SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL
Interim Rural Housing Planning Policy
Adopted July 2009 Notes
Together with its partner authorities, this Council is working towards the preparation and adoption of a Local Development Framework (LDF). This will provide the new planning policy framework for the district. Once adopted, the LDF will replace both the “saved” local plan policies and the Interim Housing Policy. This Policy will also be used as an important part of the evidence base for the emerging Joint Core Strategy.
It is recognised that the adoption of the Interim Housing Policy Statement will fall outside of the statutory procedures for development plan adoption and that it will not form part of the Local Development Framework. The Interim Housing Policy will however be used as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
This Policy has been prepared having regard to the Development Plan Document set out in Planning Policy Statement 12 (Local Spatial Planning) in respect of the preparation of Development Plan Documents. In particular the Policy:
. Included participation with stakeholders at the Draft Stage . has regard to national policy . conforms generally to the Regional Spatial Strategy . Is justified and timely . Is deliverable
The Interim Housing Policy will be used as a material consideration in determining planning applications for new residential development in the District until such time that the Council has achieved at least a five year housing land supply or that the Joint Core Strategy has progressed. At this time the Policy will no longer be applied.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 2 SECTION ONE
introduction
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 3 1. Preamble
1.1 The Policy sets out the criteria for the consideration of new residential development in the rural areas. The aim of the Policy is:
. to deliver sufficient housing sites in appropriate locations so that the Council has at least a 5 year supply of housing land; . to plan, monitor and manage the provision of suitable housing land and; . to inform the content of the emerging Joint West Northamptonshire Core Strategy.
1.2 The Policy sets out a series of material considerations to which the Council will have regard alongside the saved policies of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan (1997) in determining planning applications for residential development, and in giving advice prior to submission of a formal planning application. The relevant saved policies in the Council’s Local Plan are: H3 – H6 (as set out below). This statement should also be considered alongside the suite of other planning policies including the Regional Spatial Strategy and planning policy guidance and statements.
Policy H3
Planning permission for residential development within the built up areas of Towcester and Brackley will normally be permitted.
Policy H4
In the Limited Development Villages of Deanshanger, Middleton Cheney, and Old Stratford residential development will normally be permitted within the village confines as follows:
(i) on the sites identified in chapter 13; or (ii) the infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage: or (iii) a small group of dwellings: or (iv) a conversion in accordance with policy EV15; or (v) dwellings to meet local needs in accordance with policy H7:
Policy H5
In Restricted Infill Villages proposals for residential development will normally be permitted within the village confines as identified in chapter 13, as follows:
(i) the infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage;
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 4 or (ii) a small group of dwellings;
or (iii) a conversion in accordance with policy EV15
in the context of this policy the Restricted Infill Villages are:
ABTHORPE EYDON PIDDINGTON ADSTONE FARTHINGHOE POTTERSPURY ASHTON GAYTON PURY END ASTCOTE GRAFTON REGIS QUINTON ASTON LE WALLS GREATWORTH ROADE AYNHO GREENS NORTON ROTHERSTHORPE BLAKESLEY GRIMSCOTE SHUTLANGER BLISWORTH HACKLETON SILVERSTONE LOWER BODDINGTON HALSE SLAPTON UPPER BODDINGTON HARPOLE STOKE BRUERNE BRADDEN HARTWELL SULGRAVE BRAFIELD ON THE HELMDON SYRESHAM GREEN HINTON IN THE HEDGES THORPE MANDEVILLE BUGBROOKE HORTON TIFFIELD CALDECOTE KINGS SUTTON WAPPENHAM CHACOMBE KISLINGBURY WESTON CHARLTON LITTLE HOUGHTON WEEDON LOIS CHIPPING WARDEN LITCHBOROUGH WHISTON COGENHOE MAIDFORD WHITFIELD COLD HIGHAM MARSTON ST. WHITTLEBURY COSGROVE LAWRENCE WICKEN CROUGHTON MILTON MALSOR WOODEND CROWFIELD MORETON PINKNEY YARDLEY GOBION CULWORTH NETHER HEYFORD YARDLEY HASTINGS DENTON OVERTHORPE EASTCOTE PATTISHALL EVENLEY PAULERSPURY
Policy H6
Planning permission will not normally be granted for residential development in the Restraint Villages and in the open countryside. The following exceptions will be considered:
(i) a new dwelling of an appropriate size and design for agriculture or forestry in accordance with policy H20;
(ii) a new dwelling of an appropriate size and design to meet other special needs where:
a) the present and continuing need for a dwelling can be clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority;
and b) any existing accommodation is shown to be inadequate and cannot be economically adapted to provide the required accommodation;
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 5 and c) there are no suitable buildings which could be converted for the purpose;
and d) the site is in close proximity to existing buildings or those with the benefit of planning permission;
(iii) a conversion in accordance with policy EV16.
(iv) the replacement of an existing outworn dwelling which is structurally unstable and beyond economic repair provided the new dwelling is;
a) sited on approximately the same footprint as the original dwelling;
and b) is of the same general size as the original dwelling.
permitted development rights for the new dwelling shall be removed.
in the context of this policy the restraint villages are:
Alderton, Courteenhall, Passenham, Castle Ashby, Hulcote and Thenford
1.3 The Policy promotes a proactive and flexible approach to managing the supply of housing land and will be informed by ongoing and regular monitoring of the District’s supply of housing land.
1.4 The Policy reflects updated regional, local and national planning policy and it will apply until the Council has achieved a continuous five year supply of housing land or until the Local Development Framework (LDF) in conjunction with Daventry District and Northampton Borough Local Planning Authorities has been adopted.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 6 SECTION TWO
Housing Requirements and Supply
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 7 2. Housing Requirements and Supply
Conclusion:
The Council has a shortfall against the required five year supply of housing land
Regional Plan for the East Midlands (March 2009)
2.1 The Sub Regional Strategy for Milton Keynes South Midlands Growth Area (part of the East Midlands Regional Plan: March 2009) sets out a minimum annual requirement of 330 dwellings to be completed between 2001 and 20211. The requirement for housing in South Northamptonshire District (as part of the Growth Area) is therefore significant. Therefore in order to also preserve and enhance the existing built and natural environments in the District it is important that the Council promotes sustainable residential development in the right location at the right time.
2.2 There is a requirement within Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) to ensure a 5 year supply of housing within the District. The 2008 to 2009 South Northamptonshire Council Housing Land Availability Study 2007/2008 shows a 2.75 years supply of housing land. The study identifies those sites which are available, achievable and suitable for housing within the next 5 years (2009 – 2014). These identified sites include remaining allocated housing sites, sites with existing planning permission, other sites identified as being suitable for housing within documents approved by the Council2 and an allowance for windfalls. A summary of this position is set out in Table 1 below. This shows that there is a shortfall of 2.25 years.
Table 1: South Northamptonshire 5 Year Housing Land Supply: April 1 This is a separate requirement to the growth required for Northampton that may include land within South Northamptonshire. Planned developments at Grange Park and Wootton Fields do not count towards the South Northamptonshire requirement. Other developments adjoining the Northampton Borough boundary are also likely to count towards the Northampton housing supply.
