 Are community facilities reasonably accessible? P 5 P 5 P 5 P 5

22 Are local schools reasonably accessible? P 5 P 5 P 5 P 5Score 5 15 5 25

Key Impact Impact CodeStrong Positive PP Positive P Neutral -Negative N Strong Negative NN

** Information provided by the Owner makes site SNC636 unsuitable as it is not available for Development.

• Of the three remaining Sites SNC397 is the most suitable, being available and large enough, and most crucially which fits to the confines of the Village in the least intrusive way, and is the site allocated in the Plan.

• SNC340, is available and suitable, and could accommodate the number of Houses needed, but is negatively affected by a number of factors which were clearly identified in previously refused Planning Applications, and most crucially does not fit to the Confines of the Village in a way which maintains a cohesive Village unit.

Page 18 of 62

• SNC301 is large enough, but the shape makes the likely layout of any development very unattractive. Availability is doubtful.

Page 19 of 62

2.5 Additional Information provided by Consultees

Table 9: Additional InformationSite Number

Name1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596 **

SHLAA Site Description Willow View Mill Road Beech Lane East A4500 South Camp Lane Hall Farm Camp Lane

Rothersthorpe Road East

Bugbrooke and Rothersthorpe Roads

Millers Lane Rothersthorpe Road West

Pineham

NCC Transport No Issues Access width could be an Issue

No Issues No Direct Access from A4500 would be allowed

No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues Access major Constraint

No Issues No Issues

NCC Minerals In Mineral Safeguard Area

In Mineral Safeguard Area



Not in Mineral Safeguard area







NCC Archaeology No Known activity Earthworks, possibly Manorial. Extensive remains

No Known Activity. Ridge and Furrow

No Know Activity. Adjacent to Bronze age activity

Potentially archaeologically sensitive. Investigation needed

Possible Iron Age and Romano British activity, and Ridge and Furrow

Ridge and Furrow Iron age activity no known activity

Ridge and Furrow

Natural England No known sites for nature conservation or landscape. No record of protected species

No known sites for nature conservation or landscape. No record of protected species










Environment Agency Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1

English Heritage No Issues Adjacent to Historic Church

No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues Development would affect Conservation area and Open Countryside

No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues

Highways Agency No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues Proximity to M1 Proximity to M1 No Issues

Anglia Water Overall Green Overall Green Overall Amber Overall Amber Overall Green Overall Amber Overall Amber Overall Green Overall Amber Overall Amber No Issues

Owner No Response Available Not Available Not Available Available Not Available No Response Available Available No Response Not Available

Other Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall is opposed to development on this site

Daventry Council No Comments

Daventry Council No Comments. NBC states that developments on these sites must meet Borough needs. KPFA states that part of site is leased to them

Daventry Council No Comments. NBC will incorporate this site into Upton Park SUE. KPFA are negative about development on this site

Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall has many issues with this site if chosen for development. KPFA are supportive of development on this site.

Daventry Council No Comments. NBC states that developments on these sites must meet Borough needs

Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall concerns over reduction of gap, increased traffic, and loss of farmland.

Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall has concerned about traffic congestion and pollution. Access should be only from Rothersthorpe Road



NBC states that developments on these sites must meet Borough needs

Page 20 of 62

Site NumberName


Negative/Positive/Neutral Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Neutral Negative

2.6 Site Assessment against Plan Objectives (preferred sites) Assessment of the potential sites against the Sustainability Framework produced a preferred list of 6 sites. As a secondary assessment the remaining three are appraised against the Plan Objectives which, as explained in Section 1, map to the sustainability objectives but are more effective, at this level of detail, in establishing the sustainability credentials.

Table 10: Site Assessment (Preferred Sites) against Plan ObjectivesSite Id Name

Objective Size

SNC340 SNC301 SNC397

1.34 HA 6.08 HA 4.28 HAPOH1 To provide a limited amount of new housing to meet local needs; including a

greater range of affordable/low cost housing for Kislingbury residents.Site will deliver the Objective.Impact: PP

Site will deliver the Objective.Impact: PP











Site may be prone to Flooding at the North East endImpact: P

Site not subject to FloodingImpact: PP

Site not subject to FloodingImpact: PP

POE1 To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces. N/A N/A N/A

POE2 To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views. Encroaches on Gap, Landscape and ViewImpact: NN

Site would spoil view from Conservation area and landscapeImpact: NN

Site will impact view and landscapeImpact: N

POE3 To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village. Visible from Conservation AreaImpact: N

Site detracts from Conservation Area and GreenImpact: NN

N/A

Page 21 of 62

Site Id Name

Objective Size


1.34 HA 6.08 HA 4.28 HAPOE4 To conserve and enhance biodiversity. Uses Open Countryside

with minimal impact on BiodiversityImpact: P

Uses Open Countryside with minimal impact on BiodiversityImpact: P

Uses Open Countryside with minimal impact on BiodiversityImpact: P

POE5 To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land. Would use Site efficiently for Housing but Agricultural Land would be lostImpact: N

Would use Site efficiently for Housing but Agricultural Land would be lostImpact: NN

Would use Site efficiently for Housing but Agricultural Land would be lostImpact: NN

Site Id Name

Objective

SNC340

1.34 HA

SNC301

6.08 HA

SNC397

4.28 HAPOE6 To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution from traffic

congestion.Would Increase Traffic at Choke PointsImpact: NN

Would increase traffic but some could avoid VillageImpact N

Would increase traffic but some could avoid VillageImpact N

POT1 To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths, where appropriate. Site delivers the ObjectiveImpact: P

