Downloads/File/11382/Consultation Statement and Appendix 4) Were Not Subsequently Taken Forward Into the Submission Version Neighbourhood Plan

Representations to Regulation 15 of the Draft Oundle Development Neighbourhood Plan

Response on behalf of , Landowners of Millers Field, Benefield Road, Oundle

August 2019

Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Does the draft Oundle Neighbourhood Development Plan meet the specified ‘basic conditions’? 4

Our reference ANNC3002

August 2019

1. Introduction

1.1 This Statement has been prepared by Turley, on behalf of , Landowners of draft allocation O19, Millers Field, Benefield Road, Oundle of the draft Oundle Neighbourhood Development Plan.

1.2 The Landowners have previously submitted representations in response to the Regulation 14 Plan Consultation.

1.3 The Landowners continue to strongly support the inclusion of Site O19 in the draft Plan, but advocate a number of changes to ensure the Plan can meet the basic conditions as set out in paragraph 8(2) of the Schedule 4B of the Town and County Planning Act 1990. In summary, to satisfy these basic conditions and put to a referendum, the Oundle Neighbourhood Development Plan must:

• have regard to national policies and advice.

• have special regard to the desirability of preserving any listed building or its setting

• have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area.

• the neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

• the neighbourhood plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area.

• the neighbourhood plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations.

• prescribed conditions are met and prescribed matters have been complied with.

1.4 The Landowners have requested the right to be heard before the examiner at the Neighbourhood Plan Examination if such a hearing is required.

2. Does the draft Oundle Neighbourhood Development Plan meet the specified ‘basic conditions’?

2.1 Overall, the Landowners of site O19, Millers Field consider that the draft Oundle Neighbourhood Development Plan (ONDP) is supportive of the Government’s objective at paragraph 59 of the National Planning Policy Framework to boost the supply of homes. The new National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) recognises small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area due to their ability to be built-out relatively quickly. Site O19 is immediately available, unconstrained and does not require significant upfront infrastructure. For these reasons, the Landowners strongly support the inclusion of their site within the draft Neighbourhood Plan as a housing allocation site, which would make a positive contribution to the Council’s continuous delivery of housing where there is an identified need.

2.2 Notwithstanding this strong support the Landowners have provided some commentary on specific parts of the draft Plan, where it is considered that an alternative approach would better ensure a deliverable strategy that meets the basic conditions so that it can proceed to a referendum.

Regard to National Policies and Advice

2.3 Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out that ‘neighbourhood plans should support the delivery of strategic policies contained in Local Plans or Spatial Development Strategies; and should shape and direct development that is outside of these strategic policies’.

2.4 It goes on in paragraph 69 to encourage ‘Neighbourhood Planning groups to consider the opportunities for allocating small and medium-sized sites (of a size consistent with paragraph 86a) suitable for housing in their area’.

2.5 Paragraph 41 of the Planning Practice Guidance is concerned with how policies in a Neighbourhood Plan should be drafted. It states that:

‘A policy in a neighbourhood plan should be clear and unambiguous. It should be drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications. It should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence. It should be distinct to reflect and respond to the unique characteristics and planning context of the specific neighbourhood area for which it has been prepared’.

2.6 In this context, draft allocation O19, Millers Field is well placed to deliver proportionate housing growth in Oundle, in line with paragraph 69 of the Framework. It has a developable size of less than 1 ha which means that it is of a suitable size and location for the Neighbourhood Plan to allocate and deliver. Paragraph 68 of the Framework calls for Development Plans (including Neighbourhood Plans) to promote a good mix of

developable sites including land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirements on sites no larger than one hectare.

2.7 Notwithstanding this, and the overall support for the inclusion of the site within the draft ONDP, we would suggest that the wording of Policy O19 is amended to align with Planning Practice Guidance and in turn meet the basic conditions.

Policy O19: Millers Field, Benefield Road

Land south of Benefield Road, as shown on the Policies Map, is allocated for residential development and open space. The site is expected to deliver high-quality development and shall:-

1. Deliver at least 14 dwellings with particular encouragement given to the provision of dwellings to accommodate small households, including homes to meet the needs of older people; 2. Deliver approximately 0.55ha for allotments and informal, public recreational space; 3. Ensure that views into the open countryside from Benefield Rd are preserved; and 4. Not lead to a net increase in flood risk including fluvial flooding along the course of the Lyveden Brook. 5. The allotment land shall be in a suitable location with its own vehicular access, on-site water supply and adequate off-street parking. 6. Provide structural landscaping incorporating informal recreational space adjacent to the Lyveden Brook with access for maintenance vehicles. 7. Provide a new cycle and pedestrian route between the informal recreational space and Benefield Road.

2.8 Point 2 of draft Policy O19 specifies that the site should deliver approximately 0.55 ha for allotments and informal, public recreational space. The Landowners fully support the provision of open space and allotments on this site and that this will be in the region of half the site. Notwithstanding this, given that the quantity and size of homes on this site are still to be formally determined, there is a need for the policy to be flexible to ensure delivery of the site.

2.9 Draft Policy O5 of the ONDP provides the mechanism for delivering open space on new housing developments and refers back to the guidance (or subsequent guidance) produced by East Northamptonshire District Council which is the correct means for calculating the required amount of open space on new sites. As such, we would request that the quantum is removed and Point 2 is re-worded as follows:

2. In accordance with Policy O5, deliver an appropriate amount of informal, public recreational space, including allotments taking into account site constraints; approximately 0.55ha for allotments and informal, public recreational space;

2.10 Our second point in respect to Policy O19 is point 7. This requires a new cycle and pedestrian route between the informal recreational space and Benefield Road. The Landowners are content to provide a route but questions the likelihood of cyclists using this route given the topography and the fact that it does not lead onto other locations.

To ensure that the policy is not too prescriptive, which could affect the deliverability of the site, the Landowners suggest that the policy be reworded so that it provides flexibility e.g. ‘provide a new pedestrian route between the informal recreational space and Benefield Road, with consideration towards any possible future cycle route.’.

The Neighbourhood Plan Contributes to the Achievement of Sustainable Development

2.11 In general, the Landowners welcome the importance that the Neighbourhood Plan places on the duty of ‘protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment’ and making ‘efficient use of land’. However, they do regret that the Plan does not make any reference to how future development should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2.12 Paragraph 148 of the Framework requires that ‘The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change [footnote: In line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008]. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure

2.13 In order to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan accords with the environmental strand of sustainable development, the Landowners urge the Town Council to review the ONDP and consider insertion of a policy which addresses this important matter.

Other Policy Responses:

Policy O5: The Provision and Enhancement of Open Space

Proposals for new housing developments of 15 or more dwellings, or with a site area over 0.42ha, will need to:

1. Include on-site provision of open space and/or, where appropriate, contribute towards the enhancement of existing provision in Oundle in accordance with guidance set out in East Northamptonshire Council’s Open Space Supplementary Planning Document or any subsequent update; and 2. Make provision for the long–term management of open space made necessary by the development.

The open space should be overlooked and easily accessible by means of pedestrian connections.

Where practicable, the open space should provide other green infrastructure benefits such as tree planting, flood or water storage areas or new habitats.

The more significant Open Spaces proposed in new housing developments, as shown on the Policies Map, include the following: 1. New Cricket Facilities off Herne Road

2. Cemetery Extension Land adjacent to existing Cemetery off Stoke Doyle Road 3. Allotments and Wildlife Area at Miller’s Field 4. Country Park and additional Sports, Festival and Events provision to the North of Benefield Road referred to as the “Festival Site” elsewhere within this Neighbourhood Plan.

2.14 The Landowners question the relevance of the second half of this Policy as it serves no purpose. This is because they are each addressed within the Site Specific Policies and it is implied that these sites will provide more significant areas of open space due to the size of the housing allocation.

2.15 Notwithstanding the above point, should these sites continue to be included in the policy, then the Landowners request a modification to remove reference to a ‘wildlife area’ as part of Millers Field. This is the first time a ‘wildlife area’ has been referred to and again comes back to the need for the Plan to be clear and concise so that the policies can be applied effectively by the decision maker.

Policy O15: Housing Site Allocations

Preparation of comprehensive masterplans involving Oundle Town Council, the local community and other organisations for the development of each site would be supported.

2.16 The Landowners would suggest that a proportionate approach needs to be taken here, given that two of the allocations are for 10 and 14 homes. A Masterplan for sites of this scale is unjustified, adding unnecessary costs and delay. As set out a Section 4 of the Framework the Neighbourhood Plan should place emphasis on the importance of early engagement at the pre-application stage with key stakeholders such as Oundle Town Council and the local community.

Policies Map

2.17 The Landowners have an objection to the draft Policies Map and the designation of land as ‘Proposed Community Uses’. This term is not referenced anywhere else in the draft ONDP and has not been defined. However, it appears in connection to Policy O19.

2.18 The Landowners support the allocation of housing on the upper half of the site, along at least part of the frontage with Benefield Road, with open space running down to the river. However, they consider it likely that it would be preferable for the housing to be in the NW half of the site, rather than along the full frontage, as this will minimise disruption to the allotments and retain better views from the road. This suggested layout (as set out below) for the Site has been put forward by the Landowners in correspondence with the Town Council, when they prepared their own plan to demonstrate the appropriate location for housing on the site allocation. The Landowners suggest that the Proposals Map is modified to include this plan to ensure that the scheme is deliverable and minimises disruption to an existing community facility, the allotments.

Extract from Proposals Map for Oundle Neighbourhood Development Plan May 2019

Plan provided by Landowners to Oundle Town Council in Correspondence dated 4 December 2018

2.19 The landowners support the provision of an area of allotments and informal open space running down to the river. However, they object to the designation of the land to the south for ‘Proposed Community Uses’, which could feasibly include uses within D1 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (As Amended). Referring to other draft housing allocations that have a ‘Proposed Community Use’ these refer to the extension to the cemetery and extension of recreational and sports uses for Prince William School, which are related to community uses. To apply this designation to draft Policy O19 relating to Open Space to be delivered by the scheme is disingenuous. In a similar vein, neither can the land be referred to as Local Green Space, as the scheme has not been delivered and does not exist.

2.20 However, the Landowners believe that the Neighbourhood Plan is attempting to safeguard part of the site for delivery of the replacement allotments and informal open space, given the specific constraints of this site. The Landowners are content with this, but to avoid confusion over the use of the land, the Town Council may wish to re- consider how this area is illustrated/defined on the Policies Map.

Turley Office 8 Quy Court Colliers Lane Stow-cum-Quy Cambridge CB25 9AU

From:

Subject: FW: Oundle Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 - Consultation under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, as amended Date: 13 August 2019 11:50:26 Attachments: image001.jpg image002.jpg Anglian Water Regulation 14 reps.xlsx

I have received the Regulation 16 consultation response below, regarding the submission (Regulation 15) version Oundle Neighbourhood Plan (May 2019). Briefly, Anglian Water have reviewed the submission Plan and noted that changes to the 1st draft (Regulation 14) version of the Neighbourhood that were previously agreed between the Town Council and Anglian Water (Consultation Statement Appendix 4: https://www.east- northamptonshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/11382/consultation_statement_and_appendix_4) were not subsequently taken forward into the submission version Neighbourhood Plan. In response to Anglian Water’s email below, I have reviewed Appendix 4 and concur with Stewart Patience’s findings below. From my review, I note the following: · Appendix 4 (consultation responses) must have been prepared some time before the submission Neighbourhood Plan was finalised, given that it recommended changes to the Plan text (e.g. regarding the St Christopher’s Drive site; Regulation 14, Policy O.19), which were subsequently rendered obsolete by the decision to delete the St Christopher’s Drive and East of Cotterstock Road proposed site allocations (policies O.19 and O.25 respectively). · It is probably an oversight/ editorial error that the other changes to the draft Neighbourhood Plan, previously agreed with Anglian Water, were not included in the submission version Neighbourhood Plan (policies O18-O22 and supporting text). To address the issues raised by Anglian Water (below), would Oundle Town Council be happy to endorse changes to the submission version Neighbourhood Plan (policies O18-O22 and supporting text) that were previously agreed with Anglian Water? I have reviewed the submission version document and attach a spreadsheet that I hope explains where changes to the document are required to address Anglian Water’s previous (Regulation 14) representations. I ask, so that the changes proposed in the attached spreadsheet to the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan can be agreed with the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner (when appointed). Please let me have your feedback (preferably within the Regulation 16 consultation window; by 27 August), so that we can forward Anglian Water’s comments and my spreadsheet to the Examiner in a timely manner. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Regards and best wishes.

Principal Planning Policy Officer East Northamptonshire Council 01832 742221 www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk From: Sent: 12 August 2019 16:45 To: Subject: RE: Oundle Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 - Consultation under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, as amended This Message originated outside your organisation.

Thanks for your e-mail relating to the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan. I note that the summary table of consultation responses refers to changes to the supporting text to address Anglian Water’s earlier comments relating to the site specific policies. However the agreed changes don’t appear to be included in the submitted plan. Would you be able to clarify the reason for this? Regards,

Anglian Water Services Limited Mobile: 07764989051 Thorpe Wood House, Thorpe Wood, Peterborough, PE3 6WT www.anglianwater.co.uk From: Sent: 09 July 2019 15:27 Subject: RE: Oundle Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 - Consultation under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, as amended

*EXTERNAL MAIL* - Please be aware this mail is from an external sender - THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK

FAO Oundle Neighbourhood Plan consultees Dear Sir/ Madam I write with reference to my consultation email for the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan below. It has been brought to my attention that the Smart Survey link in the letter below is incorrect. Please note that the correct Smart Survey link for the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan “Regulation 16” consultation is: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/OUNDLENP/. This corrected link should be used if you wish to respond to the current consultation. Please accept my apologies for any confusion. All the best.

Principal Planning Policy Officer East Northamptonshire Council 01832 742221 www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk

Sent: 09 July 2019 09:43 Subject: Oundle Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 - Consultation under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, as amended ENC Logo JPEG B&W 300dpi Cedar Drive THRAPSTON Northamptonshire NN14 4LZ Telephone Email: [email protected] www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk

FAO Relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees Please ask for Tel Our Ref. Your Ref. Date: ONP-Reg16 10 July 2019

Dear Sir/ Madam Notification of submission of the neighbourhood development plan for Oundle (Oundle Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031): consultation under Regulation 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, as amended I write to inform you, as a relevant consultee or interested party; that we are now in receipt of the final submission version of the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan, which covers the period 2011-2031. This is supported by the relevant accompanying documentation required under Regulation 15. What documents comprise the ‘plan proposal’, as submitted under Regulation 15? The plan proposal, as submitted, comprises the following documents:

a) A map identifying the area to which the proposed neighbourhood development plan relates; b) A consultation statement; c) The proposed neighbourhood development plan; d) A statement (the “Basic Conditions Statement”) explaining how the proposed neighbourhood development plan meets the requirements of paragraph 8 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Regulation 16 consultation The formal Regulation 16 consultation will run from Friday 12 July – Tuesday, 27 August 2019, inclusive (6 weeks). Comments are invited, regarding whether the draft Oundle Neighbourhood Plan and supporting documentation fulfils the “basic conditions”, as required by paragraph 8 (1) (a) (2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Localism Act 2011). If you wish to comment, please use following link: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/OundleNP/ or email us at planningpolicy@east- northamptonshire.gov.uk The Regulation 16 consultation focuses upon five “basic conditions”, and whether or not the plan meets these. Where can the plan proposal (the submitted Neighbourhood Plan) be inspected? All relevant documentation is available through East Northamptonshire Council’s Neighbourhood Development Planning web page: http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/neighbourhoodplanning In addition, the submission documents and full suite of evidence supporting the plan can be found at Oundle Town Council’s own Neighbourhood Plan web page via their website: https://www.oundle.gov.uk/neighbourhood-plan.html From Friday 12 July 2019, you can also inspect these documents at: Customer Service Centre, Cedar Drive, Thrapston, NN14 4LZ (8:45 am – 5:00 pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday; 9:45 am – 5:00 pm Wednesday) Customer Service Centre, Newton Road, Rushden, NN10 0PT (9:00 am – 4:30 pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday; 9:45 am – 5:00 pm Wednesday) Customer Service Centre, Oundle Town Council offices, Fletton House, Glapthorn Road, Oundle, PE8 4JA (10am-1pm, Monday to Friday) Oundle and Thrapston Libraries (opening times available through the Northamptonshire County Council website)

Representations can also be made in writing to the Planning Policy Team at East Northamptonshire Council, Cedar Drive, Thrapston, NN14 4LZ using a paper form which will be available from the above locations.

Please do not hesitate to contact me, or email [email protected], if you have any further queries regarding the submission Oundle Neighbourhood Plan; or neighbourhood planning in general. Yours faithfully

Principal Planning Policy Officer

Warning: Although East Northamptonshire Council has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, the Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments.

This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please do not forward without consideration of the origins of the email and any data included within. Please note that this and any responses to this email may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000/Data Protection Act 2018.

Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily represent those of East Northamptonshire Council and are not to be relied upon without subsequent written confirmation by an authorised representative.

If you are not the addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, forwarding or other dissemination or use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error please notify the council’s Data Protection Officer via [email protected]

East Northamptonshire Council takes the protection of your personal data seriously. Full details can be found in the council’s Privacy Statement

--*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*---*----*--- The information contained in this message is likely to be confidential and may be legally privileged. The dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure of this message, or its contents, is strictly prohibited unless authorised by Anglian Water. It is intended only for the person named as addressee. Anglian Water cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message, and does not authorise any contract to be made using the Internet. If you have received this message in error, please immediately return it to the sender at the above address and delete it from your computer. Anglian Water Services Limited Registered Office: Lancaster House, Lancaster Way, Ermine Business Park, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE29 6XU Registered in England No 2366656 Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Sent: 27 August 2019 11:59 To: planning policy Subject: Oundle Neighbourhood Plan

This Message originated outside your organisation.

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Oundle Submission Neighbourhood Plan consultation. The following comments are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water. I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response. General comments Appendix 4 of the Consultation Statement submitted with the Neighbourhood Plan includes a number of responses by Oundle Town Council to comments previously made by Anglian Water. It appears that these changes have not been included in the wording of the submitted Neighbourhood Plan. We are assuming that this is an error and that the intention was for the wording changes to be made. In the Consultation Statement reference is made to including reference to off-site reinforcements to existing water supply network in the supporting text for the allocation policies. Assuming that these changes are made it would address our previous comments relating to this issue. Policy 019 Miller’s Field, Benefield Road Foul and surface water sewers in Anglian Water’s ownership cross this site. There is a need to consider the existing assets in Anglian Water’s ownership as part of the design of this development. It is therefore proposed that the following wording should be included in the Neighbourhood Plan to follow Policy 019: ‘Existing foul and surface water sewers cross this site, therefore the site layout should be designed to take these into account. This existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The existing sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required.’ In addition it proposed that the following wording should be included in Policy 019: ‘that suitable access is safeguarded for the maintenance of foul and surface water drainage infrastructure;’ Policy 021 Land south of Wakerley Close A surface water in Anglian Water’s ownership crosses this site. There is a need to consider the existing assets in Anglian Water’s ownership as part of the design of this development. It is therefore proposed that the following wording should be included in the Neighbourhood Plan to follow Policy 021: ‘An existing surface water sewer cross this site, therefore the site layout should be designed to take these into account. This existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The existing sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required.’ In addition it proposed that the following wording should be included in Policy 021: 1 ‘that suitable access is safeguarded for the maintenance of surface water drainage infrastructure;’ Policy 022 Land north of Benefield Road Foul sewers in Anglian Water’s ownership cross this site. There is a need to consider the existing assets in Anglian Water’s ownership as part of the design of this development. It is therefore proposed that the following wording should be included in the Neighbourhood Plan to follow Policy 022: ‘Existing foul sewers cross this site, therefore the site layout should be designed to take these into account. This existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The existing sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required.’ In addition it proposed that the following wording should be included in Policy 022: ‘that suitable access is safeguarded for the maintenance of foul drainage infrastructure’ Notifications We would wish to be notified of the outcome of the examination and any subsequent decision made by the Council relating to the Neighbourhood Plan. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know. Regards,

Spatial Planning Manager Anglian Water Services Limited Mobile: Thorpe Wood House, Thorpe Wood, Peterborough, PE3 6WT www.anglianwater.co.uk

2 ! Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, lime Grove, grantham, NG31 9jd

ENCLOSURE 1 ENCLOSURE

ENCLOSURE 1

ENC Local Plan Oundle site assessments. DPL Consultants

For and on behalf of East Northamptonshire Council

Oundle Site Assessment Detailed Reassessment of Shortlisted Sites

Prepared by DLP Planning Ltd

July 2019

Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Prepared by: Planner

Checked by: Senior Planner Approved by: Director

Date: July 2019

DLP Planning Ltd 4 Abbey Court Fraser Road Priory Business Park Bedford MK44 3WH

DLP Consulting Group disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence. This report is confidential to the client and DLP Planning Ltd accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

2 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

CONTENTS PAGE

0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1.0 Introduction ...... 6 Planning Policy Context ...... 6 2.0 Methodology ...... 7 Background to the Study ...... 7 The Process of Shortlisting ...... 8 Stage 1 Assessment – Long list of sites ...... 8 Stage 2 Assessment – Short list of sites ...... 9 Consultation with specialist / statutory bodies ...... 10 Consultation with Land Owners / Promoters ...... 11 Site visit ...... 12 3.0 Site Assessment Methodology ...... 13 Explanation of the assessment measurement criteria and the scoring matrix...... 13 Site boundaries ...... 13 Proximity measures ...... 14 Availability of bus routes (Criterion 1.1) ...... 14 Proximity to strategic highway network (Criterion 1.2) ...... 14 Availability of PROW e.g. designated footpath, bridleway or cycle way (Criterion 1.3) .. 14 Proximity to key services (Criterion 2.1) ...... 15 Proximity to secondary services (Criterion 2.2) ...... 15 Internet connectivity (Criterion 2.3) ...... 15 Proximity to town centre (Criterion 2.4) ...... 15 Access to defined employment sites (Criterion 3.1) ...... 15 Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) (Criterion 4.1) ...... 16 Previously Developed (Brownfield) Land (Criterion 4.2) ...... 16 Landscape Character (Criterion 5.1) ...... 16 Site specific impact on the immediate landscape/townscape (Criterion 5.2) ...... 18 Site specific impact on local heritage assets (Criterion 5.4) ...... 18 Site specific impacts on biodiversity (Criterion 5.6) ...... 18 Impact on Open Spaces (Criterion 5.7a) ...... 19 Impact on playing pitches (Criterion 5.7b) ...... 19 Flood Risk (Criterion 5.8) ...... 20 Surface Water (Criterion 5.9) ...... 20 Access infrastructure (Criterion 6.1) ...... 20 Drainage Infrastructure (Criterion 6.2) ...... 21

3 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Ground Conditions (Criterion 6.3) ...... 21 Ease of utility provision (Criterion 6.4) ...... 21 Bad Neighbour Uses (Criterion 6.5) ...... 21 Physical constraints/ permanent features (Criterion 6.6) ...... 22 Coalescence (Criterion 7.1) ...... 22 Community benefits (Criterion 8.1) ...... 22 Availability (Criterion 9.1) ...... 22 Achievability (Criterion 9.2) ...... 23 4.0 Assessment Results and Conclusions ...... 24 Capacity potential ...... 25 Site Assessment Results ...... 25 Site 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive (Score 22) ...... 25 Site 220 – Land off Benefield Rd (Score 20) ...... 25 Site 223 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road (Score 17) ...... 26 Weighting ...... 26 Recommendations ...... 27 Glossary ...... 28

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Location of Shortlisted Sites

Appendix B: Assessment Criteria Matrix

Appendix C: Combined Scoring

Appendix D: Detailed Site Assessments

Appendix E: Consultation Form sent to landowners/agents

Appendix F: Letter to Oundle Town Council

Appendix G: Letter to Glapthorn Parish Council

4 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.1 This report has been commissioned by East Northamptonshire Council (ENC) to support the Council’s site assessment evidence base for the emerging District Local Plan Part 2. It will provide a critical, objective review and full re-assessment of the shortlisted sites identified by the Council and provide a more in-depth assessment of individual sites than the Council have previously undertaken. As a result, the methodology has been reviewed and modified, and the site assessment proformas have also been updated. A fresh approach to the site assessments has been undertaken, with an additional consultation with landowners/promoters and separate site visits carried out.