2 Development Briefs & Urban Capacity Studies
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 8 2009 Dwellings a Land Supply 2001 - 2009 372 330 dwellings/8 years = 2,640 Completions (2001 – 2009) = 2,268 Shortfall of 372 b Supply Required 2009-2014 1650 330 dwellings/5 years = 1650 c Supply Required 2009-2014 2022 Requirement for 5 years 2009 - 2014 = (a + b) d Annual supply required (c/5 = 404.4) 404 e Supply of deliverable sites 916 f Supply based on windfall allowance 225 g Lapse Rate 283 h Deliverable Supply (e + f – g) 1113 I Balance (c – h) 909 J Number of Years Supply 2.75 years (h/d) k Shortfall in the Five Year Housing Land Supply 2.25 years
3 This is calculated as 5% of the number of sites with outstanding planning permission from Table 3 (550)
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 9 SECTION THREE
The Implications of not having a Five year Housing Land Supply
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 10 3. The Implications of not having a Five year Housing Land Supply
Conclusions:
The Council should consider favourably planning applications (subject to national guidance) for housing, where it does not have up to date planning polices or it has less than five years supply of deliverable sites
Currently it is not considered appropriate to make an allowance for any future major development at Brackley or Towcester until there is more certainty over delivery.
Future strategic housing developments approved in the form of urban extensions adjoining the administrative boundary of Northampton will not contribute to the housing supply figures for South Northamptonshire.
3.1 Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) (PPS3) states:
‘ Where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, for example, where Local Development Documents have not been reviewed to take into account policies in this PPS or there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS including the considerations in paragraph 69.’ (Paragraph 71)
3.2 Paragraph 69 states:
In general, in deciding planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should have regard to:
Achieving high quality housing. Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families and older people. The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability. Using land effectively and efficiently. Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 11 policy objectives e.g. addressing housing market renewal issues. (Paragraph 69)
3.3 It is clear from the Guidance that that where the 5-year supply cannot be demonstrated an application should be ‘considered favourably’ i.e.: there is a presumption in favour of a scheme. However it is important to note that this ‘presumption’ is not freestanding and is expressly qualified by reference to the rest of the PPS and in particular the general considerations in paragraph 69, one of which is ensuring that the application is in line with the spatial vision for the area and a second relating to sustainability.
Potterspury Appeal Decision
3.4 In January 2009 planning permission was granted at appeal for the development of 23 dwellings on a site outside but adjoining the village confines. This appeal was the first opportunity to see how an Inspector considered the five year housing land supply issue in South Northamptonshire.
3.5 The Inspector was generally supportive of the Council’s housing land supply information and his decision demonstrates that it is generally robust. The issues raised were in respect of the deliverability of one site (BAE/Marconi) and the absence of a lapse rate. These issues have been addressed in the 2009 Housing Land Supply Report.
3.6 Based on the 2009 Report there is a need for some 909 additional dwellings to secure a five year housing land supply requirement for South Northamptonshire.
The Role of Towcester and Brackley in the Five year Housing Land Supply
3.7 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands sets out an urban orientated development strategy that concentrates future developments primarily in the rural service centres of Brackley and Towcester whilst limiting development in the remainder of the area with the emphasis on meeting local needs and the retention of basic services and facilities. Therefore it is expected that the majority of the future development needs of the District will be located at these two rural service centres and that it would be inappropriate and contrary to this regional policy framework to allow for significant levels of growth in the rural areas of the District.
3.8 Within this context three planning applications for the expansion of Towcester were submitted to WNDC and SNC in November 2008 and are yet to be determined. In 2009 changes are due to be made to the proposals and amendments submitted in mid 2009. A Masterplan for the town was published for consultation in July 2009 and this will be followed by a revised design brief for the proposed development. The
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 12 timetable for the approval of the application is for a determination in the autumn/ winter of 2009. This Council does not object to the development in principle although it has raised a number of important concerns as did other key agencies including the Highway Agency as set out in its Development Control Committee Report dated 15 th May 2008. Regular application discussions are continuing between WNDC, SNC and the applicants. The location of this site is supported by the West Northamptonshire Emergent Joint Core Strategy and Policy MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 1 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.
3.9 The Inspector considering the Potterspury appeal concluded that the Council was right in excluding the proposed development at Towcester from the Five Year Housing Land Supply at this time because of the uncertainty over delivery.
3.10 The Towcester Masterplan itself identifies a number of key opportunity sites that could be re-developed for residential and mixed use within the town. However until this is approved and further work completed on these including issues on site assembly and planning it is not considered appropriate to include these within the supply. They are simply not likely to be proposals that would realistically lead to housing being built within five years.
3.11 Similarly there are other major potential developments at Brackley including the Radstone Fields proposal that if further advanced could contribute to the five year housing land supply. The Radstone Fields applicants have been involved in pre application discussions with the Council and the Highways Agency for a mixed use proposal including 1250 dwellings. This is not included in the supply figures as formal applications are yet to be submitted. However, this situation could change following the submission of the application.
3.12 In conclusion currently it is not considered appropriate to include any allowance for either of these Brackley or Towcester sites at this time as the delivery of them may be difficult to justify as robust to an inspector at a future planning appeal. However, as more information is received and proposals progress this situation may change. At this time the Five Year Land Supply will be updated accordingly.
3.13 Applications for development outside and adjoining the town boundaries for Brackley and Towcester will be considered acceptable in principle and they will be determined against the usual planning considerations as set out in Section 7 of this Report.
The Role of the Northampton Five Year Housing Supply and the Northampton Implementation Area.
3.14 There is a separate housing requirement for South Northamptonshire and for Northampton. The Northampton Five Year Housing Land Report seeks to provide for 40,400 dwellings between 2001 and 2026.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 13 As the Regional Plan indicates some of this growth is likely to be accommodated within South Northamptonshire District
3.15 Both the Northampton and South Northamptonshire five year housing land supply reports are consistent in the areas that they include. The Northampton supply information includes the developments at Wootton Fields and Grange Park sites. These areas were chosen as they were existing Local Plan allocations made to accommodate growth relating to the growth of Northampton under the old Northamptonshire County Structure Plan. No additional areas within the South Northamptonshire area are included in the Northampton Report. The reason for this is, as the Northampton Report states, because the Northampton Implementation Area is yet to be determined.
3.16 There is currently a planning application for 781 dwellings at Norwood Farm within South Northamptonshire District. This forms part of a larger development with the remainder falling within the administrative boundary of Northampton. The Regional Spatial Strategy states that the housing figures for Northampton include any provision made in urban extensions across local authority boundaries. Therefore, any development from this site will contribute to the Northampton housing supply and not that of South Northamptonshire. However, small scale development within any villages within the District, including those closest to Northampton will contribute towards the South Northamptonshire requirement as these are not extensions to the urban area of Northampton.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 14 SECTION FOUR
The existing policy context
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 15 4. The existing policy context
Conclusions:
The new spatial strategy will not be agreed until 2011 and revised village confines will not be in place until at least 2012.
The Government continues to expect local authorities to deliver housing
Brownfield sites should be given preference to Greenfield sites.
New development must be in sustainable locations
Development should be focussed in urban areas with some permitted in villages to meet local needs
4.1 The Spatial vision for South Northamptonshire will be determined through the emerging West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. With its partners the Council is working towards the preparation and adoption of a Local Development Framework (LDF). This will provide the new planning policy framework for the district. Once adopted, the LDF will replace the “saved” local plan policies. This is timetabled to be adopted in January 2011.Replacement village confines are expected to be in place in 2012. Until these documents are adopted the Council will continue to use the saved policies from the 1997 South Northamptonshire Local Plan including the current village confines. Although the detail of the vision is yet to be decided, the Regional Plan does provide guidance within which the vision will need to be set. This identifies Northampton as the principal urban area and the focus for the required growth. Within South Northamptonshire the focus for development is on Brackley and Towcester. Development within the villages should be limited with the emphasis on meeting local needs and the retention of basic services and facilities. The Regional Plan also sets out in policy, guiding principles concerning sustainable development.
