The Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough: Background Paper

Appendix 3

Settlement Hierarchy

Date: October 2015

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

1. Introduction

1.1 The settlement hierarchy is a key part of the new local plan evidence base. The new local plan will be formed of two parts. Part 1 of the new local plan comprises the emerging Joint Core Strategy (JCS) that includes high level strategic policies. The Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough (PBW) will form Part 2 of the new local plan and will provide more locally specific policies.

1.2 The aim of this background paper is to assess whether there is any requirement for the PBW to consider the inclusion of specific detailed policy on settlement hierarchy, further to that provided in the policies of the emerging JCS.

1.3 A settlement hierarchy is a way of categorising the boroughs settlements to recognise their different roles. A hierarchy groups together the settlements that have similar characteristics. At the top of the hierarchy are the larger settlements that fulfil most functions, have the best infrastructure (facilities and services) and are most easy to get to by sustainable forms of travel. The smaller settlements, with least functions, infrastructure and transport links, are nearer the bottom of the hierarchy. This helps us decide how to sustainably distribute development between settlements.

1.4 In order to fulfil the aim of this paper the following steps will be completed;

• Examination of local and national policy • Desk top examination of settlements in the borough • Collection of evidence through a parish council questionnaire and site visits • Review of responses to the Issues and Options Consultation • Identification and analysis of available options • Recommendations

2. Current Planning Policy Position

2.1. There are a number of existing plans and frameworks that should be considered when developing the scope of any settlement hierarchy for the borough.

2.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) forms the foundation upon which all planning policies are developed. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was introduced in March 2014 and provides detail on how the NPPF should be implemented.

2.3. The current adopted development plan for the borough comprises the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan, adopted in 1999 (alteration adopted 2004), and the more recent policies of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) 2008. Together, these policies describe the settlement hierarchy in the borough currently; including specific controls that are in place to both guide and restrict development.

2.4. The Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document (SSPDPD) was proposed to complement the CSS and update locally specific policy in the borough. The SSPDPD was developed up to preferred options stage in 2010. It was then withdrawn due to the timing of the NPPF and the commencement of work on the emerging JCS. At the same time the work that underpinned the SSPDPD, including its analysis of the sustainability of settlements, provides relevant background to the development of a future hierarchy for the borough. 2

2.5. It is important to ensure that any future settlement hierarchy for the borough does not stifle the ability of local people to develop a neighbourhood plan that is appropriate for their parish or village.

2.6. The existing settlement hierarchy situation described in the adopted local plan, along with the background detail provided by the SSPDPD, will serve as the start point for the assessment within this paper. However, recommended outcomes in this paper will be in line with the strategic policies of the emerging JCS which, in turn, will be NPPF compliant.

National policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)

2.7. The government published the NPPF on 27 March 2012, replacing most previous national planning policy. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF defines sustainable development as having three dimensions; those being economic, social and environmental dimensions.

2.8. One of the key principles of national policy is an understanding of the different roles and character of different areas. This enables the borough council to direct growth to those areas that are most sustainable in terms of the services and facilities they offer, or can be made more sustainable through additional growth, and the ease of getting to them. The NPPF additionally identifies that housing in particular should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a nearby village.

2.9. The NPPG advises that 'all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas – and so blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing other settlements from expanding should be avoided unless their use can be supported by robust evidence'.

Adopted local plan policy

Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan 1999

2.10. The adopted Local Plan comprises a number of policies saved under a direction by the Secretary of State in September 2007 that remain consistent with the NPPF.

2.11. Wellingborough town has consistently been identified as being at the top of the borough’s settlement hierarchy, including upon adoption of the 1999 Plan.

2.12. In terms of the rural area Policy G4 (Villages), Policy G5 (Restraint Villages), Policy G6 (Open Countryside) and Policy H4 (Restraint Villages and Open Countryside) all seek to set out a hierarchy of villages and guidelines on how and where new development will be permitted.

2.13. Policy G4 ‘Villages’ identifies two tiers of settlements in the rural area that are expected to accommodate managed levels of growth within the confines of the settlement. The tiers identified comprise the following:

Limited development villages:

• Earls Barton • Finedon • Wollaston

Restricted infill villages:

• Bozeat • Isham • Ecton • Little Harrowden • Great Doddington • Little Irchester • Great Harrowden • Mears Ashby • Grendon • Orlingbury • Hardwick • Sywell, excluding the Old Village • Irchester • Wilby

2.6 Formerly, Policies H2 and H3 of the Local Plan then went on to clarify the distinction between limited development villages and restricted infill villages. These policies, however, were not saved and have since been deleted. In effect, the policies listed as limited development villages and restricted infill villages currently comprise a single tier in the existing hierarchy. To ensure that the extent of acceptable and sustainable growth in these villages is more clearly defined, they are all subject to a settlement boundary (village policy line) identified on their respective inset map.

2.7 Policy G5 ‘Restraint Villages’ then effectively identifies the lowest tier of settlements in the borough’s hierarchy, comprising the following villages:

• Easton Maudit; • Strixton; and • Sywell Old Village

2.8 The Local Plan describes these villages as being ‘small settlements of considerable character’, justifying their differentiation from the villages identified in Policy G4. It goes on to state that ‘most development will not normally be acceptable’ in these villages and that ‘because of the close visual relationship of these villages to the surrounding countryside, village policy lines are inappropriate’.

2.9 These villages are therefore not subject to an identified settlement boundary as part of the Local Plan and are considered as open countryside along with other small groups of dwellings across the borough, known as ‘settlements of dispersed form’. These currently include Furnace Lane cottages, Lower End Grendon, Orlingbury Road Isham, and Hill Top Little Harrowden.

2.10 Beyond the hierarchy set out by Policies G4 and G5, the rest of the rural area is to be treated as open countryside. Development in the open countryside is currently severely restrained, with the exceptions set out in Policy G6. Policy H4 ‘Restraint Villages and the Open Countryside’ further comprises the borough’s policy on the types of development that may come forward in either location.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008

2.11 In 2008 the CSS sought to clarify and in some ways redefine and update the settlement hierarchy applicable to the borough. Table 1 of the CSS reaffirms the principle role that Wellingborough town plays in the borough as the focus for growth and investment, defining it as a ‘Growth Town’. The strategy then identifies three further tiers of settlements as follows:

• Smaller towns (a list of defined more urban towns providing secondary focal points for growth); • Rural service centres (a list of larger rural settlements expected to provide the main focal point for infrastructure and development in the rural area); and • Rural areas (all other villages who are to be dependent on the other larger settlements of the Plan area to fulfil their servicing and housing needs)

2.12 Apart from Wellingborough town, all of the other settlements within the borough are identified as Rural Areas, where the scale of development is led by locally identified need.