Site delivers the ObjectiveImpact: P

Site delivers the ObjectiveImpact: P


Site will not deliver the ObjectiveImpact: N



POEC1 To encourage and support home working. N/A N/A N/A

POEC2 To provide local affordable housing for local employees. Site will deliver the ObjectiveImpact: PP

Site will deliver the ObjectiveImpact: PP







Outside Village Confines and Gap will be reducedImpact: N

Outside Village Confines and Gap will be reducedImpact: N

Site will deliver the ObjectiveImpact: P





Page 22 of 62

Site Id Name

Objective Size


1.34 HA 6.08 HA 4.28 HAPOC4 To preserve important village assets. Site will detract from view

and landscapeImpact: NN

Site will detract from view and landscapeImpact: NN

N/A

Table 11: Site Assessment (Preferred Sites) against Plan Objectives Summary

Site Number SNC340 SNC301 SNC397


PP PP PP


PP PP PP


PP PP PP


P PP PP

POE1 To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces. N/A N/A N/A

POE2 To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views. NN NN N

POE3 To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village. N NN N/A

POE4 To conserve and enhance biodiversity. P P P

POE5 To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land. N NN NN

POE6 To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution from traffic congestion. NN N NN

POT1 To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths, where appropriate. P P P


N N N

POEC1 To encourage and support home working. N/A N/A N/A

POEC2 To provide local affordable housing for local employees. PP PP PP

Page 23 of 62

Site Number SNC340 SNC301 SNC397

POC1 To give preferential access to some new homes for people with a strong local connection. PP PP PP

POC2 To integrate new housing into Kislingbury such that today’s rural look and feel is maintained. N N P


PP PP PP

POC4 To preserve important village assets. NN NN N/A

Page 24 of 62

Key Impact Impact CodeStrong Positive PPPositive PNeutral --Negative NStrong Negative NN

Section 3: Additional Policy Assessment

3.1 Introduction

The NDP contains policies that are common to the JCS Plan and policies that are particular to the NDP. In this section those policies that are particular to the NDP are, for reasons explained in Section 1, assessed against the NDP Objectives to determine their sustainability impact.

3.2 Common Policies The Table below lists those policies in the NDP that are directly linked to, and supportive of, Objectives and Policies in the JCS Plan. This Linkage is clearly shown in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Basic Conditions Statement, of which this Sustainability Assessment is an Attachment.

Table 12: Common Policies

Page 25 of 62

C1 Green space and LandscapingC2 Assets of Community ValueC3 Broadband – Fibre to the PremisesC4 Community Facilities and ServicesD1 Good DesignD2 Light PollutionD3 Secure by DesignEM1 Heavy Goods TrafficH1 Number of New Homes.H2 Tenancy mixH3 Homes for Sale to Local ResidentsH4 Affordable HousingH5 Allocation of Affordable HousingH6 Size of HomesH7 Type of HomesH8 Lifetime Home StandardsHE1 Historic EnvironmentHS1 Scale of New DevelopmentHS2 Infill HousingHS3 Developer ContributionHS4 Site AllocationHS5 Plan Review for Failure to deliver required DevelopmentT1 Traffic CongestionT5 Pedestrian Footways

3.3 Additional Policies

Additional policies are present to support the achievement of the local objectives, to improve sustainability and to mitigate the negative effects of the new developments. For these reasons the cumulative effect is overwhelmingly positive and mitigation is not required. These are:

Table 13: Additional Policies

Page 26 of 62

HS6 Redefining the Confines of the VillageHS7 Primary SiteT2 Traffic along the Bugbrooke RoadT3 Safe Travel to SchoolT4 Traffic calming along the Bugbrooke RoadT6 Residential Car Parking Spaces

Table 14: Additional Policy Assessment against NDP Objectives

Policy NDP Objective

HS6 HS7 T2 T3 T4 T6


Meets Objective completely Impact: PP

Meets Objective completely Impact: PP

N/A N/A N/A N/A


N/A Meets Objective completely Impact: PP

N/A N/A N/A N/A



N/A Meeting design standards will bring small improvementsImpact: P

N/A N/A



N/A N/A N/A N/A

POE1 To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces. There will be Loss of Open CountrysideImpact: NN

N/A

There will be some improvement

Impact: P

N/A There will be some improvement

Impact: P


Impact: P

POE2 To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views. Spoils View and Landscape Impact: N

Spoils View and Landscape Impact: N

N/A N/A N/A N/A

POE3 To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village. N/A N/A


Impact: P


Impact: P

Meets the Objective

Impact: P PPOE4 To conserve and enhance biodiversity. Will impact biodiversity, but not seriously Impact: N

Will impact biodiversity, but not seriously Impact: N

N/A N/A N/A N/A

POE5 To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land.

Loss of High Quality Agricultural Land Impact: NN

Loss of High Quality Agricultural Land Impact: NN

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Page 27 of 62

Policy NDP Objective

HS6 HS7 T2 T3 T4 T6

POE6 To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution from traffic congestion.

N/A Will Increase Traffic, but there is alternative Route away from Village Impact: P

Meets the ObjectiveImpact: P P

There will be some improvement Impact: P



Impact: P

POT1 To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths, where appropriate.

