Kislingbury Parish
Neighbourhood Development
Plan - Consultation Statement
Prepared by the NDP Steering Group
Page 1 of 89
CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction Page 3 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Consultation History 3
Section 2: Pre-Submission Consultation 5 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
Section 3 Overview of Pre-Submission Consultation Responses 12 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
Section 4 NDP Changes 14 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
Page 2 of 89
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
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.
1.2 Consultation History
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
Page 3 of 89
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
http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php
as part of the Evidence Base in support of the Plan.
Page 4 of 89
Section 2: Pre-Submission Consultation
2.1 Consultation Approach
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.
2.2 Village Consultation
This section summarises the programme from 1st October 2015 to publicise the pre-submission consultation.
Date Media Publicity Notes
1st October 2015 Kislingbury Announcement of the impending Appendix B Newsletter consultation to all readers Figure B-1 13 th October 2015 Leaflet Notification of September Parish Council Appendix B (Distribution #1) Meeting on September 15tht 2015 to all homes Figure B-2 in the village. Announcement of dates of consultation 20th October 2015 Parish Formal adoption of the draft Plan by the Appendix B Council Parish Council. Presentation summarising the Figure B-5 (a)-(b) Meeting Plan and giving consultation details and And Figure B-7 (a)- response forms (d) 21st October E-mail To Village Notification of consultation to all on the Appendix B 2015 Email Database Kislingbury Village e-mail list Figure B-6 21st October Publicity Board Publicity Sheet attached to each Board Appendix B 2015 erected around Publicising the Consultation Figure B-8 the Village 23rd, 24th, 25th Leaflet to all An announcement of the consultation with Appendix B October 2015 residents. details of procedure and dates delivered by Figure B-4 (Distribution #2) 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 Parish Office Provision of reference copies of the Plan, October2015 response forms, and consultation details, and Response Forms From 23rd Kislingbury Village Provision of 10 Plan copies for short-term October2015201 Hall loan, and response forms 5
Page 5 of 89
From 23rd SNC Office and Provision of one reference copy for SNC and 2 October2015 Library for the Library of the Plan, and Response Forms From 23rd Kislingbury Provision of 10 Library copies for short-term October2015201 Primary School loan and response forms From5 23rd Sun Inn and Olde Provision of 2 Plan copies each for Reference October2015201 Red Lion and response forms From5 23rd KOFS Provision of 4 Plan copies for Reference and October2015 response forms 26th, 27th, 28th Leaflet to all A 4-page Plan summary and Response form Appendix B October 2015 residents delivered by hand to all households in Figure B-7(a) - (d) (Distribution #3) Kislingbury. 26th October Consultation Publicity Completed 2015 Starts 26th October Emails and Email and Letters sent to all Reg 14 Appendix B 2015 Letters sent Consultees as per List Figure B-9 1st November Kislingbury Reminder to all readers of ongoing Reg 14 Appendix B 2015 News Pre Submission Consultation Figure B-3(a) 1st December Kislingbury Reminder to all readers of ongoing Reg 14 Appendix B 2015 News Pre Submission Consultation Figure B-3(b) 11th December Consultation Ends 2015 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.
Page 6 of 89
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
2.3 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 2nd line of Town County Post Code E-mail address address Mr C Wragg, Northamptons Riverside House Riverside Northampton NN1 5NX cwragg@northamptonshire
Transport & hire County Way .gov.uk Highways Council Ms R Natural Hornbeam House, Crewe Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ consultations@naturalengl Deeming, England Electra Way Business and.org.uk Land Use Park Advisor Ms Kerry Environment Nene House Pytchley Kettering Northants NN15 6JN planningkettering@environ Ginns, Agency Lodge ment-agency.gov.uk Planning Industrial Advisor Estate Mr M Highways 9th Floor, The 199 Birmingham B1 1RN [email protected]
Seldon, NDD Agency Cube, Wharfeside si.gov.uk Midlands Street Asset Development Team Stewart Anglian Water Thorpe Wood Thorpe Peterborough PE3 6WT [email protected] Patience, Services Ltd House Wood .uk Planning Liaison Manager Mr Mark Northamptons Planning Policy, PO Box 163 Northampton. NN1 1AX MChant@northamptonshir
Chant, Head hire County County Hall, e.gov.uk of Planning Council Policy Lesley Ann Northamptons County ArchaeologicalPO Box 163 Northampton. NN1 1AX LMather@northamptonshir Mather hire County Advisor County Hall, e.gov.uk Council Clive English East Midlands Region,44 Derngate Northampton Northants NN1 1UH clive.fletcher@english-
Fletcher, Heritage heritage.org.uk Principal Historic Places Adviser Mr Member of House of Commons London SW1A 0AA chris.heatonharris.mp@par Christopher Parliament liament.uk Heaton- Harris
Mrs Ann District The Paddocks Baker Street Gayton Northampton NN7 3EZ [email protected] Addison Council
Page 7 of 89
Member for Kislingbury Mrs Karen District The Paddocks Baker Street Gayton Northampton NN7 3EZ karen.cooper@southnortha
Cooper Council nts.gov.uk Member for Kislingbury Councillor County County Council County Hall Northampton Northants NN1 1AT jkirkbride@northamptonshi
Joan Council re.gov.uk Kirkbride Member for Kislingbury Mrs Sarah Parish, Clerk 417 Weedon Road Northampton Northampton NN5 4EX parishclerk@rothersthorpe.
Murphy Rothersthorpe info Parish Sally Parish Clerk Parish Office Camp Close Bugbrooke Northants NN7 3RW [email protected]
Bramley- Bugbrooke Bugbrooke Community om Brown Parish Centre
Mr Guy Parish Clerk Old Dairy Farm Upper Weedon Northampton NN7 4SH [email protected] Ravine Harpole Parish Stowe
Mrs Ann Parish Clerk The Paddocks Baker Street Gayton Northampton NN7 3EZ [email protected] Addison Kislingbury Parish Mr Mike Corresponden 30 Harmans Way Weedon Northampton NN7 4PB [email protected].
Essery t to Upper uk Heyford Parish Judith Tonge, Kislingbury 3 Church Lane Kislingbury [email protected] Village Hall Eddie Harley KOFS [email protected]. uk
Neil Tyler Head of [email protected] Kislingbury s-ecl.gov.uk CEVC Primary School Phil Beeston Kislingbury 17 Millers Close Kislingbury [email protected]. Playing Fields uk Association Jim Headford Church St Lukes Church Kislingbury madeline.headford@btinte Warden rnet.com
Marilyn Pastor at the Mill Lane Kislingbury NN7 4BB revmarilynwebb@virginme
Webb Baptist Church dia.com
Valerie Bugbrooke Levitts Road Bugbrooke Northampton NN7 3QN Valerie.Skidmore@gp-
Skidmore, Medical k83070.nhs.uk Practice Practice Manager Andy D’Arcy Lead Officer SNC Andy.Darcy@SouthNorthan Planning ts.gov.uk Policy Tom James Daventry Lodge Road Daventry NN11 4FP [email protected] District Council
Ed Dade Northampton Guildhall, St. Giles Northampton, NN1 1DE [email protected] Borough Square, k Council Stephen Landowner Blakesley Heath Farm Maidford Northants [email protected] Hopewell et
H Collins Landowner c/o Andrew Cowling,10 Church Market Leics LE16 7NB [email protected] King West Square Harborough Mrs P Landowner The Green Camp Lane Kislingbury By Hand Page 8 of 89
Sanders R Elliott Landowner Hodges Lane Kislingbury By Hand Shaun Landowner Beech Lane Kislingbury Shaun.cummings1@btopen Cummings world.com
Philip The Coal 200 Lichfield Lane Mansfield Nottinghamsh NG18 4RG [email protected].