Withdrawn local plan policy

Wellingborough Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document – Preferred Options 2010

2.13 The CSS gave the borough council the option to further classify a settlement hierarchy for villages at the local level. In 2010 the borough council produced the Wellingborough SSPDPD which defined a more detailed hierarchy. This was based on the hierarchy defined in the Saved Local Plan but with some minor alterations.

2.14 The three tiers of village classification were essentially kept the same. Limited Service Role villages were identified as Earls Barton, Finedon, and Wollaston, but now also included Irchester. Restricted Infill Villages were renamed as Limited Infill Villages and included the same villages as previously minus Irchester and Hardwick. Hardwick was then defined as a Restraint Village along with Easton Maudit, Strixton and Sywell Old Village due to their strong sense of identity, character, and form, and conservation consideration.

2.15 This document was however only taken to preferred option stage and never formally adopted by the council. Its findings and initial recommendations remain relevant, and are considered to present an appropriately up-to-date understanding of the potential role each of the borough’s villages may play in meeting its development needs.

2.16 A review of the SSPDPD hierarchy will effectively form the start point against which a JCS and NPPF compliant hierarchy will be prepared. Appendix A sets out a summary table of the settlement hierarchies outlined in each plan.

Neighbourhood plans

2.17 Together, the emerging JCS and PBW will set the framework for the content of any emerging or future neighbourhood plans. This factor will need to be considered when developing any settlement hierarchy for the borough as it is important that any restraints do not stifle the ability of local communities to identify and deliver against their local development needs through neighbourhood planning.

2.18 The parishes of Earls Barton, Wollaston and Irchester are already well advanced in delivering neighbourhood plans within the borough. Each plan is demonstrably in line with the draft strategic policies of the JCS.

3 Emerging Joint Core Strategy Context

3.1 As clarified above, the PBW comprises part 2 of the emerging local plan for the borough, with the JCS comprising part 1. There is therefore a requirement for the PBW to remain consistent with the aspiration of the JCS.

3.2 The JCS sets out the spatial strategy for the area which defines the roles that various settlements will play in building a more sustainable and self-reliant North Northamptonshire. The general approach is to meet needs as locally as possible, recognising that facilities serving more than one settlement should be in the most sustainable location.

3.3 During the production of the JCS a number of options were considered when developing the strategic tiers of the settlement hierarchy for North Northamptonshire. Four options in total were assessed by the Joint Committee in July 2012 including the retention of the existing CSS approach (Approach 1). They were investigated fully within the background paper entitled ‘Developing a settlement hierarchy for the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy’ (LINK), also published in July 2012. The four options considered within that paper, along with the related pros and cons, are summarised in the table below:

Table: Settlement Hierarchy options considered by the JCS

Approach Description Key advantages Key disadvantages 1 Retention of the current Minimal quantities of work are This approach may be seen as Core Strategy approach required. This approach would a “missed opportunity”. The but expansion to define ensure continuity from the current Core Strategy a more comprehensive current sound spatial strategy settlement hierarchy is largely settlement hierarchy for and most existing evidence taken from the soon to be North Northamptonshire base documentation has been abolished Regional Plan and (Growth Towns, Smaller undertaken on the basis of this this approach would not take Towns, Rural Service approach. advantage of key provisions Centres, Local Service within the Localism Act. Centres, Medium Sized Villages, Restraint Villages) 2 Full revision to the This approach would enable This approach has been found current Core Strategy the Core Strategy review to to be overly prescriptive. settlement hierarchy but demonstrate that it is taking Categories such as the current expansion to define advantage of the new flexibility “Restraint Villages” could comprehensive provided by the Localism Act. effectively preclude community settlement hierarchy However, it would still provide or neighbourhood planning (Growth Towns, Market continuity by prescribing a being undertaken at the Towns, Complementary single direction/consistent local/Parish level. Centres, Local Service approach for the preparation of Centres, Medium sized more detailed site specific villages, Restraint DPDs/Neighbourhood Plans villages)

Approach Description Key advantages Key disadvantages 3 Simplified settlement This approach provides A key problem may be hierarchy – four increased flexibility and increased development categories of settlement simplicity. It will provide a more pressure in the larger/defined (Growth Towns, Market enabling approach. While “Principal” villages. Also, Towns, Principal setting out the overall spatial concerns remain over the Villages, Other Villages) vision (i.e. where new distinction between villages development/growth should be (those within the hierarchy) and delivered), it allows for open countryside ought to be Neighbourhood Plans/site defined. It is important to specific DPDs to develop ensure that the spatial these ideas further at a locally development strategy does not distinctive level. preclude Neighbourhood Planning in defined Restraint/open countryside villages. 4 Simplified settlement This approach provides the The major criticism of this hierarchy – three greatest flexibility and approach is that it is over- categories of settlement simplicity. It will provide an simplified and does not provide (Growth Towns, Market enabling approach to future sufficient strategic direction. It Towns and Villages) development within rural is unlikely to reduce areas. It may imply that development pressures on Neighbourhood Plans/site larger villages simply by not specific DPDs should develop mentioning them. It does not more detailed settlement recognise the vast differences hierarchies/spatial strategies at between villages across North a locally distinctive level. Northamptonshire which range from those comparable to Market Towns to villages with few/no services

3.4 Approach 4 was eventually preferred as it provides sufficient strategic direction without stifling the ability to deliver a more locally driven approach to rural growth in the subsequent part 2 plans (or indeed within any neighbourhood plan). It was this basis upon which the JCS has been drafted.

3.5 Resultantly, and with regard to the distribution of growth and the settlement hierarchy of the borough, there are three key policies in the emerging draft JCS that are of specific relevance. Policy 11 (Network of Urban and Rural Areas), Policy 13 (Rural Exceptions) and Policy 29 (Distribution of New Homes) all provide a framework to manage the distribution and delivery of growth in the borough and its rural area.

3.6 Policy 11 is supported by a significant level of text and Table 1 that begins to identify the settlement hierarchy and the role of Wellingborough town and the borough’s villages in delivering growth. An extract from the JCS which sets out the settlement hierarchy and the roles for the various settlements is provided in the table below.

Table: JCS settlement hierarchy extract

Category Settlements Role Growth Corby, Kettering, To provide the focus for major co-ordinated Towns Wellingborough and Rushden regeneration and growth in employment, housing, retail and higher order facilities serving one or more districts.