N/A Will deliver the Objective Impact: P




N/A


N/A Will impact negatively all objective criteria Impact: N


Impact: P

There will be some improvementImpact: P


Impact: P

Meets the Objective

Impact: P P

POEC1 To encourage and support home working. N/A N/A


Impact: P

N/A N/A N/A

POEC2 To provide local affordable housing for local employees. N/A Will deliver the Objective Impact: PP

N/A N/A N/A N/A


N/A Will deliver the Objective Impact: PP

N/A N/A N/A N/A


Will deliver the Objective Impact: PP


N/A N/A N/A N/A




N/A N/A N/A N/A

POC4 To preserve important village assets. N/A N/A


Impact: P


Impact: P


Impact: P

Page 28 of 62

Table 15: Additional Policy against NDP Objectives Assessment Summary

POLICIES HS6 HS7 T2 T3 T4 T6

POH1 PP pp N/A N//A N/A N/A

POH2 N/A PP N/A N/A N/A N/A

POH3 N/A PP N/A P N/A N/A

POH4 N/A PP N/A N/A N/A N/A

POE1 NN N/A P N/A P P

POE2 N N N/A N/A N/A N/A

POE3 N/A N/A P N/A P PP

POE4 N N N/A N/A N/A N/A

POE5 NN NN N/A N/A N/A N/A

POE6 N/A P PP P PP P

POT1 N/A P PP PP PP N/A

POT2 N/A N P P P PP

POEC1 N/A N/A P N/A N/A N/A

POEC2 N/A PP N/A N/A N/A N/A

POC1 N/A PP N/A N/A N/A N/A

POC2 PP PP N/A N/A N/A N/A

POC3 PP PP N/A N/A N/A N/A

POC4 N/A N/A P N/A P P

Key Impact Impact CodeStrong Positive PPPositive PNeutral --Negative NStrong Negative NN

Page 29 of 62

Page 30 of 62

4.0 References

Additional information on the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan can be found in the following documents:

• Kislingbury – Background Data• JCS Landscape Analysis• January 2013 Questionnaire Summary• March 2014 Village Meeting Report• October 2014 Village Meeting Report• October 2014 Village Survey Report• SNC Housing Survey Feedback• Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Assessment Framework Report

All are available on the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan website http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php

Page 31 of 62

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

Appendices

Appendix A: Notes to Table V – Site Evaluation Notes

1. Greenfield SitesThis criterion encourages the use of previously developed land. In so doing it both improves sustainability by seeking to avoid the loss of Greenfield land and re-using, and improving previously developed land. Sites that are previously developed, especially if they are now derelict or no longer in productive use, are rated positively in sustainability terms. Greenfield sites are rated negatively.

2. Traffic VolumesTraffic congestion is a concern for residents. Of greatest concern is the volume of Traffic on the Bugbrooke Road, and near the Primary school on the High Street. The volume of traffic through this route, particularly during the rush hour times when children are also going to school, increases the hazard to school children from the associated danger and air pollution.

Two Volume ‘hotspots’ are:a) The give way traffic flow over the Nene River Bridge, which can cause traffic to back up the High

Street.b) the junction of Camp Lane, Rothersthorpe Road, The Green and the High Street. Traffic coming

from all the directions can cause congestion.

Sites that would have an access within 50 meters of a traffic hotspot were considered less sustainable than those with an access between 50 and 100 meters, and still more unsustainable than those whose access would be more than 100 meters from a ‘hotspot’, and rated negatively. Such traffic would add to local air pollution through increased local congestion, add to the pedestrian hazard and be in direct conflict with the expressed wishes of the majority of residents who already suffer from congestion at these locations.

Traffic Hotspots

Page 32 of 62

Key Hotspots 100 Meter Radius

3. Assessed by proximity.In this context reasonably accessible means a reasonable walking distance. These were appraised using the guidance given in Figure 5.6 (d) of Sustainable Settlements. A Guide for Planners, Designers and Developers which suggests that for housing developments in urban, that is high density, settlements the walking distance targets in Table X. For rural communities these distances are ambitious.Sites beyond these distances will receive a negative sustainability rating; sites within these distances will be viewed positively.

Table 16 Reasonable Walking Distances

Community healthcare facilities………1000 m

A bus stop……..400 m

A shop……..800 m

District or leisure centre (the village hall, youth club, community centre and library…….. 1500 m

Primary school……..600 m

Secondary school……..1500 m

Page 33 of 62

Page 34 of 62

Appendix B: Criteria for Site Selection

Guidance Notes for Site Assessment

Stage 1 Selection Criteria – to eliminate the non-starters1. Is the Site Available?

a. The Owner has indicated either in response to Consultation or through SHLAA Assessment that the site is available for development.

PP – Score 10 – Available confirmed by OwnerP – Score 5 – Available identified through SHLAANeutral - Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 – Would be suitable if AvailableNN – Score -50 – Excluded for reasons of unavailability or unsuitability – SHLAA

2. Is the site a Brownfield or a Greenfield site?o Designation of Site – Site choice to ensure the most efficient & effective use of land and the use of previously

developed land and buildings; also to consider feasibility of developing the site and conserve and where possible enhance the landscape.

PP – Score 10 - Brownfield uncontaminatedP – Score 5 - Brownfield some contaminationNeutral – Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 - Brownfield heavy contaminationNN – Score -10 - Greenfield

3. Is the site within the existing built up area of the village within the existing ConfinesPP – Score 10 – Completely insideP – Score 5 – inside with open space along one or more boundariesNeutral – Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 – outside, but with one boundary contiguous to built up areaNN – Score -10 – outside, with no boundaries contiguous to built up area

4. Is the Site Contiguous with the existing Village Confines?

PP – Score 10 – Completely inside ConfinesP – Score 5 – Inside with one or more boundaries on edge of ConfinesNeutral – Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 – outside, but with one or more boundaries contiguous with ConfinesNN – Score -50 – outside, with no boundaries contiguous with Confines

5. Is the site free from flood risk? 1. Flood Risk: ground water saturation and surface water drainage – avoidance of flood risk on sites, adjoining

and other areas in order to protect people and property from the risk of flooding.