Lawrence Authority, ire uk Chief Executive and Accounting Officer Andy Rose The Homes Fry Building 2 Marsham London SW1P 4DF mail@homesandcommuniti
and Street es.co.uk Communities Agency, Chief Executive Mark Carne, Network Rail 1 Eversholt Street London NW1 2DN chief Infrastructure executive Limited John Tuckett, The Marine Lancaster House Hampshire Newcastle NE4 7YH info@marinemanagement. Chief Management Court upon T yne org.uk Executive Organisation
Dan Fitz BT Group plc, BT Centre, 81 Newgate London EC1A 7AJ Sally Leonard, Head of Secretary and BT Street, Asset Management & OpenReach Strategy sally.leo [email protected]
Nigel Cheek, General Counsel Openreach nigel.cheek@openr each.co.uk
Andrew Johnson, Head of Real Estate Legal Team andre [email protected]
Victoria Mono Third Floor 48 St Glasgow G2 5TS Victoria.mcsherry@monoc McSherry, Consultants Vincent onsultants.com Director, Ltd Street Planning and Acquisitions
Steve National Grid, National Grid House Warwick Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA Holliday, for Electricity Park Technology Chief and Gas Executive
Steve National Grid Brick Kiln Street, Hinckley, LE10 0NA plantprotection@nationalg Holliday, Plant Leicestershire rid.com Chief Protection, Executive
Basil UK Power 237 Southwark London SE1 6NP Scarsella, Networks Bridge Road, Chief Executive Officer Robert Western Avonbank Feeder Bristol BS2 0TB
Page 9 of 89
Symons, CEO Power Road Distribution (East Midlands) Plc NHS England Francis Crick House Moulton Northampton NN3 6BF Midland and 6 Summerhouse Park East Road
Northamptons Sudborough London Kettering NN15 7PW hire House, St Mary's Road, Healthcare Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust Northampton Cliftonville Northampton NN1 5BD General Hospital NHS Trust Northamptons R Building, Northampto Northampton Northampton NN3 3RF hire Racial n College shire Equality Council Northampton The Guildhall, S t Giles' St, Northampton NN1 1DE Disabled People's Forum Northamptons Waterside House 8 Waterside Northampton NN4 7XD info@northants- hire Chamber Way chamber.co.uk of Commerce Adam Northamptons Wooton Hall Northmpton NN4 0JQ Commissioner@northantsp Simmonds hire Police, cc.pnn.police.uk Police and Crime Commissione r for Northampto nshire Robin Field, Nene Valley River Nene Rockingham Kettering, NN16 8JX [email protected] NIA Land Nature Regional Park CiC Road, ov.uk Advisor Improvement The Business Area Exchange,
Jesus Cemex Uk Coldharbour Thorpe, Egham. Surrey. TW20 8TD Gonzales, Cement Ltd Lane, CEO West The Guildhall Saint Giles' Northampton NN1 1DE Use Web Form Link at Web Northamptons Square Site hire Joint Planning Unit Alice Persimmon alice.kirkham@persimmon Kirkham Homes homes.com
Jim Robinson Davidsons jrobinson@davidsonsgroup Developments .co.uk
Bob Heygate Heygates Bugbrooke Mills, Northampton NN7 3QH. [email protected] Limited, .uk [email protected]
Page 10 of 89
Colin Boyson Harvey Reeves Northampton NN5 5JR Boyson Construction Road
Sport England Planning.Central@sporten gland.org
Page 11 of 89
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 Page 12 of 89
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.
Page 13 of 89
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 Page 14 of 89
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.
Page 15 of 89
APPENDIX Appendix A: Consultations and Communication November 2012 to December 2015
A.1 Kislingbury Newsletter
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.
Year Month Page Year Month Page 2014 January 4 2015 January 6 February 4 February 6 March 4 March 6 April 4 April 6 May 5 May 6 June 5 June 4 July 5 July 4 September 5 September 5 October 5 October 5 November 5 November 5 December 7 December 5
The online version of the Kislingbury Newsletter can be accessed at http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_newsarticles.php
A.2 Electronic Communication
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.
A.3 Public Exhibitions and Meetings
Village Hall Date Time Attendance Questionnaires Returned March 1st 2014 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. 81 66 Feedback Forms Received October 18th 10:00 a.m. to 53 13 Feedback Forms 2014 12:00 and 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Received
Page 16 of 89
May 12th 2015 1:30 to 5:00 p.m. 17 People Attended the 27 Questions asked and 7:30 to 9:30 Afternoon , and 27 p.m. Meeting for People the Evening during Meeting Q&A. 7 Response Forms Presentation and Presentation Discussion Received after Meeting October 20th 7:30 to 8:15 p.m. 70 People attended to 11 Questions asked after Parish Council listen to the Plan Meeting Outline the Presentation
The Attendance Register and Questions asked during and after the Meeting can be found in the Evidence Material.
A.4 Parish Council Meeting
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
th 2015 December 15 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. 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.
A.5 Village Surveys
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
A.6 Meetings
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
Page 17 of 89
A.7 Consultation on Site Selection Process
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.
Page 18 of 89
Appendix B: Pre-submission Consultation Publicity and Response Items
Figure B-1 Notice of Parish Council Meeting to Adopt NDP In Kislingbury News October Edition
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.
Page 19 of 89
Figure B-2 Leaflet Notice of Parish Council Meeting to Adopt NDP distributed to all th Houses 13 October 2015
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 th Documents - from 26 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
Page 20 of 89
Figure B-3 Kislingbury Newsletter Updates in November and December Editions
Figure B-3 (a) Figure B-3 (b)
Your Neighbourhood Plan Your Neighbourhood Plan
Formal Consultation Started on your Plan on October 26th and will continue Formal Consultation Started on your Plan on October 26th and will continue until Noon December 11th 2015 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: It is now nearly ended! Kislingbury Residents Statutory Consultees Landowners and Developers This is your Plan Village Organisations and Societies And many more
The Parish Council adopted the Draft Plan for Consultation at its meeting on Make your opinion 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 known finally to organise the Referendum of Village Residents to Vote on whether or not Copies of the Plan can still be found at: to accept the Plan. Village Hall – Copies available for short term loan The Kislingbury Primary School – Copies available for short term loan Copies of the Plan can be found at: The Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion – Reference Copies will be available Village Hall – Copies available for short term loan Weekly KOFS Meeting – Reference Copies will be available The Kislingbury Primary School – Copies available for short term loan The Parish Council Office The Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion – Reference Copies will be available The SNC Offices in Towcester, and the Library at those Offices 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 The SNC Offices in Towcester, and the Library at those Offices feedback.
th Each Wednesday (starting October 28 ) , between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. there will be a Steering The Plan and Response Form are also be available on the Plan Page of the Village Web Site. Group Member at the Village Hall to answer any questions you have on the Plan. http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php
At each location there will be a supply of Response Forms. Please use these as we need your You can download either or both as you require. feedback.