Category Settlements Role Market Burton Latimer, Desborough, To provide a strong service role for their local Towns Higham Ferrers, community and wider rural hinterland. Irthlingborough, Oundle, Raunds, Rothwell, and Thrapston Villages All villages other than To provide community infrastructure and services settlements of a dispersed to meet the day to day needs of residents and form, which may be businesses in the rural areas. Focal points for designated as open development to meet locally identified needs, countryside, outside the unless those needs can be met more sustainably formal settlement hierarchy. at a nearby larger settlement. Open Some small rural settlements A living, working countryside providing the green Countryside with dispersed built form may setting for the network of settlements and be designated as open supporting the area’s self-reliance and resilience countryside. through food production; leisure and tourism; biodiversity resources; renewable energy; flood risk management and carbon capture.

3.7 In this borough, the town of Wellingborough is the focus for the majority of growth and the rural area will seek to meet locally arising needs where it is sustainable to do so. No further settlements in the borough are formally identified in the hierarchy. At the same time its implications confirm that the largest villages in the borough (Earls Barton, Finedon, Irchester and Wollaston) will have a specific housing requirement identified elsewhere within the policies of the JCS due to the strategic scale of development arising from local needs. This reaffirms the previous proposed reclassification of Irchester, set out in the draft SSPDPD, as a village that can accommodate some level of further strategic growth.

3.8 Past delivering the levels of growth to be allocated to each of the four largest villages in the borough, Policy 11 also states that ‘development in the rural areas will be limited to that required to support a prosperous rural economy or to meet a locally arising need, which cannot be met more sustainably at a nearby larger settlement’.

3.9 In which case, in terms of the powers afforded to part 2 local plans, policy allows them to both allocate sites within or adjacent to villages to meet needs, or place special controls on settlements or areas where infill development should be resisted. Past the need to identify sites to deliver the identified growth in the larger towns and villages the JCS expects part 2 local plans to limit the delivery of housing in the rural area to small scale infill or exception sites unless they choose to identify specific opportunities to meet needs.

3.10 Policy 11 further states that settlements of a dispersed form may be designated as open countryside. Development would be severely restricted in these locations. The JCS also says that part 2 local plans may identify villages that have a sensitive character or conservation interest, in which new development will be strictly managed. Furthermore the JCS states that part 2 local plans may identify a more detailed settlement hierarchy based on local evidence. The following sections of this report will investigate these issues.

4 Methodology

4.1 This section of the paper sets out the approach that has been taken to help develop clear settlement hierarchy options for the borough. The start point of this assessment is to analyse the borough’s settlements and identify their ability to take further growth. The broader issue of whether a more detailed settlement hierarchy is required is then assessed. The outcome of the two exercises will allow a recommendation to be made around what tiers should comprise a future hierarchy for the borough and what settlements should comprise each tier based on their sustainability credentials.

4.2 The settlements considered as ‘villages’ for the purpose of this assessment are as follows:

• Earls Barton • Isham • Wollaston • Little Harrowden • Finedon • Little Irchester • Irchester • Mears Ashby • Bozeat • Orlingbury • Ecton • Sywell, excluding the Old Village • Great Doddington • Sywell Old Village • Great Harrowden • Easton Maudit • Grendon • Wilby • Hardwick • Strixton

4.3 Historically villages have broadly been defined as small settlements or groups of houses focused around at least a church and/or a public facility. Appendix B identifies small groups of dwellings or small settlements of a dispersed form within the borough that cannot be reasonably be defined as a village. These are:

• Blackmile Lane, Grendon • Furnace Cottages, Little Harrowden • Orlingbury Road, Isham • Hill Top Road, Little Harrowden • Hillside and Hill Top Farm, Little Harrowden • Knuston

Assessment of ‘villages’

Quantitative Analysis

4.4 The quantitative analysis assesses each of the settlements on its accessibility to a range of services, facilities and employment opportunities. In line with policy 7 of the NPPF this assessment will consider primarily the economic and social sustainability but also some environmental sustainability aspects of a village.

4.5 Seven indicators have been used to measure the sustainability of each settlement. These are retail, education, medical, community facilities, sports and recreation, public transport, and employment. The table below shows how each of these indicators aligns with the sustainability definitions in the NPPF, some of them fulfil more than one role;

Table: Connection between NPPF and sustainability indicators

NPPF Sustainability Sustainability Indicator Economic Role: Contributing to Retail; Employment; Public transport building a strong, responsive and competitive economy Social Role: Supporting strong, vibrant and Education; Medical; Community facilities; Sports healthy communities and recreation Environmental Role: Contributing to Sports and recreation; Public transport protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment.

4.6 Appendix C sets out the criteria and the scoring used to measure each sustainability indicator used to assess each settlement. Villages are awarded scores for the presence of a service or facility in the village itself or if the facility is within safe walking distance of 800m (which takes an average of 10 minutes to walk), and there must be a pedestrian walkway. This radius recognises the ability of nearby villages to contain services and facilities that support each other and form rural networks, in line with NPPF guidance.

4.7 The services and facilities included within the scoring process provide for a broad spectrum of community needs. The scoring differs between indicators depending on if the service is deemed as essential when establishing the sustainability of the settlement or desirable. The table set out in Appendix C also sets out why the score weightings have been given to each indictor. If the village does not have a service or facilities within it or within 800m a score of zero is awarded.

4.8 Using the total score achieved per settlement it is possible to rank them in terms of how they perform based predominantly on social and economic sustainability indicators. This will serve as the start point to identifying which tier settlements should be placed at within the hierarchy prior to the consideration of more detailed environmental constraints such as conservation areas or protected areas of open space.

4.9 Information used to inform the assessment has been gathered from a desk top study, including the use of the council’s GIS mapping, and questionnaires sent to parish councils. A template of the questionnaire is set out in Appendix D.

Qualitative Analysis

4.10 To ensure that all aspects of the sustainability of the borough’s villages are considered when classifying any future hierarchy it is important to consider any existing environmental or policy constraints that may reasonably impinge growth.

4.11 Each village has been reviewed to identify the presence of any discernible character that may be worthy of additional protection or management. As a minimum each settlement surveyed in the borough within this report has been considered in relation to the following:

• The presence of any conservation area in the village and the percentage of the village it covers; • The presence and number of listed buildings in the village and the likelihood of any development impacting on their setting;

• The presence of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) or any other existing or potential environmental constraints either within or adjacent to the village; and • The sensitivity of the landscape surrounding the village, both visually and in terms of local habitats.

4.12 In previous plans within the borough the settlements of Easton Maudit, Strixton and Sywell Old Villages were considered as Restraint Villages due in part to their lack of a critical mass of facilities and services but more pressingly due to their special character.