PP – Score 10 - well drained soilP – Score 5 - mostly drained soilNeutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - poorly drained soil saturated after any rainNN – Score -50 - no drainage of soil

2. Flood risk: fluvial – avoidance of flood risk on sites, adjoining and other areas in order to protect people and property from the risk of flooding.

Page 35 of 62

PP – Score 10 - no riskP – Score 5 - flood zone 1 (low risk 1000 to 1 chance per annum)Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - flood zone 2 (medium risk between 1000 to 1 & 100 to 1 fluvial) or Protected by BundNN – Score -50 - flood zone 3 (high risk 100 to 1 chance fluvial)

6. Is the site particularly sensitive from a landscape standpoint?1. The natural environment: Geodiversity - site choice should ensure protection and enhancement of all

geological features where possible and avoid irreversible losses.

PP – Score 10 - no geological, soil conservation interests or mineral deposits in this siteP – Score 5 - geological, soil conservation interests or mineral deposits in this site of minor significanceNeutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - geological, soil conservation interests or mineral deposits in this site of medium significanceNN – Score -10 - geological, soil conservation interests or mineral deposits in this site of major significance--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The natural environment: landscape settings, views and natural features - site choice should ensure protection and enhancement of all biodiversity, Geodiversity and landscape features where possible and avoid irreversible losses and should seek to protect and enhance the quality of the rural landscape plus maintain and strengthen local distinctiveness and sense of place.

PP – Score 10 - no impact on surrounding natural landscape setting and views of landscape including river and water courses, wooded areas and other natural featuresP – Score 5 - minor impact on surrounding natural landscape setting and views of landscape including river and water courses, wooded areas and other natural featuresNeutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - medium impact on surrounding natural landscape setting and views of landscape including river and water courses, wooded areas and other natural featuresNN – Score -10 - major impact on surrounding natural landscape setting and views of landscape including river and water courses, wooded areas and other natural features

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Other natural environment constraints - site choice should ensure protection and enhancement of all

biodiversity and geological features where possible and avoid irreversible losses and should seek to protect and enhance the quality of the rural landscape plus maintain and strengthen local distinctiveness and sense of place.

PP – Score 10 - there are no environmental constraints affecting this site.P – Score 5 - small amount of significant hedgerows or trees with or without Tree Preservation Orders, fields, meads and natural areas, ditches, water meadows, water courses, meanders, riparian or other features affecting this site.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - medium amount of significant hedgerows or trees with or without Tree Preservation Orders, fields, meads and natural areas, ditches, water meadows, water courses, meanders, riparian or other features affecting this site.NN – Score -10 - large amount of significant hedgerows or trees with or without Tree Preservation Orders, fields, meads and natural areas, ditches, water meadows, water courses, meanders, riparian or other features affecting this site.

7. Is the site highly sensitive environmentally or ecologically?o Not be of special ecological significance o The natural environment: biodiversity and ecology - site choice should ensure protection and enhancement of

all ecological and biodiversity features where possible and avoid irreversible losses.

PP – Score 10 - very little or no plant life, animal life, bird life or insect life of significance on this siteP – Score 5 - some plant life, animal life, bird life or insect life of minor significance on this siteNeutral - Not applicableN – Score -5 - plant life, animal life, bird life or insect life of medium significance on this site

Page 36 of 62

NN – Score -10 - plant life, animal life, bird life or insect life of major significance on this site

Stage 2 Selection Criteria – to rank the short list of potential sites

8. Does the Site lie between the Village and Northampton?o Urban sprawl – to avoid the loss of the green corridor of land around the villages.

PP – Score 10 - the site is wholly within a built up area of the villageP – Score 5 - the site adjoins a built up area of the villageNeutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - the site is in the region of a built up area, does not adjoin and but is close to the villageNN – Score -10 - the site does not adjoin and is not near a built up area and stands alone apart from the village

9. Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to the site?

PP – Score 10 – Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sidesP – Score 5 – Obvious Boundaries on 2 sidesNeutral – Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 – Obvious Boundary on 1 sideNN – Score -10 – No Obvious Boundaries

10. Are there tree preservation orders?

PP – Score 10 – No tree preservation ordersP – Score 5 – not more than 3 tree preservation ordersNeutral – Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 – up to 5 tree preservation ordersNN – Score -10 – more than 5 tree preservation orders

11. Is the site of archaeological significance or interest?o Impact upon archaeological sites - site choice should seek to protect, maintain and enhance the historic

environment and archaeological assets.

PP – Score 10 - no evidence known of archaeological features, ground works or depositsP – Score 5 - possibility of archaeological features, ground works or depositsNeutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - some evidence of archaeological features, ground works or depositsNN – Score -10 - strong evidence of archaeological features, ground works or deposits

12. Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets?3. Preserve historic character of village

4. Impact on the historic environment and heritage buildings of Kislingbury and the adjacent area - negative impact to be avoided to preserve historic environment.

