East Council Planning Services (Planning Policy) RURAL NORTH, AND PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES 22 January 2009 If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format (large print, tape format or other languages) please contact us on 01832 742000.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 2 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer Document Version Control

Author (Post holder title) Senior Planning Policy Officer Type of document (strategy/policy/procedure) Procedure – Methodology and analysis Version Number 3.0 Document File Name J:\Planning Policy & Conservation\Policy & Conserv\Local Development Framework\RNOTP\Post hearings\Settlement Hierarchy\DEFINING CAT A&B VILLAGES FINAL 220109 Issue date January 2009 Approval date and by who (SMT / committee) Document held by (name/section) Planning Services (Planning Policy) For internal publication only or external also? Internal only / internal and external * delete as appropriate Document stored on Council website or Eunice / Website * delete as appropriate Eunice? Next review date Summer 2011

Change History

Issue Date Comments

NB: Draft versions 0.1 - final published versions 1.0

Consultees

Internal External e.g. Individual(s) / Group / Section e.g. Stakeholders / Partners /Organisation(s)

Distribution List

Internal External e.g. Individual(s) / Group / Section e.g. Stakeholders / Partners /Organisation(s)

Links to other documents

Document Link Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Evidence Base/ supporting information Plan

Additional Comments to note

East Northamptonshire Council Page 3 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer Contents Page Executive summary 5 Corporate outcomes 5

1.0 Introduction 6 1.1 Settlement Hierarchy – Background 6 1.2 Defining Smaller Service Centres 7 1.3 Defining Category A and B villages 8

2.0 Developing policy in respect of Category A and Category B 9 villages 2.1 Rationale for the decision to define separate Category A and 9 Category B villages

3.0 Methodology – By what means have Category A and Category B 10 villages been identified? 3.1 Availability of services – earlier studies (2003-5) 10 3.2 Availability of services – 2008 update 11

4.0 Analysis of rural services survey update 13 4.1 Changes to local services since 2003 13 4.2 Classification of settlements by overall sustainability and 14 population score (Appendix 1) 4.3 Qualitative analysis – detailed assessment of villages scoring three 16 or more, but classified as Category B villages in the submission RNOTP 4.4 Qualitative analysis – detailed assessment of those open 19 countryside “settlements” identified as falling within Category B score 4.5 Qualitative analysis – Luddington in the Brook 19 4.6 Qualitative analysis – Blatherwycke 20

5.0 Conclusions – key findings of Category A and B village analysis 22 5.1 Developing a settlement hierarchy and robust methodology, in 22 respect of Category A and B villages 5.2 Analysis of the results of the 2008 rural services/ sustainability 22 survey update 5.3 Recommendations 23

Appendix 1 – RURAL SURVEY OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES 24 (updated autumn 2008) Appendix 2 – VILLAGE RANKINGS (autumn 2008) 27

East Northamptonshire Council Page 4 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer Executive summary

The settlement hierarchy in the January 2008 submission Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan (RNOTP) was developed in parallel with the emerging Core Spatial Strategy (CSS). The designation of Oundle, Thrapston and King’s Cliffe as service centres was confirmed in the adopted CSS (June 2008) and these settlements are therefore excluded from this study. The proposed designation of additional service centres in the RNOTP (Policy 1) has been made with reference to:

• Market Towns and Rural Regeneration (Entec, DOC305) • “Design for the Future” discussion papers (ENC, DOC402-406) • Baker Associates study (DOC308)

The CSS (paragraph 3.14) requires settlement boundaries and “Restraint villages” to be defined in the DPDs being prepared by the District Councils. This has been utilized as the policy basis for the decision to designate Category A and Category B settlements in the RNOTP.

The Independent Examination of the submission RNOTP identified a need to develop a more robust methodology and evidence base for the designation of Network Villages (RNOTP Policy 1(4)) as Category A and B settlements. This study addresses this matter through:

• Updating and enhancing 2003/4 rural services study in order to identify sustainability of individual villages • Identification of thresholds for Category A and B villages, and smaller settlements classified as “open countryside” • Qualitative assessment of the suitability of those villages with particular environmental sensitivities to accommodate additional development • Recommendation of possible changes to submitted RNOTP paragraphs 4.5-4.6 in respect of Category A and B villages

Corporate outcomes

The study contributes to the following corporate outcomes:

• Good reputation with customers and regulators • Good quality of life in East Northamptonshire – cleaner, safer, prosperous, healthier and sustainable • Effective partnership working • Strong community leadership • Knowledge of our customers and communities

East Northamptonshire Council Page 5 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Settlement Hierarchy – Background

1.1.1 Policy 1 of the submitted Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan (RNOTP) defines a four tier hierarchy of settlements:

• Policy 1(1) – Oundle and Thrapston are defined as Rural Service Centres in the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS), Policy 1 • Policy 1(2) – King’s Cliffe is defined as a Local Service Centre in adopted CSS Policy 1 • Policy 1(3) – Nassington and Warmington are defined as “Smaller Service Centres” in RNOTP Policy 1 • Policy 1(4) – Other villages in the Plan area (listed in paragraphs 4.5-4.6) are defined as “Network Villages”

1.1.2 This issue was extensively explored during the RNOTP Examination Hearing sessions (October 2008). During the Hearing sessions, the Inspector raised concerns about the evidence base and methodology for the Council’s decisions to:

• Designate only Nassington and Warmington as Smaller Service Centres and exclude other large villages, e.g. Brigstock, Easton on the Hill, Islip and Woodford • Sub-divide Policy 1(4) Network Villages into Category A and B villages

1.1.3 The Inspector accepted in his letter (31 October 2008) that additional evidence submitted during the Examination Hearing sessions was sufficient to justify the Council’s decision to define Nassington and Warmington as Smaller Service Centres (Policy 1(3). In his letter, the Inspector stated that he is “now satisfied with regard to the justification for the choice of the smaller service centres, but this is not the case with regard to the distinction between category A and B network villages” (paragraph 13).

1.1.4 Given that the Inspector has requested that further evidence gathering and analysis be undertaken to demonstrate how decisions have been taken in order to define Category A and Category B villages, this study will focus upon identifying the distinction between these two classes of network villages (Policy 1(4)). While data has been gathered for all villages in the Plan area (with the exception of King’s Cliffe) in order to visually show how the sustainability of individual settlements may be assessed across the RNOTP area as a whole, it is not considered to be necessary for the designation of smaller service centres to be reviewed.