4.13 The SSPDPD reached the preferred options stage in 2010 and it was at this stage that Hardwick was also identified as a potential additional Restraint Village, due to the designation of a conservation area in 2009 which covers most of the settlement.

4.14 It is considered that these four villages in particular would benefit from a further qualitative analysis in order to understand if they should continue to be considered as having a special character and/ or if they lack essential service and therefore cannot meet their own needs sustainably (see Appendix F). This has been done in alignment with the NPPG advice that all settlements have the potential to play a role in delivering sustainable development in the rural area.

4.15 The further qualitative analysis considers the current constraints and restrictions placed upon these four settlements and it provides an up to date detailed description on the settlements form and character. This analysis has been informed by site visits and some desk top research. This has allowed a clear understanding of each of the settlements suitability for development.

4.16 The results of the qualitative assessment can then be considered and used to re-rank the settlements, if necessary, giving a clear justification for their movement up or down the initial sustainability rankings and any resultant settlement hierarchy.

4.17 The outcome of both of these assessments, along with a summary of the consultation responses received to date on this topic, will then form the basis of both the identification and assessment of the detailed options available in terms of the need for, or value of, a more detailed hierarchy.

5 Analysis

5.1 The conclusions on the sustainability of the settlements have been drawn following the quantitative and qualitative assessments described in the previous section.

5.2 The options available to the borough when considering any additional tiers to the settlement hierarchy have been identified following a full review of the representations received towards the PBW Issues and Options consultation.

Quantitative analysis of villages

5.3 Following the undertaking of the quantitative analysis the settlements have been ranked in order of how they performed based on the sustainability indicators.

5.4 The table below shows the ranking and the total scores awarded to each settlement. Appendix E shows a breakdown of the individual scores awarded to each settlement.

Table 3: Ranking of villages based on sustainability indicators

Village Total Score Rank Wollaston 32 1 Earls Barton 31 2 Finedon 31 2 Irchester 27 4 Bozeat 20 5 Sywell 19 6 Great Doddington 18 7 Wilby 18 7 Sywell Old Village 16 9 Isham 15 10 Ecton 13 11 Little Irchester 13 11 Grendon 12 13 Mears Ashby 12 13 Little Harrowden 11 15 Orlingbury 9 16 Great Harrowden 6 17 Hardwick 4 18 Easton Maudit 4 18 Strixton 3 20

Qualitative analysis of villages

5.5 The following table sets out an overview of the qualitative analysis of each settlement that takes into account existing environmental constraints. In particular regard has been made to conservation area character appraisals. The table provides a summary of either their ability to continue to physically accommodate growth or, in the instance of Hardwick, Easton Maudit, Sywell Old Village and Strixton, the appropriateness of maintaining any policy constraints on growth on the grounds of character.

Table: Qualitative analysis of each settlements environmental constraints

Conservation % of Other Area Listed environmental Commentary on sensitivity and Village coverage Buildings TPOs designations character There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the centrally 1 area of located conservation area. Environmentally However, this is not significant Important Open enough to preclude some level of Wollaston 15% 2% 34 Space (EIOS) small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the sylvan setting of the village core and open space. However, this is not Earls significant enough to preclude Barton 15% 1% 78 4 areas of EIOS some level of small-scale growth 12

Conservation % of Other Area Listed environmental Commentary on sensitivity and Village coverage Buildings TPOs designations character There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the significant level of mature tree cover and 2 areas of EIOS, conservation area towards the adjacent to 2 south west end of Finedon that potential Wildlife also includes a number of listed Sites (PWS) and buildings. However, this is not 2 Local Wildlife significant enough to preclude Finedon 15% 1% 161 Sites (LWS) some level of small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the presence of some prominent listed buildings. 1 area of EIOS, However, this is not significant Adjacent to 2 enough to preclude some level of Irchester 0% 1% 1 PWS and 1 LWS small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the presence of some prominent listed buildings. However, this is not significant 4 areas of EIOS enough to preclude some level of Bozeat 0% 1% 0 and 2 LWS small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the presence of some prominent listed buildings. However, this is not significant enough to preclude some level of Sywell 0% 1% 38 2 PWS small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably a large conservation area at its core. However, this is not significant Great 1 area of EIOS enough to preclude some level of Doddington 20% 3% 2 and 1 PWS small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably some characterful listed buildings and a high number of protected trees. However, this is not significant enough to preclude some level of Wilby 0% 3% 86 1 PWS small-scale growth The village is subject of significant environmental constraints. There are no opportunities for further growth that would not harm the Sywell Old 3 areas of EIOS character of the village (also see Village 100% 84% 0 and 1 PWS appendix F)

Conservation % of Other Area Listed environmental Commentary on sensitivity and Village coverage Buildings TPOs designations character There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the conservation area and a high proportion of listed buildings. However, this is not significant enough to preclude some level of Isham 40% 7% 19 1 PWS small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the large conservation area and a number of listed buildings. However, this is 1 area of EIOS not significant enough to preclude Ecton 75% 11% 24 and 1 PWS some level of small-scale growth The village has no significant Little 3 areas of EIOS environmental constraints that Irchester 0% 0% 0 and 1 LWS could preclude small scale growth. There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably a large conservation area and a number of listed buildings. However, this is not significant enough to preclude Grendon 45% 9% 2 2 areas of EIOS some level of small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably a significant conservation area covering much of the village core. However, this is Mears not significant enough to preclude Ashby 80% 11% 14 2 areas of EIOS some level of small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably a number of listed buildings. However, this is Little not significant enough to preclude Harrowden 0% 3% 19 1 area of EIOS some level of small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably the conservation area and a number of listed buildings. However, this is not significant enough to preclude Orlingbury 75% 6% 1 1 area of EIOS some level of small-scale growth There are environmental constraints in and around the village, most notably a number of listed buildings and high number of protected trees. However, this is not significant Great enough to preclude some level of Harrowden 0% 22% 68 1 PWS small-scale growth

Conservation % of Other Area Listed environmental Commentary on sensitivity and Village coverage Buildings TPOs designations character The village could potentially accommodate very limited future growth, albeit the wooded setting 1 are of EIOS and of the CA should be respected. Hardwick 100% 6% 67 1 PWS Also see Appendix F There are no suitable opportunities for further growth that would not Easton harm the character of the village. Maudit 100% 63% 7 None Also see Appendix F The village is predominantly rural in character akin to open Strixton 0% 33% 0 None countryside. Also see Appendix F

5.6 Following the results of the qualitative analysis in the table above and in Appendix F it has then been necessary to adjust the ranking of the villages, now based on both the quantitative and qualitative results.