4.2 In terms of national guidance that needs to be considered this is mainly found in PPS 3 and PPS 7. In addition to paragraphs 69 and 71 set out above the provision of housing in a mix of tenures and prices is another of the key objectives of PPS3. The Guidance also places a strong emphasis on securing well-designed housing and ensuring that new developments are directed towards suitable locations, which offer a
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 16 good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure.
4.3 Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7): (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) promotes sustainable patterns of development and the better use of previously developed land. It states that the focus for most additional housing in rural areas should be in existing towns and identified service centres. Nevertheless, it is also recognised that it will be necessary to provide for some new housing to meet identified local need in other villages.
4.4 PPS7 emphasises that local planning authorities should plan to meet housing requirements in rural areas, based on an up to date assessment of local need. Local planning authorities are expected to make sufficient land available, either within or adjoining existing villages, to meet the needs of local people and strictly control new house building (including single dwellings) in the countryside, away from established settlements or from areas allocated for housing in development plans.
4.5 In summary the existing policy framework against which applications should be assessed is based upon the principles of sustainable development as set out in detail in PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and RSS8. The key points are:
Brownfield sites within sustainable locations have preference over all other sites in particular greenfield sites; New development must be in sustainable locations, well served by existing services and facilities with access to good and frequent public transport; Away from larger urban areas, planning authorities should focus most new development in or near to local service centres where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together; Once sufficient housing is identified to meet the strategic housing requirement, the Local Planning Authority should not look further for development sites.
4.6 The 1997 Local Plan is consistent with the RSS as it promotes a strategy of urban orientated development with restraint within the rural areas. However the town and village confines were agreed to meet the development needs up to 2006 and not those up to 2021 and beyond. So although they remain valid as a planning tool they must be viewed in the current context of new development requirements and the Government’s commitment to delivering housing underpinned by its five year housing land requirement.
4.7 When considering planning applications for housing PPS 3 is very clear in para. 72 that ‘Local Planning Authorities should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of prematurity’. It is clear therefore
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 17 that an application can no longer be refused on solely the grounds that it is contrary to existing local plan policy and therefore should wait until the new spatial vision and confines are in place and it is therefore appropriate to promote this Policy.
4.8 It is important that the planning of the District is undertaken in a co- ordinated manner and not left to individual decisions of individual planning inspectors that could result in an inconsistent and sporadic development strategy that undermines the development framework set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy. It is becomingly increasingly apparent that unless the Council takes a more proactive approach to the location of new development until such time as a 5 year Supply of Housing4 exists or that sites are allocated through the Core Strategy or other DPD’s then pressure for development will continue on an ad hoc basis on potentially inappropriate sites.
4.9 Despite the current economic downturn that has resulted in a slow down in house building rates within the District the Government is persisting in its requirement for local authorities to monitor house building rates in accordance with the requirements within the Regional Spatial Strategy. It is estimated that 147,700 houses would be built by the end of this year in the UK, compared with 203,900 in 2007. It is the lowest since 1945, when 29,700 houses were built at the end of the Second World War. The completion rate in South Northamptonshire has also declined from 325 in 2004/05 to only 211 in 2007/08 and 220 in 2008/09.
4.10 It is likely that pressure for greenfield development will intensify in an economic downturn. Developers have noted the inflexibility of the Government in reducing or re-phasing housing targets and are applying pressure on Council’s and Planning Inspectors to approve developments on easier to develop greenfield sites over less profitable brownfield locations.
4.11 Despite the industry slow down it should be noted that the current economic downturn is not in itself a valid reason to warrant a departure from the Council’s adopted and statutory Development Plan. All proposals for development should therefore be treated as normal and assessed against the policy framework set out in this paper. This includes the requirement for necessary infrastructure, however mechanisms that may defer payment towards contributions until later phases of a development may be considered where this is appropriate.
4.12 Until the new Joint Core Strategy and Rural Settlements DPDs are in place the following issues need to be considered in considering planning applications for residential development which are contrary to the saved policies of the Local Plan:
4 It is worth noting the approval of 1 or more strategic sites with the South Northants area (excluding the NIA) would probably mean the Council could achieve a 5 or more year supply of housing)
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 18 1. Does the Council have an up to date five year supply of housing land? 2. Does the proposal generally accord with the spatial strategy set out in the RSS (i.e.: urban orientated and limited in the villages)? 3. Would approving the proposal prejudice a plan led approach through the Local Development Framework and spatial strategy for West Northamptonshire? (i.e.: in terms of the scale of growth or location) 4. Does the proposal accord with national and regional planning policy guidance and the principles of sustainable development? (This includes: PPS1: Creating Sustainable communities, PPS3: Housing, PPG 13: Transport, PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and RSS8: Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands) 5. Does the proposal accord with other aspects of local, regional and national planning policy (e.g.: design, affordable housing and infrastructure requirements, and environmental aspects)?
4.13 It is stressed that even if sites meet the material considerations outlined above, they must also meet other requirements to be acceptable for development as set out in National and Regional and Local Planning Policy documents.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 19 SECTION FIVE
Backland Development
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 20 5. Backland Development
Conclusions:
There is significant pressure for backland development within the District. In the absence of a five year housing land supply this form of development is very difficult to discourage.
There are insufficient brownfield sites within the District in suitable locations to meet the current shortfall of housing land
5.1 The Council has also experienced an increase in proposals for backland developments, including developments of domestic gardens/ curtilage. The release of such land can have detrimental effects upon the surrounding residential environment and the character of the area and has proved controversial locally.
5.2 The justification for this form of development is set out in PPS 3 and the Council’s own supplementary planning Guidance on Backland Development.
5.3 In the absence of a five year housing land supply and the lack of previously developed land across the District to meet national and regional targets for the development of such land, it has been difficult to resist applications for this form of development. However, PPS3 states that there is no presumption that the whole of the curtilage should be developed, and if a Council can demonstrate that it has a rolling five year supply it will be able to prioritise what it considers to be truly brownfield sites. Baroness Morgan confirmed in a debate in the House of Lords (December 2007) that local authorities can ensure that in a local policy they exclude gardens from the brownfield allocation.
5.4 The Council will consider revising its policy approach on Backland Development following the enactment of the Planning Bill later this year. This will be influenced by the Council’s ability to demonstrate that if it has achieved a five year supply of housing land.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 21 SECTION SIX
Sustainable villages: Background
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 22 6. Sustainable villages: Background
Conclusions:
It is considered that the following services and facilities are ‘most important’ in determining the relative sustainability of a village
Population (over 1500) Primary School Secondary School Village Hall/Community Centre Public House Primary Health Post Office General Store/ Food Shop Readily accessible to larger service centre (one hourly bus or train service)
6.1 In deciding how the housing requirement could be met in a sustainable manner, the Council needs to have regard to the Government’s national planning guidance (outlined in Planning Policy Guidance & Statements – PPGs & PPSs) and the strategic policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The evidence considered is as follows:
Government policy guidance provided within PPS3 Government policy guidance provided within PPS7 Countryside Agency’s report: “the role of rural settlements as service centres” (2004). East of England Plan: The Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (2008) Appeal Inspector’s Report (Potterspury)
Government Policy Guidance
PPS 3: Housing
6.2 This Guidance promotes a more sustainable pattern of development with an emphasis on the re-use of previously developed land as well as the potential use of suitable greenfield sites.