1.1.5 This document therefore provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the process by which Category A and B villages have been identified. The study aims to assess whether the designation of individual Category A and B villages is the most appropriate in all circumstances, or whether these should be re-designated to take account of this additional, updated evidence.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 6 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 1.2 Defining Smaller Service Centres

1.2.1 Through the “Design for the Future” consultation phase (2004-5) the following larger villages in the RNOTP area were considered as possible service centres in addition to Oundle, Thrapston and King’s Cliffe:

• Barnwell • Brigstock • Easton on the Hill • Nassington • Warmington • Woodford

1.2.2 Oundle, Thrapston and King’s Cliffe are excluded from this study, as their roles are already defined by adopted CSS Policy 1. Additional service centres in the rural area where development will be focused were designated in submission RNOTP Policy 1, in accordance with CSS Policy 1. The assessment was initially based upon the level of services in villages in the RNOTP area as at 2003/4 and, the relationships between villages and larger service centres in the Plan area. This work was then consolidated, firstly into the 2004 North Northamptonshire Market Towns and Rural Regeneration study (Entec, DOC305); then the Integrated Approach to Sustainable Rural Planning (Baker Associates, DOC308), January 2006.

1.2.3 The findings of the Baker Associates study, together with “Design for the Future – Your Aspirations” (DOC406) were the key determinants in the decision to designate Nassington and Warmington as Smaller Service Centres (Policy 1(3)). The rationale for this decision is summarized below.

• Nassington and Warmington were found to perform a limited role as local service centres, attracting limited numbers of people from surrounding villages for convenience shopping, leisure and employment (DOC308). • The geographical extent of the Baker Associates study did not include other larger villages in the Plan area (Barnwell, Brigstock, Easton on the Hill and Woodford). Instead, the option of defining these as additional local service centres was considered through the 2004/5 “Design for the Future” consultation process (DOC401-405). • Through the “Design for the Future” consultation (DOC406, p16), it was found that no other villages looked to Barnwell, Brigstock, Easton on the Hill or Woodford as local service centres. Respondents from smaller villages mostly travelled to local towns (i.e. Oundle and Thrapston) for their needs. • The analysis of representations received during the RNOTP “Preferred Options” consultation (January – March 2006) concluded that Brigstock, Easton on the Hill and Woodford, while retaining a significant range of local services, are all closely related to larger urban areas; , Stamford and Thrapston respectively (DOC317, paragraph 3.6). • Islip, despite being a large village with an extensive range of local services (DOC329, paragraph 1.10; DOC405, p12), has not been considered as a possible service centre due to its immediate proximity to Thrapston.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 7 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 1.2.4 Evidence already submitted for the Examination demonstrates that Brigstock, Easton on the Hill and Woodford are all of an equivalent size and level of local services to the defined smaller service centres (Nassington and Warmington). It is emphasized that while Brigstock, Easton and Woodford all retain a substantial range of services, the evidence does not indicate that these villages serve a wider rural hinterland, the key criteria for designation as service centres (Baker Associates study, DOC308 summary, Figure 3).

1.2.5 Following the RNOTP Examination Hearing sessions (October 2008), the Inspector accepted, as outlined above, that sufficiently robust evidence has been submitted to justify the choice of smaller service centres in Policy 1(3) (Inspector’s Note, paragraph 9). All of the villages which were considered as possible smaller service centres in addition to Nassington and Warmington are expected to be designated as Category A Network Villages. Given the size and level of services at Barnwell, Brigstock, Easton on the Hill, Islip and Woodford, these will, nevertheless, be expected to accommodate some additional development within their current boundaries (CSS Policy 1).

1.3 Defining Category A and B villages

1.3.1 While the identification of possible service centres has been adequately considered through various studies already undertaken, further work is needed to provide a reasoned analysis for the decision to identify individual villages as Category A and B villages. This document will outline the methodology and provide the analysis and rationale for the decisions about the status of individual villages.

1.3.2 Initially, the Category A and B designation arose through the “village frameworks” work undertaken by the Council from 2002-5, with a view to defining settlement boundaries for the villages. The Category A and B designation was initially, therefore, related to the scale and built form of each settlement. Through the RNOTP Examination process, however, it is necessary for the designation of Category A and B villages to be subject to a more rigorous methodology, in order to determine their overall ability to accommodate sustainable rural development.

1.3.3 Section 2.0 below sets out the background behind the decision to develop a policy in respect of Category A and Category B villages. Section 3.0 describes the methodology for assessing the appropriate category in which to place network villages, i.e. Category A or B (RNOTP Policy 1(4)). Section 4.0 provides a more detailed analysis in relation to individual settlements. Section 5.0 summarizes the key findings of this assessment, with Section 6.0 setting out any proposed changes to the RNOTP document arising from this study.

1.3.4 The full 2008 rural services survey update is set out in Appendix 1, which updates and refines the earlier survey work undertaken during 2003/4:

• 2003 rural services survey, which informed the Entec and Baker Associates studies (DOC305 and DOC308 respectively); • “Design for the Future” discussion papers, which include summaries of the 2003 rural services survey data (DOC402-405).

East Northamptonshire Council Page 8 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 2.0 Developing policy in respect of Category A and Category B villages

2.0.1 Throughout the process of preparing the RNOTP, a central consideration has been the identification of a suitable settlement hierarchy for the Plan area. Section 2.0 of this report sets out the process and rationale behind the decision to designate individual settlements as Category A or B villages.

2.1 Rationale for the decision to define separate Category A and Category B villages

2.1.1 In terms of implementing RNOTP policies 1 and 2 (development strategy for the Plan area), the practical difference between Category A and Category B villages relates to whether or not these have a defined settlement boundary. In Category A villages and the service centres (i.e. those settlements with a defined boundary), RNOTP Policy 2 applies with respect to small scale windfall proposals for residential development, including infilling.

2.1.2 Policy 1(4) sets out the RNOTP approach to development in Category B villages, which is limited to the “re-use and conversion of buildings within and adjacent to villages”. In practice, therefore, infill development will not normally be permissible in Category B villages.

2.1.3 In preparing the RNOTP, consideration was given to delineating settlement boundaries for all villages (Preferred Options, paragraph 6.13), including Restraint villages, which it was proposed should be carried forward from the 1996 Local Plan (Preferred Options, paragraph 5.3). The preferred approach in the RNOTP, i.e. to define settlement boundaries based on the extent of the main built up area using a criteria based approach, was subjected to Sustainability Appraisal, which found that this provided the most positive outcome in terms of improving accessibility and guiding against widespread development in the open countryside (DOC310, paragraph 6.1.2).