Table: Final ranking of villages based on quantitative and qualitative results

Village Rank Comments Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Wollaston 1 own need and a level of growth has been identified in the JCS Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Earls Barton 2 own need and a level of growth has been identified in the JCS Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Finedon 2 own need and a level of growth has been identified in the JCS Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Irchester 4 own need and a level of growth has been identified in the JCS Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Bozeat 5 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Sywell 6 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Great Doddington 7 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Wilby 7 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Isham 9 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Ecton 10 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Little Irchester 10 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Grendon 12 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Mears Ashby 12 own need Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Little Harrowden 14 own need Orlingbury 15 Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its 15

own need Village Rank Comments Village is able to accommodate some small scale growth to meet its Great Harrowden 16 own need It appears unlikely that additional development within Sywell Old Village would be appropriate due to its special character. Any needs Sywell Old Village 17 could be met in Sywell. Hardwick is a village that has, since 2001, been able to deliver low levels of residential development in suitable locations within the village envelope. A very small number of additional future infill opportunities appear to exist in the village. However the settlement has few services and facilities and no access to public transport, it is not therefore actually a sustainable location for further growth. Any Hardwick 18 needs could be met in neighbouring villages. Whilst there is a potential argument for very limited growth in Easton Maudit due to the sporadic infill and back-land development opportunities, it is not considered that the village offers sufficient access to shops and services to justify its promotion as a location Easton Maudit 18 for further growth. Any needs could be met in neighbouring villages. Whilst there is a potential argument for further growth in Strixton due to the notable level of employment in the village, it is not considered that the village offers sufficient access to shops and services to justify its promotion as a location for further growth. Due to its composition of sporadic pockets of development it also is without a discernible built edge. Additionally, it is predominantly rural in nature. For these reasons, its continued inclusion in the open countryside is recommended. Any needs could be met in Strixton 20 Wollaston.

Issues and Options Consultation Results

5.7 Before the results of the quantitative and qualitative assessment are used to inform a possible updated settlement hierarchy for the borough, the consultation representations on the topic should also be considered.

5.8 In January to March of 2015 the council consulted on a paper entitled The Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough Issues and Options. Part of the paper addressed the issues regarding settlement hierarchy. Issue 16 asked if any groups of dwellings in the borough should be defined as open countryside, the representations to this issue are considered in Appendix G.

5.9 Issue 17 asked consultees whether they considered that a more detailed settlement hierarchy was needed for the borough. It also asked why particular villages should be treated differently to others. A summary of the response is as follows;

• The Chamber of Commerce considered it appropriate to include the former ‘Restraint Villages’ within the blanket policy of the open countryside or to identify the developable area within a village boundary line as with other villages in the Borough, but that a further detailed settlement hierarchy is not required. • Irchester, Lt Harrowden and Wollaston Parish Councils have responded that a more detailed settlement hierarchy is not required.

• Wollaston Parish Council also stated that the Neighbourhood plan currently being prepared for Wollaston would not seek to provide higher levels of growth than that identified in the JCS. • Ecton Parish Council supports the three tier hierarchy of the SSP DPD and for Ecton to remain a limited infill village. A resident suggests Ecton should be identified as a Restraint Village. • Great Doddington Parish Council and a resident believe that the settlement hierarchy which presently exists in the SSP DPD is still a sensible approach. • Persimmon Homes Midlands, Bowbridge Land Limited, Hampton Brook and Gladmans consider that all villages should be assessed for their level of sustainability and that a more detailed settlement hierarchy is defined to identify a settlement’s ability to accommodate future growth. • Bowbridge has suggested Lt Irchester as a settlement which could accommodate some additional growth. Hampton Brook is suggesting Great Doddington and Gladmans would particularly support the identification of Bozeat and Great Doddington.

5.10 The results of the consultation identify a set of mixed views on the need for a settlement hierarchy. Some respondents felt that there was not a need for a more detailed settlement hierarchy for the borough and that the JCS was adequate. Some respondents considered that the hierarchy identified in the SSP DPD is still relevant and a sensible approach. Some respondents felt that a more detailed hierarchy was required.

5.11 Therefore the council should consider a range of options for the settlement hierarchy informed by the results of the quantitative and qualitative assessment.

6 Outcome

6.1 The results of the quantitative assessment, qualitative assessment and issues and options consultation have been used to identify three potential settlement hierarchy options for the borough.

Option 1: Do not identify a further local settlement hierarchy, use the hierarchy defined in the JCS

Tier Definition Settlement Village Village is able to accommodate Wollaston, Earls Barton, Finedon, Irchester, some small scale growth to Bozeat, Sywell, Great Doddington, Wilby, meet its own need or a level of Isham, Ecton, Little Irchester, Grendon, Mears growth has been identified in Ashby, Little Harrowden, Orlingbury, Great the JCS Harrowden, Easton Maudit, Hardwick, Strixton, Sywell Old Village Open Development will be strictly Small groups of dwellings or settlements of a countryside managed to safeguard the dispersed form character and beauty of the countryside and maintain separate settlements

Option 2: Retain hierarchy identified in the SSP DPD

Tier Definition Settlement Limited The majority of rural Wollaston, Earls Barton, Finedon, Irchester Service development should be Role Village focussed within the boundaries of these villages Limited Infill Development will be limited to Bozeat, Sywell, Great Doddington, Wilby, Village minor infill so that villages can Isham, Ecton, Little Irchester, Grendon, Mears meet their own needs Ashby, Little Harrowden, Orlingbury, Great Harrowden Restraint Development will be strictly Easton Maudit, Hardwick, Strixton, Sywell Old Village managed, with priority given to Village conservation and character considerations Open Development will be strictly Small groups of dwellings or settlements of a countryside managed to safeguard the dispersed form character and beauty of the countryside and maintain separate settlements

Option 3: Update local hierarchy based on the results in this paper

Tier Definition Settlement Village Village is able to accommodate Wollaston, Earls Barton, Finedon, Irchester, some small scale growth to Bozeat, Sywell, Great Doddington, Wilby, meet its own need or a level of Isham, Ecton, Little Irchester, Grendon, Mears growth has been identified in Ashby, Little Harrowden, Orlingbury, Great the JCS Harrowden Restraint Some small rural settlements Easton Maudit, Hardwick, Strixton, Sywell Old Village will be designated as restraint Village villages which will be treated as open countryside where development will be strictly managed. Open Development will be strictly Small groups of dwellings or settlements of a countryside managed to safeguard the dispersed form character and beauty of the countryside and maintain separate settlements

Recommendations

6.2 Option one allows the JCS to guide development within settlements, and treats them all the same. It is considered that this would not provide sufficient clarity regarding the roles of individual settlements. Such an option would be likely to result in development being more widespread and therefore have greater negative impact in terms of sustainability and conservation. It could have a negative impact on the smaller villages which would be expected to accommodate their own local needs.