0.2 DLP Planning Ltd have been commissioned to assess the shortlisted sites and provide evidence for ENC to enable the Council to make an informed decision over the proposed allocations to be taken forward into the Local Plan Part 2 with supporting evidence.

5 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 From the Council’s own independent paper, (Local Plan Part 2: Background Paper Oundle Site Assessments 2018) the draft East Northamptonshire Local Plan is required to meet any shortfalls in the strategic allocations set out in the Joint Core Strategy. In respect of Oundle there is an identifiable shortfall in housing provision which requires some additional 250-300 dwellings to be provided to meet the needs of that Plan up to 2031. DLP Planning have been commissioned to assess the sites for possible inclusion in the Plan and provide the evidence for East Northamptonshire Council to justify the allocation or non-inclusion of sites.

Planning Policy Context 1.2 The NPPF (updated February 2019) requires local planning authorities to identify key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period. ENC have outlined that the location and scale of potential sites are determined by the Spatial Strategy and distribution of development which is set out in the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy specifically for Oundle, 645 houses are required to be met within the plan period from 2011 up to 2031. ENC outline that monitoring of development has shown that a shortfall of around 250 dwellings (as at 1st April 20181) is required to meet the strategic provision for Oundle. It should be noted that policy requires this shortfall to be addressed as a minimum requirement to meet Oundle’s housing need up until the end of the Plan period.

1.3 The Government has published guidance on the purpose of site assessments in its page on Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA)2, specifically stating that an assessment should;

• Identify sites and broad location with potential for development • Assess their development potential • Assess their suitability for development and the likelihood of development coming forward (the availability and achievability).

1.4 This approach ensures that all land is assessed together as part of plan preparation to identify which sites or broad locations are the most suitable and deliverable.

1 As 1st April 2017, the residual requirement for Oundle was 294 (~300) dwellings. This had reduced to 242 (~250) dwellings at 1st April 2018. 2 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment#factors-sitesbroad-locations- developed

6 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

2.0 METHODOLOGY

Background to the Study 2.1 In November 2018, East Northamptonshire Council published the 1st draft version of its Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) for consultation (https://www.east- northamptonshire.gov.uk/localplan2). This was undertaken as a non-statutory consultation which provided a first chance for stakeholders (statutory consultees, interest groups and members of the public) to review and comment on the draft Local Plan text; both its policies and supporting text.

2.2 Much of the draft LPP2 focused upon adding value or additional local detail, where necessary, to the strategic policies of the Local Plan Part 1 (North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031, adopted July 2016). Also, the Local Plan and NPPF recognise that Neighbourhood Planning provides further opportunities for communities to shape town or parish level locally distinctive policies, or plan for additional local growth if this is locally sought.

2.3 To support the proposals for Oundle in LPP2, the following evidence base documents were published by the Council in December 2018:

• Sustainability Appraisal: Interim SA Report – Strategic options for Oundle – Prepared by AECOM, to provide a direct comparison; between the Neighbourhood Plan approach (dispersal – seven smaller sites), versus the LPP2 approach (development concentrated at three larger sites); and • Local Plan Part 2 Background Paper – Oundle Site Assessments – Site by site assessment prepared by ENC officers, using “traffic light” matrix/ methodology utilised to assess strategic sites proposed during preparation of the Joint Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1).

2.4 Following the draft LPP2 consultation, a further separate 8-week consultation was held to seek feedback on the two evidence documents (21 December 2018 – 18 February 2019, inclusive). This was undertaken to allow respondents to the initial LPP2 consultation (2 November – 17 December 2018), to provide further feedback in response to the newly published evidence base.

2.5 A review of the feedback received during the 8-week consultation) raised significant concerns about whether these provided a sufficiently robust basis for the LPP2 site selection.

7 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

2.6 In March 2019 ENC therefore commissioned DLP Planning to undertake an independent assessment of shortlisted sites, in order to determine the suitability, availability and achievability of those sites and provide robust evidence to inform the site allocation process.

The Process of Shortlisting 2.7 ENC undertook a process of shortlisting the sites which is detailed in The Local Plan Part 2 Background Paper, Oundle Site Assessments (ENC, November 2018). The ENC report provides a description of the shortlisting process undertaken in order to arrive at the assessment sites in this study. This is summarised as follows:

2.8 The ‘long list’ of sites provides a list of all reasonable alternative allocations that have been duly considered. The long list of potential sites was taken from the ENC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA 2013), which is a technical study that seeks to identify sites with the potential for housing; assess how many homes they could provide; and assess when they could be developed. In addition, any sites promoted directly through the preparation of the draft Local Plan Part 2 were also considered. Together these sources provided the long list of potential housing sites.

Stage 1 Assessment – Long list of sites 2.9 Sites that demonstrate major constraints that render them wholly unsuitable for allocation were filtered out. This process was used to eliminate sites where development would be likely to be precluded for one or more of the following reasons:

a) The site does not accord with the policies set out in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS). b) The site would be within either Flood zone 2 or Flood zone 3: The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the requirement for a sequential test to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. c) The site would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on a site of international or national biodiversity or geological value. The NPPF indicates that distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites. d) The site would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on important archaeological or heritage assets. e) The site would be located within the HSE inner zone of a major hazard chemical installation or pipeline.

8 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

2.10 The list of the long list of sites that were filtered out at Stage 1 is shown in the ENC Report (2018), as are sites that had been committed / received planning permission. The remaining sites form the shortlist of potential housing allocations that are considered in detail for their suitability as an allocation in this report. For the avoidance of doubt, this study uses the short-listed sites as its starting point does not provide any assessment of which sites where to be taken forward from the Council’s long list.

Stage 2 Assessment – Short list of sites 2.11 Table 1 below provides a list of the sites assessed in this study. A map showing these sites and their distribution is available in Appendix A.

Table 1. Shortlisted sites assessed in this study Site Site Address Reference

LPP2SA 64* Land off Glapthorn Road* LPP2SA 117* Parcel fronting Cotterstock Road (Land within Oundle Primary School grounds)* LPP2SA 44* Ray’s Field* LPP2SA 223 Land West of Cotterstock Road LPP2SA 225 East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Pater’s Road LPP2SA 220 Land north of Benefield Road LPP2SA 221a Land either side of Herne Road including school LPP2SA Land to the south of Herne Road (excluding school) 221b** LPP2SA 222 Land off St Christopher’s Drive LPP2SA 241 Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close LPP2SA 224 Land off Stoke Doyle Road LPP2SA 250 Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill *The location of these sites is based on ‘point’ data only; please refer to paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of this report for an explanation. ** Land to the south of Herne Road has been included as a separate site as part of this assessment, following the decision to exclude the Prince William School and it’s playing fields from the mapped boundary of Site LPP2SA 221, as the school land is unavailable and unsuitable for residential housing development. The intention is to provide a realistic assessment of the remainder of the available site without being influenced by the existence of the school site within its boundary.

9 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

2.12 The broad methodology for the detailed assessment of the short-listed sites was provided for this study by ENC. The assessment methodology was provided in the form of a matrix, in which a range of criteria are each given a weighted numeric value scale based on that of a previous site assessment study undertaken in Oundle, ‘Assessment of Potential Housing Sites in Oundle and Thrapston (Roger Tym & Partners, February 2009), which provided the evidence base for the examination of the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan, 2009 and was found to be sound and robust by the Inspector. As such, this provides a benchmark for subsequent site assessments in Oundle.

2.13 The ‘assessment matrix’ used in the Roger Tym & Partners study in 2009 has been used as a starting point but reviewed and updated by DLP in collaboration with ENC for use in this study, in order to reflect changes to the Sustainability Appraisal, amendments to guidance and to reflect technological changes over the past decade. The final assessment matrix used in this study is included at Appendix B.

2.14 The updated assessment matrix identifies 30 assessment criteria (Annex A, below). Notably, a new measure – “internet connectivity” – has been introduced. These criteria are, in turn, linked to AECOM’s Sustainability Appraisal Topics/ Objectives, which were used for the NNJCS Sustainability Appraisal (June 2015).

2.15 A system of weighted numeric scoring was agreed upon in preference to a ‘red, amber, green’ (RAG) traffic light scoring system which was employed in the previous Site Assessment Background Paper published in late 2018. The numeric system provides a finer grained assessment and offers greater transparency on how sites have been assessed than a RAG system. It also enables sites to be ranked based on the score achieved which plan makers can then take forward to inform the allocation of sites

Consultation with specialist / statutory bodies 2.16 Consultation with specialists/statutory bodies was undertaken to inform the site assessment process. Where comments were received on sites during the Local Plan Part 2 draft consultation (November 2018), and the ENC Site Assessment (November 2018), these were utilised during this new study. Where no comments had previously been received on sites, views were sought from;

2.17 Northamptonshire County Council Highways – comments regarding the suitability of access and extent of new infrastructure required were sought on each site.

10 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

2.18 ENC Environmental Protection – comments regarding land contamination, remediation and existing environmental issues were sought from ENC Environmental Protection, and the scoring was provided directly for use in the assessment.

2.19 Anglian Water – comments were sought from Anglian Water on the extent of new drainage infrastructure that would be required to service the site. At the time of writing, the response from Anglian Water is still outstanding. In the interim, where possible, the consultation responses received on the sites during the most recent consultation on the draft Local Plan Part 2 have been drawn upon to provide assessment for these three sites. The other sites have been given a nominal score (of 0) which does not impact the results. If ENC wish to do so, it may be possible to include these assessment results as an addendum to this study.

Consultation with Land Owners / Promoters 2.20 All landowners and/or promoters representing shortlisted sites were contacted by ENC and asked to return a consultation form (example included at Appendix E). This asked a series of specific questions relating to achievability; freedom from constraints; potential abnormal costs associated with development of the site; connectivity to utilities; availability of the site in relation to land ownership complexity; willingness; and an indicative timeframe for development. The landowner / promoter responses received are documented below:

Table 2. Consultation responses received Response received No response received

LPP2SA 225 LPP2SA 64 LPP2SA 222 LPP2SA 117 LPP2SA 224 (Partial response - site 224 is LPP2SA 220 in multiple ownership and the owner of one portion of land within the site boundary has returned the consultation form) LPP2SA 250 LPP2SA 221 LPP2SA 241 LPP2SA 44 LPP2SA 223

11 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

2.21 The lack of landowner / promoter response to the consultation has necessitated that an assumption has been made that the site is not being actively promoted. Therefore, this has implications for the assessment of ‘availability’ (Measure 9), and ‘achievability’ (Measure 10) of developing the site for housing within the plan period, as without active promotion it is considered less likely. This has resulted in low scores against this criterion for the non- responding sites, as it is assumed that they are less achievable given that there is no current evidence that these sites are being put forward for development.

Site visit 2.22 Site visits was undertaken by DLP on the 3rd April 2019 to inform the assessment and enable a detailed assessment of site-specific constraints to be undertaken. The weather was dry and clear. Site photos are contained in the site proformas included at Appendix D.

12 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Explanation of the assessment measurement criteria and the scoring matrix 3.1 The finalised assessment criteria matrix is provided in Appendix C. This describes the measure of assessment, and a summary of the scoring method and the weighed scoring scale for each measure.

3.2 The site assessment criteria have been developed to reflect the requirements of the SHLAA/HELA Guidance 3 i.e. that sites should be Suitable, Available and Achievable.

3.3 In carrying out the assessment exercise, a number of assumptions have been applied to each assessment site as follows:

Site boundaries 3.4 Site boundaries for shortlisted sites were provided to DLP Planning by ENC. These reflect the extent of the site promoted for development through the SHLAA and/ or the call for sites process. Where a site with a boundary has been identified, the assessment of the site has been carried out in accordance with the boundary provided.

3.5 In one instance, a new assessment site was created as the original boundary contained Prince William School and its grounds. As it was confirmed by ENC that this area of the site was unavailable for development, an assessment of the land that excludes the school grounds was undertaken in addition, in order to avoid an unrealistic site assessment. This new site assessment is titled as Land South of Herne Road, with the assessment reference ‘LPP2SA 221b’ leading to a total of 12 individual site assessments being carried out.

3.6 In some instances, the site locations are demarcated only as a ‘point data’, whereby the full extent of the site is unknown to ENC, and the point represents the general location of a promoted site. Point data is only available for the following three sites;

• LPP2 SA64 – Land West of Glapthorn Road • LPP2 SA44 – Land East of Cotterstock Road – ‘Ray’s Field’ • LPP2 SA117 – Land off Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Road

3.7 Assessment of such sites have been carried out as best as possible – and judgement as been made as to the reasonable extent based on physical features e.g. a field boundary,

3 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment#factors-sitesbroad-locations- developed

13 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

tree line or road frontage to help define the extent of the site. Should a defined boundary be identified in the future, this may affect the scoring assigned in this report.

Proximity measures 3.8 ‘Proximity’ based measures have all been assessed based on the shortest distance by road (or Public Right of Way (PROW)) between the site and the assessment feature; i.e. walking or cycling access. The start and end points for the distance measurement are taken from the closest point on the assessment site to the closest point on the feature, or, where the point of measure is an existing site e.g. an employment site, the measurement has ended at the entrance of the existing access. The closest point on the assessment site has been used as the starting point of measurements in order to provide consistency, as the existing access point on an assessment site may not necessarily be the access point should the site be built out, and this is not a matter known at the point of this assessment.

3.9 One notable exception to this method of measuring proximity is for the measure ‘coalescence’, for which proximity has been taken as the crow flies. GIS mapping layers were supplied by ENC to map all of the available measures.

3.10 The approach taken to the application of each assessment measure is outlined below, and should be used in conjunction with the assessment criteria found in Appendix C.

Availability of bus routes (Criterion 1.1) 3.11 This assessed the distance to the closest X4 bus stop by road or PROW. The current timetable for the X4 available (April 2019) was consulted in order to ascertain the frequency of the bus; this is approximately 2 every hour between 7am and 10pm travelling between Peterborough and Northampton.

Proximity to strategic highway network (Criterion 1.2) 3.12 The proximity of the strategic highway network was measured by distance by road from the closest point on the site to an existing access point to the A605 or the A247. As it is unknown where the access point on the site would be, the closest point of the site that is adjacent to existing highway has been used as the starting point, rather than the existing access point.

Availability of PROW e.g. designated footpath, bridleway or cycle way (Criterion 1.3) 3.13 GIS mapping was used to identify the closest PROW to the site.

14 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Proximity to key services (Criterion 2.1) 3.14 Scores against this criterion are attributed as score 1 point per service within 0.8km and 2 points per service within 0.4km (up to a maximum potential score of 10)’. The primary services were defined as:

• Oundle CofE Primary School, Cotterstock Road • Convenience foodstore (Waitrose, Co-op, Tesco Express) • Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) and • Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) • Playing field/ park or public open.

Proximity to secondary services (Criterion 2.2) 3.15 The scores against this criterion are attributed as ‘score 1 point per service within 2km and 2 points per service within 1km (up to a maximum potential score of 10)’. The secondary services were defined as:

• Prince William School (Secondary) • Oundle School Sports Centre and Swimming Pool. This is available to hire when not in use by Oundle School. There is also a new sports centre under development which is due to be completed in the academic year 2019/20.

Internet connectivity (Criterion 2.3) 3.16 The availability of superfast broadband is a measure that reflects the technological and social changes that have become an increasingly important to housing development. Data on the UK Broadband Coverage and Speedtest Results are published online4. In order to arrive at an understanding of MBPS available at each site, the closest recorded speed to the site shown on this map as of 30th April 2019 was used as the basis of the scoring.

Proximity to town centre (Criterion 2.4) 3.17 The town centre boundary has been assessed using GIS mapping measurement.

Access to defined employment sites (Criterion 3.1) 3.18 The location of designated employment sites in the Local Plan are defined in the GIS mapping available and assessed through a distance measurement. These are defined in the adopted Local Plan Part 2 ‘Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan’ (2011), under Policy 16 ‘Protect Employment Areas’ and Appendix 5 list the existing employment sites.

4 https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/broadband-map#15/52.5357/-0.4746/test/

15 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) (Criterion 4.1) 3.19 The Provisional ALC mapping service provided by DEFRA was used to identify the ALC and any Best and Most Versatile Land that would be lost through residential redevelopment of the site.

Previously Developed (Brownfield) Land (Criterion 4.2) 3.20 Previously developed land is defined in Annex 2: Glossary of the NPPF 2019 as ‘Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings … land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape’

This description has been used as a judgement for assessment.

Landscape Character (Criterion 5.1) 3.21 Environmental sensitivity for landscape, heritage, and biodiversity is assessed in Section 5. ‘Sensitivity’. The ‘sensitivity’ for all three elements has been scored using the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009)5. The RNRP study consolidates the findings of three previous studies on environmental sensitivity that have been undertaken between 2005 and 2009, and used a published methodology to combine the findings of these three different studies and provides a single composite map and data base on environmental sensitivity for each category; Biodiversity, Heritage, and Landscape.

3.22 The chronology of the RNRP study is set out below:

• In 2005, as part of the research and development of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, a sensitivity study was undertaken to establish the relative landscape character sensitivity of areas around the major growth towns in North Northamptonshire Note: The 2005 study does not assess Oundle, as it is limited to the defined Growth Towns in North Northamptonshire.

• In 2008, as part of a wider review by Roger Tym & Partners (RTP), the River Nene Regional Park CIC (RNRP) was commissioned by NNJPU to undertake a rapid sensitivity analysis of a number of sites put forward for consideration as part of the SHLAA to address housing needs in North Northamptonshire to 2021. This

5 www.nnjpu.org.uk/publications/docdetail.asp?docid=1134

16 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

supplementary assessment was used in conjunction with the original 2005 study information to provide an environmental data set to complete the SHLAA study being undertaken by RTP in 2008.

• A further study was commissioned by East Northamptonshire Council to undertake a sensitivity study of sites put forward for consideration as part of the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan (RNOTP). This was site rather than area based and was focussed on sites in and around Oundle and Thrapston.

3.23 The results of the combined sensitivity study are mapped on pages 41-43 of the RNRP 2009 study. The assessed land parcels as colour coded, with high sensitivity (red), medium sensitivity (amber) and low sensitivity (yellow).

3.24 Additionally, The SHLAA 2013 Report, Appendix 6 6 similarly provides an assessment of environmental sensitivity of promoted sties and the SHLAA 2013 reflects the same findings in the RNRP 2009 study. Where the sites have been assessed in these two studies, these findings have been used again in this study.

3.25 As the sites assessed in the RNRP Consolidation Study 2009 and SHLAA 2013 are limited to sites that had been promoted for development at the time of that work, there are a number of sites included in this study (DLP, 2019) that have since been promoted through the plan making process of the Local Plan Part 2, which have not been subject to the above assessment. There is therefore no previous assessment data available for a number of sites in this study, as follows:

Table 3. Sites assessed for environmental sensitivity in the RNRP 2009 or SHLAA 2013 Sites assessed for sensitivity in the ‘Newer’ sites not assessed for RNRP 2009 (SHLAA 2013) environmental sensitivity in the RNRP 2009 or SHLAA 2013

LPP2SA 224 LPP2SA 117 LPP2SA 223 LPP2SA 44 LPP2SA 225 LPP2SA 64 LPP2SA 220 LPP2SA 241 LPP2SA 221 LPP2SA 250 LPP2SA 222

6 http://www.nnjpdu.org.uk/publications/2011-shlaa-for-north-northamptonshire/

17 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

3.26 Consequently, there is not a comparable supply of studies that have subjected the five ‘newer’ sites to the same fine grain detailed assessment of environmental sensitivity, and therefore the scoring proposed in this report (2019) will be based on a desktop study of lesser depth. It is not within the scope of this study to replicate the environmental sensitivity study methodologies to arrive at comparable scoring.

3.27 The approach taken on the previously ‘un-assessed’ sites has the followed the following sequential approach to provide a suitable score:

i. Apply the scoring of an adjacent site; or ii. Apply the mean (modal) score of the other assessment sites. Given that Oundle is reasonably compact with an overall similar sensitivity across the settlement, this is considered to be a pragmatic approach and is unlikely to unduly affect the overall scoring.

Site specific impact on the immediate landscape/townscape (Criterion 5.2) 3.28 Likely impact on immediate landscape/townscape was assessed based on initial site visit. The assessment considers factors such as impact on prominent views or vistas; detachment from the settlement (due to main roads, green space etc.); or opportunities for positive enhancement to the area of the location. (This issue also relates to coalescence of settlements, however as coalescence has been assessed as a separate measure, this has not been considered as part of relation to criterion 5.2).

Site specific impact on local heritage assets (Criterion 5.4) 3.29 GIS mapping has been used to identify impact on the setting of designated heritage assets. Any ‘locally listed’ or other undesignated heritage assets have not been assessed in this instance.

Site specific impacts on biodiversity (Criterion 5.6) 3.30 GIS mapping has been used to identify impact on any statutory biodiversity designations including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Local Wildlife Sites and RAMSAR sites). Any potential impact on these designations would create a significant negative impact, albeit these impacts are considered in the context of the importance of the designation. The priority habit inventories have been reviewed in order to gauge any other impacts of biodiversity, which have been scored as a lower magnitude of harm.

18 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Impact on Open Spaces (Criterion 5.7a) 3.31 The impact on open spaces criterion considers the loss of ‘high quality;’ open spaces using the ‘Open Space Assessment’ (KKP, April 2017). This document was produced as part of the evidence base to the support the Local Plan Part 2. This document assesses ‘quality’ as,

“A high value site is considered to be one that is well used by the local community, well maintained (with a balance for conservation), provides a safe environment and has features of interest; for example, play equipment and landscaping. Sites that provide for a cross section of users and have a multi-functional use are considered a higher value than those that offer limited functions and that are thought of as bland and unattractive.” (p12).

3.32 The ‘open space’ typologies assessed were;

▪ Parks and Gardens ▪ Natural and Semi-Natural Green Space ▪ Amenity Greenspace ▪ Provision for children and young people ▪ Allotments ▪ Cemeteries/Churchyards ▪ Green Corridors

3.33 None of the sites include designated open spaces; therefore none of the sites have received a negative value against this criterion. To assess the positive impacts on open spaces, such as where the development of the site may provide opportunities for open space enhancement and/or a net gain in public open space, the existing planning policy on the provision of open space within new development has been consulted.

3.34 The KKP Open Space Standards Paper (2017) describes the typologies of open space that development may seek to include. This reflects the list above at 2.32. The level of open space provision required from development would be ascertained by assessing the KKP Report and establishing whether there is a deficit in open space provision, whether the locality is within the accessibility catchment standards for each open space typology or whether enhancement of existing provision is required if either both the quantity and accessibility standards are sufficiently met.

Impact on playing pitches (Criterion 5.7b) 3.35 The Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy Assessment (KKP) considers both the quality and the level of spare capacity on a playing pitch to provide a supply and demand assessment of playing pitch facilities in accordance with Sport England’s Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance.

19 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

3.36 The pitches assessed in Oundle included:

• The Oundle School pitches • Prince William School • Oundle CE Primary School

3.37 These pitches are assessed as being at or near capacity, and in standard or poor condition (the poor being in relation to the Oundle School fields that are due to be upgraded by the school).

3.38 As none of these playing field sites are assessed s being in lapsed or disused state, any loss of these sites would have a negative impact upon playing pitches. The Playing Pitch Strategy states that new development will have an impact on the demand and capacity of existing sites in the area, and there may be a need for improvements to increase capacity or if new provision as required.

Flood Risk (Criterion 5.8) 3.39 GIS mapping of Flood Zones 2 and 3 has been used to assess the sites for flood risk. This mapping does not distinguish between Flood Zone 3a and 3b, and therefore further investigation would have to be undertaken to determine this. Where a site is partially within Flood Zones 2 or 3 the presumed developable area of the site has been reduced for the purposes of capacity assessment.

Surface Water (Criterion 5.9) 3.40 Assessment of Surface Water Flood Risk was undertaken using the ‘Flood Risk from Surface Water’ map available from the Environment Agency and DEFRA at https://flood- warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map. This demonstrates areas of high, medium, low and very low risk of surface water flooding. Where there are areas of risk identified, there may be opportunity to mitigate the likely effect of pluvial water through drainage solutions, attenuation ponds, or other design features. For the purposes of this assessment, unless there is significant surface water flood risk (i.e. above 50% of the site area falls within the ‘high’ risk category), it is considered that this is capable of mitigation.