Each Wednesday (starting October 28th), between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. there a Steering Group The Plan and Response Form are also be available on the Plan Page of the Village Web Site. Member has been at the Village Hall to answer any questions you have on the Plan. http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php You can download either or both as you require. Please Support Your Plan Please Support Your Plan
Page 21 of 89
Figure B-4 Leaflet Promoting the Consultation to be Distributed to all Houses 23/24/25 October 2015
Figure B-4 (a) Figure B-4 (b) Front Back
Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan
At the Meeting on Tuesday October 20th The Parish Council adopted the Draft Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan Neighbourhood Development Plan for Consultation with Residents. The Plan aims to: Dear Resident Stop large scale Housing Development 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 Protect the Rural look and feel of the Village Parish Plan of 2005, which fed into this plan, the Neighbourhood Development Plan is a Provide Affordable Houses for those who need them statutory document that will become part of the South Northants Plan, and which must be Provide low cost starter houses for local people to buy used by them when determining planning applications. Give locals housing preference The Plan has been produced by local residents with the support of the Parish Council, using Maintain the integrity of the gap between the Village and Northampton 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 Consultation with all Residents and Other Interested Parties will that the Plan reflects the views of the majority of Kislingbury Residents. start on October 26th and end at Noon on December 11th 2015. 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 Hard copies of the Plan can be viewed at: of the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. We have agreed with SNC that Kislingbury will The Village Hall – 12 copies available for short term loan, contribute at least 50 new homes to be built by 2029. The Plan: The Parish Council Office, Keeps the total number of new homes to approximately 50 The SNC Offices in Towcester, and the Library at those Offices, Protects the Village from uncontrolled development Maintains the integrity of the gap between the Village and Northampton The Kislingbury Primary School – 12 copies available for short term loan, Gives residents preferred access to many of the new houses The Sun Inn and the Olde Red Lion – Reference Copies will be available, Protects the rural look and feel of the village and at Weekly KOFS Meeting – Reference Copies will be available. 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. Electronic copies will be available on This is a unique opportunity for those of us who live in the Village, rather than developers, to http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php - Pre-Submission determine development in Kislingbury. After independent examination the final plan will be th Consultation - Plan Documents - from 26 October 2015 put to a Village Referendum and if approved will come into immediate effect and provide immediate protection against unwanted over development.
We need your comments – positive as well as negative – to make sure that the final Thank you 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 Alison Ward Kay Longland well as online at http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php, and from the Parish Office. Chair, Kislingbury Parish Council Chair, Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
Page 22 of 89
Figure B-5 Consultation Response Form accessible Online and at all Places where a Hard Copy of the Plan is available for Study. Figure B-5 (a) Figure B-5 (b) Front Back
Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014-2029 Reference Number Date Office Use Only 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, Draft Plan: Public Consultation Response Form and add your comments and/or suggested Changes. Please 1. Use this Form to Comment on the Draft Plan – Download if accessing online. NDP Document Name & Do you If you disagree what changes would you suggest should 2. Return the Form to Kislingbury Parish Council by Hand (leave in Collection Box), Section Reference, or Agree or be made to the Plan. Or make a Comment or Post to: Policy Number Disagree 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 Yes No Kislingbury – Type or Write X in Box you choose. Additional Comments (Please add any Comments you wish to make Overleaf) 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 Closing Date for Comments – Noon December 11th 2015 – Late forms will be logged but not considered Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2
Page 23 of 89
st Figure B-6 E-mail Announcement to be sent to Email Database on 21 October 2015
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 20th 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, The SNC Offices in Towcester, and the Library at those Offices
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
Page 24 of 89
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
Figure B-7 (a) Front Page Figure B-7 (b) Back Page
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
Page 25 of 89
Figure B-7 (c) Inner Left Hand Page Figure B-7 (d) Inner Right Hand Page
Key Points 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 Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP)
Has been produced by Kislingbury Residents The Land behind Watts Close accessed from Rothersthorpe Road approximately 40 Houses Uses the 2005 Parish Plan information as a start point, and adds the input from the many - this will be supplemented by forms of Consultation carried out since the start of the Plan development Limited Infill Development that conforms to NDP Policies approximately 10 Houses Puts the future of the Village in the hands of its Residents
Residential Development will be permitted on the Allocated site and approved Infill Sites. If accepted by Residents at the Referendum, the NDP Residential development will not be permitted elsewhere. At some time in the future it may Allocates a Site acceptable to the majority in the Village for development become necessary to create an Exception Site for more Affordable homes to meet Village needs. 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. The location of the Allocated Site is shown on the map on the back page, highlighted in Green. 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. Part of that site as shown on the Map has already been used to develop Watts Close.
The NDP will: 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. Protect the Nene River flood plain and the Rural Nature of Kislingbury These can be seen in the full version of the proposed plan. 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 Finally Maintain the Character and Vitality of the Village 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. The NDP proposes a Parish Action Plan to: Please tell us what you think: 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: Have we identified the important aspects, good and bad, of living in Kislingbury?
The allocated Development Site Housing Overall, do you support the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan? Traffic and Transport Community and Well-being Design What Policies do you agree with, and what would you change? Employment and the Local Economy
All Response Forms received by Noon on Friday 11th December 2015 will be considered by the These Policies are set out in the full Plan. Copies are available from the Web site shown on the front Steering Group and the Parish Council, and where it is considered necessary the Plan will be page, or hard copies can be borrowed from the Village Hall and The School on short term loan, and modified to take account of the views of Residents. be read at The Sun Inn, The Olde Red Lion, and at other locations which will be publicised. Page 26 of 89
Figure B-8 Outside Publicity Sheet on Boards throughout the Village prior to Consultation Start and During Consultation
Page 27 of 89
Figure B-9 Text of Email/Letter sent to Statutory Consultees and Others announcing Reg 14 Consultation
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 26th 2015 and will finish at Noon on 11th 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.
Page 28 of 89
Appendix C: Pre-Submission Public Consultation Response Matrix
Introduction
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.
Page 29 of 89
General
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Agree that Plan Captures good and Bad. Supports 1 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and Bad. Supports 2 Plan the Plan. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 3 Plan the Plan NCR 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 4 Plan protect our lovely village! NCR UK Power 5 Plan Networks Refers us to Western Power Distribution NCR Refers to various Planning Links which cover the 6 Plan Sport England Protection of Playing Fields. NCR 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 7 Plan National Grid which has also been consulted. NCR 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 8 Plan support the Plan. NCR Marine The MMO concerns itself with all aspects of Marine Management management. Will respond more fully if the Plan 9 Plan Organisation warrants. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 10 Plan the Plan. Thank you KNDP Steering Group for your NCR
Page 30 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response hard work in producing a realistic and comprehensive Plan for the future of our lovely Village Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 11 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 12 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 13 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 14 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 15 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 16 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 17 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 18 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 19 Plan the Plan. A well conceived plan. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 20 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 21 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 22 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. The Company thanks you for the 23 Plan Cemex opportunity to comment NCR 24 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR
Page 31 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response the Plan. I totally agree with NDP document as it has been put forward October 2015 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 25 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 26 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 27 Plan the Plan NCR 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 28 Plan the high street. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 29 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 30 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 31 Plan the Plan NCR 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 32 Plan walkers and cyclists. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 33 Plan the Plan NCR 34 Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR
Page 32 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response the Plan 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 35 Plan Highways England neighbourhood. NCR 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 NCR. The Plan will say consistently "approx. 40 36 Plan Broadband. Houses". Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 37 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 38 Plan the Plan NCR 39 Plan Supports the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 40 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 41 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 42 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 43 Plan the Plan NCR
Page 33 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 44 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 45 Plan the Plan NCR 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 46 Plan indicates and I would appreciate some clarification NCR. Responded to Question 7/12/15 47 Plan Supports the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 48 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 49 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 50 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 51 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 52 Plan the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 53 Plan the Plan NCR Plan General Paragraph numbering would assist navigation of All paragraphs numbered 54 (Formatting) SNC the Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 55 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 56 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 57 the Plan. We opposing to any plan to develop areas NCR
Page 34 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 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 58 cars NCR 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 59 houses. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 60 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 61 the Plan. Overall a good sensible plan. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 62 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 63 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 64 the Plan NCR 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. 65 Land near Playing Fields much better - Area SNC636 NCR 66 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR
Page 35 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response the Plan Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 67 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 68 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 69 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 70 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 71 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 72 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 73 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 74 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 75 the Plan NCR 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. NCR. The Plan cannot state a maximum. The Another Loop hole which should be addressed is examiner would not allow this to pass. Our advice the comment "at some time in the future it may be is to use the word approximately. Exception Sites necessary to create and exception site for more are subject to very strict controls and can only be affordable homes to meet village needs, This is a allocated in specific places and only for Affordable very open statement and could easily be abused by Housing. Developers would not find this 76 a developer. Surely the object of this development attractive.