2.1.4 The adopted CSS (DOC259, paragraph 3.14), endorsed the identification of Restraint villages, where conservation and restraint over development are priorities due to the particular scale, form and character of the settlement. RNOTP Policy 1(4), which limits development opportunities in Category B villages to the re-use and conversion of buildings, therefore implicitly applies CSS paragraph 3.14 in respect of Category B villages.

2.1.5 Overall, it is argued that the definition of Category A and Category B villages in RNOTP Policy 1(4) is in general conformity with the CSS. This assertion assumes that CSS paragraph 3.14, which refers to defining village boundaries and identifying Restraint villages, relates respectively to Category A and Category B villages.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 9 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 3.0 Methodology – By what means have Category A and Category B villages been identified?

3.0.1 Given the decision to identify Category A and B villages in accordance with the CSS, it is necessary to develop a robust, credible and consistent methodology for defining these (test of soundness 7, submission RNOTP page 6). In respect of identifying villages which perform a service centre role, the Baker Associates study (DOC308) demonstrates that networks and relationships between individual and groups of villages are often extremely complicated.

3.0.2 In defining Category A and B villages, an extensive methodology has been developed combining a number of different approaches. This methodology, described below, relates to:

• Availability of services • Development constraints • Population • Built form and historic interest

3.0.3 The level of services, constraints and population are all quantitative measures, whereby scoring matrices enable settlements to be assessed consistently in relation to one another. Built form and conservation interest are the principal qualitative considerations in refining the quantitative data and ultimately determining the status of individual villages within the RNOTP Policy 1 settlement hierarchy.

3.1 Availability of services – earlier studies (2003-5)

3.1.1 The availability of services in villages has been an extensive consideration throughout the process of preparing the RNOTP to date. During summer 2003, ENC officers collected comprehensive data concerning local services in villages across the District. This survey was extensive with data collected under 14 separate headings, including convenience store, post office, community hall, primary school and accessibility to an urban centre within walking distance (2km).

3.1.2 The initial 2003 rural services survey data was collated, summarized and set out in the “Design for the Future” discussion papers (DOC401-405), published for consultation during 2004. Through this process, respondents were invited to identify those settlements where services are utilized by wider communities.

3.1.3 Soon after the publication of the “Design for the Future” papers during 2004, the survey data was updated and corrected to October 2004. The 2003 rural services survey data was also used to inform Entec’s North Northamptonshire Market Towns and Rural Regeneration report (DOC305 Appendix D, May 2004). Entec also collected a wider range of data, which were utilized in recommending those villages which could be considered as possible service centres (section 1.2 above).

3.1.4 In view of the findings of the earlier studies in respect of local services, Baker Associates was appointed to carry out a more detailed study in order to develop a framework within which the RNOTP could be developed with a view to promoting

East Northamptonshire Council Page 10 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer integrated policies for sustainable development in the rural area. This study related to around 40% of the RNOTP area, covering most of the northern part of the Plan area situated between the A427 (Oundle/ Benefield) and A47 (near to, but excluding, Duddington). Local services and relationships between villages were discussed. However, the Baker Associates study did not go further than making recommendations about which villages should most appropriately be designated as service centres in the study area, i.e. within the rural north of the District.

3.2 Availability of services – 2008 update

3.2.1 In view of the detailed work already undertaken and submitted with the RNOTP in respect of rural services, it was decided that this should be updated as a desk based quantitative exercise, as at November/ December 2008 (Appendix 1). All villages with the exception of King’s Cliffe, whose status as a “Local Service Centre” is defined by CSS Policy 1, have been assessed. A number of documents and web based sources have been used in this work:

• Retailing, garages, doctors, dentists, pubs, rural businesses – “Ahead for Business” (ENC, 2008) – hhttp://www.burrows.co.uk/scripts/db4_ib.dll/setdb?database=307448ttttp::////www..burrrrows..co..uk//scrriiptts//db4_iib..dllll//settdb?dattabase=307448 and hhttp://www.yell.com/ucs/HomePageAction.dottttp::////www..yellll..com//ucs//HomePageActtiion..do • Post Offices – Network Change Programme (2007) – ffftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/po/proposed_area_plan_LEICS_A4.ttp::////ffttp..rroyallmaiill..com//Downlloads//publliic//cttff//po//prroposed_arrea_pllan_LEIICS_A4.. ppdfdff • Primary schools, bus services and mobile libraries – Northamptonshire County Council – hhttp://www.northamptonshire.gov.ukttttp::////www..norrtthampttonshiirre..gov..uk • Community Halls – East Northamptonshire Council Policy and Community Development Department • Outdoor sports facilities/ playing fields – East Northamptonshire Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (DOC309, January 2006)

3.2.2 Scoring for local services – The earlier data was updated and allocated scores accordingly. As with the earlier (2003-4) tick box surveys, most services were duly awarded one point for the presence of each specified service. The reorganization of Post Office services (2007) through the Network Change Programme involved the retention of existing Sub-Post Offices, replacement of these with “Outreach” services or closure. Accordingly, two points were given to villages where the Post Office has been retained (in all cases this relates to villages which have been considered as possible Smaller Service Centres – paragraph 1.2.1 above), or one point where this has been replaced by an “Outreach” service.

3.2.3 Accessibility to bus services has been considered in a similar manner. Villages with a daily bus service have been given one point, while those with an hourly (or more frequent) service were given two points.

3.2.4 The presence of an outdoor sports facility or playing field was selected as an additional criterion. One point was awarded to those villages which have access to either outdoor sports facilities or a playing field.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 11 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 3.2.5 Scoring for constraints – Negative (minus) scores were applied to key development constraints likely to impact upon the sustainability for development in each village. All such constraints are shown on the RNOTP Proposals Map insets:

• Number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (minus one for each Scheduled Ancient Monument within or adjacent to the built up area of the village) • Conservation Areas, with additional score for those with Article 4(2) Directions (minus one, or minus two for Conservation Areas with Article 4(2) Directions) • Flood risk areas affecting built up areas of villages (minus one) • Proximity to potential Special Protection Area (SPA)/ Ramsar site (minus one)

3.2.6 Scoring by village population – The scores for services and constraints have been given a total “Sustainability Rating”. In addition, the current (2008) population estimates have also been taken into account, as it is assumed that larger villages with larger populations are more likely to be able to support and sustain local services in the longer term. The population estimates for individual villages have been awarded scores as follows, up to a maximum 11:

Population Estimate (2008) Score >1000 11 901-1000 10 801-900 9 701-800 8 601-700 7 501-600 6 401-500 5 301-400 4 201-300 3 101-200 2 1-100 1

3.2.7 Certain small “settlements” were also considered as possible “village” designations (“Design for the Future” discussion papers, 2004). These have been taken forward in the 2008 update and as a result an additional category of settlement has also been identified (RNOTP paragraph 4.7); Category ‘O’, for open countryside, where the final paragraph of RNOTP Policy 1 will apply. In most cases such hamlets or groups of buildings are dependent upon other, larger, villages and there is no separate population estimate. These Category O “settlements” will be considered in Section 4.0.