Access infrastructure (Criterion 6.1) 3.41 This criterion considers whether extensive new access infrastructure is likely to be required in order to develop the site, drawing on NCC Highways advice. NCC has provided commentary on highway suitability for each assessment site, which has been utilised to

20 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

score each site against criterion 6.1.

Drainage Infrastructure (Criterion 6.2) 3.42 Anglian Water has provided consultation responses to the draft ENC Local Plan Part 2 consultation. Therefore, their comments relate to the three sites contained in the Local Plan proposals. Further comments have been sought on the remaining sites but these comments have not been received.

3.43 Where consultation advice has been received, Anglian Water does not indicate that any extensive new drainage infrastructure would be required. Instead, their consultation responses relate to safeguarding their assets and highlighting the constraints on the site in relation to their existing assets. It is therefore assumed that the scoring for all the sites will be ‘0’ – extensive new drainage infrastructure not required. Where Anglian Water advice references an existing asset on the site, this has been reflected in the scoring for ‘physical constraints / permanent features’ (Measure 6.6).

Ground Conditions (Criterion 6.3) 3.44 This criterion considers whether extensive treatment/ remediation is required. The advice and scoring supplied by the ENC Environmental Protection team has been applied for each site to provide a scoring accordingly.

Ease of utility provision (Criterion 6.4) 3.45 Utility provision relates to provision of Electricity, Gas, Water, Sewage, Infrastructure and Broadband. This information was sought from landowners/ promoters as part of the consultation survey for this study, and their responses have been used to provide the scoring. Where landowners / promoters have not responded to the consultation, the following sequential approach has been applied:

i. Where a consultation response from Anglian Water regarding the site has been provided, this has been used (in relation to water and sewerage provision); or ii. Where a consultation response has been received for a neighbouring site, the information has been assumed to be similarly applicable to the site; or iii. Apply the mean (modal) score of the other assessment sites.

Bad Neighbour Uses (Criterion 6.5) 3.46 Sources of noise and odour within 100m of the site are considered to be bad neighbour issues within the context of Oundle. Mitigation of the effects of bad neighbour uses may be possible. Anglian Water have provided detailed feedback of the bad neighbour impact and

21 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

residential amenity issues that would be caused in relation to their assets as well as providing comments regarding the impact that the development of residential properties may have on their operations going forward.

Physical constraints/ permanent features (Criterion 6.6) 3.47 The site visit was used to confirm any permanent features and constraints on the site such as challenging topography, trees and hedgerows, waterbodies and infrastructure such as electricity pylons. In some instances, it was not possible to access or view the entire site. In such instance’s secondary sources such as satellite imagery and mapping has been used to assess physical constraints. Anglian Water has advised on the presence of any underground infrastructure pipes that would need to be considered.

Coalescence (Criterion 7.1) 3.48 At the closest current extents, the settlement of Oundle is approximately 700m from the settlement of Glapthorn (to the north-west), and 1.3km from the settlement of Cotterstock (to the north). This measurement is taken as a straight line/ radius, to assess the potential a development might have to contribute towards visual coalescence.

3.49 Due to the proximity of Cotterstock and Glapthorn to the Oundle urban area, it was determined that coalescence should be included as a specific site assessment measure. It should be noted that Measure 5.2: ‘Site specific landscape/ townscape impacts’ has explicitly excluded a consideration of coalescence as it has been specifically dealt with by this measure.

Community benefits (Criterion 8.1) 3.50 Ability of the site to support the provision of community benefits (such as the provision of a policy compliant level of affordable housing or community facilities) has been assumed based on the consultation responses from the landowner / promoter in which any abnormal costs expected to arise from the development were requested. Where no abnormal costs are identified, it has been assumed that the development is able to provide policy compliant levels of community benefits. Other aspects that may impact upon the level of community benefits are site size and constraints that may affect this, or location in relation to existing community facilities whereby enhancement may be possible.

Availability (Criterion 9.1) 3.51 The consultation responses from landowners/ promoters have been used to assess the

22 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

availability of the site, details of ownership, and delivery timeframes. Where responses from landowners have not been returned, it has been assumed that the site is not immediately available. Given that the sites included in this study have come forward through previous call for sites exercises, it is considered that, unless subsequently stated otherwise, the sites are likely to be available in the long term.

Achievability (Criterion 9.2) 3.52 The likely achievability of delivering each site has been sought through the landowner/ promoter consultation. The level of housebuilder interest in the site has been used to assess achievability. Where responses from landowners have not been returned, it assumes that the site is not being actively promoted for development, which has implications for the achievability of the site within the plan period.

23 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

4.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The brief for the work was to provide an objective assessment of shortlisted sites to provide ENC with robust and proportionate evidence to support site allocations within the emerging Local Plan Part 2. The assessment is has been undertaken using a series of assessment criteria which focus on physical constraints and also considered availability and achievability of sites. The assessment did not take into account any prevailing local policy considerations – whether that be adopted Development Plan policies or emerging policies.

4.2 The full results of the assessment process are contained in Appendix D which provides detailed assessment proformas. Table 4 below provides a summary of the overall assessment findings, along with an indicative capacity of each site.

Table 4. Summary of site scoring Site Site Name Overall Indicative capacity Reference score (dwellings)

222 Land off St Christopher's Drive 22 129 220 Land off Benefield Rd 20 426 225 Land East of Cotterstock Road 17 153 / North of St Peter’s Road 224 Land off Stoke Doyle Rd 12 99 221b Land South of Herne Rd 8 150 250* Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill 7 5 241 Land South of Benefield Road / 6 144 Wakerley Close 223 Land West of Cotterstock Rd -5 87 221* Land either side of Herne Rd -12 444 44 'Ray's Field' -14 unknown 117* Land off Oundle Primary School, -15 unknown Cotterstock Rd 64 Land West of Glapthorn Rd -23 unknown *Sites 117 and 221 have been confirmed as unavailable and should therefore be discounted at this stage. The assessment for site 221 is effectively superseded by that for 221b. Site 250 is likely to be too small to be considered for a strategic allocation but could however be capable of contributing to windfall housing numbers over the plan period.

24 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Capacity potential 4.3 A broad indication of the capacity of each site has been provided as a high-level indicative figure to assist ENC when allocating sites in the Local Plan Part 2. The development capacity of each site has been calculated using the standard net density calculation used by ENC and referenced in Joint Core Strategy (paragraph 10.15). This has been set as 35 dwellings per hectare. A calculation of 85% of the site has been used as the developable area, which provides a baseline density multiplier of approximately 30 dwellings per hectare. The density calculation was applied to each site to arrive at an ‘unconstrained’ development scenario figure. This figure has been taken as a starting point and then any relevant constraints on the site that are likely to affect the density possible; such as areas of flood risk factored in to provide a more realistic site yield. Where applicable this has resulted in the developable area of the site being reduced accordingly, and a revised density estimate has been provided.

4.4 It should be reiterated that the site capacity figures provided above in Table 4 are provided for theoretical purposes only and we would normally expect actual site capacity to be defined by any Local Plan allocation and/or refined further through the technical work required at planning application stage.

Site Assessment Results 4.5 As is evident in Table 4 above, there is a sizeable difference in scoring between the 12 different sites. Table 4 has been arranged in descending order based on the final score of each site. A summary of the findings for the 3 best performing sites is provided below:

Site 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive (Score 22) 4.6 This site performs well in the assessment for a number of reasons, including being well located in close proximity to PROW, key services, employment opportunities and Oundle Town Centre with the potential for additional community benefits. The site also scores well in terms of availability and achievability, with active interest from a developer. Development of the site would result in the loss of Grade 1/2 agricultural land and therefore scores negatively in this regard.

Site 220 – Land off Benefield Rd (Score 20) 4.7 Land at Benefield Road site also scores highly in the assessment owing to its accessibility to the A427 and key bus routes into the Town Centre and beyond. The site performs well in terms of availability and achievability as a response has been received from the

25 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

landowner/promoter indicating the site is available and capable of being developed. The site does accumulate some negative scores in terms of landscape impacts due to its edge of settlement location and also in terms of impact on heritage assets and these will need to be considered when deciding how much of the site to allocate and should be addressed in any future application coming forward.

Site 223 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road (Score 17) 4.8 The site sits adjacent to Oundle CofE Primary School and therefore performs well in terms of proximity to Key Services. The site has been promoted as available and achievable and therefore scores well in this regard. However, the site sits at the northern edge of the town and therefore is some distance from Oundle Town Centre. The site also performs badly in terms of improvements needed to secure a safe and suitable means of access on to the highway following advice from NCC highways. Development of the site is also likely to lead to some impacts in terms of landscape and biodiversity and also needs to consider the treatment works to the north. These matters will all need to be addressed should the site be allocated and come forward for development.

Weighting 4.9 The assessment criteria have been given appropriate weighting according to the significance of specific criteria in the overall planning assessment. This weighting has been formulated based on a planning judgement taking into account the broad objectives of the plan, as well as national planning policy and guidance. For example, there are a maximum 8 points available for proximity to key services, and some sites score well in this section. There is also significant weight attributed to Flood Risk, as another example. Some physical constraints such as heritage and biodiversity feature a range of negative or neutral scoring. This is because if an impact is perceived to be attributed to the site, it will be a negative one.

4.10 As set out earlier in this report, the criteria have been grouped around 3 key headings: Suitability, Availability and Achievability, as required the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Guidance contained within the NPPG. Suitability is assessed within criteria 1.1 through 8.1. Significant weighting has been attributed to key criteria 9.1 (Availability) and 10.1 (Achievability) as these aspects are considered to be fundamental to the overall deliverability of sites.

26 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Recommendations 4.11 Our recommendation is that the 3 best performing sites in the assessment (i.e. site refs 222, 220 224 – highlighted in blue in Table 4) could be considered for allocation in the plan. However, it is acknowledged that the cumulative indicative dwelling yield from these 3 sites would total some 708 dwellings, which is well above that required to meet the residual NNJCS requirement. The Council must therefore, through the plan making process decide whether it wishes to allocate a selection of these sites or spread the requirement across all 3 sites only allocating a smaller portion rather than the full extent of the sites put forward for assessment. It should be noted that the capacity assessment uses the full boundaries for assessment and is assuming that the whole site can be developed (which may not be the case).

4.12 It is considered that the site refs 221b, 224 and 241 are free from overriding physical constraints that would preclude their allocation in the plan. However, there are question marks over the availability and achievability of these sites as no response was received from the landowner/promoter when approached. For that reason, we would advise not proceeding to allocate these sites in the Local Plan Part 2.

4.13 For the avoidance of doubt our recommendation is that sites 44, 64, 117, 223 and 221 are not suitable for allocation at this time.

4.14 Site 250 is considered too small for allocation, but could come forward as a windfall site, although there are significant constraints to overcome in terms of potential flood risk.

27 Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

Glossary Glossary and Abbreviations ENC East Northamptonshire Council FRA Flood Risk Assessment GIS Geographical Information Systems HELAA Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment JCS Joint Core Strategy – the Local Plan Part 1 (also referred in full as the NNJCS) KKP Knight Kavanagh & Page – Consultants for Open Space and Playing Pitch Strategies LPP2 Local Plan Part 2 – The emerging Local Plan being prepared by ENC to replace the District Local Plan (saved policies, 1996) and the Rural North, Oundle & Thrapston Plan (RNOTP 2011) NNJCS North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (also referred to as ‘JCS’) NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance RNOTP Rural North, Oundle & Thrapston Plan RNRP River Nene Regional Park SHELAA Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

Appendix A Location of Shortlisted Sites

Appendix B Assessment Criteria Matrix

DLP PLANNING LTD - HOUSING SITE ASSESSMENT MATRIX (JULY 2019)

Relevant NNJCS Assessment Policy Objective Sustainability Scoring method -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Measure Appraisal Criteria

SUITABIILITY 1. Transport & Accessibility; Climate 1.1 Availability of bus Score on basis of distance to X4 bus stop, as follows: change; Air; Energy Use; routes none within 0.8km: score 0; Accessibility Range 0 to +4 Wealth creation hourly within 0.8km: score 3; hourly within 0.4km: score 4; 1.2 Proximity to Score on basis of distance by road from the A605 and/or the A427 as follows strategic highway >1.6km: score 0; network 0.8 to 1.6km: score 1; Range 0 to +4 0.4 to 0.8km: score 2; within 0.4km: score 4 1.3 Availability of Score on basis of distance to PROW, as follows: PROW (e.g none within 0.8km: score 0; designatated footpath, within 0.8km: score 1; Range 0 to +2 bridleway or cycleway) within 0.4km: score 2;

Accessibility; Health; 2.1 Proximity to key For each of the following, score 1 point per category of service within 0.8km and 2 points per Crime; Community; services service within 0.4km (up to a maximum potential score of 10): Liveability; Climate (i) Oundle CofE Primary School, Cotterstock Road; change; Air; Energy use; (ii) Convenience foodstore Range 0 to +8 Employment; Wealth (iii) playing field/ park or public open space; and creation; Town centres (iv) health centre/ GP (v) Community centre 2.2 Proximity to For each of the following services, score 1 point per service within 2km and 2 points per secondary services service within 1km: Range 0 to +4 (i) Prince William School, Herne Road; and (ii) public indoor sports/ leisure centre. 2. Proximity to 2.3 Internet Score on the basis of availability of 'superfast broadband' (megabytes per second/ MBPS). Services connectivity Score as follows: >10 MBPS = 0; 10-25 MBPS = ; 1 Range 0 to 3 26-40 MBPS = 2; >40 MBPS = 3

2.4 Proximity to town 'Town centres' are as defined by Local Plan (RNOTP Policies Map Inset 1A). Score as centres follows: >1.6km from town centre: score 0; Range 0 to +6 between 0.8 and 1.6km from town centre: score 2; between 0.4 and 0.8km from town centre: score 4; within 0.4km of town centre: score 6.

3. Proximity to Accessibility; Skills; 3.1 Access to defined Score on basis of proximity to defined Employment Sites (adopted Policies Map) as follows: Employment Energy use; Employment Sites none within 3km: score 0; opportunities Employment; Wealth <5ha site within 3km: score 1; creation >5ha site within 3km: score 2; Range 0 to +4 <5ha site within 1.5km: score 3; >5ha site within 1km: score 4. 4. Land Type Biodiversity; Water; 4.1 Agricultural Land Score as follows according to DEFRA Agricultural Land Classification Maps: Natural hazard; Soil and Classification loss of >1ha of Grade 1-2 agricultural land: score -4; land loss of <1ha of Grade 1-2 agricultural land: score -3; Range -4 to 0 loss of >1ha of Grade 3-5 agricultural land: score -2; loss of <1ha of Grade 3-5 agricultural land: score -1; no loss of agricultural land: score 0; 4.2 Previously Proportion of land classed at 'Previously Developed Land' as per definition provided within Developed Land NPPF Glossary; Site is 100% greenfield; score -3 Range -3 to +5 <25% PDL; score 1 26-50% PDL: score 3; >50% PDL (i.e. majority brownfield): score 5.

5. Environmental Health; Liveability; 5.1 Landscape Score using RNRP assessments as follows: Protection Biodiversity; Landscape; Character within area of High Landscape Character Sensitivity: score -3; Cultural heritage within area of Medium Landscape Character Sensitivity: score -2; Range -3 to 0 within area of Low Landscape Character Sensitivity: score -1; not within area of Landscape Character Sensitivity: score 0. 5.2 Site specific Score based on assessment of potential visual impacts of development and impact on landscape/ townscape settlement character/form made during site visits as follows: impacts Site likely to have a significant negative impacts on local landscape/townscape: score -4 Site likely to have minor negative impact on local landscape/townscape; score -2 Range -4 to 4 Site likely to have a neutral impact on local landscape/townscape: score 0 Site likely to have minor positive impact on local landscape/townscape; score -2 Site likely to have a significant positive impact on local landscape/townscape: score 4 5.3 Heritage Score using RNRP assessments as follows: sensitivity within area of High Heritage Sensitivity: score -3; within area of Medium Heritage Sensitivity: score -2; Range -3 to 0 within area of Low Heritage Sensitivity: score -1; not within area of Heritage Sensitivity: score 0. 5.4 Site specific Score based on likely impact on setting of heritage assets (e.g. Listed Buildings, Conservation impact on local Area, Scheduled Ancient Monument, Registered Parks and Garden). Score as follows: heritage assets Site likely to have a significant negative impacts on heritage assests: score -4 Site likely to have minor negative impact on heritage assestss; score -2 Range -4 to 4 Site likely to have a neutral impact on heritage assestse: score 0 Site likely to have minor positive impact on heritage assests; score 2 Site likely to have a significant positive impact on heritage assests: score 4

5.5 Impact on Score using RNRP assessments as follows: biodiversity within area of High Biodiversity Sensitivity: score -3; within area of Medium Biodiversity Sensitivity: score -2; Range -3 to 0 within area of Low Biodiversity Sensitivity: score -1; not within area of Biodiversity Sensitivity: score 0. 5.6 Site specific Score based on likely impact on biodiversity and habitat designations (RAMSAR, SAC, SPA, impacts on biodiversity SSSI, LWS). Score as follows: Site likely to have a significant negative impact on ecology and biodiversity: score -4 Site likely to have minor impact on ecology and biodiversity; score -2 Site likely to have a neutral impact on ecology and biodiversity: score 0 Range -4 to 4 Site likely to have minor positive impact on ecology and biodiversity with some opportunites for habitat enhancement and/or creation; score -2 Site likely to have a significant positive impact on ecology and biodiversity with multiple opportunities for habitat enhancement and/or creation: score 4 5.7a Impact on open Loss of 'high quality' open space (KKP assessment): score -4; spaces loss of >75% of a designated open space: score -3; loss of 50-75% of a designated open space: score -2; loss of <50% of a designated open space: score -1; Range -4 to 2 no loss of designated open space: score 0; Site provides opportunities for open space enhancement and/or a net gain in public open space: 2 5. Environmental Health; Liveability; Protection Biodiversity; Landscape; Cultural heritage

5.7b Impact on playing Loss of designated playing pitch (KKP assessment): score -4; pitches loss of >75% of a designated playing pitch: score -3; loss of 50-75% of a designated playing pitch: score -2; loss of <50% of a designated playing pitch: score -1; Range -4 to 2 no loss of designated playing pitch: score 0; Site provides opportunities for playing pitch enhancement and/or a net gain in number of playing pitches: 2 5.8 Flood Risk Remove any sites where >50% of their area is within Flood Zone 3b. Then score as follows: >50% of site within Flood Zone 3a, OR 25-50% of site within Flood Zone 3b: score -10; 25-50% of site within Flood Zone 3a: score -7; 10-25% of site within Flood Zone 3a: score -5; Range -10 to 0 >50% of site within Flood Zone 2: score -3; and >50% of site within Flood Zone 1: score 0; Score -5 for verified/ recorded incidents of surface/ ground water flooding.

5.9 Surface Water Risk of surface water flooding according to Government flood warning service: High risk of surface water flooding: score -5 Medium risk of surface water flooding: score -3 Range -5 to 0 Low risk of surface water flooding: score -1 Very low risk of surface water flooding: score 0

6. Physical Problems Accessibility; Health; 6.1 Access Score on basis of NCC Highways advice as follows: or Limitations Liveability; Air; Water; Infrastructure extensive new access infrastructure required: score -3; Range -3 to 0 Natural hazard; Soil and extensive new access infrastructure not required: score 0. land; Minerals; Energy 6.2 Drainage Score on basis of Anglian Water advice as follows: use infrastructure extensive new drainage infrastructure required: score -3; Range -3 to 0 extensive new drainage infrastructure not required: score 0. 6.3 Ground conditions Score on basis of ENC Environmental Protection advice as follows: treatment/remediation not expected to be required: score 0; Range -3 to 0 treatment/remediation expected to be required: score -3. 6.4 Ease of utility Score as follows using information obtained from land owner/site promoter: provision Site benefits from little or no services: score -3 Site benefits from some services but upgrades and/or improvements required: score 0 Range -3 to +3 Site is not fully serviced but capable of being so: score 1 Site is fully serviced: score 3 6.5 Bad neighbours Score as follows based on site visits: major bad neighbour constraints which are difficult to remedy/ overcome: score -5.; Range -5 to 0 bad neighbour constraints, but potential for mitigation: score -1; no bad neighbour constraints: score 0. 6.6 Physical Assessment of constraints such as challenging topography, permanent features, etc which constraints/ would seriously affect the site's developability. Score as follows based on site visits: permanent features major constraints which are difficult to remedy/ overcome and which affect a large part of the site: score -5.; Range -5 to 0 constraints exist but potential for mitigation and/or constraints affect only a small part of the site: score -1; no constraints: score 0.

7. Coalescence Liveability; Landscape; 7.1 Coalescence The measurable distance for this criterion is the gap between the site and the nearest Cultural heritage settlement beyond Oundle. Score as follows: significant risk of settlement coalescence (development would reduce the gap between settlements to less than 500m): score -5.; Range -5 to 0 limited risk of coalescence (development would reduce the gap between settlements to between 500m and 800m): score -1; no risk of coalescence (development would maintain a gap between settlements of at least 800m OR the developemnt would not impact on further coalesence): score 0. 8. Community Housing; health; 8.1 Community Ability of the site to support the provision of community benefits (i.e. provision of a policy benefits community; liveability benefits compliant level of affordable housing, community facilities etc) Site likely to be incapable of providing wider community benefits due to contraints, viability or Range -3 to 3 size: score -3 Site likely to be able to provide a limited level of community benefits: score 0 Site likely to be able to provide a good level og community benefits: score 3

AVAILABILITY 9. Availability/ Accessibility; Housing; 9.1 Availability - Score as follows on basis of site visits and correspondence with site promoter: Achievability Crime; Community; Freedom from known to be in complex/ multiple ownership, or no longer available: score -5; Liveability availability constraints no information, but thought likely to be in private and/or multiple ownership because of the nature of the use: score -3; Range -5 to +5 No response to consultation: score -3 no information, but thought likely to be in public ownership because of the nature of the use: score 0; held by developer/ willing owner/ public sector: score 5.

ACHIEVABILITY 10. Achievability Accessibility; Housing; 10.1 Achievability - Score as follows on basis of site visits and other known information (e.g. possible abnormal Crime; Community; Market/ cost/ delivery costs): Liveability very poor marketability and/or viability (assumed exceptional costs): score -5; poor marketability and/or viability: Score: -3; no response from the landowner to consultation Score -3 Range -5 to +5 moderate marketability and/or viability: score 1; good marketability and/or viability: score 3; very good marketability and/or viability: score 4; excellent marketability and/or viability (no known exceptional costs): score 5.