Page 36 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response consultation is a Plan for now not further development in the foreseeable future. Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR. The Server crashed and was only rebuilt the Plan, Kislingbury Web site not accessible 30/11, 7/12. Hard copies of the Plan were available at 77 1/12, 2/12, 3/12, possible more dates. Why? many locations during the full 6 weeks. Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 78 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 79 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 80 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports the Plan. I support this Plan. Thanks to all for the 81 hard work put in NCR 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 82 a good social mix. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 83 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 84 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 85 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 86 the Plan NCR Thank you for consulting us on this plan. Natural 87 Natural England England was previously consulted by SNC on the NCR
Page 37 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response SEA 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. Planning Services Northamptonshire 88 County Council Supports the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 89 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 90 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 91 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 92 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 93 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 94 the Plan NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 95 the Plan NCR 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 96 state NCR 97 Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports NCR
Page 38 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 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 98 Northampton Borough. the gap must be retained NCR 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 99 need replacing NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 100 the Plan NCR Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and 101 bad. Does not Support the Plan. 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 NCR. Site not considered for development for storage and makes it unsuitable for development reasons made in the response and identified 101 (photos available) during the site selection process. SNC581, SNC635, and SNC581. These are all part of NCR. Sites not considered for development for the flood plain (many photos available). Whoever reasons made in the response and identified 101 earmarked these areas for development clearly during the site selection process.
Page 39 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response knows nothing. Try overlaying 1998 flood map and you will see. 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 101 houses.... Beware NCR 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 101 will win NCR Giving Local people the opportunity to buy or rent. 101 How is this possible? NCR 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 101 social Experiment? NCR 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. 101 Google this subject for proof NCR 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 101 money NCR Ref Selected by Resident. There is no guarantee 101 that a planning inspector won’t make an appeal NCR
Page 40 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response and allow further erosion of our greenfield sites to greedy landowner, especially given HMG's recent promise of 400,000 new homes. To believe anything less is naive Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and 102 bad. Does not Support the Plan. NCR Northamptonshire County Council - 103 Planning Policy No Comment of Support for the Plan NCR 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" 104 idyll. NCR 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 105 substantial sum of money to purchase our home on NCR
Page 41 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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. Persimmon Does not agree that Plan Captures both good and 106 Homes bad. Does not Support the Plan. NCR 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 NCR. Comment is made by the owner of SNC340. Field support for the site would have added weight Site selection was made on Site related Criteria, to the inclusion of this question within the matrix? which are known and fixed. The selection cannot A recurring comment as part of the process has take account of a proposed development which been the need to protect the gap between has not been approved and can be subject to Kislingbury and Northampton. This proposal gives change. All developments offer incentives for the 107 Landowner the Village ownership and control of a large piece adoption of that plan and this is the case here.
Page 42 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response of land which in tandem with the Playing field and the cricket pitch gives a large piece of green buffer for as long as 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 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 NCR. The majority of the Village supports the site SNC340 is closer to the majority of the Village Allocation of the site SNC397 and Residents are amenities, the school, the butchers, and two of the opposed to development on site SNC340. What public houses and equal distance to the shop. may or may not be offered as part of a proposal Additionally despite losing points (in the scoring cannot be taken into account when making a site matrix) on its location to cycle paths and bus stops selection for development. The KPFA Response there are already existing and extensively used (see 115) supports the NDP and does not 107 Landowner paths all around SNC340 creating further natural specifically support SNC340.
Page 43 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response integration. Some of the reasons why I would suggest as to why Kislingbury Playing Fields support this site. 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" Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 108 the Plan NCR 109 Environment The Plan area falls mostly within Flood Zone 1, NCR.
Page 44 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Agency 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 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. I write on behalf of Bidwells' client Davidsons Developments NCR. We are grateful for the overall support in Limited (DDL) in response to the Kislingbury Pre-Submission this Response (Representing the Developer with Neighbourhood Plan. Bidwells on Behalf I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the the option on the Allocated Site). We do not agree of Davidsons Steering Group and Kislingbury Parish Council on reaching this that this Plan is premature, and nor is that the 110 Developments Ltd stage and preparing a comprehensive, evidence-based plan in view of SNC who have been very supportive in the
Page 45 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response addition to the positive, proactive working relationship they preparation of the Plan. The Plan proposes an have forged with my client. allocated site on which will be built approximately We are supportive of the rights of communities, such as Kislingbury, to prepare Neighbourhood Plans. Such plans, 40 Houses. This is the identified need for where they are prepared positively, have the potential to Kislingbury and it is very unlikely that the Parish provide an additional local level of detail that may not be Council would consider a case justified for more captured in those plans prepared by the District or Borough than that. The Village web site was offline for a Authority. In particular, for communities such as Kislingbury, few days but hard copies of the Plan were which are near to major development, they also provide a level of comfort to ensure that the village retains the character and available throughout the consultation period, features that existing residents of the village value. which exceeded the minimum required, at many The current Development Plan for South Northamptonshire locations and the Responder would have been includes the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy able to obtain a copy at any time. We do not (WNJCS) and the saved policies of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan (1997). The WNJCS sets the strategic development believe that there is a requirement for a web site needs for the authorities of South Northamptonshire, together to be available as part of the Consultation with Northampton and Daventry. process. 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
Page 46 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 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.
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 111 those concerned NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 112 the Plan. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 113 the Plan. NCR Agree that Plan Captures good and bad. Supports 114 the Plan. NCR
Page 47 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 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 Kislingbury pedestrian ways within the village, we see this as Playing Fields very important so that people of all ages can safely 115 Association access the playing fields. NCR 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 Northamptonshire sufficient justification within the document for the County Council - policies presented. This makes it difficult to Transport understand what points the authors are trying to 116 Planning get across. NCR
Page 48 of 89
Section 1
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response
Page 49 of 89
Section 2
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 The Council notes that the Plan does not propose plan development period. What Starter Homes will be and any of the following that could be included in a how they will work is not yet clear. Development Plan. 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 • Alterations to the village confines limited infill development. • Local Green Spaces 6. Local Employment Opportunities. The results of the Village • Green Wedges Questionnaires show that the Residents have no appetite to • Provision for Starter Homes see commercial activity grow in the Village. The proximity of Kislingbury to Northampton, Towcester, and Daventry mean • Provision for Self-build plots that residents of the Village have access to many employment • Local employment opportunities opportunities. • Gypsy and Traveller site allocations 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 These will be considered in the Councils Part 2A will consider these in their Part 2A Local Plan and where Plan. General Local Plan and where appropriate policies included appropriate include Polices for Kislingbury Parish. 54 (Omissions) SNC for Kislingbury Parish.
Page 50 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response
Page 51 of 89
Section 3
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Agree. Traffic Especially Lorries are already an Section 3 Table issue. Work Trucks and Lorries could increase 28 3.iv POT2 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 Northamptonshire that village community spirit enhancement has far County Council - wider social values than being able to walk to the Section 3 Table Transport village centre, therefore this goal needs further 116 3.iv POT1 Planning 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 Northamptonshire this trend, hence it would be more appropriate to County Council - have a goal that leads the plan promoting NCR. POT2 relates solely to the impact on road Section 3 Table Transport sustainable travel options instead of ensuring conditions of new development within the Parish 116 3.iv POT2 Planning something that is not achievable and as such is within the remit of the Plan.