6.3 The focus of new housing development should be in settlements where there are jobs and local services to reduce the dependence on car travel. It states that there should be adequate housing provision in rural
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 23 areas to meet the needs of local people and encourages Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to make sufficient land available either within or adjoining villages to enable local requirements to be met. Paragraph 38 of PPS3 states that villages will only be suitable locations for accommodating significant additional housing where it can be demonstrated that:
additional housing will enhance or maintain village services; growth is distributed in a way that supports informal social support networks, assists people to live near their work and benefit from key services, minimises environmental impact and, where possible, encourage environmental benefits.
PPS7: Sustainable development in rural areas
6.4 PPS7 states that the location of development away from larger urban areas should focus most new development near to local service centres where, employment, housing (including affordable), services and other facilities can be provided close together. This should help to ensure these facilities are served by public transport and provide improved opportunities for access by walking and cycling. Such service centres which might be country town, a single large village or a group of villages should be identified in the development plan as the preferred location for such development.
6.5 The statement also indicates planning authorities should set out in Local Development Documents policies for allowing some limited development in, or next to, rural settlements that are not designated as local service centres. This policy is in order to meet local business and community needs and to maintain vitality of such communities.
6.6 PPS7 indicates that people who live or work in rural areas should have reasonable access to a range of services and facilities. To achieve the above the statement indicates local planning authorities should make provision:
6.7 When considering sustainable development in a rural location, the PPS states;
“ planning authorities should adopt a positive approach to planning designed to improve the viability, accessibility or community value of existing services and facilities, e.g. village shops and post offices, rural petrol stations , village and church halls and rural public houses, that play an important role in sustaining village communities. Planning authorities should support the retention of these local facilities and should set out in LDD’s the criteria they will apply in considering planning applications that will result in the loss of important village services. (e.g. as a result of conversion to residential use).
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 24 PPG13: Transport
6.8 This provides guidance on locating development in rural areas. It suggests that new development should be concentrated in or near local service centres (e.g. suggested as being a market town, large village or group of villages) to help ensure it is served by public transport.
6.9 Having examined a range of national planning guidance a range of services and facilities has been identified. However specific emphasis is given to the importance of a number of key services and facilities in sustainable villages as follows:
Local Employment Opportunities Public Transport village shops post offices rural petrol stations village and church halls rural public houses
Regional Plan: East Midlands
6.10 This provides general Guidance based on an urban orientated development strategy with development in the rural areas aimed at meeting local needs. Policy 3 of the Plan requires that development in the rural areas:
Maintains the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities; Shortens journeys and facilitating access to jobs and services; Strengthens rural enterprise and linkages between settlements and their hinterlands; and Respects the quality of tranquillity where that is recognised in planning documents.
6.11 Policy 11 makes reference to the need to protect the quality of villages and their degradation from inappropriate growth
6.12 This Guidance is very general and whilst it seeks to direct growth to more sustainable settlements it provides little specific guidance as to what constitutes a service centre.
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East of England (May 2008)
6.13 More detailed Guidance can be found in the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy that was approved in 2008. Although this RSS does not cover South Northamptonshire it still provides valuable generic information as to what constitutes key facilities and services. The
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 25 Guidance sets out examples of those services that are considered necessary to a key service centre as follows:
6.14 Key service centres are large villages with a good level of services, which might include:
a primary school within the settlement and a secondary school within the settlement or easily accessible by public transport; primary health care facilities; a range of retail and service provision capable of meeting day-to- day needs, particularly for convenience shopping; local employment opportunities; and frequent public transport to higher order settlements. (Para 3.17)
Potterspury Appeal
6.15 At the recently determined planning appeal for housing development at Potterspury the Inspector considered the following to be important in terms of the sustainability of the village:
. Good public transport links to higher order centres . Size of the village (largest 20%) . Village Hall . Post Office . Shop . Primary School
Countryside Agency’s report: “the role of rural settlements as service centres” (2004)
6.17 The Countryside Agency commissioned the above report in 2004 in order to analyse rural settlement patterns and how they work i.e use of local facilities/services, travel to work distances, car use, and use/provision of local public transport. The Study was based on survey work undertaken with businesses and local residents in eight study towns and related rural hinterlands, the findings of the report related to the pattern of people’s activities in rural areas. In terms of villages the key findings were as follows:
Shopping:
6.18 Market towns are generally significant for local shopping, top-up shopping, other main food shopping and convenience shopping. For non-food shopping and access to other services urban centres and nearby large towns compete strongly.
Education and health:
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 26 6.19 The Report concludes that the usage of education and health facilities is relatively localised given the nature of public sector provision.
Banking, finance and professional services:
6.20 The usage of these facilities are generally localised and tend to be focussed in the market towns and not villages.
Leisure and socialising:
6.21 The role of market towns is more important for socialising than for other leisure activities. The same can be said for the role of villages.
Work:
6.22 This indicates that, to a significant extent, residents live very different ‘work’ and ‘service’ lives. Journeys to work being longer and far more dispersed, and especially so for village residents.
Access:
6.23 Car use and walking are the dominant forms of transport. The level of bus use is below 10%.
Businesses:
6.24 Local markets are important and provide the majority of work, but regional and national markets are also important. Local suppliers are important for basic services such as food, cleaning and professional services.
6.25 The Study concluded that village residents appear to be less functionally ‘attached’ to their locality than market town residents and therefore travel further and more widely to use services and to work. People in the villages are generally older, more affluent, remain resident there for longer, have held their jobs for longer, are more fully embedded in their local communities, are more likely to work from home, and use home delivery and internet services. Yet they also own and use more cars and make less use of local services or take local jobs. This may suggest that village residents primarily choose their residence for quality of life reasons and then connect up the other aspects of their lives to suit, using the car.
Conclusions
6.26 Based upon the above guidance, in terms of sustainability, the villages that will be considered as ‘most sustainable’ will be those that will support local services, such as schools, shops, provide local employment opportunity and a reduction in the need for car journeys.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 27 6.27 Based upon the conclusions of the Countryside Agency’s report more weight should be given to the importance of existing public service provision e.g. Schools and healthcare and social facilities e.g. pubs, village/church hall and less weight to the shops, the availability of public transport and local employment. This reflects the anticipated usage of these facilities at village level and apparent importance attached to them. This is not to say that the location of other facilities close to housing development does not contribute to a sustainable community. But the research suggests that people in villages, in the main, rely on the car for journeys for such services and travel by car to diverse locations to their place of work. Therefore these types of services and facilities are also included in assessing a village’s sustainability but are given a lower weighting.
6.28 The national regional and local advice concludes that the following are most important to making a village more ‘sustainable’.
. Good public transport links to higher order centres . Size of the village . Village Hall . Post Office . Shop . Primary School . secondary school within the settlement or easily accessible by public transport; . primary health care facilities; . a range of retail and service provision capable of meeting day-to- day needs, particularly for convenience shopping; . local employment opportunities
6.29 Based on the above evidence it is considered that the following services and facilities are ‘the ‘most important’ characteristics in determining the relative sustainability of a village
Population (over 1500) Primary School Secondary School Village Hall/Community Centre Public House Primary Health Post Office General Store/ Food Shop Readily accessible to larger service centre (one hourly bus or rail service)
6.30 These reflect the conclusions of the Inspector into the Potterspury appeal and the criteria used in the East of England RSS. The availability of local employment opportunities are considered only to be ‘desirable’ a stance that best reflects the conclusions of the
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 28 Countryside Agency Report. In addition a weighting was only given to those villages with the ‘best’ quality bus service again to reflect the assumption that car usage is high in many villages and that therefore only regular services to larger centres would be likely to be used as an alternative mode of transport.