Appendix C Combined Scoring

Overall scoring matrix Land East of Land South of Land West Land off Oundle Land off Land either Land off St Land West of Land off Cotterstock Benefield Assessment of Land South Dairy Farm, Range 'Ray's Field' Primary School, Benefield side of Christopher's Cotterstock Stoke Doyle Road / North of Road / measure Glapthorn of Herne Rd Stoke Hill Cotterstock Rd Rd Herne Rd Drive Rd Rd St Peter’s Wakerley Rd Road Close SA 44 SA 64 SA 117 SA 220 SA 221 SA 221b SA 222 SA 223 SA 224 SA 225 SA 241 SA 250 1.1 Availability of bus 0 to +4 0 0 0 4 3 3 3 0 3 3 4 4 routes 1.2 Proximity to strategic highway 0 to +4 1 0 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 4 network 1.3 Availability of 0 to +4 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 PROW 2.1 Proximity to key 0 to 8 7 3 7 5 6 6 6 7 6 7 5 8 services 2.2 Proximity to 0 to +4 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 secondary services 2.3 Internet 0 to 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 Connectivity 2.4 Proximity to town 0 to +6 2 0 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 6 centres 3.1 Access to defined 0 to +4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 Employment Sites 4.1 Agricultural Land -4 to 0 -1 -2 -2 -2 -4 -4 -4 -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 Classification 4.2 Impact on previously developed -3 to +5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 land 5.1 Impact on -3 to 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 landscape character 5.2 Site specific landscape/townscap -4 to +4 -4 -4 -2 -4 -2 -2 0 -4 -2 -2 -4 -2 e impacts 5.3 Heritage -3 to 0 -2 -2 -2 -3 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 sensitivity 5.4 Site specific impacts on local -4 to +4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -3 to 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 biodiversity 5.6 Site specific impacts on -4 to +4 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 -2 0 -2 0 0 biodiversity 5.7a Impact on open -4 to 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 spaces 5.7b Impact on -4 to 0 0 0 -4 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 playing fields 5.8 Flood Risk -10 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 5.9 Surface Water -5 to 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 -1 0 0 -1 0 6.1 Access -3 to 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3 -3 0 0 -3 0 0 infrastructure 6.2 Drainage -3 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 infrastructure 6.3 Ground condition -3 to 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 6.4 Ease of utility -3 to +3 1 -3 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 provision 6.5 Bad neighbours -5 to 0 -5 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0

6.6 Physical constraints / -5 to 0 -5 -1 0 0 -5 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 -1 permanent features

7.1 Coalescence -5 to 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 8.1 Community -3 to 3 -3 -3 0 2 -3 3 3 3 3 3 2 -3 benefits aat – Freedom from -5 to 5 -3 -3 -5 5 -3 -3 5 -3 -3 5 -3 5 availability constraints heat – -5 to 5 -3 -3 -5 5 -3 -3 5 -3 -3 5 -3 3 Market cost / delivery

Total -14 -23 -15 20 -12 8 22 -5 12 17 6 7

Appendix D Detailed Site Assessments

Site Page Rays Field 1 Land off Glapthorn Road 10 Land at Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Road 18 Land off Benefield Road 24 Land either side of Herne Road 30 Land to the south of Herne Road 39 Land off St Christopher’s Drive 49 Land west of Cotterstock Road 59 Land off Stoke Doyle Road 66 Land ast o ottestoc oad oth o t ete’s oad 74 Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close 82 Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill 92

Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 44 Ray’s Field

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

Previous call for sites promotion Glapthorn Parish, East 0.7 ha during Regulation 18 consultation Northamptonshire for LLP2 (January – March 2017)

Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

The site is within Glapthorn Parish, and is north of the settlement of Oundle. It is separated from the built up area of Oundle by agricultural land. It is adjacent to Cotterstock Road which runs to the west of the site. To the north of the site is the Electricity Switch House, and also adjacent of the site in the north is the Oundle Waste Water Treatment Plant (Anglian Water). At the south of the site are the remnants of an agricultural building, and a grassed over spoil heap.

Site Map

1 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 0 The site is not within 0.8km of a bus routes stop 1.2 Proximity to strategic 1 The site is approximately 1.4km from highway network the strategic highway network (when travelling via residential streets) 1.3 Availability of PROW 2 PROW 9 runs along the east of the field in which the promoted site is located. As there is no boundary provided for the site it is not possible to assess whether there would be direct access to this PROW from the site, or whether the route to accessing the PROW would be more circuitous. If the site represents the field boundary, then the PROW would be adjacent to the site. 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 7 Oundle CofE Primary School, services services Cotterstock Road (2) Convenience foodstore (1) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 1 Prince William School is over 2km secondary services away (0) and Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 1.5km away (1) 2.3 Internet Connectivity 1 The nearest recorded MBPS is 24 2.4 Proximity to town 2 The site is approximately 1.6km from centres the town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 1.4km from employment sites Employment Sites a defined employment site <5ha 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -1 There is a loss of <1 ha of Grade 3 Classification Agricultural Land 4.2 Impact on previously -3 There is an agricultural building at the developed land south of the site in a dilapidated state, and a large grassed over spoil heap. According to the NPPF definition, this agricultural building does not constitute PDL and therefore the site must be considered to be 100% greenfield 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is not assessed in the RNRP protection landscape Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA223 and LPP2SA225) have been applied to score this site as having high sensitivity.

2 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

5.2 Site specific -4 The site is detached from the landscape/townscape settlement and development would impacts relate poorly to the town. Due to the presence of the electricity substation switch house, and the accompanying powerlines, there is a pre-existing urbanising effect on this agricultural land. 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -2 The site is not assessed in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA223 and LPP2SA225) have been applied to score this site as having medium sensitivity. 5.4 Site specific impacts 0 The site is not within the setting of on local heritage assets any heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is not assessed in the RNRP biodiversity sensitivity Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA223 and LPP2SA225) have been applied to score this site as having medium sensitivity. 5.6 Site specific impacts 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site. 5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would spaces not lead to a loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space however without the site boundary defined it is unknown whether site is capable of delivering open space as part of the development. 5.7b Impact on playing 0 The development of the site would fields not lead to a loss of existing playing field 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 5.9 Surface Water 0 Overall there is a very low risk of surface water flooding on the site. There is an area along the southern boundary of the field in which the point data is located mapped as low risk surface water flooding. However, as the extent of the proposed site is unspecified it is unknown if the site is affected by this Surface Water Flood Risk.

3 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

6. Physical 6.1 Access infrastructure NCC Highways consultation problems or comments are as follows: limitations • No details of access point is proposed. • This section of Cotterstock Road is currently a 60mph road, withthe 30mph zone starting just before property number 25. It is likely that an extension of the 30mph speed limit zone would be necessary. This may not be supported as it may not appropriate for the rural road environment i.e. drivers may naturally drive much faster. • This section of road is fairly straight so it appears that visibility splays could be achieved (subject to vegetation clearing). • Pedestrian and cycle links would need to be provided to link to school/ town centre (there is currently no footway – there is just a grass verge) • Access infrastructure requirement would be modest • The nearest bus stop is 250m away but there is no safe walking route. There is no fixed bus service on Cotterstock Road; it is covered by CallConnect 6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water. 6.3 Ground condition 0 Treatment/remediation is not expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility 1 No consultation response on utility provision provision has been returned from the landowner. The information provided by the promoter of the adjacent site (LPP2SA225) has been used to score this site: The site is not fully serviced currently but is capable of being so. The site can be serviced from existing utility networks in the vicinity of the site. 6.5 Bad neighbours -5 The Oundle Waste Water Treatment works (and an electricity substation switch house) are adjacent to the site, and the impact is unlikely to be capable of mitigation due to the immediate proximity. 6.6 Physical constraints / -5 Waste Water Treatment Works and permanent features an Electricity substation are adjacent to the site

4 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The settlement at Cotterstock is approximately 1.16km away as the crow flies. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits -3 There has been no response to the benefits consultation from the landowner. Constraints that may limit the ability of the site to provide community benefits are therefore unknown. Given the size of the site and the proximity to the Waste Water Treatment site, the site may be have abnormal mitigation costs. 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – -3 The site was promoted in the ENC Achievability Freedom from availability Call for Sites (2017) however there constraints has been no response to the consultation sought from the private landowner. This casts doubt on the availability of the site for development. 10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – -3 There has been no response to the Market cost / delivery consultation from the landowner, and it is therefore assumed that the land is not currently being actively promoted, which raises concerns as to its potential to deliver within the plan period.

High level capacity Unconstrainted assessment using density multiplier: 21 dwellings assessment Potential actual capacity: unknown

This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account.

Mitigation that may be required on the site and have an impact on the potential yield is as follows:

• Oundle Water Recycling Centre is adjacent to the point data site, and Anglian Water should be consulted. An odour assessment would likely be required for the site and the applicant will need to demonstrate that a suitable distance can be maintained to ensure the occupiers of the site will not be adversely affected and the on-going operation of Oundle WRC is not prejudiced. The results of this could render the site unachievable. • The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought. • An electricity substation switch house is adjacent to the point data site and this may potentially affect the deliverable area of the site

Total -14

5 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

6 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

7 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

8 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 44 – Ray’s Field

9 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 64 Land off Glapthorn Road

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

Previous call for sites promotion Glapthorn Parish, East Unknown (land boundary not during Regulation 18 consultation Northamptonshire defined) for LLP2 (January – March 2017)

Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

This site is within Glapthorn Parish, north west of the settlement of Oundle. It is located approximately halfway between Oundle and Glapthorn and is surrounded by undeveloped land. It is adjacent to Glapthorn Road. The site is greenfield and understood to be in agricultural use. It is a flat and open site with hedgerows lining the perimeter of the field, however the proposed site boundary is unknown. An electricity distributor pylon crosses the site in the northern half of the site.

Site Map

10 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

Part B: Assessment Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 0 The site is not within 0.8km of a bus routes stop 1.2 Proximity to strategic 0 The site is not within 1.6km of the highway network strategic highway network 1.3 Availability of PROW 1 The site is approximately 0.8km from PROW 11 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 3 Oundle CofE Primary School, services services Cotterstock Road (1) Convenience foodstore (Waitrose, Co- op, Tesco Express) (0) Playing field/ park or public open space (0) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 1 The site is further than 2km from secondary services Prince William School (0), and approximately 1.9km from the Oundle Sports Centre (1)

2.3 Internet Connectivity 1 The nearest recorded MBPS is 25 2.4 Proximity to town 0 The site is further than 1.6km from the centres town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 1.9km from employment sites Employment Sites an employment site >5ha 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -2 The extent of the site has not been Classification defined however the field that relates most closely to the point provided is Grade 3 agricultural land. Assuming the ‘worst case’ scenario in which the site is greater than a hectare, this would be a loss of >1ha of Grade 3 agricultural land. 4.2 Impact on previously -3 The site is 100% greenfield developed land 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is not assessed in in the protection landscape RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). A mean score (mode) from the sites assessed by the RNRP in Oundle has been applied for the scoring of this site, which suggests a high sensitivity score. This scoring could be subject to change should a detailed sensitivity study of the site be undertaken. 5.2 Site specific -4 This site is detached from Oundle and landscape/townscape Glapthorn, approximately half way impacts between the two settlements and

11 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

therefore is a visually inappropriate site that has the potential to encourage coalescence of the two settlements. The land is flat and open, and development would alter the landscape in a way that cannot be mitigated against. 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -2 The site is not assessed in in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). A mean score (mode) from the sites assessed by the RNRP in Oundle has been applied for the scoring of this site, which suggests a medium sensitivity score. This scoring could be subject to change should a detailed sensitivity study of the site be undertaken. 5.4 Site specific impacts 0 The site is not within the setting of on local heritage assets any heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is not assessed in in the biodiversity RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). A mean score (mode) from the sites assessed by the RNRP in Oundle has been applied for the scoring of this site, which suggests a medium sensitivity score. This scoring could be subject to change should a detailed sensitivity study of the site be undertaken. 5.6 Site specific impacts 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site. 5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would not spaces lead to a loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space however without the site boundary defined it is unclear how large a site is being promoted to understand if the site is capable of delivering open space as part of the development. 5.7b Impact on playing 0 The development of the site would not fields lead to the loss of existing playing fields 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 5.9 Surface Water 0 Overall surface water flooding risk on the site is very low, with high and medium surface water flooding risk limited to the boundary line on the

12 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

field in which the site point data is located, along the boundary with Glapthorn Road. 6. Physical 6.1 Access infrastructure NCC Highways consultation problems or comments are as follows: limitations • No details of access proposed • Difficult to assess without boundary details. • This section of Glapthorn Road is 60mph. An extension of the 30mph is therefore likely to be required. • The extension of the 30mph speed limit may not be supported as it may not appropriate for the rural road environment i.e. drivers may naturally drive much faster. • There is a narrow footway along Glapthorn Road, but this would need upgrading to provide good pedestrian and cycling links to link to school. • It looks to be quite separate from Oundle itself and from town centre so it is not a very sustainable location from a transport point of view. • No bus stop for a fixed route within walking distance 6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water 6.3 Ground condition 0 Treatment / remediation is not expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility -3 There has been no response received provision from the promoter/landowner to the consultation sought. The isolated location of the site it may be assumed that the site benefits from little or no services currently. 6.5 Bad neighbours 0 There are no bad neighbour constraints 6.6 Physical constraints / -1 A power distribution cable runs permanent features across/above the site 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence -5 The settlement of Glapthorn is approximately 428m from the point data, as the crow flies. Development in this location would contribute significantly to the coalescence of the settlements. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits -3 No consultation response received benefits from promoter/landowner. There is no site boundary available for the site and therefore it is not possible to

13 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

assess the level of community benefits and viability likely to be provided. 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – -3 The site was promoted in the ENC Achievability Freedom from availability Call for Sites (2017) however there constraints has been no response to the consultation sought from the private landowner. This casts doubt on the availability of the site for development. 10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – -3 There has been no response to the Market cost / delivery consultation from the landowner, and it is therefore assumed that the land is not currently being actively promoted, which raises concerns as to its potential to deliver within the plan period.

High Level Unknown Capacity Assessment The capacity cannot be estimated as the extent of the site is not known.

Mitigation that may be required on the site and have an impact on the potential yield is as follows:

• The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought. • There are overhead power distribution cables running across the site • The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought.

Total -23

14 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

15 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

16 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 64 - Land off Glapthorn Rd

17 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 117 – Land at Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Rd

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 117 Land at Oundle CE Primary School, Cotterstock Road

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

• Promoted since 2013 Oundle Parish, East Unknown (land boundary not Northamptonshire • Pre-application enquiry 2 18. defined) Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

The site is within Oundle parish at the edge of the settlement in the north. The exact boundary of the promoted site is unknown, and therefore a small amount of the site may extend into Glapthorn Parish. The site is adjacent to the Oundle CE Primary School to the south of the site, and it falls within the school's playing field grounds. The site is adjacent to Cotterstock Road on its eastern boundary, with a tall hedgerow with trees to the northern boundary. There are football pitches set out on this flat greenfield site.

Site Map

18 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 117 – Land at Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Rd

Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 0 The site is not within 0.8km of a bus routes stop 1.2 Proximity to strategic 1 The site is approximately 1.2km from highway network the A427 1.3 Availability of PROW 1 The site is approximately 0.6km from PROW 9 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 7 Oundle CofE Primary School, services services Cotterstock Road (2) Convenience foodstore (1) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 1 Prince William School is over 2km secondary services away (0), and the Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 1.3km away (1) 2.3 Internet Connectivity 1 The nearest recorded MBPS is 24 2.4 Proximity to town 2 The site is approximately 1.3km from centres the town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 1.4km from employment sites Employment Sites an employment site <5ha 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -2 The extent of the site has not been Classification defined however the field that relates most closely to the point provided is Grade 3 agricultural land. Assuming the ‘worst case’ scenario in which the site is greater than a hectare, this would be a loss of >1ha of Grade 3 agricultural land. 4.2 Impact on previously -3 The site is 100% greenfield developed land 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is not assessed in the RNRP protection landscape Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA223 and LPP2SA225) have been applied to score this site as having high sensitivity. 5.2 Site specific -2 The site is an edge of settlement site landscape/townscape and would extend the settlement to the impacts north. The site is currently screened by trees that are a rural feature of this site and their loss would have a negative impact on the gateway to the village.

However, the site is adjacent to the Primary School and residential

19 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 117 – Land at Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Rd

dwellings, and can be considered an existing part of the townscape due to the adjacent residential development to the east and the school to the south. 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -2 The site is not assessed in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA223 and LPP2SA225) have been applied to score this site as having medium sensitivity. 5.4 Site specific impacts 0 The site is not within the setting of any on local heritage assets heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is not assessed in the RNRP biodiversity Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA223 and LPP2SA225) have been applied to score this site as having medium sensitivity. 5.6 Site specific impacts -2 There are no statutory biodiversity or on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site.

There is an identified priority habit of Lowland Calcareous glassland that runs along the roadside verge adjacent to the site on the east. Impact on this may require mitigation.

5.7a Impact on open 0 The development of the site would not spaces lead to a loss of existing open space. (See below for impact on playing fields) 5.7.b Impact on playing -4 The site is on the Oundle Primary fields School Field. Without the provision of a site boundary it is not possible to assess the extent of loss and this assessment therefore assumes the worst case scenario of loss. 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 5.9 Surface Water -1 There is a very low risk of surface water flooding across around 50% of the field in which the site point data is located, with small pockets of high and medium risk. However, without the provision of a site boundary it is difficult to assess whether the promoted site would be affected. 6. Physical 6.1 Access 0 NCC Highways comments found in the problems or infrastructure ENC Assessment 2018 are as follows: limitations ‘All sites in Oundle score the same, none are strategic sites and therefore capacity of the existing highway network should be sufficient, each will

20 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 117 – Land at Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Rd

need to go through a transport assessment as required for the planning process and it is likely that mitigation would be possible.’ No site specific consultation response was sought for this site as it is unavailable for development

6.2 Drainage No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water 6.3 Ground condition 0 No consultation response available from the land owner or from ENC Environmental Protection, however based on the site visit it is not considered that there would be treatment / remediation required. 6.4 Ease of utility 0 No consultation response from the provision land owner or from Anglian Water 6.5 Bad neighbours 0 There are no bad neighbour constraints. Note that the site is adjacent to Oundle CE Primary School 6.6 Physical constraints 0 There are no major constraints on the / permanent features site 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The settlement at Cotterstock is approximately 1.36km from the site point data, as the crow flies. Development in this location would not risk coalescence. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits 0 There has been no consultation benefits response received from the landowner. Given the size of the site there is likely to be a limited amount of community benefits on the site 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – -5 The site is held in public sector Achievability Freedom from ownership, however, the Secretary of availability constraints State for Education has refused the release of the site and therefore the it is not currently considered available.

10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – -5 The site is currently unavailable and Market cost / delivery therefore is considered to be undeliverable at this time

High level Unknown capacity assessment The capacity cannot be estimated as the extent of the site is not known.

Mitigation that may be required on the site and have an impact on the potential yield is as follows:

• The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought. • Surface water flooding pockets of high and medium risk may require mitigation, depending on the extent of the site.

Total -15

21 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 117 – Land at Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Rd

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

22 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 117 – Land at Oundle Primary School, Cotterstock Rd

23 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 220 – Land off Benefield Rd

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 220 Land off Benefield Road

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

• Promoted through the call for Oundle Parish, East 14.2 hectares sites in the Reg 18 consultation Northamptonshire (Jan - March 2017). • The site has also been assessed in the SHLAA 2017, • Promoted through the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan consultation Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

This site is within Oundle Parish and is north of Benefield Road. It is to the west of Oundle. It is separated from the existing development of the town by the Oundle School sports facilities. In the very northern corner of the site, it briefly adjoins the recent housing development around HiIlfield Road. Agricultural fields are adjacent to the north, west, and south. Several field boundary hedgerows cross the site, and the land rises gently uphill away to the north from Benefield Road.

Site Map

24 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 220 – Land off Benefield Rd

Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 4 The nearest point of the site is routes approximately 70m from a bus stop with an hourly service. Note that the site is large, at the northern boundary this distance would be approximately 3 times further. 1.2 Proximity to 4 The site is accessed from the A427, strategic highway Benefield Road network 1.3 Availability of 2 The site is within 80m of PROW PROW/Bridleway 10, and 50m of PROW 3 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 5 Oundle CofE Primary School, Cotterstock services services Road (0) Convenience foodstore (1) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 3 The site is within 2km of Prince William secondary services School (1) and Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 0.8km (2) 2.3 Internet 1 The nearest recorded MBPS is 25 Connectivity 2.4 Proximity to town 2 The site is approximately 0.9km from the centres town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 1km from an employment Employment Sites employment site <5ha sites 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -2 There would be a loss of >1ha of Grade 3 Classification agricultural land. 4.2 Impact on -3 The site is 100% greenfield previously developed land 5. 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is assessed as having a high Environmental landscape sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental protection Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.2 Site specific -4 The site is detached from the built-up landscape/townscape area of the settlement and development impacts would relate poorly to the town, representing a significant extension to the west. The site is adjacent to the Oundle School sports fields, and this open space that detaches the site from the settlement. The site is an edge of settlement site and extend the settlement significantly to the west. The site is largely flat, in open countryside. 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -3 The site is assessed as having high sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009)

25 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 220 – Land off Benefield Rd

5.4 Site specific -2 There are no designated heritage assets impacts on local recorded on the site. However the heritage assets consultation material returned by the site promoter references ridge and furrow on the site, potentially a non designated heritage asset. 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is assessed as having medium biodiversity sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). 5.6 Site specific 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or impacts on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site. 5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would not spaces lead to a loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space.

Consultation with the landowner specifically references the provision of public open space within any development of the site, however correspondence suggests that this provision would be proportionate to the contribution requirements, rather than the level proposed in the draft Oundle NDP allocation. 5.7b Impact on playing 0 The development of the site would not fields lead to the loss of an existing playing field. 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1. 5.9 Surface Water 0 There is a very low risk of surface water flooding on the site. In the very north of the site there is a band of low /medium surface water flood risk. This is likely to be able to be mitigated through any scheme layout. 6. Physical 6.1 Access 0 NCC Highways consultation comments: problems or infrastructure • No detail on access point provided. limitations • This section of road is currently 60mph – an extension to the 30mph would be required with traffic calming to achieve compliance. • There is a very narrow footway on Benefield Road, this would need upgrading to accommodate pedestrians and cycle links would need to be provided. • Pedestrian and cycling links to the adjacent sports facilities should be provided. • Access should be achievable on Benefield Road subject to visibility splays etc.

26 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 220 – Land off Benefield Rd

• Improvements to highway network to be determined by a Transport Assessment. 6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water. 6.3 Ground condition 0 Treatment / remediation is not expected to be required. 6.4 Ease of utility 1 The consultation response from the provision landowner/promoter states that the site is not fully serviced currently but is capable of being so. Services are available immediately adjoining the site on Benefield Road. 6.5 Bad neighbours 0 There are no bad neighbour constraints. 6.6 Physical constraints 0 There are no major constraints on the / permanent features site. There are a number of hedgerows across the site. 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The settlement at Glapthorn is approximately 1.12km from the site boundary, as the crow flies. Development in this location would not risk coalescence. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits 2 The site is free from abnormal constraints benefits and is therefore expected to be capable of providing policy compliant community benefits. Consultation with the landowner specifically references the provision of public open space within any development of the site, however correspondence suggests that this provision would be proportionate to the contribution requirements. 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – 5 The site has a single willing landowner. Achievability Freedom from availability constraints 10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – 5 The landowner has indicated that there Market cost / delivery are no abnormal costs associated with development.

High level Potential capacity: 426 dwellings capacity assessment This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

• 'Ridge and furrow' heritage features have been highlighted in a heritage study of the site which may require mitigation

• The site has been discussed in the Draft Oundle NDP as having potential for a significant amount of land set aside for community space. This is reflected with a positive score in 8.1 of the assessment.

• The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought.

Total 20

27 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 220 – Land off Benefield Rd

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

28 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 220 – Land off Benefield Rd

29 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

Part A: Site information

Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 221a Land either side of Herne Road

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

• Promoted in the SHLAA 2017 Oundle Parish, East Northamptonshire 17.6 hectares • Promoted through the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan consultation. Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

This site is within Oundle Parish and it is to the south east of Oundle. Herne Road, a public right of way (bridleway), runs through the site. The A605 is along the eastern boundary. Prince William School and associated playing fields is included within the promoted site boundary north of Herne Road. To the south of Herne Road, the land is not known to be in active agricultural use. The land is largely flat but falls away to the River Nene at the southern boundary. The surrounding land uses are agricultural with existing residential development to the north west.

Site Map

30 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

Part B: Assessment Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 3 The site is approximately 640m from routes a bus stop with an hourly service 1.2 Proximity to strategic 2 The site is approximately 640m from highway network the A427 1.3 Availability of PROW 2 The site is adjacent to the Herne Road bridleway which runs through the site 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 6 Oundle CofE Primary School, services services Cotterstock Road (0) Convenience foodstore (2) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

31 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -4 There would be a loss of >1ha of Classification Grade 2 Agricultural Land 4.2 Impact on previously -3 The site is 100% greenfield developed land 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -2 The site is assessed as having protection landscape medium sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.2 Site specific -2 The site is located between the A605 landscape/townscape and the existing edge of the impacts settlement in the east of the town. The view of the site from the A605 is visually screened by trees. The development of the site would impact on views from the PROW through the centre of the site, and to the south which offer the only longer distance views of the site. The site is contained by existing development and the A605 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -1 The site is assessed as having low sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.4 Site specific impacts 0 The site is not within the setting of on local heritage assets any heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is assessed as having biodiversity medium sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.6 Site specific impacts 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site.