3.2.8 Overall scores – The sustainability and population scores have been added together to provide a total score by which villages may be ranked. Section 4.0 below sets out the analysis of these findings.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 12 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 4.0 Analysis of rural services survey update

4.0.1 This section of the study provides a quantitative analysis of the findings of the rural services survey 2008 update. This is further refined by a qualitative analysis, in order to demonstrate the rationale for defining Category A and B villages. This analysis also includes those smaller villages or hamlets which were previously regarded as being “open countryside” in the 1996 Local Plan. Certain such hamlets, notably Armston and Wigsthorpe, were considered through the “Design for the Future” process during 2004/5, but it was subsequently proposed in the submission RNOTP Policy 1 that “open countryside” policies should apply.

4.0.2 This analysis consists of:

• Changes to local services (2003-8) • Classification of settlements by score • Qualitative analysis – in relation to historic character and built form.

4.1 Changes to local services since 2003

4.1.1 Several changes to local services since 2003 are noted. Notable changes, mainly the loss of certain key services, include:

• Loss of garage and convenience store in Collyweston • Opening of “Community Shops” in Great Addington and Titchmarsh • Loss of Post Offices at Bulwick, Collyweston, Sudborough and Wadenhoe • Replacement of Post Offices at Barnwell and Clopton with “Outreach” services (Post Office Network Change Programme, November 2007) • Closure of Barnwell Primary School • Pub closure at Wakerley • Loss of mobile library services at Bulwick, Glapthorn and Twywell, but additional service to Fineshade

4.1.2 Barnwell, which was considered as a possible service centre through the Entec study and “Design for the Future” consultations, appears to have suffered the most dramatic loss of key services since 2003. Despite the closure of the primary school and downgrading of the Post Office service, however, Barnwell still retains some key services, namely a convenience store and pub and a range of small businesses at Home Farm/ Barnwell Workshops, just north of the village.

4.1.3 Despite the loss of key services in some cases these are unlikely to affect the category of most villages. This is because villages assessed in the 2008 rural services update (Appendix 1) have only been considered in terms of four possible categories:

• SC – (Smaller) Service Centre – Warmington and Nassington, together with Brigstock, Easton on the Hill and Woodford, all have a sufficient level of services to be considered as possible service centres, though there is only sufficiently substantive evidence for Nassington and Warmington to be designated as smaller service centres

East Northamptonshire Council Page 13 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer • A – Category A village – Network village with settlement boundary (RNOTP Policy 1 (4)) • B – Category B village – Network village without settlement boundary (RNOTP Policy 1(4)) • O – Small village/ hamlet, classified as open countryside.

4.2 Classification of settlements by overall sustainability and population score (Appendix 1)

4.2.1 Total scores for individual settlements vary greatly. Warmington achieved the highest sustainability score (22), with Blatherwycke having the lowest score (minus one), due mainly to local constraints.

4.2.2 Scoring in respect of large villages/ possible service centres – This study (Appendix 1) has identified a clear division between overall scores for the possible service centres (Brigstock, Easton on the Hill, Nassington, Warmington and Woodford), together with Islip. These villages all scored over 17, with the next highest scoring village being Titchmarsh, scoring 12.

4.2.3 Islip was not considered to be a possible service centre due to its close relationship with Thrapston in terms of service provision, being immediately adjacent on the opposite (west) side of the . While Islip does contain a substantial range of local services equivalent to those villages considered as possible service centres, functionally it is likely that many of these are also utilized by Thrapston residents and businesses so the village could not therefore be considered to be a separate service centre. As such, Islip is expected to be classified a Category A village, with land allocations for housing and employment being located at Thrapston.

4.2.4 The evidence and rationale for the decision to designate Nassington and Warmington as smaller service centres, but not Brigstock, Easton on the Hill and Woodford is summarized above (Section 1.2 and paragraph 4.1.3).

4.2.5 Scoring in respect of Category A and B Network Villages – Unlike the clear divide between the scores for the largest villages (see Appendix 2 graph) and the other villages, there is no clear divide in terms of the overall scores for the other Network Villages. Given the 1460 CSS rural area housing target (Policy 10/ Table 5) and CSS Policy 1 which states that “development will take place within village boundaries”, these are taken as a presumption that most villages are expected to be classified Category A villages, i.e. with a defined village boundary.

4.2.6 Category B villages, where conservation or restraint policies will be applied are expected to be the exception. This latter category will only apply to individual villages having either a particular historic conservation interest where allowing additional infill development would be inappropriate; or villages being of such a limited size or range of services, or having such a scattered/ dispersed built form that these are unsuitable to accommodate additional development. It is therefore anticipated in practice that the majority of Network Villages will be designated Category A.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 14 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 4.2.7 The overall scores for all villages in the Plan area have been calculated (Appendix 1). When these scores are compared to the designation of each village in the submitted RNOTP, there is a clear division between those villages scoring three or above (predominantly Category A) and those scoring less than three (predominantly Category B). It is, however, noted that certain villages which are designated Category B villages in the submission RNOTP have scored up to six.

4.2.8 Villages scoring between one and two (inclusive) are predominantly identified as Category B villages in the submission RNOTP. Villages and hamlets scoring zero and below are predominantly identified as “open countryside” locations, and are not therefore categorized in the RNOTP Policy 1 settlement hierarchy.

4.2.9 Given these findings from the 2008 rural services update, certain general presumptions have been made about thresholds for categorizing villages, set out below.