6.3 Option two seeks to retain the hierarchy identified in the SSP DPD. Although consultees felt this approach was sensible and relevant the work on the SSP DPD was undertaken in 2010 and, although this can be used as a starting point, this work should really be updated. This option also singles out the four Limited Service Role Villages as providing the majority of rural growth (with limited infilling allowed within the next tier of settlements), this might put these four villages under increased development pressure.

6.4 It is considered that option three is the most appropriate settlement hierarchy for the borough. This is because it provides simplicity and is up-to-date as it is informed by the results of the quantitative and qualitative sustainability assessments. This approach considers the role of the individual settlements within the borough but does not focus all of the rural development within Wollaston, Earls Barton, Finedon, and Irchester, giving greater flexibility.

Appendix A – Plan history of settlement hierarchy

Local Plan 1999 Saved local plan 2007 Core Spatial Strategy 2008 SSP DPD 2010 Superseded Current adopted development plan for borough Current adopted development plan for borough Never reached adoption stage Hierarchy Tier Village Hierarchy Tier Village Hierarchy Tier Village Hierarchy Tier Village Earls Barton Earls Barton Earls Barton Earls Barton Limted development villages Finedon Bozeat Easton Maudit Limted Service Finedon Wollatson Ecton Bozeat Role Villages Irchester Bozeat Finedon Ecton Wollatson Ecton Great Doddington Finedon Bozeat Great Doddington Great Harrowden Great Doddington Ecton Great Harrowden Grendon Great Harrowden Great Doddington Grendon Hardwick Grendon Great Harrowden Hardwick Villages Irchester Hardwick Grendon Irchester Isham Irchester Isham Restricted infill villages Rural areas Limited Infill Villages Isham Little Irchester Isham Little Irchester Little Irchester Little Harrowden Little Irchester Little Harrowden Little Harrowden Mears ashby Little Harrowden Mears ashby Mears ashby Orlingbury Mears ashby Orlingbury Orlingbury Sywell Orlingbury Sywell Sywell Wilby Strixton Wilby Wilby Wollatson Sywell Easton Maudit Easton Maudit Easton Maudit Sywell Old Village Hardwick Restraint Villages Restraint Villages Strixton Restraint Villages Strixton Wilby Strixton Sywell Old Village Sywell Old Village Wollatson Sywell Old Village

Appendix B – Small groups of dwellings or settlements of dispersed form

Blackmile Lane, Grendon

Description: Blackmile Lane is a collection of 24 dwellings that are situated to the North of Grendon. All of the dwellings are residential, along with Hall Farm which is situated at the western end of Blackmile Lane that has a number of agricultural buildings. The area is separated from Grendon by a sewerage works and a river course. There are no services / facilities within the settlement. Due to the small size and nature of the settlement it would not be reasonable to define it as a village.

Conclusion: Blackmile Lane should be identified as a settlement of dispersed form and treated as open countryside.

Furnace Lane Cottages, Little Harrowden

Description: Furnace cottages are a row of around 25 terraced cottages and one large detached dwelling. They are situated near to Furnace Lane Industrial Estate but are over 1.5 miles to the nearest villages of Little Harrowden and Great Harrowden. There are no other types of building here other than residential. Due to the small size and nature of the settlement it would not be reasonable to define it as a village.

Conclusion: Furnace Cottages should be identified as a settlement of dispersed form and treated as open countryside.

Orlingbury Road, Isham

Description: Orlingbury Road settlement is a single sided row of development situated just under a mile away from Isham village boundary. There are roughly 15 residential dwellings that make up the settlement along with some agricultural buildings associated with Ryehill Farm. There are no local facilities within this strip of development. Due to the small size and nature of the settlement it would not be reasonable to define it as a village.

Conclusion: Orlingbury Road should be identified as a settlement of dispersed form and treated as open countryside.

Hill Top Road, Little Harrowden -

Description: Hill Top Road is a single sided uniform row of around 22 residential dwellings. The settlement does not include any local facilities. The site is roughly 500m from Little Harrowden, separated by farmland. The dwellings are all of a similar size and form. Due to the small size and nature of the settlement it would not be reasonable to define it as a village.

Conclusion: Hill Top Road should be identified as a settlement of dispersed form and treated as open countryside.

Hillside and Hill Top Farm, Little Harrowden

Description: This development is a collection of 12 dwellings, which is formed by two rows of terraced dwellings with a large detached dwelling in the middle (1c hillside, formerly Hill Top Farm). This was formerly agricultural buildings however they have since been converted to residential. There are no services / facilities within the settlement. Due to the small size and dispersed nature of the settlement it would not be reasonable to define it as a village.

Conclusion: Hillside and Hill Top Farm should be identified as a settlement of dispersed form and treated as open countryside.

Knuston

Description: Knuston is situated near to the border of the borough, in close proximity to Rushden. Knuston is formed by a small group of around 30 dwellings along with a small amount of employment. There is no evidence of this settlement fitting the description of a village as there is no discernible village core and there are none of the facilities associated with a village such as a church or village shop. The housing and employment in Knuston is particularly dispersed and there is no form to the settlement. The small amount of employment is set back from the main road. Parts of the employment buildings that are visible have a rural feel and could be mistaken for farm buildings. Knuston Hall and the Alton and Thorpe Centre are set back from the main road and our not obvious to passers-by. The row of dwellings to the east of the settlement is barely visible due to the large amount of deciduous trees, which again give the area a rural feel. Knuston is surrounded by farmland and the wooded areas of Home Spinney and Knuston Spinney.

Conclusion: Knuston should be identified as a settlement of dispersed form and treated as open countryside.

Appendix C - Scoring of sustainability indicators

Villages are awarded scores for the presence of a facility in the village itself or if the facility is within safe walking distance of 800m distance (which takes an average of 10 minutes to walk), for example there must be a pedestrian walkway.