5.7a Impact on open 0 The development of the site would spaces not lead to a loss of open space (see below for impact on playing fields) 5.7b Impact on playing -4 The site covers the entirely of Prince fields William School and it’s playing fields, and the development of the promoted site for residential housing would result in a score of -4 due to the loss of this significant facility including the playing field. 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The south west boundary line of the site is in Flood Zone 2 and 3 however this may be capable of mitigation. The remainder of the site is in Flood Zone 1. 5.9 Surface Water 0 There is limited surface water flooding risk on the site, with two small pockets of high risk for which mitigation may be possible.

32 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

6. Physical 6.1 Access infrastructure -3 NCC Highways consultation problems or comments: limitations • No details regarding access proposals • No access off A605 • Vehicular access to Herne Road currently terminates at junction with school (the remainder is PRoW). • A small section of footway would need to be provided between the entrance and exit of Prince William School (assuming that this is retained) • Access appears to be achievable subject to visibility. • Herne Road narrows to 3.5m close to school • entrance/exit, this would need widening to accommodate additional traffic flows. • Improvements to highway network to be determined by a Transport Assessment

6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water 6.3 Ground condition -3 Treatment / remediation would be required on the site 6.4 Ease of utility 1 No consultation response on utility provision provision has been returned from the landowner. Due to the proximity of the site to existing development, it is likely that the site is not fully serviced but capable of being so. 6.5 Bad neighbours -1 The are no significant bad neighbour constraints, however the site is adjacent to the A605 to the east of the site may require noise mitigation. 6.6 Physical constraints / -5 Prince William School and it’s playing permanent features fields are considered to be a major constraint for the proposed site due to being critical infrastructure. This constraint could be over come through developing on land that does not form part of the school, and this scenario has been assessed separately as Site 221b. 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The site is approximately 1.8km from the settlement at Polebrook, as the crow flies. Development in this location would not risk coalescence. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits -3 No consultation response currently benefits available from the site promoter/landowner. Given the size of

33 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

the site it is likely that the site would be able to provide a good level of community benefits. However, the site includes the school, and the loss of the school would be likely to result in a net loss of community benefits. 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – -3 Prince William School and its grounds Achievability Freedom from comprise of over 50% of the availability constraints promoted site. This is unavailable for residential development.

The site was included in the SHLAA however there has been no response to the consultation sought from the private landowner. This casts doubt on the availability of the site for development 10. Achieveability 10.1 Achievability – -3 As the school site is not available, the Market cost / delivery site is not considered to be achievable.

There has been no response to the consultation from the landowner, and it is therefore assumed that the land is not currently being actively promoted, which raises concerns as to its potential to deliver within the plan period.

High level Unconstrainted assessment using density multiplier: 528 dwellings capacity Potential capacity: 444 dwellings assessment This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

• The site includes Prince William School and grounds, and the capacity of the site will be considerably reduced when this is applied as a constraint (see Site Assessment for Land South of Herne Road for site assessment that excludes the school). • The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought. • There are two small pockets of high risk of surface water flooding for which mitigation may be possible surface water flood risk in the south east corner of the site which may require mitigation. • Noise mitigation from the A605 may be required.

Total -12

34 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

35 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

36 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

37 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221a – Land either side of Herne Rd

38 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 221B Land to the south of Herne Road

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

• Promoted in the SHLAA 2017 Oundle Parish, East 7.8ha • promoted through the Oundle Northamptonshire Neighbourhood Plan consultation Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town Description of the Site

This site is within Oundle Parish and it is to the south east of Oundle. Herne Road, a public right of way (Bridleway), runs along the north-eastern boundary of the site. The A605 runs along the eastern boundary. Prince William School and associated playing fields are adjacent to the site to the north of the Herne Road PROW. The surrounding land uses are agricultural with existing residential development in to north west. The site is agricultural land that is not known to be in active use. The land is largely flat and falls away to the River Nene at the southern boundary.

39 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd

Site Map

40 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 3 The site is approximately 640m from routes a bus stop with an hourly service 1.2 Proximity to strategic 2 The site is approximately 640m from highway network the A427 1.3 Availability of PROW 2 The site is adjacent to the Herne Road bridleway which runs along the north of the site 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 6 Oundle CofE Primary School, services services Cotterstock Road (0) Convenience foodstore (2) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 3 The site is adjacent / the site of Prince secondary services William School (2) and the Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 1.4km (1) 2.3 Internet Connectivity 2 The nearest recorded MBPS is 32 2.4 Proximity to town 4 The site is approximately 0.4km from centres the town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 4 The site is approximately 0.7km from employment sites Employment Sites an employment site >5ha 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -4 There would be a loss of >1ha of Classification Grade 2 Agricultural Land 4.2 Impact on previously -3 The site is 100% greenfield developed land 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -2 The site is assessed as having protection landscape medium sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.2 Site specific -2 The site is located between the A605 landscape/townscape and the existing edge of the impacts settlement in the east of the town. The view of the site from the A605 is visually screened by trees. The development of the site would impact on views from the PROW to the north and south which offer the only longer distance views of the site. The site is contained by existing development and the A605 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -1 The site is assessed as having low sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.4 Site specific impacts 0 The site is not within the setting of on local heritage assets any heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is assessed as having biodiversity medium sensitivity in the RNRP

41 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd

Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.6 Site specific impacts 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site.

5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would spaces not lead to a loss of existing designated open space. It is possible that the development of the site could provide opportunities for open space enhancement or net gain in open space. There may be opportunity to create an access point from the development to PROW 782 in the south east along the river

5.7b Impact on playing 0 The development of the site would fields not lead to a loss of existing playing field. 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The south west boundary line of the site is in Flood Zone 3 however this is capable of mitigation or avoidance through detailed masterplanning 5.9 Surface Water 0 There is a little surface water flooding risk on the site, there are two small pockets of risk (totalling approximately 15m2 of land) for which mitigation would be required 6. Physical 6.1 Access infrastructure -3 NCC Highways consultation problems or comments: (Received for Site limitations LPP2SA221) • No details regarding access proposals • No access off A605 Vehicular access to Herne Road currently terminates at junction with school (the remainder is PRoW). • A small section of footway would need to be provided between the entrance and exit of Prince William School (assuming that this is retained) • Access appears to be achievable subject to visibility. • Herne Road narrows to 3.5m close to school entrance/exit, this would need widening to accommodate additional traffic flows.

42 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd

• Improvements to highway network to be determined by a Transport Assessment

6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water 6.3 Ground condition 0 The ENC Environmental Protection consultation response stated that site LPP2SA221 would require treatment / remediation. However, given that site LPP2SA221B excludes the developed land of the school and is greenfield land, there is not expected to be treatment / remediation required for this part of the site. 6.4 Ease of utility 1 No consultation response on utility provision provision has been returned from the landowner. Due to the proximity of the site to existing development, it is likely that the site is not fully serviced but capable of being so. 6.5 Bad neighbours -1 The are no significant bad neighbour constraints, however the site is adjacent to the A605 to the east of the site may require noise mitigation. 6.6 Physical constraints / 0 The ground is slightly uneven and permanent features undulating to the east of the site, with a slope down towards the floodplain at the south. These are not considered to be significant constraints. 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The site is approximately 1.8km from the settlement at Polebrook as the crow flies. Development in this location would not risk coalescence. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits 3 No consultation response received benefits from the site promoter/landowner. Given the size of the site it is likely that the site would be able to provide a good level of community benefits 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – -3 The site was included in the SHLAA Achievability Freedom from availability however there has been no response constraints to the consultation sought from the private landowner. This casts doubt on the availability of the site for development 10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – -3 There has been no response to the Market cost / delivery consultation from the landowner, and it is therefore assumed that the land is not currently being actively promoted, which raises concerns as to its potential to deliver within the plan period.

43 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd

High Level Unconstrainted assessment using density multiplier: 234 dwellings Capacity Potential capacity: 150 dwellings Assessment This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

• The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought. • There are two small pockets of high risk of surface water flooding for which mitigation may be possible surface water flood risk in the south east corner of the site which may require mitigation. • The site is adjacent to the A605 so a buffer may be required • Landscaping along the River Nene and the adjacent PRoW would be likely to be encouraged in any scheme design.

Total 8

44 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

45 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd

46 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd

47 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 221b – Land to the south of Herne Rd

48 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

Part A: Site information

Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 222 Land off St Christopher’s Drive

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

• Promoted through the call for sites Oundle Parish, East 5.1 hectares in the Reg 18 consultation (Jan - Northamptonshire March 2017). • The site has also been assessed in the SHLAA 2017, and promoted through the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan consultation • Pre-application advice sought Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

This site is within Oundle Parish and is to the south east of the Oundle settlement. There is residential land around St. Christopher’s Drive to the west of the site, and the A605 runs along the east of the site. Directly to the south is Prince William School and its playing fields. To the north is a PROW running along the site boundary, of which the current access is found. Beyond this the Nene House Industrial Park / Employment land. The site is largely flat and open, with a strong tree line boundary along the south and east of the site.

Site Map

49 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

Part B: Assessment

Policy Assessment Score Commentary Objective measure 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 3 The site is approximately 750m from a bus stop routes with an hourly service 1.2 Proximity to 2 The site is approximately 760m from the A427. strategic highway network The site is also adjacent to the A605, although formal access is not available. It is possible to access the A605 via a bridleway to the north of the site without road access. Should access onto the A427 be proposed or made possible, the site would score higher. 1.3 Availability of 2 There is a bridleway adjacent to the site which PROW runs along the northern side of the site. When heading east, this bridleway crosses the A605 and continues to the fields beyond. When heading west, it leads towards the town centre. Impact of development on this bridleway may require mitigation. 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 6 Oundle CofE Primary School, Cotterstock Road services services (0) Convenience foodstore (2) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 3 The site is adjacent to Prince William School (2) secondary services and Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 1.7km away (1) 2.3 Internet 2 The nearest recorded MBPS is 29 Connectivity 2.4 Proximity to town 4 The site is approximately 0.5km from the town centres centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 4 The site is adjacent to an employment site >5ha employment Employment Sites sites 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -4 There would be a loss of >1ha of Grade 2 Classification Agricultural Land 4.2 Impact on -3 The site is 100% greenfield previously developed land 5. 5.1 Impact on visual -2 The site is assessed as having medium Environmental landscape sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental protection Sensitivity Consolidation Study (2009) 5.2 Site specific 0 The site is located in the east of the town, landscape/townscape between the A605 and the existing edge of the impacts settlement. The view of the site from the A605 is visually screened by trees. There would be minimal impact on the townscape as the site is contained by and well connected to the existing built form of the settlement; with residential development to the west of the site, the employment land to the north, the A605 to the

50 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

east, and Prince William School to the south. 5.3 Heritage -1 The site is assessed as having low sensitivity in sensitivity the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation Study (2009) 5.4 Site specific 0 There are no specific heritage assets affected impacts on local by the site heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is assessed as having medium biodiversity sensitivity in the in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation Study (2009) 5.6 Site specific -2 There are no statutory biodiversity or habitat impacts on designations that would be impacted by the biodiversity development of the site.

There is deciduous woodland is adjacent to the site to the north east, beyond the bridleway. Impact on these may require mitigation.

5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would not lead to a spaces loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space 5.7b Impact on 0 The development of the site would not lead to playing fields a loss of existing playing fields 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 5.9 Surface Water -3 There are two areas of high medium and low flood risk in the western half of the site (closest to the existing residential properties). The pocket of Surface water flood risk to at the north west of the site covers approximately 0.16ha, and the pocket in the south west of the site covers approximately 0.55ha. 6. Physical 6.1 Access -3 NCC Highways comments found in the ENC problems or infrastructure Assessment 2018 are as follows: limitations ‘All sites in Oundle score the same, none are strategic sites and therefore capacity of the existing highway network should be sufficient, each will need to go through a transport assessment as required for the planning process and it is likely that mitigation would be possible.’

Detailed comments have been made by NCC Highways in relation to this site: Access to the site off St Christopher’s Drive, which is a publicly maintained highway. The developer will need to satisfy themselves that their land directly abuts the highway The site has a single point of access served by Ashton Road/Sutton Road/St Christopher’s Drive. These roads appear to have a carriageway width of 5.5m. Ashton Road currently serves about 120 dwellings. An additional 120 dwellings would take the number served off a single point of access to about 240. An additional access would need to be provided

51 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

as the maximum number served off a 5.5m wide road is about 150. A second point of access could be provided through the upgrading of bridleway UF6 which runs south-east from the end of Ashton Road, Ashton Road would also need to be widened significantly to ensure access could be maintained in the event of road works if it was to remain as the single point of access. There is no bus service within reasonable walking distance. The nearest is in Market Place (A427) about 900m east of the site access. This service is X4 hourly 7 days/week. A contribution to provide a minibus to connect to the X4 service may be required this is normally £1000/dwelling A transport assessment is required to assess the impact of the development on the local highway network 6.2 Drainage 0 Anglian Water have no objection to the infrastructure development of the site. 6.3 Ground condition 0 There is no treatment / remediation expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility 3 Consultation with the landowner states that the provision site is fully serviced 6.5 Bad neighbours -1 The site is adjacent to the A605 to the east of the site which may require noise mitigation. The site also neighbours the Nene Valley Business Park to the northeast however it is not anticipated that this will cause any bad neighbour issues and is separated by the bridleway.

The Oundle – Ashton Gate Terminal Pumping Station is located within the site boundary. Anglian Water have recommended through their consultation response that any design layout should consider the proximity of the foul pumping station and allow for a distance of 15 metres from the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellings to reduce the risk of nuisance/loss of amenity associated with the operation of the pumping station’.

6.6 Physical -1 The Oundle – Ashton Gate Terminal Pumping constraints / Station is located within the site boundary. permanent features Anglian Water have recommended through their consultation response that any design layout should consider the proximity of the foul pumping station and allow for a distance of 15 metres from the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellings to reduce the risk of nuisance/loss of amenity associated with the operation of the pumping station’.

7. 7.1 Coalescence 0 The site is approximately 1.8km from the

52 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

Coalescence settlement at Polebrook, as the crow flies. Development in this location would not risk coalescence. 8. Community 8.1 Community 3 Consultation with the landowner/promoter benefits benefits states that there are no abnormal costs associated with the development of the site and therefore the site is assumed to be capable of delivering a policy compliant level of community benefits 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – 5 The site held by a single willing landowner and Achievability Freedom from promoted by a housebuilder availability constraints 10. 10.1 Achievability – 5 Consultation with the landowner/promoter Achievability Market cost / delivery states that there are no abnormal costs associated with the development of the site.

High level Unconstrainted assessment using density multiplier:151 dwellings capacity Potential capacity: 129 assessment The Oundle – Ashton Gate Terminal Pumping Station is located within the site boundary. Anglian Water have recommended through their consultation response that any design layout should consider the proximity of the foul pumping station and allow for a distance of 15 metres from the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellings to reduce the risk of nuisance/loss of amenity associated with the operation of the pumping station’. This would reduce the site by approximately 0.07ha (which includes the footprint of the Pumping Station plus the recommended buffer) in the north west corner of the site. This constraint has been taken into account in the capacity assessment above.

This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once other constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

• The site is adjacent to the A605 to the east of the site which may require noise mitigation and a buffer • There are two areas of high medium and low flood risk in the western half of the site (closest to the existing residential properties) that may require mitigation; a drainage attenuation pond would be required to mitigate against this and would be part of the design of any scheme. (Potentially around 0.4 ha)

Total 22

53 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

54 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

55 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

56 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

57 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 222 – Land off St Christopher’s Drive

58 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 223 – Land West of Cotterstock Rd

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 223 Land West of Cotterstock Road

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

Previous call for sites promotion Glapthorn Parish, East 4.7 ha during Regulation 18 consultation Northamptonshire for LLP2 (January – March 2017)

SHLAA 609

Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

The site is within Glapthorn Parish and is to the north of the settlement of Oundle. It is adjacent to the Oundle CE Primary School playing fields to the south, and Cotterstock Road is adjacent to the east. The site is flat, with no structures on the site. There are strips of woodland around the perimeter of the site to the north and west, with treed hedgerows to the south and east. It is surrounded by undeveloped land.

Site Map

59 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 223 – Land West of Cotterstock Rd

Part B: Assessment

2.2 Proximity to 1 Prince William School is over 2km secondary services away (0) and the Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 1.4km away (1) 2.3 Internet Connectivity 1 The nearest recorded MBPS is 24 2.4 Proximity to town 2 The site is approximately 1.4km from centres the town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 1.5km from employment sites Employment Sites an employment site <5ha 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -2 There would be a loss of >1ha of Classification Grade 3 Agricultural Land 4.2 Impact on previously -3 The site is 100% greenfield developed land 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is assessed as having a high protection landscape sensitivity 5.2 Site specific -4 The site is detached from the built-up landscape/townscape area of the settlement and impacts development would relate poorly to the town. The site is adjacent to the primary school, and the open space that detaches the site from the settlement is a playing field. The site is an edge of settlement site and would result in ribbon development along Cotterstock Road and extend the settlement to the north. The site is currently well screened by a thick tree belt that is a rural feature of this site and their loss would have a negative impact on the gateway to the village. However, due to the presence of the Electricity Unit, in the opposite field and the accompanying powerlines, there is a

60 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 223 – Land West of Cotterstock Rd

pre-existing urbanising effect on this agricultural land.

5.3 Heritage sensitivity -2 The site is assessed as having medium sensitivity 5.4 Site specific impacts 0 The site is not likely to have any on local heritage assets impact on specific heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is assessed as having biodiversity medium sensitivity 5.6 Site specific impacts -2 There are no statutory biodiversity or on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site.

There is an identified priority habit of Lowland Calcareous Grassland that runs along the roadside verge adjacent to the site on the east. At the north of the site there is a Young tree woodland that is recorded on the National Forest Inventory. Impact on these may require mitigation.

5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would spaces not lead to a loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space 5.7b Impact on playing 0 The development of the site would pitches not lead to a loss of existing playing fields 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 5.9 Surface Water -1 There is a band of medium to low surface water flood risk in the south east corner of the site. In total this is approximately 0.26ha of the site. 6. Physical 6.1 Access infrastructure 0 NCC Highways consultation problems or comments: limitations • No details of access points. • Cotterstock Road is 60mph at this point. Part of the site is located on a bend. • An extension to the 30mph speed limit would be required with traffic calming to achieve compliance. • f this site and Ray’s field came forward then the access arrangements for both sites would need to be considered together. • Access appears to be achievable subject to visibility splays being possible.

61 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 223 – Land West of Cotterstock Rd

• Improvements to highway network to be determined by a Transport Assessment 6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water 6.3 Ground condition 0 Treatment / remediation is not expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility 1 No consultation response on utility provision provision has been returned from the landowner. The information provided by the promoter of the adjacent site (LPP2SA225) has been used to score this site: The site is not fully serviced currently but is capable of being so the site can be serviced from existing utility networks in the vicinity of the site. 6.5 Bad neighbours -1 The Oundle Waste Water Recycling Centre is approximately 175m from the site boundary and there is a risk that odour and amenity issues could arise leading to restrictions on the continued use of Anglian Water's existing water recycling infrastructure. Mitigation against odour and amenity may be possible subject to more detailed assessment. 6.6 Physical constraints / 0 There are no major permanent permanent features features on the site. There are existing trees and woodland along the site boundary most notably to the north of the site. 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence -1 The site boundary is approximately 800m from the settlement at Glapthorn, as the crow flies. This may create a small risk of visual coalescence of the settlements. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits 3 No consultation response received benefits from the site promoter/landowner. Given the size of the site it is likely that the site would be able to provide a good level of community benefits 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – -3 The site was included in the SHLAA Achievability Freedom from availability however there has been no response constraints to the consultation sought from the private landowner. This casts doubt on the availability of the site for development 10. Achieveability 10.1 Achievability – -3 There has been no response to the Market cost / delivery consultation from the landowner, and it is therefore assumed that the land is not currently being actively promoted, which raises concerns as to its potential to deliver within the plan period.

62 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 223 – Land West of Cotterstock Rd

High level capacity Unconstrainted capacity: 141 dwellings assessment Potential capacity: 87

This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high-level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

• The Oundle Waste Recycling Centre is approximately 175m from the site boundary. An odour assessment may need to be prepared for the above site and that the applicant will need to demonstrate that a suitable distance can be maintained to ensure the occupiers of the site will not be adversely affected and the on-going operation of Oundle WRC is not prejudiced. • The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought. • There is a band of medium to low surface water flood risk in the south east corner of the site which may require mitigation. • There is protected woodland around the perimeter of the site Total -5

63 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 223 – Land West of Cotterstock Rd

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

64 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 223 – Land West of Cotterstock Rd

65 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 224 Land off Stoke Doyle Road

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

The site has been promoted by a Oundle Parish, East 3.5 hectares developer Northamptonshire

Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

The site is within Oundle Parish and found in the south west of the town. It is adjacent to Stoke Doyle Road, at the south of the site, and adjacent to the residential development at Warren Bridge found to the east. At the northern boundary is the Lyveden Brook, with further residential development beyond of this. At the south of the site, between the majority of the site and Stoke Doyle Road, is a cemetery, with two residential properties within its grounds. The site rises gently in gradient away from Stoke Doyle Road and falls again to the brook in the north. Land to the west of the site is in agricultural use. The site itself is undeveloped and is not currently in active farming use.

Site Map

66 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment Score Commentary measure 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 3 The site is approximately 600m by road routes from a bus stop with an hourly service (West Street). The distance to a bus stop could be considered to be lower, at approximately 400m if access to the PROW 3, adjacent to the site, could be made accessible directly from the site in the north. This could provide a foot access link to the bus stop on Benefield Road. 1.2 Proximity to 2 The site is approximately 480m from the strategic highway A427 via Warren Bridge network 1.3 Availability of 2 PROW 3 is adjacent to the site boundary PROW 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 6 Oundle CofE Primary School, Cotterstock services services Road (0) Convenience foodstore (2) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 3 The site is within 2km of Prince William secondary services School (1) and the Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 0.8km away (2) 2.3 Internet 3 The nearest recorded MBPS is 57 Connectivity 2.4 Proximity to town 4 The site is approximately 0.6km from the centres town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 0.7km from an employment sites Employment Sites employment site <5ha 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -2 There is a loss of >1ha of Grade 3 Classification Agricultural Land 4.2 Impact on -3 The site is 100% greenfield previously developed land 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is assessed as having a high protection landscape sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.2 Site specific -2 This site is on the western boundary of landscape/townscape Oundle and is clearly visible from Stoke impacts Doyle Road. This current entrance to the village takes its character predominantly from the cemetery and associated chapel buildings (now residential), the conservation area immediately beyond and the agricultural fields to the north and south. However the site links well

67 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

with the existing development, with residential areas to the north and to the east and may positively consolidate the built form on this western point. 5.3 Heritage -2 The site is assessed as having medium sensitivity sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.4 Site specific 0 The site is not within the setting of any impacts on local registered heritage assets heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is assessed as having medium biodiversity sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.6 Site specific 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or impacts on habitat designations that would be biodiversity impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site.

5.7a Impact on open 2 The site is adjacent to a cemetery that is spaces rated as ‘high quality’ in the P assessment. There could be opportunity to enhance the cemetery and/or provide public open space within the development of the site. 5.7b Impact on 0 The development of the site would not playing fields lead to a loss of an existing playing field. 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The northern boundary is in Flood Zone 3 however this does not significantly affect the site. The majority of the site is in Flood Zone 1. 5.9 Surface Water 0 There is a low to medium risk of surface water flooding along the very northern boundary of the site. This is unlikely to significantly effect the sites ability to deliver housing. 6. Physical 6.1 Access 0 NCC Highways comments in the ENC problems or infrastructure Assessment 2018 are as follows: limitations ‘All sites in Oundle score the same, none are strategic sites and therefore capacity of the existing highway network should be sufficient, each will need to go through a transport assessment as required for the planning process and it is likely that mitigation would be possible.’