2008 rural services update – Proposed category overall score 15 and above Possible Smaller Service Centre 3-14 Category A 1-2 Category B 0 or below Open countryside

4.2.10 This study presumes that each settlement will be placed into each category according to the overall score (Appendix 1). However, a small number of anomalies have been identified; i.e. Category A or B villages which do not fit into their expected category and these particular cases will be assessed in more detail below. The rationale for the decision to designate Smaller Service Centres is summarized in section 1.2 above. The following villages were proposed as Category B villages in the submission RNOTP though all scored between four and six, above the Category A threshold:

• Ashton (6) • Benefield (Lower) (4) • Lowick (6) • Wadenhoe (4)

4.2.11 Most villages scoring between two and one have been categorized as Category B, though the following open countryside (Category ‘O’) settlements have also scored two or one:

• Armston (1) • Wigsthorpe (1)

4.2.12 Finally, Luddington in the Brook and Blatherwycke, both classified as Category B villages in the submission RNOTP, scored less than one, lower than Armston and Wigsthorpe (both classified as “open countryside”). A detailed qualitative analysis of those settlements whose scores do not reflect their RNOTP classification is set out in section 4.3-4.6 below.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 15 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 4.3 Qualitative analysis – detailed assessment of villages scoring three or more, but classified as Category B villages in the submission RNOTP

4.3.1 The quantitative assessment of villages, by services, constraints and population provides a rationale for the classification of most villages into Category A, Category B or the open countryside. In terms of designating Category B villages, known as “Restraint villages” in the adopted CSS (paragraph 3.14) and previously in the Northamptonshire Structure Plan (DOC214), the key considerations (priorities) are as follows:

• Conservation of the built environment – including scenic quality and local vernacular/ detail • Form – scarce, fragile or ancient characteristics of the local built environment • Character and scale – sense of place including the setting of buildings and settlement itself in the wider landscape • Networks – linkages between settlements

4.3.2 Ashton, Benefield (Lower), Lowick and Wadenhoe would normally be expected, based upon the findings of the 2008 rural services update (Appendix 1), to fall within Category A. The particular local circumstances and historic interest of these villages are considered below, with particular reference to their conservation interest, form, scale, character and/ or linkages with other settlements.

4.3.3 Ashton – The entire built up area of Ashton village (built around Ashton Green) is covered by a Conservation Area. This was reviewed and extended in 1996, with most of the houses in the village being listed in 1998. The particular historic character of the village dates to 1860, when the whole parish was bought by Baron Rothschild and later transformed into a model estate village (source: 1996 Local Plan Settlement Strategy). As such, Ashton’s particular historic interest lies in its wholly planned built form.

4.3.4 The Ashton Strategy Statement (Local Plan Section 15) clearly sets out the rationale and justification for its designation as a “Restraint village” in the 1996 Local Plan. The particular sensitivity of the village is further illustrated by the decision in 1998 to give statutory listings to most of the houses in the village. These factors are considered to provide sufficiently robust evidence that Ashton, despite its having an overall sustainability scoring equivalent to a Category A village, has been correctly designated as a Category B settlement in the RNOTP (Policy 1(4)).

4.3.5 Another consideration is the 2008 population estimate for Ashton. A substantial part of the village population is located adjacent to Oundle (at Elmington, A605), where housing was developed during the late 1990s on the former Oundle Station yard site. The total estimated 2008 population for Ashton Parish is 190, though a proportion of this figure located at Elmington. As such, the population score (two) is probably higher than it ought to be for Ashton alone; the current population of the historic village probably equating to around 100.

4.3.6 Overall, Ashton’s particular character is a late Victorian planned model estate village which was built at the turn of the 20th Century (c1900). The historic character of the village is considered to be potentially vulnerable if windfall/ infill development is permissible. Given that Ashton’s particular historic significance relates to its built form,

East Northamptonshire Council Page 16 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer it is not therefore considered appropriate to allow general windfall development or infilling through the designation of a settlement boundary, i.e. the submission RNOTP Category B designation is considered to be justified.

4.3.7 Benefield – This linear village, situated along the A427 Oundle – Weldon road is physically former of two parts; the upper (west) and lower (east) parts of the village. Benefield has an hourly bus service and includes facilities such as a village hall in the lower part of the village, with the pub situated in the upper part.

4.3.8 Of the two parts of Benefield, the lower village has significantly more development constraints. Both parts of the village are covered by separate Conservation Areas, though a significant part of the west end of the upper village is outside the Conservation Area, while Benefield (Lower) is covered by a Conservation Area in its entirety. The lower village also includes a substantial Scheduled Ancient Monument, Benefield Castle, and part is at risk of flooding.

4.3.9 In terms of development opportunities and the availability of local services, Benefield, despite being made up of two distinct physical entities in practice functions as a single village, e.g. being managed by a single Parish Council. Given that the lower village has more constraints than the upper part – historic designations and flood risk areas – the RNOTP strategy for Benefield proposes to focus additional windfall development/ infilling in Benefield (Upper), which has a defined settlement boundary (Category A). Given the development constraints at the lower village, the restriction of new development to conversions and the re-use of existing buildings, i.e. its Category B designation in the submission RNOTP, is considered to be appropriate.

4.3.10 Lowick – The 2008 rural services survey update (Appendix 1) shows Lowick achieving a score of six, well above the Category A threshold score (three). The main village still retains services such as a pub, village hall and daily bus service, which are key factors in the village’s high overall sustainability score (Appendix 1).

4.3.11 The main village (east of Harper’s Brook) is covered by a Conservation Area and contains a large number of listed buildings (25). Opportunities for windfall and infilling would be constrained by these designations and the need for them to materially contribute to the setting of listed buildings and/ or the Conservation Area. Lowick’s compact built form is also noted, which is also likely to limit opportunities for new infill/ windfall development.

4.3.12 It is emphasized that the main part of the village is significantly constrained by its historic interest, being entirely covered by the Conservation Area, though this has no current Conservation Area appraisal. Despite the main village’s Conservation Area designation and compact built form, some additional development within Lowick might be considered where it could be demonstrated that this would enhance the character of the village, but such opportunities are likely to be extremely limited.

4.3.13 In addition to the main village, Lowick includes a cluster of dwellings situated around Alley Farm (Drayton Road) to the west of Harper’s Brook, outside the Conservation Area. These define the setting of a main access route to Drayton Park. While these dwellings are entirely separate from the main village, this part of the village might have potential to accommodate further small scale windfall development.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 17 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 4.3.14 Despite the village’s obvious development constraints, the rural services update nevertheless clearly points to the village having a sufficient range of services and being of such a scale to be designated Category A. The evidence base is not, therefore, considered to be sufficiently robust to justify its continued classification as a Category B village in the submission RNOTP, given the findings of the 2008 rural services update. It is therefore proposed that Lowick should be re-designated a Category A village with a defined settlement boundary.

4.3.15 Wadenhoe – The 2008 rural services survey update (Appendix 1) shows Wadenhoe achieving a score of four, above the Category A threshold score (three). The loss of local services since 2003/4 has been notable, with the recent closure of the Post Office/ convenience store. However, Wadenhoe retains services such as a pub, village hall and daily bus service and the village has access to services such as a convenience store and primary school at , around 2km walking distance.