6.31 There are other ‘important’ services and facilities within villages that play an important role in sustaining the vitality and viability of a rural community. It is important therefore to ensure that they are reflected in determining the relative sustainability of villages within the District so that the analysis is comprehensive. The Council undertakes periodic audits of village services and facilities through surveys of parish councils. This is published in the form of a ‘Village Directory’. The latest survey was completed in 2008.
6.32 For the purposes of this Policy the following services and facilities are considered to be ‘important.’ This includes those facilities that offer opportunities for local communities to reduce the need to travel. These are facilities with a physical presence in a given village.
Other shop (not mobile) Within 1000m of industrial estate Police Station/Office Pre-School Petrol Station Church/Chapel Public Library (not mobile)
6.33 The Village Directory also includes information on a range of other services or facilities within a given village. These include mobile services such as shops and libraries as well as recreational facilities and the availability of utilities.
Mobile Services (shops/ library) Play Area Sports Ground Mains Gas Supply Mains Drainage
6.34 Having established three sets of services and facilities that combine to determine the sustainability of a village it is critical that each group be given a weighting so as to differentiate between those considered to be ‘most important’ and ‘important’ and the other facilities. By applying a weighting it would be possible to highlight the differences between those settlements where a good range of services can be found and those that are clearly less sustainable. For the purposes of this Policy it is considered that a ‘most important service’ is twice as important as an ‘important’ one and an ‘important’ facility twice as important as the others. If an alternative scoring system is used 3 points for most
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 29 important, 2 for important and 1 for other) then this results in the same ranking of villages. Based on this principle, the actual numerical weighting that is applied to each category is therefore relatively unimportant as the final ranking of villages will be unaffected. However it is considered that there should be a clear differentiation between the three levels of services to reflect their relative importance in creating sustainable villages. For the purpose of this Policy the weighting has been set at 8 points for most important 4 for important and 2 for other services.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 30 SECTION SEVEN
South Northamptonshire Village Hierarchy
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 31 7. South Northamptonshire Village Hierarchy
Conclusions:
The ‘most sustainable villages’ in South Northamptonshire District are:
Bugbrooke, Middleton Cheney, and Roade
Those villages considered to be ‘Reasonably sustainable’ are:
Blisworth, Deanshanger, Greens Norton, Hackleton, Hartwell, Kings Sutton, Kislingbury, Nether Heyford, Old Stratford, Paulerspury, Potterspury, Silverstone and Yardley Hastings
7.1 The Council undertakes periodic surveys of parish councils to determine the availability of services and facilities within its villages. The most recent of these was carried out in 2008. This information has enabled the Council to consider the sustainability of each settlement and rank them using some basic sustainability criteria; access to schools, shops, journey to work bus, doctors. From this work on the basis of these sustainability criteria certain villages are more sustainable and therefore more capable of accommodating additional development.
7.2 For the purposes of this policy the most sustainable settlements have been identified through a standard assessment process. This involved taking those ‘most important’, ‘important and ’other’ services and facilities identified in Section 6 of this Report that need to be available within a settlement in order that the residents of the village have the opportunity to meet their daily needs without having to travel by private car. Every village designated as either a Limited Development or Restricted Infill Village in the Local Plan was assessed.
7.3 It has also been acknowledged that there are villages closely related to existing service centres that can contribute to the sustainability of these local service centres. To this end a ‘most important weighting has been given to those settlements with good public transport access to larger service centres such as Brackley, Towcester, Milton Keynes, Banbury and Northampton
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 32 7.4 Settlements identified as Restraint villages in the Local Plan that have no or very limited services and facilities are not included in the assessment as they are considered to be the least sustainable. These are Alderton, Courteenhall, Castle Ashby, Hulcote, Passenham and Thenford,
7.5 In accordance with the services and facilities identified in Section 6 of this Report a weighting of 8 points was given for each of the a ‘most important services or facilities within a given village, 4 points to ‘important and 2 points for ‘other’ services and facilities. The full assessment is in Appendix 1 to this Report and summary results are shown in Tables 3 and 4 below.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 33 Table 3: Sustainability of settlements By Ranking Roade 110 Denton 58 Astcote 24 Middleton Cheney 106 Helmdon 56 Thorpe Mandeville 24 Bugbrooke 94 Milton Malsor 54 Moreton Pinkney 22 Deanshanger 90 Evenley 50 Whitfield 22 Silverstone 90 Farthinghoe 48 Litchborough 20 Blisworth 86 Greatworth 48 Maidford 20 Greens Norton 78 Chacombe 46 Horton 18 Kings Sutton 78 Sulgrave 46 Piddington 18 Nether Heyford 78 Cosgrove 44 Quinton 18 Hartwell 74 Whittlebury 44 Adstone 16 Yardley Hastings 74 Aynho 42 Cold Higham 16 Hackleton 70 Rothersthorpe 42 Eastcote 16 Kislingbury 70 Stoke Bruerne 42 Hinton in the Hedges 16 Old Stratford 70 Culworth 46 Weston 16 Potterspury 70 Gayton 38 Bradden 14 Paulerspury 68 Tiffield 38 Lower Boddington 12 Cogenhoe 66 Wappenham 38 Pury End 12 Yardley Gobion 66 Grafton Regis 34 Slapton 12 Brafield 64 Pattishall 32 Halse 10 Charlton 62 Shutlanger 32 Whiston 10 Harpole 62 Weedon Lois 32 Caldecote 8 Blakesley 60 Ashton 30 Grimscote 8 Little Houghton 60 Abthorpe 28 Crowfield & Pimlico 4 Syresham 60 Marston St Lawrence 28 Overthorpe 4 Upper Boddington 60 Wicken 28 Woodend 2 Chipping Warden 58 Aston-Le-Walls 26 Croughton 58 Eydon 26
Table 4: Sustainability of settlements
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 34 By Alphabetical Order Abthorpe 28 Gayton 38 Piddington 18 Adstone 16 Grafton Regis 34 Potterspury 70 Ashton 30 Greatworth 48 Pury End 12 Astcote 24 Greens Norton 78 Quinton 18 Aston-Le-Walls 26 Grimscote 8 Roade 110 Aynho 42 Hackleton 70 Rothersthorpe 42 Blakesley 60 Halse 10 Shutlanger 32 Blisworth 86 Harpole 62 Silverstone 90 Bradden 14 Hartwell 74 Slapton 12 Brafield 64 Helmdon 56 Stoke Bruerne 42 Bugbrooke 94 Hinton in the Hedges 16 Sulgrave 46 Caldecote 8 Horton 18 Syresham 60 Chacombe 46 Kings Sutton 78 Thorpe Mandeville 24 Charlton 62 Kislingbury 70 Tiffield 38 Chipping Warden 58 Litchborough 20 Upper Boddington 60 Cogenhoe 66 Little Houghton 60 Wappenham 38 Cold Higham 16 Lower Boddington 12 Weedon Lois 32 Cosgrove 44 Maidford 20 Weston 16 Croughton 58 Marston St Lawrence 28 Whiston 10 Crowfield & Pimlico 4 Middleton Cheney 106 Whitfield 22 Culworth 46 Milton Malsor 54 Whittlebury 44 Deanshanger 90 Moreton Pinkney 22 Wicken 28 Denton 58 Nether Heyford 78 Woodend 2 Eastcote 16 Old Stratford 70 Yardley Gobion 66 Evenley 50 Overthorpe 4 Yardley Hastings 74 Eydon 26 Pattishall 32 Farthinghoe 48 Paulerspury 68
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 35 7.6 This assessment is considered to be robust as those villages with the highest score are the larger villages across the District with the widest range of facilities including those villages that historically have experienced the greatest level of new housing development and those identified as Local Development Villages in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan. The top 5 ranked villages are amongst the top 8 in terms of levels of new housing development experienced since the Local Plan was adopted in 1997 and the top 10 are amongst the top 13. The three exceptions are Blisworth, Paulerspury and Yardley Hastings.