Page 52 of 89
Section 4
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response I would like to see reference for a Working Group to be set up to address the unnecessary use of 10 Section 4.3.7 HGVs through the Village. NCR There are 33 listed buildings within the Parish, of Now 4.1.11. Text has now been revised to read: There are 33 which one is St Lukes Church, which is a Grade 1 listed buildings within the Parish, of which one is St Luke’s Listed building dating from the 14th Century still in Church, which is a Grade 1 Listed building dating from the 14th Century still in use. These building are shown in the map use. Reference should be made to the recently below and are all within the Kislingbury Conservation Area Section 4.1 Page revised and adopted Kislingbury conservation area which was reviewed in late 2013 and the Management Plan 54 16. Heritage SNC and Management Plan adopted in January 2014. The NDP could include a policy that proposes maximum parking standards for new housing development. For example this could be: No change made to Plan. In an early Draft we had a Policy similar to this suggestion. In discussion 5 bed plus: 3 spaces per dwelling 3 & 4 bed: 2 with SNC we were informed that we had to have a spaces per dwelling study and evidence to back up our Policy. As we 54 Section 4.3.7 SNC 1 & 2 bed: 1 space per dwelling did not we removed the policy. This ‘Gap’ Is also referred to in para 4.3.2 of the NDP.
There is no policy on the Gap. NCR . There is no Policy on the If there should be one it would need careful Gap as the Site Allocation ensures that the Gap is 54 Section 4.3.10 SNC consideration and justification. protected. Comment on the Heritage Section only make Now 4.1.13. This section will be amended and a reference to the Village not the surrounding new paragraph added to read : landscape. The landscape contains extensive areas The landscape contains extensive areas of ridge Planning Services of ridge and furrow medieval earthworks which and furrow medieval earthworks which enhance Section 4.1 Northamptonshire enhance the village setting especially on the the village setting especially on the eastern side of 88 Heritage Page 16 County Council eastern side of the village the village.
Page 53 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Development could result in the loss of landscape, important views, open countryside, historical Countryside and legacy this could also include reference to loss of Environment Planning Services ridge and furrow. As detailed in the WNJCS Local Page 22, Section Northamptonshire Plan Policy BN5 - The Historic Environment and Now 4.13.7. Agree. Plan will be amended and a 88 4.3.10 County Council landscape 1b) new bullet point added to reflect the comment. 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 Now 4.14. Policy HE1 has been amended along Historic Planning Services of the draft Wollaston Plan Historic Environment the lines suggested by this Response following a Environment Northamptonshire Policy as a guide to how you should phrase your similar comment from SNC. See Section Policies 88 Page 22 4.3.11 County Council policy with regard to the Historic environment HE. 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 102 Section 4.3.7 nothing to happen. NCR Section 3.1 includes the goal "to minimise the NCR. The Plan meets the Goal and Objectives impact of development on the surrounding through the Site selection criteria which Northamptonshire countryside, landscape and ecosystems" Table 3.iii considered environmental and ecological aspects County Council - supports this goal with Objective POE4 "to of all the sites considered. It was not seen as the 103 Section 4.3.10 Planning Policy conserve and enhance biodiversity". Section 4.3.10 role of the Plan to designate a Wildlife Site. The
Page 54 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response then states that "conservation is a high priority and aim of the Plan is to set the target and limit for protection of the countryside and environment are new development in the Parish. The site allocated major considerations .... Kislingbury residents place does not reduce the Gap between the Village and a high value on the environment of the Nene River Northampton Town, and has minimal impact on Valley. Despite this support for the environment the environment, landscape and ecological there is no specific environmental Policy in the systems. SNC will consider the designation issue in draft Neighbourhood Plan. Section 4.3.10 points their Part 2A Local Plan 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. In the second paragraph the plan talks about limited broadband speed in the village, a policy Northamptonshire supporting broadband improvements would County Council - support those who work from home, and this in Transport turn would be one of the sustainable measure that NCR. Policy C3 meets most of the requirements of 116 Section 4.3.9 Planning could help reduce future traffic within the Village this comment.
Page 55 of 89
Page 56 of 89
Section 5
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Disagree. The word "outsiders" is very offensive. Now 5.2.11. Plan wording will be changed as 36 Plan Section 5.2 Use "people who do not live in the Village" proposed 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 Now 5.5.1 (iii). Plan wording will be changed as 36 Plan Section 5.5 no provision in the Village" proposed 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 Anglian Water sustainable drainage and water capture (for use in Now 5.8.4 (ii). Plan wording will be changed as 47 Plan Section 5.8 Services Ltd activities such as gardening, car washing)" proposed We accept the comment. Policy HS5 (Renumbered HS4) will be amended to include a condition which will read: Disagree. Concern about proximity of development HS4 xi. If the development Plans locate dwellings to Village Hall. We would like to suggest a fenced in close proximity to the Village Hall the proposals buffer zone on the east Side of the Village Hall be should recognise the potential problems arising incorporated into any future Plans. This would help from Noise Nuisance and include measures to 50 Section 5.11 alleviate potential problems to Residents alleviate this. The Local Plan Part 2A is yet to determine how the We take on board the points made regarding the housing allocations across the villages in the Hierarchy of Villages and have amended the text of the Plan to remove the statement that we are already District. Allocations may extend beyond primary designated a Secondary Service Village. The mention of and secondary service villages. Green Belts has been removed. We welcome the 54 Section 5.2 SNC These villages are yet to be identified. confirmation that our assessment of the need for
Page 57 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response The Council has yet to decide the scale of housing approximately 50 houses is based on sound growth that each Parish will be expected to deliver. methodology. We welcome the support for an allocation site for the bulk of the housing with the rest coming The reference to the proportion of existing through infill. We are confident that the number of 10 dwellings is one option that the Council will be will be met. The text of the Plan has been changed and considering. now reads: (5.2.3 to 5.2.7) There are no ‘Green Belt’ designations in South The Number of New Homes Northamptonshire. This will not be a determining In the first survey for the NDP carried out in January 2013 a majority of residents responded against the need for a factor in determining the scale or location of future large new housing development in Kislingbury. However, growth. following a review of the needs of the Parish for housing The Council has considered the methodology that it became apparent that without at least one concludes that here is a local need for 50 dwellings development we would neither be able to meet our obligations to the District for new houses, but more in Kislingbury and supports this conclusion. The importantly, nor we would be able to deliver the smaller, proposed figure is considered to be consistent with low cost, and Affordable Houses that the Residents said the general provisions of the WNJCS. were needed. In a second survey carried out in October The Council also supports the proposed delivery of 2014 80% of Villagers supported the need for such a the housing on a single allocation and smaller development and for dwellings of the type needed.
windfall developments on unidentified sites. The West Northants JCS Plan allocates 2360 homes to be It is noted that the KNP does not propose to developed within the Rural Area of South Northants. SNC amend the existing village have yet to determine the allocation of housing amongst the confines and so it is uncertain that there are Rural Settlements within the District. Nor have they finalised which settlements fall into the different tiers of the hierarchy sufficient suitable, available and deliverable sites of Settlements as set out in the JCS Plan. SNC has yet to within the existing confines to deliver these 10 decide the scale of housing growth that each Parish will be dwellings. 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.
Page 58 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response The Kislingbury NDP identifies and allocates a site for approximately 40 new homes to be built in the village by 2029. 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) 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 This should also refer to the need for a more Dwellings will be subject to a Viability development to be viable under the provisions of assessment as specified by the planning 54 Section 5.4 SNC the NPPF. requirements for Affordable Housing. We agree that the text in the Plan is incorrect. We The Settlement Hierarchy, including the position of have replaced it and the Plan now reads: (5.7.2 Kislingbury, has yet to be agreed in the Part 2A and 5.7.3) Local Plan. In developing the NDP we have consulted extensively with SNC on many aspects of the Plan. This statement should therefore be removed from During the course of the Consultations the 54 Section 5.7 SNC the Plan working assumption has been that Kislingbury
Page 59 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 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) 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 This will only be applicable if the application for the charge that Local Authorities can levy on new allocated site is approved on or after April 1st 2016 developments in their area. The charges are set by and if the NP is adopted before the application is the local council and are based upon the size and approved. The charges that would be applicable type of development. This will only be applicable if have now been agreed by the District Council. For the application for the allocated site is approved this development the charges would be: on or after April 1st 2016 and if the NDP is adopted before the application is approved. The 54 Section 5.9 SNC £100 per square metre (gross internal area) charges that would be applicable for this
Page 60 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response development would be £100 per square metre (gross internal area) The Plan states, though not in a Policy, in 5.10.2 on that "Following completion of the It is noted that the Plan does not propose any Development on the Allocated Site the Parish changes to the village confines but effectively Council will apply to SNC for the Confines to be leaves that work to this Council through the Part 2A redefined to incorporate the new Development, as Local Plan. well as the existing Watts Close development, into the Village Confines." The Parish Council may The Council will therefore reserve the right to decide prior to the adoption of the NDP to amend the confines as it considers appropriate proceed with this application to redefine the over and above including the 2 identified sites at Confines in which case the text will be amended in 54 Section 5.10 SNC Watts Close and the allocated site in the KNP. the Submission Version of the Plan. 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; We agree with the suggestion to re-word Policy • Access to the site will be taken from Rothersthorpe Road; • A landscaping scheme to be submitted including appropriate HS5(renumbered HS4). Please see Section Policies 54 5.11 SNC planting to the East to provide some screening from adjacent - HS for the new wording of this Policy.