4.3.16 The village contains a large number of listed buildings (36), all of which are within the Conservation Area that covers almost the entire built up area of Wadenhoe. Also of note are Wadenhoe House (east of the village) and the original medieval settlement, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (west of the village). Given these substantial constraints, the scope for acceptable windfall development is likely to be limited by the historic and archaeological interest of the village as a whole.

4.3.17 It is emphasized that the entire village is significantly constrained by its historic interest, being entirely covered by the Conservation Area, though this has no current Conservation Area appraisal. Despite the Wadenhoe’s Conservation Area designation, additional development within the village might be considered where it could be demonstrated that this would enhance the character of the village, but such opportunities are likely to be extremely limited.

4.3.18 Overall, despite the Wadenhoe’s obvious development constraints, the rural services update nevertheless points to Wadenhoe being of a sufficient scale and range of services to be classified Category A. The evidence base is not, therefore, considered to be sufficiently robust to justify its continued classification as a Category B village in the submission RNOTP, given the findings of the 2008 rural services update. It is therefore proposed that Wadenhoe should be re-designated a Category A village with a defined settlement boundary.

4.3.19 Overview, conclusions and recommendations – The villages considered in Section 4.3 all achieved sustainability and overall scorings in the rural services survey update (Appendix 1) such that there is an initial presumption that they should be designated as Category A villages, i.e. with a settlement boundary. However, Ashton and Benefield (Lower) have particular local circumstances, meaning that a Category A (instead of Category B) designation would be inappropriate for these villages.

4.3.20 Despite the significant local constraints affecting Lowick and Wadenhoe, the possible arguments for their designation as Category B villages in the submission RNOTP are not considered to be sufficiently robust. Given their overall scores, there is a presumption in that Lowick and Wadenhoe should be classified as Category A villages.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 18 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 4.4 Qualitative analysis – detailed assessment of those open countryside “settlements” identified as falling within Category B score

4.4.1 In the 2008 rural services/ sustainability study update (Appendix 1); the majority of villages scoring one or two have been classified as Category B villages. “Villages” scoring zero or below are considered to be unsuitable to be classified as settlements under RNOTP Policy 1 and are therefore generally considered to be “open countryside”.

4.4.2 Armston and Wigsthorpe both scored one in the rural services study, on account of both of these “villages” having rural businesses. Both consist of freestanding groups of farm workers’ cottages related to long-established farming operations, e.g. Armston Hall Farm and Wigsthorpe House Farm. Despite this, neither is considered to function as a separate settlement, given that both have access to rural services in larger nearby villages; namely Polebrook and Barnwell, within 2km of Armston and Wigsthorpe respectively.

4.4.3 Armston and Wigsthorpe both have difficult access, being situated at the end of narrow roads/ semi-metalled roads. As such, neither is considered an appropriate location for further residential development other than that related to existing local agricultural businesses.

4.4.4 Overview and conclusions – Armston and Wigsthorpe are both isolated hamlets/ groups of houses and were classed as open countryside in the submission RNOTP. Both, however, were considered as separate “settlements” by the 2003 rural services survey, “Design for the Future” (DOC404) and the 2008 rural services survey update (Appendix 1). As described, both hamlets have achieved scores of one, neither having constraints such as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Conservation Areas or flood risk areas which would otherwise lower their overall score.

4.4.5 The role, function and status of Armston and Wigsthorpe as separate villages (Category A or B) has been considered through the various studies since 2003 relating to rural services and the settlement hierarchy. Despite Armston and Wigsthorpe containing rural businesses, both are generally inaccessible and closely associated with Barnwell and Polebrook villages respectively, which have a significant range of local services. It is not therefore considered appropriate to reclassify either as Category B villages.

4.5 Qualitative analysis – Luddington in the Brook

4.5.1 Luddington in the Brook was classified as a Category B settlement in the submission RNOTP (paragraph 4.6). Previously Luddington was considered as suitable to accommodate some infill or windfall development, being designated as a “Restricted Infill Settlement” in the 1996 Local Plan.

4.5.2 In reviewing settlement boundaries (DOC330), Luddington was not considered as suitable to accommodate further windfall/ infill development, owing to its scattered built form and the lack of local services. Luddington was accordingly designated a Category B village, under RNOTP Policy 1(4).

East Northamptonshire Council Page 19 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 4.5.3 Luddington’s function as a separate village is further considered through this study. A rural business is currently operating in Luddington. However, the village has constraints, being at risk of flooding from Alconbury Brook, and having significant archaeological interest, namely the former medieval village and Great Hall Spinney, the latter being a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

4.5.4 Hemington, Luddington and Thurning Parish Council, has submitted representations (DOC901-903) arguing that the status of Luddington ought to be clarified, either through designation as a Category A village (i.e. with a settlement boundary) or reclassification as “open countryside” (representation 00264). The possible designation as a Category A village was considered in developing policies in the RNOTP (Preferred Options, paragraph 6.13), but was found to be inappropriate in the case of Luddington, given its dispersed built form.

4.5.5 The findings of the rural services/ sustainability study indicate that the village does not even fulfill the necessary criteria for designation as a Category B village. Administratively, it functions alongside Hemington and Thurning, both of which have a limited number of services, e.g. community halls. Luddington also has access to rural services in Great Gidding (Huntingdonshire), which are within 2km. As such, Luddington functions very much as part of a network of settlements and is not considered to be a free standing village.

4.5.6 Conclusions and recommendations – Considering representations submitted by the Parish Council and the substantial development constraints affecting Luddington in the Brook, it is recommended that this village, proposed as a Category B settlement in the submission RNOTP (Policy 1(4)/ paragraph 4.6) be reclassified as open countryside, with development proposals considered against RNOTP policies 30-32.

4.6 Qualitative analysis – Blatherwycke

4.6.1 Blatherwycke was classified as a Category B settlement in the submission RNOTP (paragraph 4.6), having been previously classified as a “Restraint village” in the 1996 Local Plan on account of its dispersed built form. However, Blatherwycke’s overall score (minus one) is lower than that for the open countryside “settlements” of Armston and Wigsthorpe. This low scoring is mainly due to substantial development constraints, in particular two Scheduled Ancient Monuments and an area at risk of flooding (Willow Brook).

4.6.2 Blatherwycke has a dispersed and scattered built form. The rural services survey update (Appendix 1) has identified no local services within the village, except for visits by the County Council’s mobile library.