7.7 As well an overall ranking it is also important to focus development in those villages that contain the highest concentration of ‘most important services. Such an approach would be in line with both national and Regional Guidance that seeks to direct growth to more sustainable locations. Three villages in the District have all 9 essential services. They are also the most highly ranked villages. These are therefore considered to be the ‘most sustainable’ settlements.
7.8 A further 13 villages have 6 or more of the ‘most important’ services and are also ranked directly below the three settlements above identified above as ‘most sustainable’. Yardley Gobion also has 6 of the ‘most important’ services but has less of the ‘important’ ones and so is not considered appropriate for inclusion in this Policy. This ‘cut off’ point has been chosen as it represents a relatively high level of sustainability that conforms with national, regional and local planning policies of generally restricting development in the rural areas. Any development proposals considered under this Policy will be carefully considered to ensure that they are sympathetically designed and located in order to reduce their impact. In addition, by limiting the number of villages affected by this Policy the Council is also supporting its own objective to create an effective policy that recognises the unique character of the District which considers the sustainability of villages in South Northamptonshire5. These villages are considered to be ‘reasonably sustainable’.
7.9 The use of this Interim Policy is intended to be short term. It will be replaced by the emerging Joint Core Strategy or when it becomes clear that the Council has achieved at least a robust five year supply of housing land Therefore it would be inappropriate to relax the existing policy approach in too many villages across the District. It is considered that this approach represents a balance between the need to allow more development in the rural areas in the short term and the objective of protecting the unique and attractive rural character of the District. The results are shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Sustainable Villages
5 Performance Plan 2008- 2009
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 36 Settlement Score Number of ‘Most Important’ Services Most Sustainable Villages Roade 110 9 Middleton Cheney 106 9 Bugbrooke 94 9 Reasonably Sustainable Villages Deanshanger 90 8 Silverstone 90 8 Blisworth 86 8 Greens Norton 78 7 Kings Sutton 78 7 Nether Heyford 78 7 Hartwell 74 6 Yardley Hastings 74 6 Hackleton 70 6 Kislingbury 70 6 Old Stratford 70 6 Potterspury 70 6 Paulerspury 68 6
7.10 Having determined which villages are considered to be the most and reasonably ‘sustainable’ the Policy now needs to consider how best to deliver appropriate levels of development to help meet the current shortfall in housing land. There are a number of factors that the Council believes are necessary and that will be applied to its consideration of any sites brought forward under this Policy. These are as follows:
It should be demonstrated that there are no brownfield sites available, suitable and achievable within or adjoining the village confines (if the proposal is on a Greenfield site)
The proposal is well related to the existing settlement form in terms of the consolidation of an existing village confine boundary or formation of a sound alternative boundary to the village that reflects and respects natural or other long term features
The proposal should be delivered to contribute to meeting the short term shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply. This is likely to be through a legal agreement.
. The proposal should assist in the provision of appropriate scale and type of affordable housing to meet any identified local need.
. Appropriate evidence should be provided on environmental and community impacts. Where appropriate financial contributions will
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 37 be required to alleviate any identified infrastructure deficiencies generated by the proposed development. Required contributions could be in the form of physical works or a financial contribution or may take the form of conditions that may be imposed to help mitigate adverse impacts.
A travel plan will be required to be submitted alongside planning applications which are likely to have significant transport implications, as advised by Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (DETR, 2001), paragraphs 87-91.
. In all cases planning permission will also be subject to all relevant policies of the “saved” adopted South Northamptonshire local plan and appropriate national, regional and Northamptonshire County Structure Plan policies
7.11 In those villages listed in Table 5 the village Confines would still exist but would no longer be considered to be the limit to development as they currently are. Where a developer can show a site relates well to a village they can provide or contribute towards the necessary infrastructure and can be delivered within a 5 year period it would mean applications in these areas could be approved. In all the other villages not listed in Table 5 the existing Saved Policies in the Local Plan including existing village confines remain in force.
Changes of use
7.12 In order to ensure the continued improvement in the supply of housing in suitable locations the Council will resist applications that would result in the net loss of existing dwellings through a change of use unless there is a proven need for the proposed use that would improve the availability of local services and facilities and improve sustainability.
The Delivery of Housing
7.13 One of the main objectives of PPS 3 is to secure the delivery of housing. One of the main aims of this Policy is to increase the supply of housing. It will therefore be important that it is not then used by prospective developers to secure permission and then for that consent not to be implemented until the economic climate improves.
7.14 Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 allows the Council to enter into a legal agreement that:
. restricts development or use of the land in any specified way;
and/or
. requires land to be used in any specified way
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 38 7.15 The Council will condition an approval to commence within 2 years to maximise the likelihood of delivery of housing within the District. If the application is outline then any approval will be 1 + 1 – i.e. one year for submission of reserved matters and one year for commencement once reserved matters were approved After two years it is anticipated that the Joint Core Strategy will be so advanced as to be a material consideration in the determination of any fresh applications that may be submitted for developments that had not commenced.
7.16 The primary purpose of this Policy is to assist in the development of housing on suitable sites and in appropriate locations to meet an identified shortfall in housing provision. It is therefore important to ensure that once approved planning permissions are implemented and not ‘land banked’. The Council will therefore seek to avoid ‘land banking of permitted sites’ and will secure this through a planning agreement.
7.17 There are a number of possible tools available to the Council that could ensure the deliverability of a site. These will be considered on a site by site basis.
The Condition requiring a development to be started within a set time period (paragraph 7.14) may also provide for the ‘balance’ of the consent to expire if reserved matters/ stages of construction have not been reached by a particular stage
An allowance may be made for a temporary relaxation or deferral of standards / contributions (affordable housing/ education/ health/ open space contributions/ sustainability standards etc.) with the requirement ‘bouncing back’ to policy compliant standards after a set time period if development has not been completed. This ‘bounce back’ could be introduced as a stepped process. This will require an open book process on a phase by phase or annual basis to establish whether any deferred benefits can be viably paid.