Page 61 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 • 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
Page 62 of 89
Section 6
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 Northamptonshire increase in the future and the Plan should NCR. This Section refers to the Action Plan to be County Council - positively encourage the village to look at taken forward by the Parish Council by the Transport sustainable transport measures as a means of formation of a Traffic Working Group to address 116 Section 6.2 Planning mitigating the increase in traffic. all Traffic related issues.
Page 63 of 89
Policies C
Response Document Name if from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Need to List assets i.e. Shop, Village Hall, Agree. This Policy will be reworded to show all 36 Policy C2 Allotments, school etc. assets 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 Clarification should be given as to when it will be landscaping and how it will appear after 10 years; and ‘appropriate’ to submit a landscape strategy. It is (v) details, where appropriate, of how those areas to be unlikely that such a strategy will be required with retained for open space, as well as any retained trees 54 Policy C1 SNC ‘all development proposals’. and hedgerows, will be managed in the future. It is unclear as to what the Plan considers to be ‘Assets of Policy C2 now reads: Community Value’ that the policy is seeking to protect. These C2: Assets of Community Value should be clearly stated in the Policy. The redevelopment or change of use of the following essential facilities and services that meet community needs The loss of an asset would be considered as ‘significant harm’. and support well-being will only be permitted where it can be Therefore the inclusion of ‘loss’ is considered to be clearly demonstrated that: unnecessary. a) The service or facility is no longer needed; or b) It is no longer viable to retain them; or The Policy should also be considered in the context of the NPPF c) The proposals will provide sufficient community benefit to and the Impact Assessment to the Framework. Paragraph 70 of outweigh the loss of the existing facility or service, meeting the NPPF relates only to development proposals directly evidence of a local need. affecting (i.e. through redevelopment or change of use) the Kislingbury Parish essential services and facilities: essential facilities and services involved. • Kislingbury Village Hall • Kislingbury Playing Field and equipped Play Area 54 Policy C2 SNC Paragraph 70’s second bullet point specifically relates to • Sports Grounds for Bowls, Cricket, and Football
Page 64 of 89
Response Document Name if from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response “guarding against” the unnecessary loss of facilities and • Allotment Gardens services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s • Shops ability to meet its day-to-day needs. Government’s Impact • Public Houses Assessment of the Framework which at the second paragraph • Places of Worship on page 59 explains: • Post Office • Village Greens “This policy will help communities prevent the loss existing buildings and developments, which are locally important, The Parish Council will work positively with local communities valued and viable community facilities and services, to and support proposals to retain, improve, or re-use essential alternative higher value developments such as private housing facilities and services. 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
Page 65 of 89
Response Document Name if from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response • Shops • Public Houses • 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.
This is covered by Policy C1 of the West Policy is retained for reasons of completeness, and Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. reference has been included to the Policy mentioned in SNC response. The policy has been 54 Policy C3 SNC The Policy is therefore not necessary. changed to specify type of development and now
Page 66 of 89
Response Document Name if from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response reads: If retained the Policy will need to set out which C3: Broadband – fibre to the premises types of ‘development’ require a connectivity Housing development Proposals which seek the statement – For example is it just for housing or expansion of electronic communication networks would any commercial, industrial or community and high speed broadband along with facility type development be included? 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. 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 This Policy was retained for reasons of appropriate on sites outside but adjoining the completeness, and reference has been made to village confines, For example if a proposal for a the Policies shown in SNC Response. The wording community facility was made on a suitable site of the Policy is unchanged as there is very little outside but adjoining the confines it would be likelihood that a site outside the Village Confines contrary to this Policy. would ever be considered suitable, or become 54 Policy C4 SNC available.
Page 67 of 89
Response Document Name if from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response As worded it is highly unlikely that sites will be made available within confines where land values will be significantly higher for other uses including housing.
Policies D
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 Policy is retained for Completeness, but re-worded as Conservation Area Management Plan, Landscape suggested. Policy D1 now reads: and Character Assessment and existing village D1: Good Design design statement. Proposals for all forms of new development must plan positively for the achievement of high quality and The bullet points on pages 28/29 could be inclusive design, at the same time demonstrating they incorporated into a revised policy on Design have sought to conserve local distinctiveness and the together with references to local characteristics. aesthetic qualities of traditional patterns of development, buildings (proportions, architectural If KPC wish to retain a more generic policy then the detailing and materials) and settings (including man- following wording is suggested: made and natural features, important views and heritage). Proposals for unsympathetic designs which
fail to respect the connections between people and Proposals for all forms of new development places, or are inappropriate for the location, or pay must plan positively for the achievement of high inadequate regard to issues of renewable energy quality and inclusive design, at the same time technologies, landscape and biodiversity considerations 54 Policy D1 SNC demonstrating they have sought to conserve and will be refused.
Page 68 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response reinforce local distinctiveness and the aesthetic qualities of traditional patterns of development, buildings (proportions, architectural detailing and 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. As Kislingbury is not a Local Planning Authority it Agree. This Policy has been significantly rewritten may not refuse planning applications. I recommend following SNC Comment and suggested wording. Northampton changing the last word on the policy from “refused” However the word “Refused” will be changed to 103 Policy D1 County Council to “resisted” “resisted” 108 Policy D1, 2, 3 Agree NCR
Page 69 of 89
Policies EM
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response The site allocated at J16 of the M1 in the WNJCS will need to demonstrate that it does not result in We welcome the confirmation that the Policy severe negative traffic impacts in accordance with conforms to the NPPF and also that in the JCS the NPPF. This Policy is therefore consistent with Plan. The Policy is retained for Completeness, and this approach. The Policy is a broad replication of reference has been made to the Policy shown in 54 Policy EM1 SNC the guidance contained in Policy C2 of the WNJCS. the SNC Response. 108 Policy EM1 Agree NCR Heavy Goods Traffic insert "commercial" between Northamptonshire the words other - uses. This policy would also County Council - benefit from some explanatory text setting out the Transport current problems the village experiences with The Word "Commercial" will be inserted as 116 Policy EM1 Planning regard to lorries and HGVs. suggested.
Page 70 of 89
Policies H
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response This is entirely covered by Policies H1 and H2 of the JCS.