4.6.3 In the case of Blatherwycke, however, other factors need to be considered. Its role and function was considered by the Baker Associates study (DOC308). This demonstrates that Blatherwycke functions as a self-contained community, the nearest local services at Bulwick and King’s Cliffe being around 3km and 4km distant respectively. The Baker Associates study found that many residents continue to be locally employed in agriculture, while Blatherwycke also has its own Parish Meeting, further illustrating its function as a sustainable community.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 20 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 4.6.4 Overall, it is considered that sufficiently robust evidence exists to demonstrate that Blatherwycke functions as a sustainable community. It is not, therefore, considered appropriate for the village to be designated an “open countryside” location. While the village has a limited range of services, a scattered built form and significant development constraints, in practice Blatherwycke does function as a freestanding village. As such, the continued designation of Blatherwycke as a Category B village in the RNOTP is considered to be appropriate in these circumstances.

East Northamptonshire Council Page 21 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer 5.0 Conclusions – key findings of Category A and B village analysis

5.1 Developing a settlement hierarchy and robust methodology, in respect of Category A and B villages

5.1.1 The settlement hierarchy in the RNOTP (Policy 1) was developed in accordance with the CSS. The decision to designate Category A and Category B Network Villages (RNOTP Policy 1(4)) was taken in order to conform to CSS Policy 1/ paragraph 3.14.

5.1.2 The RNOTP area contains a large number of villages, ranging from potential service centres, e.g. King’s Cliffe, Nassington, Warmington, Brigstock, Easton on the Hill and Woodford, to small hamlets and isolated farmsteads. Local services and the sustainability of these larger villages were initially assessed through the 2003 rural services/ sustainability survey. The survey and methodology have been extensively refined through the 2008 update, which has been undertaken to provide an objective and quantitative analysis behind the categorization of rural settlements as Category A or B villages.

5.2 Analysis of the results of the 2008 rural services/ sustainability survey update

5.2.1 The 2008 rural services survey update was utilized to identify specific thresholds by which individual settlements may be categorized as Category A, Category B or open countryside. The majority of settlements designated as Category A or B villages in the submission RNOTP (paragraphs 4.5-4.6) are found to have been appropriately categorized in terms of the rural services survey methodology.

5.2.2 However, a small number of villages which have particular conservation interest or environmental sensitivities are of a sufficient size and contain a range of local services typical for a Category A village. These are:

• Ashton • Benefield (Lower) • Lowick • Wadenhoe

5.2.3 The analysis of these villages in this study has revealed that Ashton, despite achieving an overall score equivalent to a Category A village, has a particular historic character which means that it would not be appropriate to redesignate the village as Category A, thereby allowing additional infill development. By contrast, it is not considered that sufficiently robust evidence exists to justify the continued designation of Lowick and Wadenhoe as Category B villages, given that their overall rural service scores (Appendix 1) are equivalent to Category A villages.

5.2.4 The rural services surveys (2003/4 and 2008 update) comprehensively considered all settlements in the RNOTP area, including certain isolated hamlets previously classified as “open countryside” in the 1996 Local Plan. Armston and Wigsthorpe both contain

East Northamptonshire Council Page 22 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer rural businesses, but neither has been found to function as a separate entity. Both hamlets are related to nearby larger villages and their continued classification as “open countryside” is considered to be appropriate in all cases.

5.2.5 Blatherwycke was found to have the lowest score in the 2008 rural services survey update. This was principally due to constraints such as flood risk and Scheduled Ancient Monuments. However, the Baker Associates study (DOC308) demonstrates that Blatherwycke does function as a settlement in its own right, so its Category B designation in the RNOTP is considered to be appropriate.

5.2.6 The study has found one further inappropriate settlement categorization, namely the designation of Luddington in the Brook as a Category B village. Given Luddington’s particular development constraints and its function within the network of nearby settlements, the Category B designation in the submission RNOTP has been found to be inappropriate in the circumstances, so it is therefore proposed to be reclassified as open countryside.

5.3 Recommendations

5.3.1 The rural services study has assessed all settlements in a comprehensive way, providing a systematic scoring mechanism in all cases. Where anomalies in the RNOTP settlement hierarchy have been identified, these have been reviewed further, in order to identify where particular local circumstances apply which mean that a classification based solely upon the rural services study is not considered appropriate.

5.3.2 Three corrections to the RNOTP settlement hierarchy have, nevertheless been identified through the process of preparing this study. The following changes to the settlement hierarchy are accordingly recommended:

• Re-designation of Lowick and Wadenhoe as Category A villages with defined settlement boundaries • Re-designation of Luddington in the Brook from Category B designation to “open countryside”

5.3.3 These recommendations will need to be agreed by the Council’s Planning Policy Committee and then subject to the statutory 6 weeks consultation in February/ March 2009.

5.3.4 Proposed changes to the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan and Proposals Map:

Paragraph Proposed change 4.5 Insert “Lowick” and “Wadenhoe” into list of Category A Network Villages 4.6 Delete “Lowick”, “Luddington-in-the-Brook” and “Wadenhoe” Proposals Settlement boundaries will be defined for Lowick and Wadenhoe Map Insets

East Northamptonshire Council Page 23 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer RURAL SURVEY OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES (updated autumn 2008) APPENDIX 1

VILLAGE/ OST OFFICE(Outreach 1, or 2 if BUTCHERS (1) HAIRDRESSERS(1) DENTIST (1) DOCTOR'S(1) PRIMARYSCHOOL (1) RURAL BUSINESSES(1) MOBILELIBRARY SERVICE (1) HOUSE PUBLIC (1) ACCESSIBILITYTO DAILYBUS SERVICE(1, IF or 2 HOURLY) WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF(2Km) URBANCENTRE (1) OUTDOORSPORTS FACILITY/ FIELDPLAYING (1) CONSTRAINTS SCHEDULDED ANCIENT MONUMENTS(NO) CONSERVATION (-1,AREA or -2 FORARTICLE 4(2)) FLOODRISK(-1) PROXIMITY TO POTENTIAL RAMSAR SPA/ SITES (-1 or -2) SUSTAINABILITYRATING POPULTATION ESTIMATE (2008) POPULATION SCORE DRAFT RNOTPPOLICY 1 CATEGORY(SC, A, B or O) OVERALL SCORE SUSTAINABILITY+ POPULATION SCORE SERVICES CONVENIENCE STORE (1) PETROL STATION/GARAGE (1) COMMUNITYHALL (1) sub-postoffice) SETTLEMENT P Warmington 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 -1 12 924 10 SC 22 Easton on the Hill 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 10 1047 11 A 21 Woodford 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 10 1448 11 A 21 Brigstock 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 9 1384 11 A 20 Islip 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 10 787 8 A 18 Nassington 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 9 730 8 SC 17 Titchmarsh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 6 550 6 A 12 Yarwell 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 333 4 A 12 Aldwincle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 7 355 4 A 11 Great Addington 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 6 331 4 A 10 Woodnewton 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 5 454 5 A 10 Barnwell 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 5 388 4 A 9 Denford 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 6 260 3 A 9 Collyweston 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 -2 2 540 6 A 8 Glapthorn 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 5 266 3 A 8 Little Addington 1 1 1 1 4 301 4 A 8 Polebrook 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 3 499 5 A 8 Benefield (Upper) 1 1 1 2 1 -1 5 163 2 A 7 Southwick 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 5 180 2 A 7 Twywell 1 1 1 1 1 5 187 2 A 7 APPENDICES – Rural Survey of Services and Facilities Revised Summary (October 2004) and autumn 2008 update