PP – Score 10 - enhance a conservation area or an historic/ heritage area, or historic/ heritage building(s) with a positive impact, e.g. improve derelict or run down siteP – Score 5 - no impact on a conservation area, nor on an historic/ heritage area, nor on historic/heritage building(s)Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - some impact on a conservation area or on an historic/heritage area or historic/heritage building(s)NN – Score -10 - major impact on a conservation area or on an historic/heritage area or on historic/heritage building(s)

13. Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to moderate agricultural land, or worse)

PP – Score 10 – Graded 4 or worse (poor or very poor)P – Score 5 – Graded 3a or 3b (good or Moderate)Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable

Page 37 of 62

N – Score -5 – Grade 2 (very good)NN – Score -10 – Grade 1 (excellent)

14. Does the site have any infrastructure deficiencies?

PP – Score 10 – Access to all Roads and Services alreadyP – Score 5 – Access to Roads and Services with minimal investmentNeutral – Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 – Access to Roads and Services will need significant investmentNN – Score -10 – Access to Roads and Services will need complete development

15. Will the local traffic impact be acceptable?o Have low impact on traffic flows o Be subject to low traffic noise

PP – Score 10 – No Impact on Local TrafficP – Score 5 – Small Impact on Local TrafficNeutral – Score 0 – Not ApplicableN – Score -5 – Traffic will increase volumes at village congestion pointsNN – Score -10 – Increased Traffic throughout the Village

16. Is the Site subject to constraints regarding feasibility and health factorso Un-neighbourly sites - to be considered for feasibility of developing the site and for promotion of healthy life

styles.

PP – Score 10 - there are no unneighbourly factors affecting this site.P – Score 5 - the site is situated within 300m from an electricity pylon/line, a source of industrial, highways or otherwise pollution (e.g. chemical, air, noise or light resulting in nuisance or ill effects).Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - the site is situated less than 100m from an electricity pylon/line, a source of industrial, highways or otherwise pollution (e.g. chemical, air, noise or light, resulting in nuisance or ill effects).NN – Score -10 - the site is situated less than 50m from an electricity pylon/line, a source of industrial, highways or otherwise pollution (e.g. chemical, air, noise or light, resulting in nuisance or ill effects).

17. Offer easy pedestrian access to amenities 1. Rights of Way – to be considered for feasibility of developing the site

PP – Score 10 - No rights of way on or accessing the site that are apparent from a visual inspectionP – Score 5 - potential rights of way on or accessing the site require investigation and may involve legal access issues being addressedNeutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - limited rights of way on or accessing the site require investigation and will involve some legal access issues being addressedNN – Score -10 - major rights of way on or accessing the site require investigation and will involve some legal access issues being addressed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Sustainability: footpaths - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and promote more sustainable transport choices, in particular site choices should be located close to footpaths, in order to promote sustainability and to reduce car usage and congestion within the town; also to improve air quality (reduce air pollution) by encouraging people to walk rather than use the car.

PP – Score 10 - there are existing footpaths/ pavements or roads edged for pedestrians accessing the site.P – Score 5 - there are existing footpaths/ pavements or roads edged for pedestrians within 10m of the site.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable

Page 38 of 62

N – Score -5 - no existing footpaths/ pavements or roads edged for pedestrian use but can create a walkway to a road edged for pedestrians use.NN – Score -10 - no existing footpaths/ pavements or roads edged for pedestrian use and a walkway to a road edged for pedestrians use cannot be created.

18. Is community healthcare reasonably accessible?o Local infrastructure: PCCs, health centres and hospitals - site choice should take into account location of PCCs,

health centres and hospitals with available places, site choice should not have a detrimental effect on existing provision or facilities that encourage and promote healthy life styles and reduce health inequalities.

PP – Score 10 - there are existing Health Care Facilities with available places within 10 minutes walk.P – Score 5 - there are existing Health Care Facilities with available places within 10 to 20 minutes walk.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - there are existing Health Care Facilities with available places within a short bus or car journey of not more than 15 minutes.NN – Score -10 - new Health Care provision will be needed.

19. Is a bus stop reasonably accessible?1. Sustainability: public transport, buses - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and

promote more sustainable transport choices, promote healthy life styles and improve air quality (reduce air pollution) by encouraging use of public transport rather than use of private cars.

PP – Score 10 - there is an existing bus route with easy access on site.P – Score 5 - there is an existing bus route within 5 minutes walk.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - there is an existing bus route within 10 minutes walk.NN – Score -10 - there is an existing bus route more than 10 minutes walk away or there is no bus link available.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Sustainability: cycle paths - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and promote more sustainable transport choices, promote healthy life styles and improve air quality (reduce air pollution) by encouraging use of public transport rather than use of private cars.

PP – Score 10 - there are cycle paths/ roads for cycling accessing the site.P – Score 5 - there are cycle paths/ roads for cycling within 50m of the site.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - there are no cycle paths/ roads for cycling accessing the site, but a new cycle path could be made to meet existing cycle paths/ roads.NN – Score -10 - there are no cycle paths/ safe roads for cycling accessing the site and a new cycle path could not be made to meet existing cycle paths/ roads.

20. Are shops reasonably accessible?o Sustainability: access to retail amenities - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and

promote more sustainable transport choices and promote healthy life styles. In particular, site choices should be located within close walking distance (approx 5 mins) to shops and other retail amenities, in order to promote sustainability and to reduce car usage and congestion within the village; also to improve air quality (reduce air pollution) by encouraging people to walk rather than use the car.

PP – Score 10 - the Site is within 5 minutes walking distance of local shops and/ or amenities.P – Score 5 - the Site is within 10 minutes walking distance of local shops and/ or amenities.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - the Site is within 20 minutes walking distance of local shops and/ or amenities.NN – Score -10 - the site is more than 20 minutes from local shops and/ or amenities and it is likely that people will travel by car or bus rather than walk to them.

21. Are community facilities reasonably accessible?

Page 39 of 62

o Cultural, religious and recreational facilities: libraries, places of worship, cinemas, sports & community centres, evening classes, play parks and open spaces - site choice must take into account access to cultural, religious and recreational facilities in order to promote equality of access and assist with engagement of local community.