Topic Sub topic Amount Score Notes Explanation of awarded score Retail Convenience 1 or more 3 Highly award as is an essential service Comparison 1-5 shops 1 If there are no Desirable service convenience shops 6-10 shops 2 then a score of zero is given even if there are some 10 or more 3 comparison shops in the village. Education Primary School 1 or more 3 Highly award as is an essential service Secondary School 1 or more 5 Highly awarded as it means the village is the most sustainable in terms education Medical Doctors 1 or more 3 Highly award as is an essential service Dentist 1 or more 1 Desirable service Community Post office 1 or more 3 Halls can include Highly award as is counter church halls, an essential service Bank or building 1 or more 1 community centres Desirable services / society and similar. facilities Community / 1 or more 1 village hall If a post office Library 1 or more 1 counter is within a Petrol station 1 or more 1 convenience store Place of worship 1 or more 1 this can be counted Public house/ bar 1 or more 1 if the convenience / inn store has already Restaurant / café 1 or more 1 been counted / takeaway above. Post boxes are not included. Sports and Public open 1 or more 1 Public open space Desirable facilities Recreation space can included parks, Sports facilities 1 or more 1 recreation grounds, (indoor and village greens and outdoor built similar. facilities) Allotments 1 or more 1 Public Level of bus Daily mon- fri 1 Scores increase with Transport service Daily mon- sat 2 the frequency of Hourly or better 3 service mon- fri Hourly or better 4 mon- sat Employment Inc. office, Limited 1 Use classes B1, B2 Scores increase with commercial and employment and B8. number of light industry Multiple small 2 employers Exc. shops, pubs, employers schools etc. Multiple large 3 employers Highest Possible Score 38

Appendix D – Template of questionnaire sent to parish councils

Borough council of Wellingborough Settlement Hierarchy Parish Council Questionnaire

General Information

Village Name Parish How was the information in Individual Group Discussed at parish this questionnaire collected council Meeting

If appropriate tell us more about how this information was compiled

Shops

How many types of shops are there your village?

Convenience* None One Two Three Four +

Comparison** None One Two Three Four +

Supermarket*** None One Two Three Four +

Farm Shop Within Village Peripheral to Village

*convenience shops supply everyday essential items, including food, drink, newspapers and confectionary **comparison shops supply items not obtained frequently, including clothing, footwear, household and electrical goods *** A supermarket is classified as having a minimum retail floorspace of 500sq.m

Additional comments on shopping facilities:

Schools

Does your village have any schools within it?

Primary School None One or more Secondary School None One or more

Additional comments on schools:

General Facilities:

How many of the following community facilities are there in your village?

None One Two Three Four + Bank / Building society Community Hall Dentist Doctors Surgery Permanent Library Petrol Station Places of Worship Post Office Public House/ Bar / Inn Restaurant / café / takeaway

Yes No Does the mobile library visit?

Additional comments on general facilities:

Community Facilities:

Does your village have any of the following community facilities?

Yes No School hall for rent Village hall Church hall Meeting room Community centre

Additional comments on community facilities:

Sports and Recreation Facilities:

Yes No Recreation ground Sports pitches (e.g. Cricket, football, rugby) Bowling green Children’s play area Allotments Access to school recreation areas Open space with public access

Additional comments on community facilities:

Public Transport:

What is the level of bus service in your village?

Select level of service No bus service Daily bus service m/tu/w/th/f Daily bus service m/tu/w/th/f/sa Hourly or better service m/tu/w/th/f Hourly or better service m/tu/w/th/f/sa

Additional comments on community facilities:

Employment:

Are you aware of any employment within your village (not including shops, pubs, schools etc.)? For example, are there any businesses that employee local people? If so are you able to give any details, such as the business name, location and possibly the number of employees?

Any other comments:

If you have any other comments please include them here

Thank you for responding to this questionnaire.

All response must be returned by XXX and can be emailed to [email protected] Or posted to Wellingborough Council, Swanspool House, Doddington Road, Wellingborough, NN8 1BP

If you require any assistance please contact the planning policy team on 01923 229777

Appendix E – Table of sustainability indicator results for each settlement

Public Settlement Retail Education Medical Community Sports and Recreation Transport Employment Ranking Ranking Total score Convenience shop Comparison shops Primary School Secondary School Doctors Surgery Dentist Post Office Bank / Building society Village Hall / Community Hall Permanent Library Petrol Station Places of Worship Public House/ Bar / Inn Restaurant / café / takeaway Public open space Sports facility (indoor and outdoor) Allotments Level of Bus service Level of employment Bozeat 3 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 20 5 Earls Barton 3 2 3 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 31 2 Easton Maudit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 18 Ecton 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 13 11 Finedon 3 2 3 0 3 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 31 2 Great Doddington 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 18 7 Great Harrowden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 6 17 Grendon 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 12 13 Hardwick 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 18 Irchester 3 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 27 4 Isham 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 15 10 Little Harrowden 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 11 15 Little Irchester 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 13 11 Mears ashby 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 12 13 Orlingbury 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 9 16 Strixton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 20 Sywell 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 3 19 6 Sywell Old Village 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 3 16 9 Wilby 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 18 7 Wollaston 3 1 3 5 3 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 32 1 29

Appendix F – Settlement profiles of the SSP DPD restraint villages

Strixton:

Existing policy restrictions / designations:

Open countryside Presence of Listed Buildings

Description:

Strixton is a small, linear hamlet comprising a mixture of current and former agricultural buildings and stone built cottages primarily centred around two clusters at the east and western ends of the settlement. Each cluster is centred around two former farm yards. The dominant building in Strixton is the parish church situated at the entrance of the village.

Strixton mainly contains a sporadic collection of buildings with no discernible village core and without any particular village feel. It very much sits within the open countryside.

The two main clusters of development in Strixton are separated by a narrow country lane punctuated by 6 workers cottages on the southern side of the road, all built out of local stone. The northern side of the road is characterised by an unbroken and attractive stone-built field wall.

Notably, the cluster of buildings at the western end of the hamlet comprises the Strixton Manor Business Centre, comprising 10 units suitable for SMEs.

Whilst in close proximity to Wollaston, with its range of shops and services, Strixton is separated from the larger village by the significant physical barrier of the A509. This severely limits pedestrian access to Wollaston.

Suitability / potential for development:

Strixton is predominantly rural in character with very limited access to shops and services. It is, however, home to a major source of employment in the Strixton Manor Business Centre and has a thriving farm at the far western end of the hamlet. Indeed, it is estimated that between four to five of the current properties in the hamlet are occupied by employees of either the farm or the business centre.

Whilst physically there is space for development along the single lane running through the hamlet, it is questionable as to whether it would be possible to deliver additional housing in the hamlet without impacting on its undeveloped rural character.

Strixton Photos:

Easton Maudit:

Existing policy restrictions / designations:

Open countryside Full coverage by Conservation Area Presence of Listed Buildings

Description:

Easton Maudit comprises a built footprint former around a ‘T’ shaped confluence of roads, largely built around a north to south axis. The majority of the properties fronting the road are Grade II listed and the village is covered almost in its entirety by a Conservation Area designation. The dominant building in Easton Maudit is the Grade I Listed parish church, situated at the northern end of the village. Almost every property in the village is constructed out of local Strixton stone with either thatched or slate roofs.