Detailed comments have been made by NCC Highways in relation to this site: Subect to further investigation, a safe access off Stoke Doyle road should be achievable as there is good visibility in the location There is very poor pedestrian provision along Stoke Doyle Road with no footway

68 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

on the Lyveden Brook bridge and a very substandard footway in other areas. There is no streetlighting beyond Warren Bridge The speed limit is 60 mph fronting the site and this would need to be reviewed and reduced with suitable traffic calming/gateway measures There is no bus service within reasonable walking distance. The nearest is in West Street about 600m east of the site access, with no safe walking route There may be an opportunity to upgrade footpath UF3 running from Stoke Doyle Road to West Street A427 or provide a footpath north to Clifton Drive to provide access to the bus stops adjacent to Pexley Court. This would bring the walking distance to about 400m which would be acceptable A transport statement will be required to assess the impact of the development on the local highway network 6.2 Drainage 0 Anglian Water have no objection to the infrastructure development of the site 6.3 Ground condition 0 There is no treatment / remediation expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility 1 The site is in multiple ownership. The provision landowner/ promoter of the very east of the site has responded to the consultation and states that the site is not fully serviced, but is capable of being so. It is assumed that this also applies across the whole site. 6.5 Bad neighbours 0 There are no bad neighbour constraints. Note that the site is adjacent to a cemetery. 6.6 Physical 0 There are no apparent physical constraints / constraints. permanent features 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The development of the site would not materially impact on coalescence as it is within the outer reach of the existing settlement of Oundle. 8. Community 8.1 Community 3 Given the size of the site it is likely that benefits benefits the site would be able to provide a good level of community benefits, in particular there may be opportunities for enhancement of the adjacent cemetery. 9. Availability 9.1 Availability – -3 The site is in multiple ownership. One Freedom from land owner has responded to the availability consultation as willing. The land owner of constraints the majority of the site has not responded to the consultation and therefore the availability of this part of the site is uncertain.

69 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – -3 One landowner has responded to the Market cost / delivery consultation to suggest achievability. The landowner of the majority of the site has not responded to the consultation and therefore it is assumed that the land is not currently being actively promoted, which raises concerns as to it the whole site’s potential to deliver within the plan period. .

High level yield Unconstrainted assessment using density multiplier:105 dwellings assessment Potential capacity: 99 dwellings

0.2 ha of the site is in flood zone 3 and this has been removed from the developable area for the density calculation as a known constraint. Total 12

70 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

71 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

72 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 224 – Land off Stoke Doyle Rd

73 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address LPP2SA 225 Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size • Promoted through the call for sites Oundle Parish, East 5.1 hectares in the Reg 18 consultation (Jan - Northamptonshire March 2017) • The site has also been assessed in the SHLAA 2017 and promoted through the Oundle Neighbourhood Plan consultation. • Pre-application Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site The site spans the Oundle and Glapthorn Parish boundary, east of Cotterstock Road and north of St Peter's Road. The site is largely set back from these roads behind existing residential properties south of the site, and a row of semi-detached houses along Cotterstock Road. The site is in agricultural use. Beyond the site boundary to the east is the River Nene, and to the north, across an adjoining agricultural field, is the Oundle Waste Water Treatment Works. The Oundle CE Primary School is to the west of the site across Cotterstock Road.

Site Map

74 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 3 The site is approximately 580m from a routes bus stop with an hourly service 1.2 Proximity to 3 The site is approximately 750m from the strategic highway A427 network 1.3 Availability of 2 PROW 9 is at the east of the field in PROW which the promoted site is located, and access to the PROW is also available from St Peter’s Road adacent to the site 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 7 Oundle CofE Primary School, Cotterstock services services Road (2) Convenience foodstore (1) Playing field/ park or public open space (2) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 1 Prince William School is over 2km away secondary services (0) and Oundle School Sports Centre is approximately 1.4km away (1) 2.3 Internet 1 The nearest recorded MBPS is 24 Connectivity 2.4 Proximity to town 2 The site is approximately 1.3km from the centres town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 1.3km from an employment Employment Sites employment site <5ha sites 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -2 The DEFRA Agricultural Land Classification Classification on this land is ‘urban’. However, this only provides a very broad assessment and a detailed site visit confirmed that the land is agricultural land and is therefore more likely to result in the loss of >1ha of Grade 3 Agricultural Land. 4.2 Impact on -3 The site is 100% greenfield previously developed land 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is assessed as having a high protection landscape sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation Study (2009) 5.2 Site specific -2 The site is an edge of settlement site landscape/townscape and would extend the built form of the impacts settlement along Cotterstock Road to the north. However the site links well to the adjacent residential development to the south, and due to the presence of the Electricity Unit, in the adjacent field and the accompanying powerlines, there is a pre-existing urbanising effect on this agricultural land.

75 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

5.3 Heritage sensitivity -2 The site is assessed as having medium sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.4 Site specific 0 The site is not within the setting of any impacts on local heritage assets heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is assessed as having medium biodiversity sensitivity in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009) 5.6 Site specific -2 There are no designated biodiversity or impacts on biodiversity habit sites that would be affected by the development of the site.

There is a designated semi natural green space (Occupation Road) that is less than 100m from the site and identified Priority habitat inventory' of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh (magic) to the south of the site, separated from the site by approximately 70m. 5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would not spaces lead to a loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space. 5.7b Impact on playing 0 The development of the site would not fields lead to a loss of existing playing fields 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 5.9 Surface Water 0 There is low surface water flood risk on the northern boundary of the site, and is not considered to be a constraint on the site. Overall the site has a very low chance of flooding from surface water. 6. Physical 6.1 Access -3 NCC Highways consultation comments: problems or infrastructure limitations The main proposed access point is off Cotterstock Road which at this point is located on an existing bend which reduces visibility. Furthermore, the speed limit is 60 mph fronting the site and this would need to be reviewed and reduced with suitable traffic calming/ gateway measures. Further investigation is required regarding the mitigation to accommodate an access point here. Welcome the proposed access off St Peter’s Road which subect to further investigation would be desirable for vehicles and pedestrians to provide 2 points of access There is very poor pedestrian provision along Cotterstock Road with no footway and the existing footway on the eastern side of Cotterstock Road will need to be extended from the existing zebra crossing to the site. A controlled crossing

76 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

point (signalised or zebra) will need to be provided to allow safe access across Cottterstock Road to the primary school There is no streetlighting beyond that adjacent to the school pedestrian access point A transport assessment is required to assess the impact of the development on the local highway network 6.2 Drainage 0 No comments in relation to this available infrastructure from Anglian Water for this site 6.3 Ground condition 0 There is no treatment / remediation expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility 1 The consultation response from the provision promoter of the site states that the site is not fully serviced currently but is capable of being so. Gladman has undertaken a utility assessment and has identified that the site can be serviced from existing utility networks in the vicinity of the site. 6.5 Bad neighbours -1 The Oundle Waste Water Recycling Centre is approximately 95m from the site boundary and there is a risk that odour and amenity issues could arise leading to restrictions on the continued use of Anglian Water's existing water recycling infrastructure. Mitigation against odour and amenity may be possible, however Anglian Water have pointed out that this development would result in encroachment on these receptors.

6.6 Physical constraints -1 The site has an existing foul sewer in / permanent features Anglian Water’s ownership located within the boundary of the site and the layout of development will need to take account of this. The site is within 95m of the Oundle Water Recycling Centre and structural landscaping mitigation will be required. This assessment has been based on the consultation advice from Anglian Water. 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The site is approximately 1.23km from the settlement at Cotterstock, and 1.1km from the settlement at Glapthorn, as the crow flies. Development at this site would not therefore significantly contribute to the risk of coalescence of the settlements as a significant buffer would be maintained post development. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits 3 The consultation response from the site benefits promoters has not identified any abnormal constraints, and the site is expected to be capable of delivering a policy compliant level of community benefits.

77 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – 5 The site is under single ownership with a Achievability Freedom from legal promotion agreement with availability constraints Gladman Land 10. 10.1 Achievability – 5 The consultation response from the site Achieveability Market cost / delivery promoter states that no abnormal costs have been identified through the technical assessments relating to the development of the site.

High level Unconstrainted capacity: 153 dwellings capacity assessment This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

Anglian Water have provided a consultation response for this site which states the following mitigation measures that will be required of the site:

• The Oundle Water Recycling Centre is less than 100m from the site. An odour assessment will need to be prepared for the above site and that the applicant will need to demonstrate that a suitable distance can be maintained to ensure the occupiers of the site will not be adversely affected and the on-going operation of Oundle WRC is not prejudiced. • There is an existing foul sewer in Anglian Water’s ownership located within the boundary of the allocation site and the site layout should be designed to take this account in order to safeguard of suitable access for the maintenance of foul drainage infrastructure. The location and extend of this sewer is unknown, and therefore cannot be calculated for at this stage in the capacity assessment

Total 17

78 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

79 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

80 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 225 - Land East of Cotterstock Road / North of St Peter’s Road

81 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 241 Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

Previous call for sites promotion Oundle Parish, East 5.6 hectares during Regulation 18 consultation Northamptonshire for LLP2 (January – March 2017)

Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

The site is within Oundle Parish, located to the west of the Oundle settlement, south of Benefield Road. The southern boundary follows the Lyveden Brook. It is adjacent to and wraps around Wakerley Close and the development along Lytham Park. The land is agricultural and bordered by hedges. The land slopes away from Benefield Road down to the brook, and a PROW runs up the eastern side of the site adjacent to the existing residential development.

Site Map

82 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 4 The site is approximately 280m from a routes bus stop with an hourly service, via both a PROW accessed within the site, and a similar distance via Benefield Road 1.2 Proximity to 4 The site is accessed off the A427 strategic highway network 1.3 Availability of 2 PROW 3 is within the site boundary PROW 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 5 Oundle CofE Primary School, Cotterstock services services Road (1) Convenience foodstore (1) Playing field/ park or public open space (1) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (1) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (1)

2.2 Proximity to 1 The site is less than 2km from Prince secondary services William School 2.3 Internet 3 The nearest recorded MBPS is 3 Connectivity 2.4 Proximity to town 2 The site is approximately 1km from the centres town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 3 The site is approximately 1km from an employment Employment Sites employment site <5ha sites 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -2 There would be a loss of >1ha of Grade 3 Classification Agricultural Land 4.2 Impact on -3 The site is 100% greenfield previously developed land 5. 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is not assessed in the RNRP Environmental landscape Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation protection study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA220 and LPP2SA224) have been applied to score this site as having high sensitivity 5.2 Site specific -4 The site is an edge of settlement site and landscape/townscape development would extend the settlement impacts significantly along Benefield Road to the west into open countryside.

The site slopes downhill away from Benefield Road. At this point on Benefield Road, the gateway to the town is largely characterised by the newer built properties, and surrounded by open countryside. 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -2 The site is not assessed in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA220 and

83 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

LPP2SA224) have been applied to score this site as having medium sensitivity. 5.4 Site specific 0 The site is not within the setting of any impacts on local heritage assets heritage assets 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is not assessed in the RNRP biodiversity Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). The assessment of the adjacent sites (LPP2SA220 and LPP2SA224) have been applied to score this site as having medium sensitivity. 5.6 Site specific 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or impacts on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site. 5.7a Impact on open 2 The development of the site would not spaces lead to a loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space. 5.7b Impact on playing 0 The development of the site would not pitches lead to a loss of existing playing pitches 5.8 Flood Risk 0 The southern boundary is in Flood Zone 3 however this does not significantly affect the developable site assessment. The site is therefore considered to be within Flood Zone 1 5.9 Surface Water -1 There is a low to medium risk of surface water flooding along the southern boundary of the site which may require mitigation 6. Physical 6.1 Access 0 NCC Highways consultation comments: problems or infrastructure • No detail on access point provided. limitations • This section of road is currently 60mph – an extension to the 30mph would be required with traffic calming to achieve compliance • There is a very narrow footway on Benefield Road, this would need upgrading to accommodate pedestrians and cycle links would need to be provided. • Access should be achievable on Benefield Road subject to visibility splays etc. • If Land north of Benefield Road also came forward then the access arrangements should be considered together. 6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water 6.3 Ground condition 0 Treatment / remediation is not expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility 1 No consultation response received from provision the landowner/promoter. Scoring for this

84 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

site has been based on the information provided for neighbouring site LPP2SA220: The site is not fully serviced currently but is capable of being so. Services are available immediately adjoining the site on Benefield Road 6.5 Bad neighbours 0 There are no bad neighbour constraints 6.6 Physical 0 There are no major constraints on the constraints / permanent site. The site slopes gently down toward features the watercourse at the south of the site 7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The site is approximately 1.73km from the settlement at Glapthorn, and does not contribute towards settlement coalescence. 8. Community 8.1 Community 2 The site is free from abnormal constraints benefits benefits and is therefore in principle expected to be capable of providing a policy compliant level of community benefits. 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – -3 The site was promoted in the ENC Call Achievability Freedom from for Sites (2017) however there has been availability constraints no response to the recent consultation from the landowner/promoter. This casts some doubt on the availability of the site for development.

10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – -3 There has been no response to the Market cost / delivery consultation from the landowner/promoter, and it is therefore assumed that the land is not currently being actively promoted, which raises concerns as to its potential to deliver within the plan period.

High level Unconstrained assessment using density multiplier: 168 dwellings capacity Potential capacity: 144 assessment This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

• The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought. • These is a small amount of land in Flood Zone 3 at the south of the site which would be unlikely to be developable. Total 6

85 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

86 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

87 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

88 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

89 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

90 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 241 - Land south of Benefield Road / Wakerley Close

91 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

Part A: Site information Site Ref Site Name/Address

LPP2SA 250 Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

Source of Site Parish, Local Authority Size

Call for sites Oundle Parish, East 0.7 hectares Northamptonshire

Site assessment Settlement hierarchy Site visit date Residential Market Town 03/04/2019 Description of the Site

The site is within Oundle Parish, at the southern end of the town. It lies south of Stoke Doyle Road, with agricultural land to the west and south, and with residential / Oundle School property to the east of the site. To the north is residential development, with older dwellings adjacent to the site along Stoke Doyle Road in the Conservation Area, a number of which are listed. The site can be described as a farm with a yard and a number of barns, some of which are in a poor condition, including a Grade II listed building.

Site Map

92 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

Part B: Assessment

Policy Objective Assessment measure Score Commentary 1. Transport 1.1 Availability of bus 4 The site is approximately 200m from a routes bus stop with an hourly service. 1.2 Proximity to 4 The site is approximately 130m from the strategic highway A427 network 1.3 Availability of 1 The site is approximately 470m from PROW PROW 3 2. Proximity to 2.1 Proximity to key 8 Oundle CofE Primary School, services services Cotterstock Road (1) Convenience foodstore (2) Playing field/ park or public open space (1) Health centre/ GP; (Lakeside Healthcare) (2) Community centre (Queen Victoria Hall) (2)

2.2 Proximity to 1 The site is within 2km of Prince William secondary services School 2.3 Internet 3 The nearest recorded MBPS is 43 Connectivity 2.4 Proximity to town 6 The site is approximately 0.3km from the centres town centre boundary 3. Proximity to 3.1 Access to defined 4 The site is approximately 0.7km from an employment Employment Sites employment site >5ha sites 4. Land type 4.1 Agricultural Land -1 The land is classified as urban. Classification However, the DEFRA maps are very broad and detailed site assessment suggests there would be a small loss of <1 ha of Grade 3-5 agricultural land associated with the farm buildings. 4.2 Impact on -3 Approximately 50%+ of the land has previously developed existing development, with a number of land farm barns and agricultural buildings, and a yard. According the NPPF definition, agricultural buildings do not constitute PDL and therefore the site must be considered to be 100% greenfield The residential properties and garden at the northeast of the site do not form part of the promoted site. 5. Environmental 5.1 Impact on visual -3 The site is not assessed in in the RNRP protection landscape Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation Study (2009). A mean score (mode) from the sites assessed by the RNRP in Oundle has been applied for the scoring of this site, which suggests a high sensitivity score. This scoring could be subject to change should a detailed sensitivity study of the site be undertaken.

93 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

5.2 Site specific -2 The site forms the edge of the landscape/townscape settlement to the south and can be impacts clearly seen when entering the village from Stoke Doyle Road across open fields. The farm is rural in character, and softens the edge of the built form of the town. There are a number of listed buildings on the site and into the town, plus the site is within the Oundle Conservation Area and insensitive development would be likely to have a significant impact on the value of the character at this gateway point. However, the condition and state of repair of the barns currently detracts from the visual impression and this gateway could be enhanced through very sensitive redevelopment, and is located within the built form of the town with residential development opposite the site 5.3 Heritage sensitivity -3 The site is not assessed in in the RNRP Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). A mean score (mode) from the sites assessed by the RNRP in Oundle would suggest a medium sensitivity score, but given the location of the site within the Conservation Area and with a listed building on the site, it has been assessed as high. This scoring could be subject to change should a detailed sensitivity study of the site be undertaken. 5.4 Site specific -2 There is one Grade II listed building on impacts on local the site itself (Dovecote at Dairy Farm, heritage assets list entry 1380221) and a number of other Grade II listed buildings on Stoke Hill, one being directly adjacent to the site boundary (5 and 6 Stoke Hill). The northern half of the site is within the Oundle Conservation Area. Whilst residential development on the site may impact upon the setting of the listed buildings, the redevelopment of the site could provide the opportunity to renovate the listed buildings on the site that are in currently in a poor state of repair. 5.5 Impact on -2 The site is not assessed in in the RNRP biodiversity Environmental Sensitivity Consolidation study (2009). A mean score (mode) from the sites assessed by the RNRP in Oundle has been applied for the scoring of this site, which suggests a medium sensitivity score. This scoring could be subject to change should a detailed

94 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

sensitivity study of the site be undertaken. 5.6 Site specific 0 There are no statutory biodiversity or impacts on biodiversity habitat designations that would be impacted by the development of the site, and there are no other biodiversity designations recorded on or adjacent to the site.

5.7a Impact on open 0 The development of the site would not spaces lead to a loss of existing open space. The site may be capable of providing a net gain in public open space however due to the size of the site this is not expected to be considerable. 5.7b Impact on open 0 The development of the site would not spaces lead to a loss of existing playing pitches. 5.8 Flood Risk -10 The southern half of the site is in the flood zone. Between 25% and 50% of the site is in Flood Zone 3. It is unspecified as to whether this is flood zone 3a or 3b.

5.9 Surface Water 0 There is very low surface water flood risk on the site 6. Physical 6.1 Access 0 NCC Highways consultation comments: problems or infrastructure • There is an existing access to the limitations farm from Stoke Hill road. Minor amendment to this would be required. • Is within close walking and cycling distance of the town centre • Within 400m of bus stops served by X4 6.2 Drainage 0 No consultation response currently infrastructure available from Anglian Water 6.3 Ground condition -3 The site is occupied by agricultural buildings. The consultation response from the landowner/promoter did not state that there are any ground condition constraints. However ENC Environmental Protection consultation states that there treatment / remediation is expected to be required 6.4 Ease of utility 1 The landowner/site promoter response provision states that the site is not fully serviced currently but is capable of being so. 6.5 Bad neighbours 0 There are no bad neighbour constraints. The site is adjacent to Oundle School buildings. 6.6 Physical constraints -1 There are a two listed buildings poor / permanent features state of repair that would require significant work. Development of this site would be an opportunity to enable this.

95 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

7. Coalescence 7.1 Coalescence 0 The site does not risk coalescence as it in within the existing boundary of the built up area of Oundle. 8. Community 8.1 Community benefits -3 Due to the size, and viability issues benefits around redevelopment of Grade II listed building and the flood risk extent, the sites ability to provide extensive community benefits may be limited. 9. Availability / 9.1 Availability – 5 The site is in single ownership and held Achievability Freedom from by a willing landowner. availability constraints 10. Achievability 10.1 Achievability – 3 The site has a listed building on the site, Market cost / delivery and flood risk issues that would require mitigation and therefore will be costs associated with redevelopment of these, but nevertheless the site is considered viable and capable of development.

High level Unconstrainted assessment: 21 dwellings capacity Potential capacity: 5 dwellings assessment This calculation is based on the whole site area and is a high-level calculation meant to show potential capacity for the size of the site. Actual capacity may be significantly different once constraint factors and provision for various mitigation and are taken into account:

• Approximately half of the site is within flood zone 2 or 3 which would require mitigation. • There is a Grade II listed building on the site which would require renovation and sensitive consideration and may affect the residual developable area and layout. • The presence of any drains or sewers on the site are unknown, and consultation with Anglian Water should be sought.

The result of mitigation required, and the site’s constraints may result in a site capacity of approximately 5 dwellings.

A significant amount of the site is in flood zones 2 and 3. Development on this land is unlikely as a sequential test on flooding would be applied and it is unlikely that this site would pass the exception test, as sequentially preferable sites are available elsewhere in the Parish.

Of the developable area remaining, the layout of any scheme would need to be sensitive to the setting of the listed building and the conservation area in which it is located. Therefore, the existing barns would be suitable for sensitive conversion, in preference to their demolition and rebuild of a dense scheme. The resulting number of dwellings feasible on the scheme is approximately 5, and this is likely to be more suitable as a windfall housing development than a housing allocation in the local plan. Total 7

96 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

Part C: Site visit photos

Site Photos

97 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

98 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

99 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

100 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

101 Detailed Site Assessments LPP2SA 250 - Dairy Farm, Stoke Hill

102

Appendix E Consultation Form sent to landowners/agents

SITE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Site Address

Referee

Availability

1. Please confirm how many landowners are party to the site being promoted

2. If in multiple ownership (i.e. more than one landowner), do all parties agree to the development of the land?

3. To the best of your knowledge are there any legal restrictions that may affect the ability of the site to come forward for development in the future (e.g. restrictive covenants, ransom strips etc). If so, please provide details below.

4. Who is the site being promoted by at this stage (please give details below)?

Landowner Land Promoter Developer/Housebuilder Other (please specify below)

Achievability

5. If the site is not being promoted by a housebuilder/developer at this stage, has there been any contact or interest from with a party who is capable of building on the site? (if so, provide details below)

6. How soon do you anticipate that development could come forward on site (i.e. commencement of building)

0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years

7. To what extent is the site serviced by key utilities (Electricity, Gas, Water, Sewage Infrastructure and Broadband) Please tick the most relevant box and provide further details below as appropriate.

o Fully serviced

o Not fully serviced currently but capable of being so

o Only certain services available

o Don’t know

8. Are there any abnormal costs likely to be associated with the development of the site that need to be taken into account? (e.g. contamination issues, significant highway works, flood mitigation etc.) If so, please provide details below.

9. If there is any other information you feel is relevant to the availability and

achievability of the site please give details below.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

Appendix F Letter to Oundle Town Council

Ref: AP/N5199 Date: 5th April 2019

Clerk – Oundle Town Council Fletton House, Fletton Way, Glapthorn Road, Oundle, Peterborough, PE8 4JA

Also sent via email to [email protected]

Dear

Re: East Northants Local Plan Part 2 – Oundle Site Assessments

I write to notify the Town Council that DLP Planning Ltd (“DLP”) has been appointed by East Northamptonshire Council (“ENC”) to undertake a robust and independent re-assessment of potential development sites in and around Oundle as part of the ongoing Local Plan Part 2 preparation process.

We have been provided with the representations made by the Town Council at Regulation 18 stage on the initial Site Assessment Report produced and published by ENC in December 2018. We will also be taking account of representations made by other third parties, including site promoters.

I wish to assure you at this juncture that our role is to undertake a critical review of site assessment methodology and an objective re-assessment of the 11 sites shortlisted for consideration by ENC. We intend to draw on our extensive experience of undertaking similar assessments elsewhere.

The intention is that this work will be published as part of the evidence base by early June 2019, in advance of the pre-submission draft consultation for the Local Plan.

Should the Town Council have any particular queries at this stage, please do not to hesitate to contact me and if necessary, we would be happy to meet with members on an informal basis.

Director

Appendix G Letter to Glapthorn Parish Council

Clerk to Glapthorn Parish Council 30 Lytham Park, Oundle Northamptonshire PE8 4FB

Also sent via email to [email protected]

Re: East Northants Local Plan Part 2 – Oundle Site Assessments

I write to notify the Parish Council that DLP Planning Ltd (“DLP”) has been appointed by East Northamptonshire Council (“ENC”) to undertake a robust and independent re-assessment of potential development sites in and around Oundle as part of the ongoing Local Plan Part 2 preparation process.

We have been provided with the representations made by the Parish Council at Regulation 18 stage on the initial Site Assessment Report produced and published by ENC in December 2018. We will also be taking account of representations made by other third parties, including site promoters.