The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does We have decided to retain this Policy for 54 Policy H1 SNC not add local value and is therefore unnecessary completeness. 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 We have met with the Developer of the Allocated S106 agreement (if it could be then evidence would Site and following their feedback changed the be helpful). wording of the policy on an earlier Draft. We accept the suggestions for a 3 month limit. Policy Evidence of any discussions with the landowner / H2 now reads: developer of the allocated site on this requirement H2 Homes for Sale to Local Residents would also be useful as any such requirement is Proposals for housing on the allocated site which more likely appropriate as a separate agreement aim to give Local Residents, in whatever way between the developer and KPC outside the possible, preferential access to Waiting Lists, or planning system. released phases for Sale, of the development will be supported. If the Developer is willing to do this If retained perhaps the requirement should be time we would suggests that this period does not 54 Policy H2 SNC limited to 3 months exceed 3 months. This appears to duplicate Policy H1 of the KNP and is also covered by Policy H2 of the WNJCS. We agreed to retain the policy for completeness, The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does but reference has been made to the Policy shown 54 Policy H3 SNC not add local value and is therefore unnecessary in the SNC Response. All new affordable housing is already subject to a nominations We agree with this comment and have re-worded the Policy. 54 Policy H4 SNC process including those with a local connection. Policy H4 now reads:
Page 71 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response H4: Allocation of Affordable Housing The initial test that the Local Authority would do for All new Affordable Housing in Kislingbury developed after the determining local connection for access to the housing register, Policies of the NDP are adopted will initially be subject to a would not conflict with the connection set out in this policy as local connection. This means that people with a strong local the as this connection is much more restrictive. connection to the Parish, and whose needs are not met by the open market, will be the first to be nominated (by the However it should be made clear that on the organisation that Council) accommodation for either rent or shared ownership. would be nominating to any new build affordable homes that In this context a strong local connection means an come forward within the Parish. It is South Northants Council’s applicant(s) who meets at least one of the following criteria: responsibility to hold a housing register and allocate via its i) The applicant has lived in the Parish for a period of at least Allocation policy to affordable homes across the District. 6 out of the last 12 months continuously prior to acceptance on to the Housing Register: The policy has provisions to engage with local lettings plans to ii) The applicant has previously lived in the Parish for 3 allocate social housing to reflect local circumstances. Any local continuous years out of the past 5 years: connection criteria attached to a development should be iii) The applicant has permanent employment within the drafted into a legal agreement for example a S106 or Parish: nominations agreement. iv) The applicant has immediate family members who have lived in the Parish continuously for at least 5 years The Council’s current Allocations Policies local connection is as immediately prior to the date of application: follows: v) The applicant has a special reason for needing to live in the Parish. “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
Page 72 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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?
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 The mix of house type and sizes could change over which would be suitable for Starter Homes for time and would best be informed by the latest Local people and Homes for Villagers wishing to available evidence at the time of application. downsize and stay in the Village. The mix of size of Dwellings in the development will be determined This is covered by policy H1 of the WNJCS by an up to date Housing Needs Survey established at the time of the Planning The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does application. (See also Section 5.2.8 in relation to 54 Policy H5 SNC not add local value and is therefore unnecessary Policy H1). Policy H4 of the WNJCS states that residential This Policy is retained for completeness, but developments must be designed to provide reference is made to the Policy identified in the accommodation that meets the requirements of SNC Response. We have re-worded the Policy to the Lifetime Homes Standard subject to viability on reflect the comment made by SNC regarding a site by site basis. different standards which may apply in the future. Policy H6 now reads: The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does H6: Lifetime home standards not add local value and is therefore unnecessary All development proposals for New Houses should 54 Policy H6 SNC meet current Lifetime Home standards, or those in
Page 73 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response In future, planning authorities will be able to the future to be applied by the Planning specify only housing standards provided in the Authorities specified by the “New National ‘New National Technical Standards’ which provide Technical Standards” which will provide specifications for accessible homes in three specifications for accessible homes in three categories, ranging from a base line largely aligned categories ranging from a baseline largely aligned with the existing Part M of the Building Regulations with the existing Part M of the Buildings to a category designed to meet the needs of Regulations, to a category designed to meet the wheelchair users as occupants. Should the KNP needs of wheelchair users as occupants, unless seek to set different standards, other than the viability or other local factors show a robust base line standard, and if so what evidence is justification for a different design. 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’. 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 NCR. This Policy has been completely rewritten to previously lived in the Village for more than, say, 10 conform with the criteria that will be used by SNC 97 Policy H4 years. who are the allocating body for Affordable 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 Agree. This Policy has been reworded along the Persimmon need and viability before being required in planning lines suggested following a similar comment from 106 Policy H6 Homes policy. SNC. Policies H1, 2, 3 4, 108 5, 6, 7, 8 Agree NCR
Page 74 of 89
Page 75 of 89
Policies HE
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 We agree and have adopted the suggested Policies S10 and BN5 of the JCS. wording. Policy HE1 now reads: HE1: Historic Environment The Policy is considered unnecessary but if retained Any designated and non designated historic then suggest the following: heritage assets in the Parish and their settings, both above and below ground and including listed Any designated and non designated heritage assets buildings, and any monuments that have been and their settings, in the Parish will be conserved scheduled, or conservation areas that have been and enhanced for their significance and their created, will be conserved and enhanced for their importance to local distinctiveness, character and historic significance and their importance to local 54 Policy HE1 SNC sense of place. distinctiveness, character and sense of place. 108 Policy HE1 Agree NCR
Page 76 of 89
Policies HS
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 8 Policy HS1 dwellings per hectare. NCR 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 The Conditions associated with policy HS5 Anglian Water sewerage networks can be made available as part (renumbered to HS4) will be amended to include 47 Policy HS4 Services Ltd of the planning application process. this provision. (HS4 x) Policy is retained and amended as suggested. This Policy is unnecessary. It can be merged with Policy HS1 now reads: other policies in the Plan. HS1: Scale of New Development Planning permission will be granted for If retained the Policy should refer to a Plan that approximately 40 new homes on the site shows the location and boundaries of the allocated identified in this Plan. Please refer to Figures 6.i 54 Policy HS1 SNC site. and 6.i.1 for the Location of the Allocated site. This Policy is supported. We welcome support for this Policy. We accept the suggested amendment and the need for clarification. Policy HS2 now Suggest amending ‘meeting all relevant reads: HS2: Infill Housing requirements set out in other policies in Applications for small residential developments on infill and 54 Policy HS2 SNC this plan and the JCS Plan’ to ‘meeting all relevant redevelopment sites within the Kislingbury Village Confines
Page 77 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response requirements set out in other policies in this plan will be supported subject to proposals being well designed and other Development Plan documents covering and meeting all relevant requirements set out in other policies in this plan and other Development Plan documents the Parish’ covering the Parish, and where such development: a) fills a small, restricted gap in the continuity of existing There is a need to clarify ‘within Kislingbury’. If this frontage buildings or on other sites within the built-up area means within the village confines for Kislingbury of the village where the site is closely surrounded by then this should be clarified. 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 This is covered in far greater detail by INF1 and INF2 of the JCS. Aspects are also covered by RC2 of the JCS. We agree and the Policy has been removed from The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does the Plan. NB: Policies HS4 and HS5 will be re- 54 Policy HS3 SNC not add local value and is therefore unnecessary numbered in the Submission Version. This Policy is covered by policies HS2, HS5. Exception site development is covered by H3 of the WNJCS. Policy HS4 (renumbered to The Policy is a duplication of existing Policy does 54 HS3) SNC not add local value and is therefore unnecessary This Policy is retained for completeness. 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 This Policy could be included in a new Policy that (Ref KNP01) (Policy HS4) on Land at Rothersthorpe Road is brings together all the polices concerned with the shown on figures 6.i and 6.i.1. The development will make Policy HS5 allocated site for housing. provision for: • Approximately 40 dwellings of a Tenure and Mix to meet (renumbered to the needs of the Village as identified in the Housing Needs 54 HS4) SNC As stated it is not a Policy. Assessment (Appendix D)
Page 78 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response • 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 • 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. Policy HS5 (renumbered to Agree. SNC397 is the best site. Not SNC340 as is 97 HS4) being pushed by Charles Church. NCR 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 NCR. This response ignores the fact that there was developments larger than 30 houses (C14). Smaller a second questionnaire in 2014 which asked the developments gained a much better degree of Residents to support or otherwise a single agreement. It seems far more sensible to build on development of around 40 houses in order to Policy HS4 2-3 sites- we can insist that these include "green have the mix of houses that the Residents said is (renumbered to barrier" owned by the Parish that will prevent needed. A large majority of Residents supported 102 HS3) further gap closure. If a site can be built on it will this.