PP – Score 10 - there are existing cultural, religious and recreational facilities within 10 minutes walk.P – Score 5 - there are existing cultural, religious and recreational facilities within 10 to 20 minutes walk.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - there are existing cultural, religious and recreational facilities within a 15 minute bus or car journey.NN – Score -10 - new cultural, religious and recreational facilities will be needed.

22. Are local schools reasonably accessible?o Local infrastructure: schools - site choice should take into account location of Primary and Secondary schools

with available places, site choice should not have a detrimental effect on existing provision or facilities; site location should encourage or promote healthy lifestyles through walking or cycling if possible.

PP – Score 10 - there are existing schools with available places within 5 to 10 minutes walk or cycle from the site.P – Score 5 - there are existing schools with available places within 10 to 20 minutes walk or cycle from the site.Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicableN – Score -5 - there are existing schools with available places within a 30 minute bus or car journey from the site.NN- Score -10 - new schools will have to be built.

Page 40 of 62

Page 41 of 62

Appendix C: Site Selection Spreadsheet

Page 42 of 62

Site Assessment Form

SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596

SHLAA Site Description Willow View Mill Road Beech Lane East A4500 South Camp LaneHall Farm Camp Lane

Rothersthorpe Road East

Rothersthorpe Road Millers Lane

Rothersthorpe Road West Pineham

Result of Consultee Views

NCC Transport No IssuesAccess width could be an Issue No Issues

No Direct Access from A4500 No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues

Access major Constraint No Issues No Issues

NCC MineralsIn Mineral Safeguard Area




Not in Mineral Safeguard area







NCC ArchaeologyNo Known activity

Earthworks, possibly Manorial. Extensive remains

No Known Activity. Ridge and Furrow

No Know Activity. Adjacent to Bronze age activity

Potentially archaeologically sensitive. Investigation needed

Possible Iron Age and Romano British activity, and Ridge and Furrow

Ridge and Furrow Iron age activity

no known activity

Ridge and Furrow

Natural England












Environment Agency Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1

English Heritage No IssuesAdjacent to Historic Church No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues

Development would affect Conservation area and Open Countryside No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues

Highways Agency No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues Proximity to M1 Proximity to M1 No IssuesAnglia Water Overall Green Overall Green Overall Amber Overall Amber Overall Gren Overall Amber Overall Amber Overall Green Overall Amber Overall Amber No Issues

Owner No Response Available Not Available Not Available Available Not Available No Response Available Available No Response Not Available

Other

Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall is opposed to development on this site


Daventry Council No Comments. NBC states that developments on these sites must meet Borough needs. KPFA states that part

Daventry Council No Comments. NBC will incorporate this site into Upton Park SUE. KPFA are negative about

Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall has many issues with this site if chosen for development. KPFA are

Daventry Council No Comments. NBC states that developments on these sites must meet Borough needs

Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall concrns over reduction of gap, increased traffic, and loss of farmland.

Daventry Council No Comments. Village Hall has concerned about traffic congestion and pollution. Access should be only



NBC states that developments on these sites must meet Borough needs


Page 43 of 62

Stage 1 Selection Criteria

1

SHLAA assessement is that this site would be suitable if available

Identified as available in SHLAA. Since Confirmed as available by Owner




SHLAA assessement is that this site would be suitable if available

Identified as available in SHLAA. Since confirmed available by Owner



Identified as available in SHLAA


2 Greenfield site Greenfield site Greenfield site Greenfield site Greenfield siteBrownfield some contamination Greenfield site Greenfield site Greenfield site Greenfield site Not Applicable

3

Outside built up area but with one boundary contiguous to



Outside built up area with not boundaries contiguous






Outside built up area with not boundaries contiguous Not Applicable

4

Outside Confines but with one or more boundaries contiguous with Confines



Outside of Confines with No Boundaries Contiguous with Confines






Outside of Confines with No Boundaries Contiguous with Confines Not Applicable

5.1

Potentially poorly drained soil saturated after rain




Mostly drained soil Well rained soil Well rained soil Well rained soil Well rained soil

Potentially poorly drained soil saturated after rain Not Applicable

5.2 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Protected by BundFlood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 No Risk of Flood No Risk of Flood No Risk of Flood No Risk of Flood No Risk of Flood No Risk of Flood Not Applicable

6.1

Minral Deposits of Medium Significance. Landscape Issues

Minral Deposits of Medium Significance. Landscape Issues

Minral Deposits of Medium Significance


No geological or Landscape issues





Minral Deposits of Medium Significance Not Applicable

6.2

major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views




Medium impact on surrounding natural lanscape and views





major impact on surrounding natural landscape and views Not Applicable

6.3

There are no environmental constraints on this site


Large amount of significant hedgerows and trees

Large amount of significant hedgerows and trees

Small amount of significant Hedgerows or Trees





There are no environmental constraints on this site Not Applicable

7

very little or no plant life, animal life or insect life of significance on this site









very little or no plant life, animal life or insect life of significance on this site Not Applicable

Result Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected Rejected Rejected

Page 44 of 62

Page 45 of 62

Stage 2 Selection Criteria SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397

8The site adjoins a built up area of the Village


The site adjoins a built up area of the Village The site adjoins a built up area of the Village

9Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides


Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides

10 No Tree Preservation Orders No Tree Preservation Orders No Tree Preservation Orders No Tree Preservation Orders

11Some evidence of archaeological features groundworks or deposits

Some evidence of archaeological features groundworks or deposits



12 Some Impact on Conservation area Major Impact on Conservation AreaMajor Impact on Conservation Area No Impact on Conservation Area