7.18 Given the relatively wide range of sizes of villages considered to be ‘sustainable’ in Table 5 it is considered appropriate to provide an indicative target of the scale of development that would be considered appropriate for each village. For those villages considered most sustainable this is set at 10% of the existing number of dwellings to be developed on sites outside but adjoining the existing confines for a particular village. A 5% figure is applied to those villages which are considered to be reasonably sustainable. These percentages have been chosen as the total scale of development that could be delivered would result in the Council achieving in excess of a five year supply of housing land and therefore allows for some flexibility as to those sites that may come forward. It is considered to be a fair and appropriate response that allows the burden to be shared in an equitable way and one that is consistent with national and regional policy. This is shown in Table 6.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 39 Table 6: Most Sustainable Settlements Settlement Score 10% Dwellings Roade 110 99 Middleton Cheney 106 153 Bugbrooke 94 111 Totals 363 Reasonably Sustainable settlements Settlement Score 5% Dwellings Deanshanger 90 74 Silverstone 90 446 Blisworth 86 40 Kings Sutton 78 49 Nether Heyford 78 34 Greens Norton 78 34 Hartwell 74 36 Yardley Hastings 74 17 Old Stratford 70 43 Hackleton 70 21 Potterspury 70 31 Kislingbury 70 26 Paulerspury 68 15 Totals 4647
7.19 These figures:
Are in addition to suitable development sites that come forward within the existing confines of a particular village; Are indicative and do not represent a minimum or maximum level of new development that may be considered appropriate at a particular village; Represent a level of development that is likely to be appropriate to a particular village given its size and existing range of facilities.
7.20 A proposal that exceeds the scale of development set out in this Policy may be considered favourably if it can be demonstrated:
it would result in environmental improvements on the site including for example the re-use of previously developed land or best practice in density and design issues; or the proposal is required to support the retention of or improvement to essential local services that may be under threat (in particular the local primary school or primary health services) and
6 Since April 1st 2009 planning permission has been granted for 95 dwellings on two sites outside but adjoining the village confines of Silverstone. This exceeds the 5% indicative target. Any future applications for development in Silverstone will therefore be required to meet the additional criteria as set out in paragraph 7.20 of this Report. 7 As a consequence of the 95 dwellings approved at Silverstone this total is 515 dwellings.
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 40 meaningful discussions have taken place with the appropriate parish council at the pre-application stage
7.21 It is important that the scale of development proposed is in accordance with national and regional policy. Policy MKSM SRS Northamptonshire 1 indicates that development in the rural areas should be limited with the emphasis on meeting local needs and the retention of basic services and facilities. There is evidence that the scale of development that is being promoted through the emerging Joint Core Strategy and through the consultation on this Policy, if developed could result in an unacceptable scale of development for a particular village that would be contrary to the principles of the Regional Plan. Developments of a scale significantly over the indicative targets set out in this Policy would be considered contrary to the Regional Plan as they would be unlikely to meet local needs.
7.22 The purpose of this Policy is to address a short term shortfall in the housing supply with appropriate development on suitable sites in appropriate settlements. Many villages have very limited local services and are dependent on larger service centres, market towns and main urban areas for everyday needs. Careful examination of how a particular village or groups of villages function will be undertaken as part of the work on the emerging Joint Core Strategy to determine the longer term strategy for each village within the District. The Local Development Framework is the most appropriate vehicle to consider larger scale housing or mixed use developments in the rural areas as part of the overall development strategy for the District.
7.23 This approach is considered to be consistent with the East Midlands Regional Plan that seeks to provide appropriate scale of development in sustainable locations. In particular paragraph 3.1.13 of the Plan that states ‘providing appropriate levels of new housing in suitable locations is key to achieving the overall aim of creating sustainable rural communities. Whilst the focus should be on new housing to meet local needs, particularly by providing affordable housing, most rural areas will also require some market housing if they are to prosper. New homes must be of a high quality which enhances the character and biodiversity of rural areas whilst respecting the regions particular rural features’.
THE POLICY
PROPOSALS FOR HOUSING ON SITES OUTSIDE BUT ADJOINING THE VILLAGE CONFINES OF THOSE VILLAGES THAT ARE CONSIDERED “MOST SUSTAINABLE” OR “REASONABLY SUSTAINABLE” AS IDENTIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED WHERE:
IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE NO SUITABLE AND DELIVERABLE BROWNFIELD SITES
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 41 AVAILABLE WITHIN OR ADJOINING THE VILLAGE CONFINES; AND
THE SUITABILITY OF ANY PROPOSED EXTENSION TO EXISTING SETTLEMENT FORM IN TERMS OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF AN EXISTING VILLAGE CONFINE BOUNDARY OR FORMATION OF A SOUND ALTERNATIVE BOUNDARY THAT REFLECTS AND RESPECTS NATURAL OR OTHER LONG TERM FEATURES CAN BE DEMONSTRATED AND
THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY WITH OTHER SITES GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION SINCE APRIL 1ST 2009 DOES NOT EXCEED THE PERCENTAGE OF THE EXISTING NUMBER OF DWELLINGS WITHIN THAT VILLAGE, AS STATED IN TABLE 6 OF THIS POLICY STATEMENT EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PROPOSAL:
WOULD RESULT IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE INCLUDING FOR EXAMPLE THE RE-USE OF PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND AND BEST PRACTICE IN DENSITY AND DESIGN ISSUES; OR
IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO ESSENTIAL LOCAL SERVICES THAT MAY BE UNDER THREAT (IN PARTICULAR THE LOCAL PRIMARY SCHOOL OR PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES) AND
HAS BEEN FORMULATED WITH MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPROPRIATE PARISH COUNCIL AT THE PRE- APPLICATION STAGE
DEVELOPERS WILL BE EXPECTED TO
JUSTIFY THEIR SITE SELECTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE CRITERIA AND OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
DEMONSTRATE HOW THEIR PROPOSALS CAN BE DELIVERED TO CONTRIBUTE TO MEETING THE SHORT TERM SHORTFALL IN THE 5 YEAR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY
ON SITES OF 15 OR MORE DWELLINGS UP TO 40% AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE REQUIRED WHERE THERE IS AN IDENTIFIED LOCAL NEED. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL ONLY BE REDUCED WHERE IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY UNVIABLE
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 42 DEVELOPERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ALLIEVIATE ANY IDENTIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS WILL EITHER BE IN THE FORM OF PHYSICAL WORKS OR A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION. CONDITIONS MAY ALSO BE IMPOSED TO HELP MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
IN ALL CASES PLANNING APPLICATIONS WILL ALSO BE SUBJECT TO ALL RELEVANT POLICIES OF THE “SAVED” ADOPTED SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE LOCAL PLAN AND APPROPRIATE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICIES
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 43 SECTION EIGHT
Affordable Housing
Conclusions:
The Potterspury appeal decision is likely to have given landowners of sites outside but adjoining village confines additional ‘hope value’ that a site could now receive 8 Affordable Housing planning permission for market housing thereby undermining the current ‘exceptions’ policy for affordable housing
The principle of allowing affordable housing is accepted in Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 44 any village where there is an identified need 8.1 There are potentially significant implications of the appeal decision at Potterspury for the provision of affordable housing on exception sites across South Northamptonshire. The decision is likely to have given landowners of sites outside but adjoining village confines additional ‘hope value’ that a site could now receive planning permission. A key strength of the current ‘exceptions’ policy is that a site outside a village confine boundary would be considered unacceptable in principle for development with market housing. By adopting this policy approach it is likely that the supply of potential exceptions sites for affordable housing will be significantly reduced. Therefore it is important that this policy note addresses this issue.
8.2 Work is currently underway (Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document) that will re-assess the thresholds and percentage requirement for affordable Housing across West Northamptonshire. Once completed this will establish the parameters against which planning applications will be assessed and this will then replace the thresholds set in the current Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document and that are mirrored in this Document. At this stage it would be unreasonable for the Council to apply different requirements for the provision of affordable housing in different parts of the District. Therefore the existing requirements of seeking a 40% contribution from developments of 15 or more dwellings on sites will be applied to sites coming forward under this Policy.