Page 79 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response be built on in time - surely it is best to close off as many edges as possible as a condition of granting 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) Policy HS4 Northamptonshire (renumbered to County Council - Agree. At present I have no issues with the 103 HS3) Planning Policy allocation of this site for development NCR NCR. This response ignores the fact that there was Disagree. We object to the planned proposal in a second questionnaire in 2014 which asked the land adjacent to Watts Close. In the Kislingbury Residents to support or otherwise a single HNS Report 2015 Version 5.00 72% of the Village development of around 40 houses in order to opposed expansion on the edge of the Village and have the mix of houses that the Residents said is the proposed site is beyond the Confines of the needed. A large majority of Residents supported 104 Policy HS1 Village Plan. this. Disagree. We object to the planned proposal in NCR. This response ignores the fact that there was land adjacent to Watts Close. In the Kislingbury a second questionnaire in 2014 which asked the HNS Report 2015 Version 5.00 72% of the Village Residents to support or otherwise a single opposed expansion on the edge of the Village and development of around 40 houses in order to the proposed site is beyond the Confines of the have the mix of houses that the Residents said is 105 Policy HS1 Village Plan. needed. A large majority of Residents supported
Page 80 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response this. Disagree. Allocation of the Site at Beech lane NCR. Persimmon are acting for the Landowner of (SNC340) as well or in place of the site allocation at SNC340 and will therefore be objecting to the Rothersthorpe Road (SNC397). We feel the site allocated site in principle. The Site assessment assessment work that concluded that SNC397 is to was carried out with no bias, has been reviewed Policy HS4 be preferred has some serious shortcomings and several times, and is supported by the fact that (renumbered to Persimmon these are outlined further under Additional the majority of Residents want the allocated site 106 HS3) Homes Comments section below. to be SNC397. Policy HS4 (renumbered to 107 HS3) Landowner Disagree. See General Comments for 107 NCR Policies HS1, 2, 3, 108 4, 5, 6 7 Agree NCR 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 Policy HS4 Bidwells on Behalf forward for residential development within the (renumbered to of Davidsons next five years to help meet the objectives of the 110 HS3) Developments Ltd Neighbourhood Plan. NCR 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 NCR. HS7 is Policy from an early Version of the Policy HS5 Bidwells on Behalf Neighbourhood Plan. We concur that Site KNP01 Plan. It is now HS5 (renumbered HS4). The criteria (renumbered to of Davidsons forms a logical extension to the settlement, whilst "I" has been removed following a meeting with 110 HS4) Developments Ltd meeting the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan. the Developer.
Page 81 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Policy HS7 is supported and DDL will continue to work with the Parish Council as a planning 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
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response I would like to see reference for a Working Group to be set up to address the unnecessary use of 10 T1, Section 4.3.7 HGVs through the Village. NCR 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. The Policy has been retained but the Comment Effectively this Policy places a blanket ban on any concerning it being overly restrictive has been development proposals that generates one or taken on board. Policy T1 now reads: more car movements in those areas identified in T1: Traffic Congestion the Policy. Proposals that accord with the policies in the NDP To justify this Policy evidence will be required that and do not unduly affect the existing or proposed 54 Policy T1 SNC demonstrates that traffic congestion in these areas Transportation Network will be supported.
Page 82 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response is already a problem and that critically that the problem is such so as to justify no further increase in movements.
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. This policy is unnecessary as it is covered by 54 Policy T2 SNC Policies C2 and R3 of the WNJCS. This Policy is retained for reasons of completeness Policies T, 108 1,2,3,4,5,6 Agree NCR Traffic Congestion policy is difficult to understand and either requires further explanatory text Northamptonshire previous to the Policy or similar text within the County Council - policy so that anyone looking to use or apply the Transport policy understands why additions traffic in these This Policy has been completely re-written 116 Policy T1 Planning locations is not supported by the plan following a comment from SNC. Northamptonshire Policy is supported by this authority. The 116 Policy T2 County Council - paragraphs both before and after T2 read as NCR
Page 83 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Transport though they are additional Policies - it is therefore Planning suggested that they are expanded and included as further policies
Appendices and Acknowledgments
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 Sustainability Village. That pipeline requires a 20M standoff. The Assessment - Company would oppose any housing in SNC637, 23 Section 2.1 Cemex Ltd SNC302, SNC301, and SNC596. NCR Acknowledgemen Sue Deane needs "PC" after her name as she is a 36 ts Councillor Change Baseline Report 36 5.21 Page 23 5.21 Campion School is 1 mile away not 2 Text will be changed to 1.5 Miles Baseline Report 36 5.23 Page 24 There is no Mothers Union in the Village now. Change Baseline Report Include there is a Bus to Tesco's. Access to Public 36 5.19 Page 22 Transport - both stops are an asset Change Landscape and Village Character Assessment Disagree. Dukes Green Road, Nene Way, and Willow 77 Appendix G P13. View are North not South of Bugbrooke Road Agree. South will be changed to North. Sustainability Persimmon We have a number of concerns relating to the site NCR. Site selection cannot include criteria which 106 Assessment Homes assessment criteria within the Sustainability relates to a development Plan which does not exist
Page 84 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response Assessment. These can be summarised as relating to and has not been approved 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 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. Scoring Methodology The Assessment of the Flood Risk was based on Local knowledge of the sites where SNC340 often The scoring against each criterion appears wholly shows Surface flooding at the Northern end arbitrary and without explanation. For example, whereas the others do not. Environment Agency Sustainability Persimmon under Stage 1 Assessment Test 5 (Flood Risk the puts SNC340 in Flood Zone 2 and SNC397 in Flood 106 Assessment Homes sites 340/636/301/397/637/ are all categorised as Zone 1.
Page 85 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response PP (Very Positive) however in the scoring all these NCR 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. 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. Scoring Results NCR. The two stages are not designed to be We have noted a number of areas where the results combined. The first eliminates the sites that are not of the scoring are inconsistent with our knowledge worth considering and the second ranks those that of the sites, which is explained in more detail below. are. The fact that SNC340 came first in Stage 1 We are also concerned about the way in which Stage shows that the scoring is not disproportionately 1 and 2 Assessments disproportionately prejudice prejudiced against this site. The Site does not meet Sustainability Persimmon the prospects for site SNC340, which is ranked the definition of a Brownfield site as set out in the 106 Assessment Homes highest of all the sites after the Stage 1 assessment NPPF. The Environment Agency consultation
Page 86 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response but joint third after the Stage 2 Assessment. If the response included in the Sustainability Assessment scores were to be adjusted in line with our states that SNC340 is in Flood Risk Zone 2. This comments below and added together for the two justifies the 5 point difference. stages then the results for the remaining sites would be as follows: SNC340 = 65 SNC301 = 15 SNC397 = 40 Stage 1 Assessment 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 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 NCR. Mitigations were claimed at previous planning Scoring Methodology above. Our suggested amendment applications and not accepted by the LPA. The site Sustainability Persimmon would be to adjust the score for SNC340 to Neutral 0 selection is based on what is known, and not what 106 Assessment Homes Bullet points at the end of the assessment indicate that might or could be.
Page 87 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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 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. 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 We can only be guided by what he Environment land), while SNC397 has an area along its eastern side shown as at risk from surface water flooding Agency tell us. None of the other comments make a Sustainability Persimmon POE2 (Landscape) - Development of the site SNC340 would compelling case to choose SNC340 in preference to 106 Assessment Homes have localised impact on the landscape, in a similar way to the Residents' preferred site of SNC397. NCR
Page 88 of 89
Response Document Name of from/Form Reference/Policy Organisation Number Number Responding Comment Plan Response 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. 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
Page 89 of 89