The intention is that this work will be published as part of the evidence base by early June 2019, in advance of the pre-submission draft consultation for the Local Plan.

Should you have any further queries at this stage, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Oundle Site Assessments N5199 On behalf of East Northamptonshire Council July 2019

29 ! Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, lime Grove, grantham, NG31 9jd ENCLOSURE 2 ENCLOSURE

ENCLOSURE 2

Bus timetable information To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers can stay on the bus which operates through. PeterboroughOundle Corby KetteringWellingboroughEarls BartonNorthampton

Mondays to Friday except public holidays

Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 0652 0730 0815 0845 0927 0957 1017 1102 1122 1207 1232 Thorpe Road The Gables 0655 0733 0819 0851 0930 1000 1020 1105 1125 1210 1235 Orton Mere x 0737 0829 0857 x x 1024 x 1129 x 1239 Orton Waterville Church Drive x x x x x x 1029 x 1134 x 1244 Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel x 0746 0834 0906 x x 1036 x 1141 x 1251 Alwalton Layby x 0747 0835 0907 x x 1037 x 1142 x 1252 Elton Opp Garage x 0753 0841 0912 x x 1042 x 1147 x 1257 Warmington services 0711 0802 0847 0916 0946 1016 1046 1121 1151 1226 1301 Barnwell The Mill 0720 0812 0856 0925 0955 1025 1055 1130 1200 1235 1310 Oundle West Street 0722 0814 0858 0927 0957 1027 1057 1132 1202 1237 1312 Oundle Market Place 0729 0821 0905 0935 1005 1035 1105 1140 1210 1245 1320 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 0736 0828 0912 0942 1012 1042 1112 1147 1217 1252 1327 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 0739 0831 0915 0945 1015 1045 1115 1150 1220 1255 1330 Weldon Londis Store 0746 0838 0922 0952 1022 1052 1122 1157 1227 1302 1337 Corby Village The Jamb 0753 0845 x x x x x x x x x Corby Rail Station 0755 0847 x x x x x x x x x Corby George Street Stop A 0800 0852 0933 1003 1033 1103 1133 1208 1238 1313 1348 same bus - no need to change Corby George Street Stop A 0615 0630 0723 0808 0838 0908 0938 1008 1038 1108 1138 1213 1243 1318 1353 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 0618 0633 0728 0811 0841 0911 0941 1011 1041 1111 1141 1216 1246 1321 1356 Corby Danesholme Road 0622 0637 0731 0814 0844 0914 0944 1014 1044 1114 1144 1219 1249 1324 1359 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 0631 0646 0743 0820 0850 0920 0950 1020 1050 1120 1150 1225 1255 1330 1405 Kettering Eskdaill Street Stop 8 0601 0637 0652 0749 0830 0900 0930 0958 1030 1100 1130 1200 1235 1305 1340 1415 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 0604 0640 0655 0752 0833 0903 0933 1003 1033 1103 1133 1203 1238 1308 1343 1418 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 0526 0606 0643 0658 0757 0838 0908 0938 1008 1038 1108 1138 1208 1243 1313 1348 1423 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 0529 0609 0646 0701 0800 0843 0913 0943 1013 1043 1113 1143 1213 1248 1318 1353 1428 Isham bus shelter 0534 0614 0651 0706 0808 0848 0918 0948 1018 1048 1118 1148 1218 1253 1323 1358 1433 Wellingborough Church St stop C 0549 0629 0706 0726 0823 0903 0933 1003 1033 1103 1133 1203 1233 1308 1338 1413 1448 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 0556 0636 0713 0733 0830 0910 0940 1010 1040 1110 1140 1210 1240 1315 1345 1420 1455 Wilby Working Mens Club 0557 0637 0714 0734 0831 0913 0943 1013 1043 1113 1143 1213 1243 1318 1348 1423 1458 Earls Barton Square 0602 0642 0720 0743 0837 0918 0948 1018 1048 1118 1148 1218 1248 1323 1353 1428 1503 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH x 0658 0744 0808 0855 0934 1004 1034 1104 1134 1204 1234 1304 1339 1409 1444 1519 Northampton North Gate 0627 0706 0757 0827 0908 0942 1012 1042 1112 1142 1212 1242 1312 1347 1417 1452 1527

after Earls Barton Square, these journeys run via Northampton Road (opposite Additional journeys run between Peterborough & Lynch Wood the police house), Ecton (World’s End), Ecton Brook (Footbridge A4500), 23 as route 23 - for details please visit our website Northampton Academy, Wellingborough Road (Allen Rd)

timetable continues on next page

4 for other stops see pages 16-17 5 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers can stay on the bus which operates through. PeterboroughOundle Corby KetteringWellingboroughEarls BartonNorthampton

Mondays to Friday except public holidays Sch Hol Peterborough rail station 1913 2013 Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 1312 1332 1412 1432 1520 1605 1610 1650 1720 1800 1840 1920 2020 2120 Thorpe Road The Gables 1315 1335 1415 1435 1523 B B 1653 1723 B 1843 1923 2023 2123 Orton Mere x 1339 x 1439 x 1620 1621 1657 x 1812 x 1927 2027 2127 Orton Waterville Church Drive x 1344 x 1444 x 1623 1625 1702 x 1815 x x x x Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel x 1351 x 1451 x 1634 1634 1709 x 1821 x 1931 2031 2131 Alwalton Layby x 1352 x 1452 x 1636 1636 1711 x 1823 x 1932 2032 2132 Elton Opp Garage x 1357 x 1457 x 1641 1641 1716 x 1829 x 1938 2038 2138 Warmington services 1331 1401 1431 1501 1539 1647 1647 1722 1739 1835 1859 1941 2041 2141 Barnwell The Mill 1340 1410 1440 1510 1548 1656 1656 1731 1749 1844 1908 1949 2049 2149 Oundle West Street 1342 1412 1442 1512 1550 1658 1658 1733 1751 1851 1910 1951 2051 2151 Oundle Market Place 1350 1420 1450 1520 1557 1710 1710 1745 1803 1853 1917 1957 2057 2157 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 1357 1427 1457 1527 1605 1718 1718 1753 1810 1859 1923 2003 2103 2203 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 1400 1430 1500 1530 1609 1721 1721 1756 1813 1902 1926 2006 2106 2206 Weldon Londis Store 1407 1437 1507 1537 1618 1728 1728 1803 1820 1908 1932 2011 2111 2211 Corby Village The Jamb x x x 1559 x x x x x x x 2016 2116 2216 Corby Rail Station x x x 1601 x x x x x x x 2018 2118 2217 Corby George Street Stop A 1418 1448 1518 1606 1631 1739 1739 1814 1831 1919 1943 2022 2122 2220 same bus - no need to change Corby George Street Stop A 1423 1453 1523 1613 1638 1708 1743 1743 1818 1843 1923 1953 2025 2125 2222 2318 0018 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 1426 1456 1526 1616 1641 1711 1746 1746 1821 1846 1926 1956 2028 2128 2225 2321 0021 Corby Danesholme Road 1429 1459 1529 1619 1644 1714 1750 1750 1825 1850 1930 2000 2032 2132 2228 2324 0024 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 1435 1505 1535 1625 1650 1720 1759 1759 1834 1859 1939 2009 2041 2141 2236 2332 0032 Kettering Eskdaill Street Stop 8 1445 1515 1545 1635 1700 1730 1805 1805 1840 1905 1945 2013 2046 2146 241 2336 0036 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 1448 1518 1548 1638 1703 1733 1808 1808 1843 1908 1948 2016 2049 2149 2244 2339 0039 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 1453 1523 1553 1643 1708 1738 1813 1813 1848 1913 1951 2050 2150 2245 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 1458 1530 1600 1650 1715 1743 1816 1816 1851 1916 1954 2053 2153 2248 Isham bus shelter 1503 1538 1606 1658 1723 1748 1821 1821 1856 1921 1959 2058 2158 2253 Wellingborough Church St stop C 1518 1553 1621 1713 1738 1803 1838 1838 1913 1938 2013 2113 2213 2306 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 1525 1600 1628 1720 1745 1810 1845 1845 1920 1945 2020 2120 2220 2313 Wilby Working Mens Club 1528 1603 1631 1723 1748 1813 1846 1846 1921 1946 2021 2121 2221 2314 Earls Barton Square 1533 1608 1636 1728 1753 1818 1851 1851 1926 1951 2026 2126 2226 2319 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH 1549 1624 1652 1744 1809 1834 1907 1907 1942 2007 2040 x x x Northampton North Gate 1557 1633 1701 1753 1818 1843 1916 1916 1951 2016 2048 2151 2251 2344 runs via Corby Business Academy at 1546, Starts at Kings School (Peterborough) at 1555 Prior Hall at 1548 and Corby Asda at 1557 Sch rus in school term time after Earls Barton Square, these journeys run via Northampton Road (opposite Hol runs in school holidays the police house), Ecton (World’s End), Ecton Brook (Footbridge A4500), B runs via Bakers Lane 3-4 mins before Orton Mere & Northampton Academy, Wellingborough Road (Allen Rd) does not serve The Gables

6 for other stops see pages 16-17 7 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers can stay on the bus which operates through. PeterboroughOundle Corby KetteringWellingboroughEarls BartonNorthampton

Saturdays except public holidays

Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 0652 0730 0815 0857 0917 0957 1017 1102 1122 1207 1232 Thorpe Road The Gables 0655 0733 0819 0900 0920 1000 1020 1105 1125 1210 1235 Orton Mere x 0737 0829 x 0924 x 1024 x 1129 x 1239 Orton Waterville Church Drive x x x x 0929 x 1029 x 1134 x 1244 Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel x 0746 0834 x 0936 x 1036 x 1141 x 1251 Alwalton Layby x 0747 0835 x 0937 x 1037 x 1142 x 1252 Elton Opp Garage x 0753 0841 x 0942 x 1042 x 1147 x 1257 Warmington services 0711 0802 0847 0916 0946 1016 1046 1121 1151 1226 1301 Barnwell The Mill 0720 0812 0856 0925 0955 1025 1055 1130 1200 1235 1310 Oundle West Street 0722 0814 0858 0927 0957 1027 1057 1132 1202 1237 1312 Oundle Market Place 0729 0821 0905 0935 1005 1035 1105 1140 1210 1245 1320 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 0736 0828 0912 0942 1012 1042 1112 1147 1217 1252 1327 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 0739 0831 0915 0945 1015 1045 1115 1150 1220 1255 1330 Weldon Londis Store 0746 0838 0922 0952 1022 1052 1122 1157 1227 1302 1337 Corby Village The Jamb 0753 0845 x x x x x x x x x Corby Rail Station 0755 0847 x x x x x x x x x Corby George Street Stop A 0800 0852 0933 1003 1033 1103 1133 1208 1238 1313 1348 same bus - no need to change Corby George Street Stop A 0615 0630 0723 0808 0838 0908 0938 1008 1038 1108 1138 1213 1243 1318 1353 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 0618 0633 0726 0811 0841 0911 0941 1011 1041 1111 1141 1216 1246 1321 1356 Corby Danesholme Road 0622 0637 0730 0814 0844 0914 0944 1014 1044 1114 1144 1219 1249 1324 1359 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 0631 0646 0739 0820 0850 0920 0950 1020 1050 1120 1150 1225 1255 1330 1405 Kettering Eskdaill Street Stop 8 0621 0637 0652 0745 0830 0900 0930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1235 1305 1340 1415 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 0624 0640 0655 0748 0833 0903 0933 1003 1033 1103 1133 1203 1238 1308 1343 1418 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 0528 0626 0643 0658 0753 0838 0908 0938 1008 1038 1108 1138 1208 1243 1313 1348 1423 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 0531 0629 0646 0701 0756 0843 0913 0943 1013 1043 1113 1143 1213 1248 1318 1353 1428 Isham bus shelter 0536 0634 0651 0706 0801 0848 0918 0948 1018 1048 1118 1148 1218 1253 1323 1358 1433 Wellingborough Church St stop C 0551 0649 0706 0726 0816 0903 0933 1003 1033 1103 1133 1203 1233 1308 1338 1413 1448 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 0558 0656 0713 0733 0823 0910 0940 1010 1040 1110 1140 1210 1240 1315 1345 1420 1455 Wilby Working Mens Club 0559 0657 0714 0734 0824 0913 0943 1013 1043 1113 1143 1213 1243 1318 1348 1423 1458 Earls Barton Square 0604 0702 0720 0743 0830 0918 0948 1018 1048 1118 1148 1218 1248 1323 1353 1428 1503 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH x 0718 0744 0808 0854 0934 1004 1034 1104 1134 1204 1234 1304 1339 1409 1444 1519 Northampton North Gate 0629 0726 0757 0827 0907 0942 1012 1042 1112 1142 1212 1242 1312 1347 1417 1452 1527

after Earls Barton Square, these journeys run via Northampton Road (opposite the police house), Ecton (World’s End), Ecton Brook (Footbridge A4500), Northampton Academy, Wellingborough Road (Allen Rd)

timetable continues on next page

8 for other stops see pages 16-17 9 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers can stay on the bus which operates through. PeterboroughOundle Corby KetteringWellingboroughEarls BartonNorthampton

Saturdays except public holidays

Peterborough rail station 1848 1948 Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 1312 1332 1412 1432 1512 1532 1612 1637 1715 1755 1840 1855 1955 2105 Thorpe Road The Gables 1315 1335 1415 1435 1515 1535 1615 1640 1718 B 1843 1858 1958 2108 Orton Mere x 1339 x 1439 x 1539 x 1644 x 1807 x 1902 2002 2112 Orton Waterville Church Drive x 1344 x 1444 x 1544 x 1649 x 1810 x x x x Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel x 1351 x 1451 x 1551 x 1656 x 1816 x 1906 2006 2116 Alwalton Layby x 1352 x 1452 x 1552 x 1658 x 1818 x 1907 2007 2117 Elton Opp Garage x 1357 x 1457 x 1557 x 1702 x 1824 x 1913 2013 2123 Warmington services 1331 1401 1431 1501 1531 1601 1631 1706 1734 1830 1859 1916 2016 2126 Barnwell The Mill 1340 1410 1440 1510 1540 1610 1640 1715 1744 1839 1908 1924 2024 2134 Oundle West Street 1342 1412 1442 1512 1542 1612 1642 1717 1746 1841 1910 1926 2026 2136 Oundle Market Place 1350 1420 1450 1520 1550 1620 1650 1725 1753 1848 1917 1932 2032 2142 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 1357 1427 1457 1527 1557 1627 1657 1732 1800 1854 1924 1938 2038 21484 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700 1735 1803 1857 1927 1941 2041 2151 Weldon Londis Store 1407 1437 1507 1537 1607 1637 1707 1742 1810 1903 1933 1946 2046 2156 Corby Village The Jamb x x x x x x x x x x x 1951 2051 2201 Corby Rail Station x x x x x x x x x x x 1953 2053 2202 Corby George Street Stop A 1418 1448 1518 1548 1618 1648 1718 1753 1821 1913 1943 1957 2057 2205 same bus - no need to change Corby George Street Stop A 1423 1453 1523 1553 1623 1655 1720 1755 1825 1915 1945 2045 2207 2245 2345 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 1426 1456 1526 1556 1626 1658 1723 1758 1828 1918 1948 2048 2210 2248 2348 Corby Danesholme Road 1429 1459 1529 1559 1629 1701 1727 1802 1832 1922 1952 2052 2214 2251 2351 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 1435 1505 1535 1605 1635 1707 1736 1811 1841 1931 2001 2101 2223 2259 2359 Kettering Eskdaill Street Stop 8 1445 1515 1545 1615 1645 1717 1742 1817 1847 1937 2006 2106 2228 2303 0003 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 1448 1518 1548 1618 1648 1720 1745 1820 1850 1940 2009 2109 2231 2306 0006 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 1453 1523 1553 1623 1653 1725 1750 1825 1855 1943 2010 2110 2232 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 1458 1528 1558 1628 1658 1730 1753 1828 1858 1946 2013 2113 2235 Isham bus shelter 1503 1533 1603 1633 1703 1735 1758 1833 1903 1951 2018 2118 2240 Wellingborough Church St stop C 1518 1548 1618 1648 1718 1750 1815 1850 1920 2005 2033 2133 2253 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 1525 1555 1625 1655 1725 1757 1822 1857 1927 2012 2040 2140 2300 Wilby Working Mens Club 1528 1558 1628 1658 1728 1800 1823 1858 1928 2013 2041 2141 2301 Earls Barton Square 1533 1603 1633 1703 1733 1805 1828 1903 1933 2018 2046 2146 2306 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH 1549 1619 1649 1719 1749 1821 1844 1919 1949 2032 x x x Northampton North Gate 1557 1628 1658 1728 1758 1830 1853 1928 1958 2040 2111 2211 2331

B runs via Bakers Lane at 1803 & does not serve The Gables

10 for other stops see pages 16-17 11

To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers can stay on the bus which operates through. PeterboroughOundle Corby KetteringWellingboroughEarls BartonNorthampton

Sundays including some public holidays see separate information for Easter, Christmas & New Year bus times

Peterborough Queensgate Bus Stn Bay 15 0959 1159 1359 1604 1804 2019 Thorpe Road The Gables 1002 1202 1402 1607 1807 2022 Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel 1010 1210 1410 1615 1815 2030 Alwalton Layby 1011 1211 1411 1616 1816 2031 Elton Opp Garage 1017 1217 1417 1622 1822 2037 Warmington services 1020 1220 1420 1625 1825 2040 Barnwell The Mill 1029 1229 1429 1634 1834 2049 Oundle West Street 1031 1231 1431 1636 1836 2051 Oundle Market Place 1040 1240 1440 1645 1845 2100 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 1047 1247 1447 1652 1852 2107 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 1050 1250 1450 1655 1855 2110 Weldon Londis Store 1056 1256 1456 1701 1901 2116 Corby ASDA 1103 1303 1503 1708 1908 2123 Corby Village The Jamb 1106 1306 1506 1711 1911 2126 Corby Rail Station 0809 0909 1109 1308 1509 1714 1914 2009 2129 2214 Corby George Street Stop A arr 0817 0917 1117 1317 1517 1722 1922 2017 2137 2222 same bus - no need to change Corby George Street Stop A dep 0821 0921 1021 1121 1221 1321 1421 1521 1621 1726 1826 1926 2021 2138 2223 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 0824 0924 1024 1124 1224 1324 1424 1524 1624 1729 1829 1929 2024 2141 2226 Corby Danesholme Road 0827 0927 1027 1127 1227 1327 1427 1527 1627 1732 1832 1932 2027 2144 2229 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 0833 0933 1033 1133 1233 1333 1433 1533 1633 1738 1838 1938 2033 2150 2235 Kettering Eskdaill Street Stop 8 0746 0843 0943 1043 1143 1243 1343 1443 1543 1643 1748 1848 1948 2041 2158 2243 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 0749 0846 0946 1046 1146 1246 1346 1446 1546 1646 1751 1851 1951 2043 2200 2245 Kettering Horse Market Stop 14 0749 0849 0949 1049 1149 1249 1349 1449 1549 1649 1754 1854 1954 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 0754 0854 0954 1054 1154 1254 1354 1454 1554 1654 1759 1859 1959 Isham bus shelter 0759 0859 0959 1059 1159 1259 1359 1459 1559 1659 1804 1904 2004 Wellingborough Church St stop C 0814 0914 1014 1114 1214 1314 1414 1514 1614 1714 1819 1919 2019 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 0821 0921 1021 1121 1221 1321 1421 1521 1621 1721 1826 1926 2026 Wilby Working Mens Club 0824 0924 1024 1124 1224 1324 1424 1524 1624 1724 1829 1929 2029 Earls Barton Square 0829 0929 1029 1129 1229 1329 1429 1529 1629 1729 1834 1934 2034 Earls Barton opp Elizabeth Way 0830 0930 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1630 1730 1835 1935 2035 Ecton World's End 0833 0933 1033 1133 1233 1333 1433 1533 1633 1733 1838 1938 2038 Great Billing footbridge A4500 0836 0936 1036 1136 1236 1336 1436 1536 1636 1736 1841 1941 2041 Northampton Academy Little Billing Way 0840 0940 1040 1140 1240 1340 1440 1540 1640 1740 1845 1945 2045 Wellingbrough Rd Abington Park Hotel 0843 0943 1043 1143 1243 1343 1443 1543 1643 1743 1848 1948 2048 Northampton North Gate 0848 0948 1048 1148 1248 1348 1448 1548 1648 1748 1853 1953 2053 what to do if things go wrong additional Sunday journeys run between Wellingborough & We do our best to meet your expectations, but occasionally things go Northampton on route X47 - see X47 timetable for details wrong. If you feel we have failed you in some way please tell us about it. Contact details are on the back of this leafet. If you are unhappy with our response, this independent body will review complaints: Bus Appeals Body, Terminal House, Shepperton, TW17 8AS. 12 for other stops see pages 18-19 13 X4

Peterborough to Peterborough Prince William Rd Prince William There are lots of things to do in this busy city, and a great Rd Prince William X4 New Road place to start is shopping in Queensgate right next to the bus Glapthorn Rd North St towards North St station. With nearly 100 top name stores there’s bound to Northampton Blackpot Lane

be something to suit everyone’s taste. Discover the story of East Rd

Drive Drive

Clifton Clifton the city at Peterborough Museum, where there are also Milton Rd New St Beneﬁeld Rd paintings from top British artists along with watercolours of the cathedral by Turner. Church St Oundle West St bus stops Osyths Lntown centre You can get on the Nene Valley Railway just a short walk towards PeterboroughNorthampton Market Place towards Northampton Stoke Hill Mill Road

from the city centre and enjoy a delightful round trip Mill Road

Branston Branston Cl Branston Branston Cl South Road South through Nene Park – a must for families. South Road Road South Peterborough Cathedral is right in the city centre and is renowned for its medieval painted nave ceiling, dating from around 1230 and the only one of its type in Britain. You can take a guided tour of the cathedral ﬂoor, or for the more daring among you brave the heights of the tower for fantastic views of the city. The Peterborough Peterborough continues to station School city centre W W at peak times only e e bus s s t t rail station w w Aldermans Dr station Th W o or o Midland Rd es o p o t e ga R d te d Midgate P a rk R Queensgate d Thorpe Rd Centre B River Lane Thorpe Lea Thorpe Lea o Road Road u r g Peterborough Thorpe e s Cathedral Meadows B oulevard Vermont Gr Riverside Rivergate Shopping Longthorpe Parkway London Rd London Rd Key Theatre

Nene Parkway

bus stops towards Peterborough towards Northampton Ham Lane Ferry Meadows A1260

Wistow Way S h r e Oundle Rd w s Notcutts b u

r Orton Garden Centre eigh Dr y l Nene Parkway k A Sundays a v

Wistow Way e

O Wistow O X4 n

u The Village Oundle Rd e Brimbles Way

R Lynch Lync Oundle Rd h n W o oo t d r Wood O

y Orton r Orton Parkway r e Orton h Longueville Brimbles C Lady lodge Dr Peterborough Oundle Rd Lady lodge Dr Nene Park n Marriot Lomo d Way Academy Loch Brimbles Way Church Drive A1 Holiday Inn Orton East of England Waterville X4 Showground 14 15 towards Corby & Northampton

x4 tt apr18.indd 12 x413/04/2018 tt apr18.indd 14:44 13 13/04/2018 14:44 X4 Bangrave Rd Rockingham Rd to Corby Business Academy Corby Corby Rd Stamford Rd Village Corby peak journeys Weldon X4 towards Peterborough Lloyds Rd town centre Cottingham Rd High St only

George St Weldon Rd Westcott Way rail station Geddington Rd Beanﬁeld Ave Farmstead Rd Elizabeth St Jubilee Ave Oakley Rd TowerHill Rd Beanﬁeld

Sower Leys Rd Burghley from Peterborough X4 X4 towards Corby &

Gainsborough Rd Cecil Dr George St Drive Peterborough

Colyers Avenue Oakley Rd Lyveden Way for X4 buses to the Regent St Kingswood Corby Business Academy, Outlaw Lane Park Rd Uppingham Rd Kings Tesco or ASDA see Broad Green D Wood Herriotts Lane a Butland Rd Havelock St ne the Corby Star guide sh o lm Dunedin RdOakley Rd Alma St e Short Ln St John’s St R Oakley d Lyveden Way y Butland Rd Vale a Rock St W Tresham Westﬁeld Road Victoria Rd n College Danesholme e Jackson’s Ln Market St Cambridge St Morrisons ed Garston Ly v Copenhagen Rd Road High St library West Villa Rd Villa West Church St West St

Oakley Park St Barnabas St Market Midland Rd Oakley Rd Lewin Rd Place

Brooke Rd Silver St College St Swansgate Centre Grove St Morrisons Great Oakley Oxford St

Rockingham Rd Rockingham Sheep St Commercial Way

Wood St Castle Way X4 bus stops Croyland Rd Hill St Wellingborough Dale St London Rd towards Kettering, towards Peterborough Wellingborough Museum Northampton & towards Milton Keynes X4 town centre Milton Keynes towards Northampton bus stops towards Peterborough towards Northampton

stopping arrangements

X4 is a limited stop route calling at the places shown in the timetable and at the following additional stops:

Northampton to Wellingborough Wellingborough to Kettering Broad Green (towards Nothampton only) | Pyghtle/A509 | Redhill Grange/A509 | Northampton at London Road, Queen Eleanor Cross & Delapre Park | Great Harrowden crossroads | Pytchley Road/Venture Park | Pytchley Road/ The Old White Hart PH, Cotton End | The Drapery | Patrick Road | St Mary’s Hospital | Church Walk (towards Peterborough only) Abington Square (towards Peterborough) and the Mounts/Radio Northampton (towards Northampton) | St Edmunds Street/Wellingborough Road Kettering to Corby Earls Barton at High Street/Manor Road | Wellingborough Road/Prince Street | Rockingham Road/Furnace Lane | Rockingham Road/Rockingham Paddocks | Wellingborough Road/cemetery | in Wilby The George A6003/Storefelds Cottages | Colyers Ave/Southbrook Wellingborough at Weavers Road & Sheep Street (towards Northampton only) Corby to Peterborough During Monday to Saturday evenings and all day on Sundays, X4 runs via Wellingborough Rd (A4500), Great Billing & Ecton to Earls Barton Square, X4 calls at all bus stops. stopping only at Abington Square (towards Peterborough) & the Mounts/Radio Northampton (towards Northampton) | St Edmunds (Wellingborough Road in both directions) | Allen Road (towards Peterborough) & Christchurch (towards Northampton) | Abington Park/Park Avenue | Wellingborough Road/ Norman Road | Booth Lane South | then all stops to Wellingborough Church Street, except West Street in Earls Barton. 16 17 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers NorthamptonEarls BartonWellingboroughKetteringCorby OundlePeterborough can stay on the bus which operates through.