13 Very Good Soil Quality Excellent Soil Quality Excellent Soil Quality Excellent Soil Quality

14Minimal Investment needed to access Services Access to all services already



15Traffic will increase volumes at Village Congestion points

Traffic will increase volumes at Village Congestion points



16At least 50 meters from un-neighbourly effects




17.1 No Rights of way No Rights of way No Rights of way No Rights of way

17.2No existing footpaths/pavements but can be created There are existng footpaths roads

No existing footpaths/pavements but can be created

No existing footpaths/pavements but can be created

18There are Health Care facilities within a 15 minute car drives

There are Health Care facilities within a 15 minute car drives



19.1 Bus stop within 10 minutes walk Bus stop within 10 minutes walk Bus stop within 5 minutes walk Bus stop within 5 minutes walk

19.2

No existing Cycle paths or roads for cycling but a new cycle path could be created to meet existing paths or roads




20Shops within 10 minutes walk of the site


Shops within 10 minutes walk of the site Shops within 10 minutes walk of the site

21





22

Page 46 of 62

Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan

Site Selection Process

SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596

Consultee Responses

NCC Transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesNCC Minerals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesNCC Archaeology Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesNatural England Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesEnvironment Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesEnglish Heritage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesHighways Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesAnglia Water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesOwner no no Yes Yes Yes Yes no Yes Yes no noOther Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Stage 1 Selection Criteria

1 -5 10 -50 -50 10 -5 10 10 -50 5 -502 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 5 -10 -10 -10 -10 03 -5 -5 -5 -10 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -10 04 -5 -5 -5 -50 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -50 0

5.1 -5 -5 -5 -5 5 10 10 10 10 -5 05.2 -50 -5 -50 -50 10 10 10 10 10 10 06.1 -10 -5 -5 -5 10 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 06.2 -10 -10 -10 -10 -5 -5 -10 -5 -10 -10 06.3 10 10 -10 -10 5 5 5 5 10 10 0

7 10 10 -10 -10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0Total Score -80 -15 -160 -210 25 15 10 15 -45 -55 -50

Page 47 of 62

SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596Stage 2 Selection Criteria

8 5 5 5 59 10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10 1011 -5 -5 -5 -512 -5 -10 -10 513 -5 -10 -10 -1014 5 10 5 515 -5 -5 -5 -516 -10 -10 -10 -5

17.1 10 10 10 1017.2 -5 10 -5 -5

18 -5 -5 -5 -519.1 -5 -5 5 519.2 -5 -5 -5 -5

20 5 5 5 521 5 5 5 522 5 5 5 5

Total Score 0 0 0 0 5 15 5 25 0 0 0

Rejected/Selected RejectedNot Available Rejected Selected

Page 48 of 62

Appendix D: Record Maps

Mapping Policy

Record maps have been used throughout the planning process to communicate accurately the land under consideration and to provide a record of the effect of each Phase of the planning process

Table 14: Record Maps

Record map Content1 Initial development options2 Confirmed development options3 Initial sustainability assessment4 Development sites

Record Map 1 shows the location of all sites listed in the SHLAA.

Record Map 2 shows all SHLAA listed sites whose availability has been confirmed with the owners. These are coloured green. Those that are not available are coloured pink.

Record Map 3 was created following the identification of the most sustainable options. These are coloured blue.

Record Map 4 shows the final sites selected. The Selected Site is coloured Green.

Page 49 of 62

Record Map 1

Page 50 of 62

Record Map 2

Page 51 of 62

Page 52 of 62

Record Map 3

Page 53 of 62

Page 54 of 62

Record Map 4

Page 55 of 62

Page 56 of 62

Appendix E: Statutory Consultees Responses

Introduction

In February 2015 the Framework Report for the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan was sent to the three statutory Consultees: The Department of the Environment, Natural England, and English Heritage.

Responses were received from:

Ms Roslyn Deeming, Adviser, Sustainable Development Team, Natural EnglandMs Kerry Ginns, Adviser, Environment AgencyMr Clive Fletcher, Principal Adviser, Historic Places, Historic England

Copies of these responses are provided as Attachments 1-3.

In addition we contacted:NCC, TransportHighways AgencyAnglia WaterNCC for Minerals and ArchaeologyMP for KislingburySNCDistrict Council Members for KislingburyCounty Council Member for KislingburyAll Neighbouring Parish CouncilsAll Neighbouring Districts and Northampton BoroughKislingbury AssociationsLandowners

The responses received from these Consultees are included in the body of Evidence supporting the NDP.

Summary & Responses

A comment form was included in the submission to the statutory Consultees. A copy of this form is supplied as Figure A-1.

Table I summarises both the suggestions from the Consultees and the response of the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Planning Team. In providing this response it should be noted that the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan will comply with the West Northants Joint Core Strategy which, in turn, will ensure compliance with the requirements of the statutory Consultees.

Page 57 of 62

Statutory Consultees Response Form

Site Response Form – From (insert name or Organisation):______________________ Site Reference Number from SHLAA Map:

1. Are there natural features of the site, trees, landform, buildings or structures on the site which should be preserved and which may be negatively affected by development?

2. Is the site unsuitable for reasons such as Infrastructure Deficiency, Flood Risk, destruction of habitat, or any other reason?

3. Is the Site unsuitable from the point of view of Access, and future contribution to Traffic congestion/pollution?

4. Would a development on the Site affect the local character – harm, no real change, enhance?

5. Would development on the site have a positive or negative effect on the Conservation Area in the Village?

6. Would development on the Site affect important views out of the Village?

7. Does the site include any designated heritage assets, listed buildings, and archaeological features?

8. Are there any other features of Local historic interest, or is it adjacent to any designated heritage asset or area?

9. Are there significant habitats on site, or does the site form a link with a wider network of habitats?

10. Is the site used by any protected species?11. Does the site have a potential use which is

more valuable than a housing development?