8.3 Exceptions to this requirement may be made where this requirement would result in the site development becoming unviable. This would need to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council through a transparent process.
8.4 The current ‘Exceptions’ Policy for affordable as set out in the current Local Plan remains in force (Policy H8).. This supports the Council’s key objective of encouraging the growth of affordable housing across the District rather than all in one place8.
8 Performance Plan 2008- 2009
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 45 Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 46 APPENDIX ONE
Village Sustainability Matrix
Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 47 Interim Rural Policy Housing JulyInterim 2009 Crowfield&Pimlico Chipping Warden Chipping Aston-Le-Walls Greens Norton Greens Grafton RegisGrafton Deanshanger Cold HighamCold Farthinghoe Greatworth Bugbrooke Croughton Chacombe Cogenhoe Caldecote Blakesley Cosgrove Blisworth Abthorpe Culworth Eastcote Charlton Bradden Adstone Evenley Brafield Astcote Gayton Denton Ashton Aynho Eydon Score VILLAGE NAME 1018 1288 2924 1846 1619 3756 829 147 532 435 439 592 319 779 503 132 525 554 498 666 653 184 522 659 334 462 394 297
80 90 50 Population (2008) 1465 1105 190 423 267 623 254 223 262 307 795 216 336 137 184 151 134 665 340 213 178 198 264 127 336 28 42 42 36 63 40
Dwellings (2008)
Most Important Services and Facilities 8 8 8 8 8 Population (over 1500) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Primary School 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Village Hall/Community Centre 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Public House 8 8 8 Secondary School 8 8 8 8 8 Primary Health Care 48 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Post Office 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
General Store/ Food Shop
Readily accessible to service 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 centre by hourly public transport (Bus or Train) 56 32 24 24 32 16 32 40 64 32 32 32 40 32 40 32 72 40 64 40 24 16 16 16 72 8 0 8 0 8 8 8 Sub-Total Score (max 72)
Important Services and Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Other shop (Not mobile) 4 4 Petrol Station 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Church/Chapel 4 4 4 4 4 4
Local Employment opportunities (10 units or more) [2] 4 Police Station/Office 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pre-School 4 4 Public Library (not mobile) 12 16 16 16 16 12 12 16 12 12 28 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 8 8 0 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 4 8 Sub Total (28)
Other Services and Facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mobile Services (shops/ library) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mains Gas Supply
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mains Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Play Area 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sports Pitch 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 6 8 6 4 6 4 8 4 6 4 8 2 8 6 8 4 4 Sub- total (10) 110 78 48 34 38 48 26 50 16 58 90 46 58 44 16 66 58 62 46 94 64 14 86 60 42 26 24 30 16 28 4 8 Total Interim Rural Policy Housing JulyInterim 2009 Marston St LawrenceSt Marston Hinton in Hedgesthe Hinton LowerBoddington Middleton Cheney Middleton Moreton Moreton Pinkney Little Little Houghton Nether Nether Heyford Rothersthorpe Stoke Stoke Bruerne MiltonMalsor Litchborough Kings Sutton Kings OldStratford Paulerspury Potterspury Kislingbury Silverstone Overthorpe Shutlanger Piddington Grimscote Hackleton Pattishall PuryEnd Helmdon Maidford Hartwell Quinton Harpole Slapton Horton Roade Halse VILLAGE NAME 2040 1539 3850 1241 2161 1879 1554 2190 2294 1436 400 277 517 209 225 650 752 781 247 391 753 209 186 280 379 302 418 189 955 981 140
91 70 Population (2008) 1526 309 312 862 671 164 318 108 200 122 515 972 163 385 720 648 418 173 865 118 199 989 100 627 226 32 37 81 98 89 83 78 68
Dwellings (2008)
Most Important Services and Facilities 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Population (over 1500) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Primary School 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Village Hall/Community Centre 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Public House 8 8 Secondary School 8 8 8 8 8 Primary Health Care 49 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Post Office 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
General Store/ Food Shop
Readily accessible to service 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 centre by hourly public transport (Bus or Train) 24 64 16 24 72 48 48 16 48 56 32 72 16 40 48 56 40 48 40 48 0 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 Sub-Total Score (max 72)
Important Services and Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Other shop (Not mobile) 4 4 4 4 Petrol Station 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Church/Chapel 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Local Employment opportunities (10 units or more) [2] 4 Police Station/Office 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pre-School 4 4 Public Library (not mobile) 12 12 12 16 12 28 12 12 12 24 12 12 12 16 12 12 8 8 4 0 4 8 0 8 4 8 0 8 4 4 8 8 4 Sub Total (28)
Other Services and Facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mobile Services (shops/ library) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mains Gas Supply
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mains Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Play Area 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sports Pitch 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 4 8 6 6 4 6 8 8 4 6 8 4 4 8 4 6 4 8 2 4 Sub- total (10) 110 106 42 12 90 32 42 18 12 70 18 68 32 70 78 22 54 28 20 12 60 20 70 78 18 16 56 74 62 10 70 4 8 Total Interim Rural Policy Housing JulyInterim 2009 Silverstone, End West Silverstone, Farm, Farm,Stoke Home Bruerne, Farm,Whittlebury Home Farthinghoe, Farm,Hartwell,Chapel LitchboroughTradingEstate, Barnstone Park, Litchborough,Business Farm,MiddletonBurgess Cheney, Plainswood Business NewPark, roade, Farm, Rookery Silverstone, Circuit,Silverstone park,[2]Pury PaulerspuryBusiness Hill JBJ Park,Business Prospect Court, Blisworth, AppletreeIndustrial Estate, Chipping Roe Warden, Farm,Cogenhoe, Park Works, End GreenacresCroughton, Farm,Farthinghoe, Glebe Farm, [1]Readily centreaccessibleto service publicby transport hourly (ie: settlement theall with important most facilities) Upper Boddington Upper Mandeville Thorpe YardleyHastings YardleyGobion Weedon Lois Weedon Wappenham Whittlebury Syresham Woodend Whitfield Sulgrave Whiston Weston Wicken Tiffield
VILLAGE NAME 1374 812 201 321 601 237 120 230 271 428 387 199 717 425
52 Population (2008) 347 525 142 230 146 127 189 149 367 183 27 77 97 49 76
Dwellings (2008)
M ost Important Services and Facilities
Population (over 1500) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Primary School 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Village Hall/Community Centre 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Public House
Secondary School
Primary Health Care 50 8 8 8 8 8 8 Post Office 8 8 8 8 8 8
General Store/ Food Shop
Readily accessible to service 8 8 c entre by hourly public transport (Bus or Train) 48 48 16 24 16 16 24 40 24 16 40 32 0 0 8 Sub-Total Score (max 72)
Im po rta nt Services and Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 Other shop (Not mobile) 4 Petrol Station 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Church/Chapel 4 4
Local Employment opportunities (10 units or more) [2]
Police Station/Office 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pre-School
Public Library (not mobile) 16 12 12 12 8 0 4 4 8 4 8 8 4 4 8 Sub Total (28)
Other Services and Facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mobile Services (shops/ library) 2 2 2 2 Mains Gas Supply 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mains Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Play Area 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sports Pitch 10 10 10 2 8 8 2 2 4 8 6 8 4 8 6 Sub- total (10) 74 66 28 44 22 10 16 32 38 60 38 24 60 46 2 Total Interim Rural Housing Policy July 2009 51