Whilst it may be considered that there are sporadic infill or backland development opportunities throughout the village, it is noted that on the western edge of the village they may harm the character of the Conservation Area through the removal or fettering of important glimpses between the built line. There appears to be a number of redundant or underused properties in the village, so there remains the potential for conversion in the event that local housing opportunities are required.

The linear form of the village has most recently been extended to the south by four newer 20th century likely former council house properties. It is unlikely that the village could appropriately be extended further in this direction due to encroachment into the open countryside by potentially unfettered linear development.

There are no local services in Easton Maudit although there is a reasonably large riding school adjacent to Manor Farm on the eastern edge.

Suitability / potential for development:

Easton Maudit has a notable ‘village feel’ and may have the potential to accommodate a limited level of backland or infill development or conversions, subject to their ability to preserve or enhance the setting of the Conservation Area. The village does not contain any local services, however, and comprises a location that offers low levels of sustainability.

Easton Maudit Photos:

Sywell Old Village:

Existing policy restrictions / designations:

Open countryside Total coverage by a Conservation Area Presence of Listed Buildings Environmentally Important Open Space Important Amenity Space Historic Garden

Description:

Sywell Old Village comprises the original part of Sywell. The rest of Sywell comprises a ‘V’ shaped linear form settlement built around a confluence of roads to the west of Sywell Old Village. Sywell is easily accessible by foot from Sywell Old Village.

Sywell Old Village was originally built as a planned 19th Century estate village and as such comprises the two formal lines of uniformly designed cottages lining the road through the village that characterise the settlement today. It features a near continuous built line with few opportunities for additional street-fronting infill development. The western end of the village also features a parish church and a large village hall set adjacent to the village green.

There is a collection of buildings sitting behind the southern side of the road through the village that currently comprise a mixture of business units and agricultural stores. These buildings may present conversion opportunities for new residential units in future, in the event that there is no longer a requirement for the current business use.

Any undeveloped plots of land in the core of the village are dominated by large, mature deciduous trees, and are generally identified as important open space in the current local plan. Land on the peripheries of the village are then variously designated as a either important amenity space or as a historic garden.

Suitability / potential for development:

The village is severely constrained by a number of environmental designations including an extensive conservation area and a number of protected pockets of land. It is unlikely that any new build opportunities will arise in Sywell Old Village in the near future. The village is also in close proximity to the much larger main settlement of Sywell. To this end, it is questionable as to whether any development will arise in Sywell Old Village that cannot be met by its larger namesake.

Sywell Old Village Photos:

Hardwick:

Existing policy restrictions / designations:

Total coverage by a Conservation Area Presence of Listed Buildings Environmentally Important Open Space

Note: Hardwick currently has a village policy line, as included in the adopted local plan

Description:

Hardwick is built around an inverted ‘T’ shaped confluence of roads with a large village green and area of important open space at their junction. The village is relatively compact in form.

The spatial aesthetics of Hardwick village derive fundamentally from the interrelationship between a relatively low development density and the large numbers of trees which are apparent both in the public realm and as a backdrop within property gardens.

The general built form in the village is characterised by an eclectic mixture of large detached properties of varying age in their own generous plots, converted former agricultural buildings and early to mid-20th Century semi-detached properties.

The northern end of the village is dominated by a high number of mature deciduous trees and very large detached properties, built in a mixture of both traditional and modern styles. The southern end of the village is similarly mixed in character and features a recent development including a stone-built detached property that fronts onto the village green. The outbuildings of Manor Farm, at the south eastern corner of the village, have also been converted into a number of new residential dwellings within the last 10 years.

In addition a planning permission for a single dwelling on land adjacent to No.14 Hardwick Village, at the southern end of the settlement has recently been granted. This plot represents one of several infill or backland development opportunities that may exist in the village, subject to the ability to establish sufficient access. Only Seven residential dwellings have taken place in the village since 2001.

Suitability / potential for development:

Generally, it is evident that Hardwick is of a built form capable of accommodating the delivery of some small scale housing development; however this is dependent on its ability to preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area.

Hardwick Photos:

Appendix G – Summary of representation received to issue 16 of the issue and options consultation

Issue 16 - Settlement Hierarchy - Open Countryside Are there some settlements or groups of dwellings that should not be defined as villages but should be treated the same as open countryside and have greater restrictions on new development? If so which ones and why? Representation Officer Response These areas between the settlements are mainly rural farmland and currently treated as open A509 - Little Irchester to Wollaston/Irchester to countryside therefore they will continue to be Knuston treated as such and do not require further analysis. Hilltop, Hillside and Furnace Lane These areas will be assessed as part of this paper. Welcomed. Little Irchester has previously been We agree with your view about Settlement considered as a village or limited infill village, Hierarchy and that they [settlements of dispersed therefore this settlement will be analysed as part of form] should be treated the same as open the updated Settlement Hierarchy in order to countryside and have greater restrictions on new evaluate the most appropriate position for the development. We agree with the places that you settlement within the hierarchy. It is possible that mention in para 6.1.4. However – we do wonder if one tier of the hierarchy will be defined as open Little Irchester should be included. countryside. The Parish Council supports the three tier hierarchy Noted. Ecton will be evaluated as part of the and for Ecton to remain a limited infill village. The updated Settlement Hierarchy. Parish Council does not consider there are any groups of dwellings outside the village but within Ecton Parish that should be designated anything other than open countryside. Noted. The issues regarding settlement hierarchy We question whether the wording of this question will be fully evidenced and justified within this and what is being sought is positively prepared? paper and the Settlement Hierarchy. All villages should be assessed for their level of Noted. This approach has been taken on board by sustainability. If they have a low level of the council and alongside this report is the sustainability due to a lack of access to services Settlement Hierarchy which will assess villages for and facilities, they should be dismissed as not being the level of sustainability based on environment, suitable for residential development. The smallest economic and social factors. settlements with little or no facilities should have greater restrictions on new development and be treated the same as open countryside, as they are not sustainable locations for new housing. I am concerned that if Ecton remains as a limited Ecton will be evaluated as part of the updated infill village its special historic character will be Settlement Hierarchy. irreparably damaged. I think that an urgent review of the conservation area should be undertaken to establish whether Ecton should more correctly be identified as a Restraint Village. It would seem appropriate to include the former The former restraint villages will be evaluated as ‘restraint villages’ within the blanket policy of the part of the updated Settlement Hierarchy. open countryside or to identify the developable area within a village boundary line as with other villages.