12. Is there any other reason why the site may not be suitable.

Please answer below, if you prefer, giving your views on the site and whether you think it is suitable or unsuitable, and why.

Please return this form to:Tim Ward at [email protected]

Page 58 of 62

Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Assessment Framework Report February 2015

Responses

Environment Agency

Site Response Form – From Environment Agency______________________ Site Reference Number from SHLAA Map:

13. Are there natural features of the site, trees, landform, buildings or structures on the site which should be preserved and which may be negatively affected by development?

No comments

14. Is the site unsuitable for reasons such as Infrastructure Deficiency, Flood Risk, destruction of habitat, or any other reason?

Sites SNC 583, 635, 276 are located within 9 meters of a main river and Flood zone 3Sites SNC 561 is located in Flood zone 3Sites SNC 340, 636 are located in Flood zone 2The remainder of the sites are located in Flood zone 1

15. Is the Site unsuitable from the point of view of Access, and future contribution to Traffic congestion/pollution?

No comments

16. Would a development on the Site affect the local character – harm, no real change, enhance?

No comments

17. Would development on the site have a positive or negative effect on the Conservation Area in the Village?

No comments

18. Would development on the Site affect important views out of the Village?

No comments

19. Does the site include any designated heritage assets, listed buildings, and archaeological features?

No comments

20. Are there any other features of Local historic interest, or is it adjacent to any designated heritage asset or area?

No comments

21. Are there significant habitats on site, or does the site form a link with a wider network of habitats?

No comments

22. Is the site used by any protected species? No comments23. Does the site have a potential use which is

more valuable than a housing development?

No comments

24. Is there any other reason why the site may not be suitable?

No comments

Please answer below, if you prefer, giving your views on the site and whether you think it is suitable or unsuitable, and why.

Please return this form to:Tim Ward at [email protected]

Page 59 of 62

Natural England

Date: 09 March 2015Our ref: 145530 Your ref: None

Tim WardKislingbury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee

BY EMAIL ONLY

Customer Services Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra WayCrewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ

T 0300 060 3900

Dear Tim

Planning consultation: Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan – potential sites

Thank you for your letter and accompanying information which was received by Natural England on 23 February 2015

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

We have reviewed the potential development sites that you have listed in your letter and can confirm that there are no statutorily designated sites for nature conservation or landscape within the parish boundaries. We can therefore only offer you the following general advice that existing hedgerows, woodlands, open spaces, watercourses and other landscape features should be retained where possible if the sites are developed in the future. We suggest that the watercourse and hedgerow leading to the Camp Lane and Drain Local Wildlife Site (within Upton Parish Council) are retained and enhanced where possible. We would also suggest that an undeveloped buffer zone is retained beside the River Nene. In addition the traditional orchard adjacent to site SNC276 should be protected from any development impacts.

We have no record of any protected species on the sites that you have listed but we recommend that the local authority make reference to the Natural England Standing Advice for Protected Species which is available on our website. It helps local planning authorities better understand the impact of development on protected or priority species should they be identified as an issue at particular developments. This also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation with Natural England.

We suggest that you contact the Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust and Biodiversity Records Centre who may be able provide more detailed local information for the Kislingbury area.

You may also find it useful to make reference to the National Character Areas (NCAs) which divide England into 159 distinct natural areas. Each is defined by a unique combination of landscape, biodiversity, Geodiversity and cultural and economic activity. Their boundaries follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision making framework for the natural environment. Kislingbury falls within NCA 89: Northamptonshire Vales. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4871120062775296?category=587130

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any

Page 60 of 62

queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Roslyn Deeming on 0300 060 1524. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected].

We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service.

Yours sincerely

Roslyn Deeming AdviserSustainable Development Team East Midlands Area

Page 61 of 62

Historic England

Dear Mr Ward,Thank you for your email. I am pleased to give you our initial advice relating to the sites identified as being potentially suitable under the SHLAA. Of those sites, SNC276 is adjacent to the grade I listed church of St Luke, and housing development there would affect its setting. The setting of listed buildings is accorded special regard in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. We also note that the area is in the Kislingbury conservation area, the character and appearance of which is also protected. The site is in an open area behind one of the last historic frontages to retain its original relationship with the countryside beyond and to the Nene, which will be part of this character. I have attached the Good Practice Advice, "The Setting of Heritage Assets" for your information. The National Planning Policy Framework:

132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

Site SNC301 is also located in an area in which the historic threshold between open countryside and the village is preserved, allowing understanding of the original village form and its relationship with the land. It is also located on one of the principal entrances to the village, meaning the impact of development on the setting of the conservation area in this location will be likely to be high.

Development in these locations is therefore a source of concern. You will need therefore to assess the likely impact of development on the setting of the church and on the character and appearance and the setting of the conservation area and decide if this would accord with the requirements of the NPPF and the 1990 Act.

The other sites appear less contentious in terms of impacts on designated heritage assets, but we suggest that if you have not already done so you contact Northamptonshire County Council's Archaeology team to consult the Historic Environment Record, which will contain details of any non-designated heritage assets that may be affected.

Yours sincerely,

Clive Fletcher | Principal Advisor, Historic Places Telephone: 01159 861038 Mobile: 07771 502052 Historic England | Second Floor, Windsor House, Cliftonville, Northampton NN1 5BE

Page 62 of 62

Documents

Kislingbury Parish 14 Dr… · Web viewTo ensure that new development is of high quality design, is built to a high sustainability standard and reinforces local distinctiveness