VILLAGE/ OST OFFICE(Outreach 1, or 2 if POPULATION SCORE DRAFT RNOTPPOLICY 1 CATEGORY(SC, A, B or O) OVERALL SCORE SUSTAINABILITY+ POPULATION SCORE SERVICES CONVENIENCE STORE (1) PETROL STATION/GARAGE (1) COMMUNITYHALL (1) BUTCHERS (1) HAIRDRESSERS(1) DENTIST (1) DOCTOR'S(1) PRIMARYSCHOOL (1) RURAL BUSINESSES(1) MOBILELIBRARY SERVICE (1) HOUSE PUBLIC (1) ACCESSIBILITYTO DAILYBUS SERVICE(1, IF or 2 HOURLY) WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF(2Km) URBANCENTRE (1) OUTDOORSPORTS FACILITY/ FIELDPLAYING (1) CONSTRAINTS SCHEDULDED ANCIENT MONUMENTS(NO) CONSERVATION (-1,AREA or -2 FORARTICLE 4(2)) FLOODRISK(-1) PROXIMITY TO POTENTIAL RAMSAR SPA/ SITES (-1 or -2) SUSTAINABILITYRATING POPULTATION ESTIMATE (2008) sub-postoffice) SETTLEMENT P Ashton 1 1 1 1 1 -1 4 190 2 B 6 Lowick 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 4 140 2 B 6 Lutton 1 1 1 1 4 145 2 A 6 Slipton 1 1 1 1 4 140 2 A 6 Clopton 1 1 1 3 136 2 A 5 Cotterstock 1 1 1 1 -1 3 151 2 A 5 Harringworth 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 2 257 3 A 5 Tansor 1 1 1 1 -1 3 185 2 A 5 Apethorpe 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 2 152 2 A 4 Benefield (Lower) 1 1 1 2 -1 -1 -1 2 163 2 B 4 Laxton 1 1 1 -1 2 162 2 A 4 Lilford 1 1 2 103 2 A 4 Sudborough 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 2 196 2 A 4 Thorpe Waterville 1 1 1 -1 2 158 2 A 4 Thurning 1 1 1 3 95 1 A 4 Wadenhoe 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 2 131 2 B 4 Bulwick 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 164 2 A 3 Deenethorpe 1 1 103 2 A 3 Hemington 1 1 1 -1 2 89 1 A 3 1 1 2 73 1 A 3 Deene 1 1 -1 1 44 1 B 2

East Northamptonshire Council Page 25 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer APPENDICES – Rural Survey of Services and Facilities Revised Summary (October 2004) and autumn 2008 update

VILLAGE/ OST OFFICE(Outreach 1, or 2 if POPULATION SCORE DRAFT RNOTPPOLICY 1 CATEGORY(SC, A, B or O) OVERALL SCORE SUSTAINABILITY+ POPULATION SCORE SERVICES CONVENIENCE STORE (1) PETROL STATION/GARAGE (1) COMMUNITYHALL (1) BUTCHERS (1) HAIRDRESSERS(1) DENTIST (1) DOCTOR'S(1) PRIMARYSCHOOL (1) RURAL BUSINESSES(1) MOBILELIBRARY SERVICE (1) HOUSE PUBLIC (1) ACCESSIBILITYTO DAILYBUS SERVICE(1, IF or 2 HOURLY) WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF(2Km) URBANCENTRE (1) OUTDOORSPORTS FACILITY/ FIELDPLAYING (1) CONSTRAINTS SCHEDULDED ANCIENT MONUMENTS(NO) CONSERVATION (-1,AREA or -2 FORARTICLE 4(2)) FLOODRISK(-1) PROXIMITY TO POTENTIAL RAMSAR SPA/ SITES (-1 or -2) SUSTAINABILITYRATING POPULTATION ESTIMATE (2008) sub-postoffice) SETTLEMENT P Duddington 1 1 1 1 -1 -2 -1 0 181 2 B 2 Fineshade 1 1 2 - 0 B 2 Fotheringhay 1 1 1 1 -3 -1 0 133 2 B 2 1 1 - 0 B 1 Armston 1 1 - 0 O 1 Pilton 1 -1 0 55 1 B 1 Wakerley 1 1 -1 -1 0 78 1 B 1 Wigsthorpe 1 1 - 0 O 1 Luddington in the Brook 1 -1 -1 -1 52 1 B 0 Blatherwycke 1 -2 -1 -2 57 1 B -1

East Northamptonshire Council Page 26 of 28 RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON PLAN: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – DEFINING CATEGORY A AND B VILLAGES Version 3.0, 22 January 2009 Author: Michael Burton, Senior Planning Policy Officer VILLAGE RANKINGS (autumn 2008) APPENDIX 2

25

20

15

OVERALL SCORE SUSTAINABILITY + POPULATION SCORE 10

5

0

k n l l n n r ) h e e e e e y e k rd c sh l k n ck o on th o r rd g ll ng o p on le d a on p o r cle to on orn ic el o t r s ton o u i h t y n ton a h rch lt rley r fo Islip well n g we st w tt ipt tock o x lf o rn n wick e g g i o ro cke ington he Hilld ngton r in n th ington yw u l s w a i r tervi u l ing P h B y igsto si p d w Ashto Lowi L S Tan L L o h De rin chu m n t s hma Ya ar Denford a uth Clop tter ng (Lowe b Bu m ddin st o Br tc B lywe o T Wa T e e A Armston Wake g Woo a Aldwi Add Gl Polebrook S o rri Apethorped Wade H u Fineshth therw War n N Ti C Stoke Do D Wi at Col Sud Deenethor Fo Woodnewtonre ittle Ad Ha efiel Bla L n ton in the Easto G Benefield (Upper) Be Thorpe ding -5 d Lu Published and printed by East Northamptonshire Council