Mondays to Friday except public holidays Sch Hol Col CHol Northampton North Gate bay 12 0553 0630 0643 0715 0804 0834 0913 0948 1018 1048 1118 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH 0557 0638 0647 0725 0814 0843 0921 0956 1026 1056 1126 Earls Barton Square 0610 0651 0700 0741 0827 0856 0934 1009 1039 1109 1139 Wilby Working Mens Club 0614 0655 0704 0745 0831 0900 0938 1013 1043 1113 1143 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 0615 0656 0705 0746 0832 0901 0939 1014 1044 1114 1144 Wellingborough Church St stop D 0622 0703 0712 0717 0753 0841 0909 0946 1021 1051 1121 1151 Isham bus shelter 0632 0715 0722 0729 0808 0853 0921 0956 1031 1101 1131 1201 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 0637 0719 0727 0733 0815 0858 0926 1001 1036 1106 1136 1206 Kettering Horse Market Stop 10 0646 0728 0736 0743 0825 0906 0935 1010 1045 1115 1145 1215 Kettering Newland Street Stand 1 0508 0538 0651 0733 0741 0748 0754 0829 0910 0940 1015 1050 1120 1150 1220 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 0511 0541 0654 0737 0744 0752 0757 0832 0913 0943 1018 1053 1123 1153 1223 Corby Danesholme Road 0521 0551 0704 0747 0754 0802 0807 0842 0923 0953 1028 1103 1133 1203 1233 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 0525 0555 0708 0751 0758 0806 0811 0846 0927 0957 1032 1107 1137 1207 1237 Corby George Street Stop G 0528 0558 0711 0759 0801 0814 0814 0849 0930 1000 1035 1110 1140 1210 1240

Corby George Street Stop G 0529 0559 0714 0802 0802 0816 0816 0900 0935 1005 1040 1115 1145 1215 1245 Corby Oakley Road 0531 0601 0716 0804 0804 0819 0819 0902 0937 1007 1042 1117 1147 1217 1247 Corby Rail Station 0534 0604 0719 0807 0807 0822 0822 x x x x x x x x Corby Village The Jamb 0536 0606 0721 0809 0809 0824 0824 x x x x x x x x Weldon opp Londis Store 0543 0613 0728 0842 0842 0911 0946 1016 1051 1126 1156 1226 1256 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 0551 0621 0736 0849 0849 0919 0954 1024 1059 1134 1204 1234 1304 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 0554 0624 0739 0852 0852 0922 0957 1027 1102 1137 1207 1237 1307 Oundle West Street 0603 0633 0649 0748 0844 0901 0901 0931 1006 1036 1111 1146 1216 1246 1316 Oundle Market Place 0608 0638 0654 0756 0849 0907 0907 0936 1011 1041 1116 1151 1221 1251 1321 Barnwell The Mill 0610 0640 0656 0758 0851 0909 0909 0938 1013 1043 1118 1153 1223 1253 1323 Warmington services 0620 0650 0706 0808 0901 0919 0919 0948 1023 1053 1128 1203 1233 1303 1333 Elton Black Horse x 0656 0713 x x 0924 0924 x 1029 x 1134 x 1239 x 1339 Alwalton Layby x 0702 0723 x x 0930 0930 x 1035 x 1140 x 1245 x 1345 Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel x 0703 0725 x x 0931 0931 x 1036 x 1141 x 1246 x 1346 Orton Waterville Church Drive x x 0731 x x 0937 0937 x 1042 x 1147 x 1252 x 1352 Orton Mere x 0709 0740 x x 0941 0941 x 1046 x 1151 x 1256 x 1356 Thorpe Road The Gables 0636 0715 C 0831 0917 0947 0947 1004 1052 1109 1157 1219 1302 1319 1402 Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 0638 0717 0752 0835 0922 0952 0952 1009 1057 1114 1202 1224 1307 1324 1407

Sch runs in school term time continues to Peterborough also serves Hol runs in school holidays Rail Station arriving at 0643, Corby ASDA at Col runs in college term time 0722 & 0840 CHol runs in college holidays 0811 & 0827, RS Components at C runs via Bakers Lane at 0745 (school holidays) and 0746 (school 0817 & 0833, timetable continues days) also on school days, bus arrives Peterborough Queensgate CBA at on next page at 0755 and continues to Kings School arriving at 0805 0818 & 0834

18 for other stops see pages 16-17 19 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers NorthamptonEarls BartonWellingboroughKetteringCorby OundlePeterborough can stay on the bus which operates through.

Mondays to Friday except public holidays Hol Sch Northampton North Gate bay 12 1148 1218 1248 1248 1318 1353 1423 1458 1533 1603 1643 1713 1758 1823 1853 1923 1953 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH 1156 1226 1256 1256 1326 1401 1431 1506 1541 1615 1654 1723 1808 1833 1901 1931 2001 Earls Barton Square 1209 1239 1309 1309 1339 1414 1444 1519 1554 1628 1714 1739 1824 1849 1914 1944 2014 Wilby Working Mens Club 1213 1243 1313 1313 1343 1418 1449 1524 1558 1632 1718 1748 1828 1853 1918 1948 2018 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 1214 1244 1314 1314 1344 1419 1451 1527 1601 1638 1724 1754 1829 1854 1919 1949 2019 Wellingborough Church St stop D 1221 1251 1321 1321 1351 1426 1458 1542 1611 1645 1733 1806 1841 1901 1931 1956 2026 Isham bus shelter 1231 1301 1331 1331 1401 1436 1509 1552 1622 1658 1749 1816 1851 1911 1941 2006 2036 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 1236 1306 1336 1336 1406 1441 1518 1557 1630 1703 1800 1821 1856 1916 1946 2011 2041 Kettering Horse Market Stop 10 1245 1315 1345 1345 1415 1450 1530 1605 1641 1712 1808 1830 1905 1925 1955 2020 2048 Kettering Newland Street Stand 1 1250 1320 1350 1350 1420 1455 1534 1610 1645 1717 1813 1835 1910 1930 2000 2025 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 1253 1323 1353 1353 1423 1458 1537 1613 1648 1720 1817 1838 1913 1933 2003 2028 Corby Danesholme Road 1303 1333 1403 1403 1433 1508 1547 1623 1658 1730 1827 1848 1923 1943 2013 2038 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 1307 1337 1407 1407 1437 1512 1551 1627 1702 1734 1831 1852 1927 1947 2017 2042 Corby George Street Stop G 1310 1340 1410 1410 1440 1515 1554 1630 1705 1737 1834 1855 1930 1950 2020 2045

Corby George Street Stop G 1315 1345 1415 1415 1445 1520 1557 1632 1710 1741 1858 1953 Corby Oakley Road 1317 1347 1417 1417 1447 1522 1559 1634 1712 1743 1900 1955 Corby Rail Station x x x x x x x x 1715 x 1903 1958 Corby Village The Jamb x x x x x x x x 1717 x 1905 2000 Weldon opp Londis Store 1326 1356 1426 1426 1456 1531 1608 1643 1734 1752 1912 2007 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 1334 1404 1434 1434 1504 1539 1616 1651 1742 1800 1920 2015 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 1337 1407 1437 1437 1507 1542 1619 1654 1745 1803 1923 2018 Oundle West Street 1346 1416 1446 1446 1516 1551 1628 1703 1754 1812 1932 2027 Oundle Market Place 1351 1421 1451 1451 1521 1556 1633 1708 1759 1817 1937 2032 Barnwell The Mill 1353 1423 1453 1453 1558 1635 1710 1801 1819 1939 2034 Warmington services 1403 1433 1503 1503 1610 1647 1720 1811 1829 1949 2039 Elton Black Horse x 1439 x 1509 1616 x 1725 x 1835 x 2048 Alwalton Layby x 1445 x 1515 1622 x 1731 x 1841 x 2054 Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel x 1446 x 1516 1623 x 1732 x 1842 x 2055 Orton Waterville Church Drive x 1452 x 1522 1629 x 1738 x 1848 x x Orton Mere x 1456 x 1531 1633 x 1742 x 1852 x 2059 Thorpe Road The Gables 1419 1502 1519 x 1639 1704 1748 1828 1858 2004 2103 Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 1424 1507 1524 1541 1644 1708 1753 1833 1903 2007 2110

runs via Peterborough runs via Nene Park Academy runs via Corby ASDA at 1720, Rail Station at 2106 at 1527 & Bakers Lane at 1538 Corby RS Compenents at 1726 and Corby Business Academy at 1727 Additional journeys run between Peterborough & Lynch Wood 23 as route 23 - for details please visit our webiste timetable continues on next page for other stops see pages 16-17

20 21 NorthamptonEarls BartonWellingboroughKetteringCorby OundlePeterborough

Mondays to Friday except public holidays

Northampton North Gate bay 12 2023 2055 2155 2255 2346 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH 2031 x x x x Earls Barton Square 2044 2120 2220 2320 0011 Wilby Working Mens Club 2048 2125 2225 2325 0016 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 2049 2128 2228 2328 0019 Wellingborough Church St stop D 2056 2135 2235 2335 0026 Isham bus shelter 2106 2145 2245 2345 0036 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 2111 2150 2250 2350 0040 Kettering Horse Market Stop 10 2118 2156 2256 2356 0045 Kettering Newland Street Stand 1 2158 2258 2358 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 2201 2301 0001 £ Corby Danesholme Road 2210 2310 0010 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 2213 2313 0013 Corby George Street Stop G 2216 2316 0016

after North Gate, these journeys run via Wellingborough Road (Allen Road), Northampton Academy, Great Billing (foot bridge), Ecton (World’s End) and Northampton Road (Elizabeth Way Police House) buy your mobile dayrider ticket on the Stagecoach app

Download the Stagecoach Bus App

for other stops see pages 16-17

22 Search Stagecoach Bus 23 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers NorthamptonEarls BartonWellingboroughKetteringCorby OundlePeterborough can stay on the bus which operates through.

Saturdays except public holidays

Northampton North Gate bay 12 0553 0643 0738 0808 0838 0913 0948 1018 1048 1118 1148 1218 1248 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH 0557 0647 0742 0816 0846 0921 0956 1026 1056 1126 1156 1226 1256 Earls Barton Square 0610 0700 0755 0829 0859 0934 1009 1039 1109 1139 1209 1239 1309 Wilby Working Mens Club 0614 0704 0759 0833 0903 0938 1013 1043 1113 1143 1213 1243 1313 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 0615 0705 0800 0834 0904 0939 1014 1044 1114 1144 1214 1244 1314 Wellingborough Church St stop D 0622 0712 0807 0841 0911 0946 1021 1051 1121 1151 1221 1251 1321 Isham bus shelter 0632 0722 0817 0851 0921 0956 1031 1101 1131 1201 1231 1301 1331 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 0637 0727 0822 0856 0926 1001 1036 1106 1136 1206 1236 1306 1336 Kettering Horse Market Stop 10 0646 0736 0831 0905 0935 1010 1045 1115 1145 1215 1245 1315 1345 Kettering Newland Street Stand 1 0508 0538 0651 0741 0804 0836 0910 0940 1015 1050 1120 1150 1220 1250 1320 1350 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 0511 0541 0654 0744 0807 0839 0913 0943 1018 1053 1123 1153 1223 1253 1323 1353 Corby Danesholme Road 0521 0551 0704 0754 0817 0849 0923 0953 1028 1103 1133 1203 1233 1303 1333 1403 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 0525 0555 0708 0758 0821 0853 0927 0957 1032 1107 1137 1207 1237 1307 1337 1407 Corby George Street Stop G 0528 0558 0711 0801 0824 0856 0930 1000 1035 1110 1140 1210 1240 1310 1340 1410

Corby George Street Stop G 0529 0559 0714 0829 0900 0935 1005 1040 1115 1145 1215 1245 1315 1345 1415 Corby Oakley Road 0531 0601 0716 0831 0902 0937 1007 1042 1117 1147 1217 1247 1317 1347 1417 Corby Rail Station 0534 0604 0719 x x x x x x x x x x x x Corby Village The Jamb 0536 0606 0721 x x x x x x x x x x x x Weldon opp Londis Store 0543 0613 0728 0840 0911 0946 1016 1051 1126 1156 1226 1256 1326 1356 1426 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 0551 0621 0736 0848 0919 0954 1024 1059 1134 1204 1234 1304 1334 1404 1434 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 0554 0624 0739 0851 0922 0957 1027 1102 1137 1207 1237 1307 1337 1407 1437 Oundle West Street 0603 0633 0701 0748 0834 0900 0931 1006 1036 1111 1146 1216 1246 1316 1346 1416 1446 Oundle Market Place 0608 0638 0706 0753 0839 0906 0936 1011 1041 1116 1151 1221 1251 1321 1351 1421 1451 Barnwell The Mill 0610 0640 0708 0755 0841 0908 0938 1013 1043 1118 1153 1223 1253 1323 1353 1423 1453 Warmington services 0620 0650 0718 0805 0851 0918 0948 1023 1053 1128 1203 1233 1303 1333 1403 1433 1503 Elton Black Horse x 0656 0724 x x 0924 x 1029 x 1134 x 1239 x 1339 x 1439 x Alwalton Layby x 0702 0730 x x 0930 x 1035 x 1140 x 1245 x 1345 x 1445 x Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel x 0703 0731 x x 0931 x 1036 x 1141 x 1246 x 1346 x 1446 x Orton Waterville Church Drive x x 0737 x x 0937 x 1042 x 1147 x 1252 x 1352 x 1452 x Orton Mere x 0709 0741 x x 0941 x 1046 x 1151 x 1256 x 1356 x 1456 x Thorpe Road The Gables 0636 0715 E 0828 0907 0947 1004 1052 1109 1157 1219 1302 1319 1402 1419 1502 1519 Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 0638 0717 0753 0832 0912 0952 1009 1057 1114 1202 1224 1307 1324 1407 1424 1507 1524

continues to Peterborough Rail Station arriving at 0643, 0722 & 0837 E runs via Baker Lane at 0746

timetable continues on next page

24 for other stops see pages 16-17 25 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers NorthamptonEarls BartonWellingboroughKetteringCorby OundlePeterborough can stay on the bus which operates through.

Saturdays except public holidays

Northampton North Gate bay 12 1318 1353 1423 1458 1533 1603 1638 1708 1738 1808 1838 1908 1938 2013 2053 2123 2223 2333 Northampton Cliftonville Rd for NGH 1326 1401 1431 1506 1541 1611 1646 1716 1748 1818 1846 1916 1946 2021 x x x x Earls Barton Square 1339 1414 1444 1519 1554 1624 1659 1729 1804 1834 1859 1929 1959 2034 2118 2148 2248 2358 Wilby Working Mens Club 1343 1418 1448 1523 1558 1628 1703 1733 1808 1838 1903 1933 2003 2038 2123 2153 2253 0003 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 1344 1419 1449 1524 1559 1629 1704 1734 1809 1839 1904 1934 2004 2039 2126 2156 2256 006 Wellingborough Church St stop D 1351 1426 1456 1531 1606 1636 1711 1741 1816 1846 1916 1941 2011 2046 2133 2203 2303 0013 Isham bus shelter 1401 1436 1506 1541 1616 1646 1721 1751 1826 1856 1926 1951 2021 2056 2143 2213 2313 0023 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 1406 1441 1511 1546 1621 1651 1726 1756 1831 1901 1931 1956 2026 2101 2148 2218 2318 0027 Kettering Horse Market Stop 10 1415 1450 1520 1555 1630 1700 1735 1805 1840 1910 1940 2005 2033 2108 2154 2224 2324 0032 Kettering Newland Street Stand 1 1420 1455 1525 1600 1635 1705 1740 1810 1845 1915 1945 2010 2156 2226 2326 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 1423 1458 1528 1603 1638 1708 1743 1813 1848 1918 1948 2013 2159 2229 2329 Corby Danesholme Road 1433 1508 1538 1613 1648 1718 1753 1823 1858 1928 1958 2023 2208 2238 2338 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 1437 1512 1542 1617 1652 1722 1757 1827 1902 1932 2002 2027 2211 2241 2341 Corby George Street Stop G 1440 1515 1545 1620 1655 1725 1800 1830 1905 1935 2005 2030 2214 2244 2344

Corby George Street Stop G 1445 1520 1555 1627 1702 1732 1832 1937 Corby Oakley Road 1447 1522 1557 1634 1704 1734 1834 1939 Corby Rail Station x x x x x x 1837 1942 Corby Village The Jamb x x x x x x 1839 1944 Weldon opp Londis Store 1456 1531 1606 1638 1713 1743 1846 1951 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 1504 1539 1614 1646 1721 1751 1854 1959 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 1507 1542 1617 1649 1724 1754 1857 2002 Oundle West Street 1516 1551 1626 1658 1733 1803 1906 2011 Oundle Market Place 1521 1556 1631 1703 1738 1808 1911 2016 Barnwell The Mill 1523 1558 1633 1705 1740 1810 1913 2018 Warmington services 1533 1608 1643 1715 1750 1820 1923 2028 Elton Black Horse 1539 x x 1721 1756 x x 2034 Alwalton Layby 1545 x x 1727 1802 x x 2040 Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel 1546 x x 1728 1803 x x 2041 Orton Waterville Church Drive 1552 x x 1734 1809 x x x Orton Mere 1556 x x 1738 1813 x x 2045 Thorpe Road The Gables 1602 1624 1700 1744 1819 1836 1939 2049 Peterborough Queensgate bus stn bay 15 1607 1629 1704 1749 1824 1841 1944 2057

runs via Peterborough Rail Station at 2052

after North Gate, these journeys run via Wellingborough Road (Allen Road), Northampton Academy, Great Billing (foot bridge), Ecton (World’s for other stops see pages 16-17 End) and Northampton Road (Elizabeth Way Police House)

26 27 To comply with drivers’ hours regulations, X4 connects at Corby. The connection is guaranteed, through fares are available and passengers NorthamptonEarls BartonWellingboroughKetteringCorby OundlePeterborough can stay on the bus which operates through.

Sundays including some public holidays see separate information for Easter, Christmas & New Year bus times

Northampton North Gate bay 12 0907 1007 1107 1207 1307 1407 1507 1632 1732 1832 1932 2037 2137 Wellingbrough Rd Abington Park Hotel 0914 1014 1114 1214 1314 1414 1514 1639 1739 1839 1939 2044 2144 Northampton Academy Little Billing Way 0919 1019 1119 1219 1319 1419 1519 1644 1744 1844 1944 2049 2149 Great Billing footbridge A4500 0924 1024 1124 1224 1324 1424 1524 1649 1719 1849 1949 2054 2154 Ecton World’s End 0927 1027 1127 1227 1327 1427 1527 1652 1752 1852 1952 2057 2157 Earls Barton opp Elizabeth Way 0929 1029 1129 1229 1329 1429 1529 1654 1754 1854 1954 2059 2159 Earls Barton Square 0931 1031 1131 1231 1331 1431 1531 1656 1756 1856 1956 2101 2201 Wilby Working Mens Club 0936 1036 1136 1236 1336 1436 1536 1701 1801 1901 2001 2106 2206 Wellingborough Northampton Rd 0939 1039 1139 1239 1339 1439 1539 1704 1804 1904 2004 2109 2209 Wellingborough Church St stop D 0946 1046 1146 1246 1346 1446 1546 1711 1811 1911 2011 2116 2216 Isham bus shelter 0956 1056 1156 1256 1356 1456 1556 1721 1821 1921 2021 2126 2226 Wicksteed Park Pytchley Road A509 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401 1501 1601 1726 1826 1926 2026 2131 2231 Kettering Horse Market Stop 10 1004 1104 1204 1304 1404 1504 1604 1729 1829 1929 2029 2134 2232 Kettering Newland St Stop 1 0809 0909 1009 1109 1209 1309 1409 1509 1609 1734 1834 1934 2034 2139 Kettering Rockingham Road/Neale Ave 0812 0912 1012 1112 1212 1312 1412 1512 1612 1737 1837 1937 2037 2142 Corby Danesholme Road 0822 0922 1022 1122 1222 1322 1422 1522 1622 1747 1847 1947 2047 2152 Corby Gainsborough Rd/Greenhill Rise 0825 0925 1025 1125 1225 1325 1425 1525 1625 1750 1850 1950 2050 2155 Corby George Street Stop G arr 0828 0928 1028 1128 1228 1328 1428 1528 1628 1753 1853 1953 2053 2158

Corby George Street Stop G dep 0835 1035 1235 1435 1635 1900 2000 2100 2205 Corby Oakley Road 0837 1037 1237 1437 1637 1902 2002 2102 2207 Corby Rail Station 0840 1040 1240 1440 1640 1905 2004 2104 2209 Corby Village The Jamb 0842 1042 1242 1442 1642 1907 Corby ASDA 0844 1044 1244 1444 1644 1909 Weldon opp Londis Store 0852 1052 1252 1452 1652 1917 Upper Beneﬁeld Wheatsheaf 0859 1059 1259 1459 1659 1924 Lower Beneﬁeld Phone Box 0902 1102 1302 1502 1702 1927 Oundle West Street 0911 1111 1311 1511 1711 1936 Oundle Market Place 0916 1116 1316 1516 1716 1941 Barnwell The Mill 0918 1118 1318 1518 1718 1943 Warmington services 0928 1128 1328 1528 1728 1953 Elton Opp Garage 0933 1133 1333 1533 1733 1958 Alwalton Layby 0939 1139 1339 1539 1739 2004 Lynch Wood Marriott Hotel 0940 1140 1340 1540 1740 2005 Thorpe Road The Gables 0949 1149 1349 1549 1749 2014 Peterborough Queensgate Bus Stn Bay 15 0954 1154 1354 1554 1754 2019 additional Sunday journeys run between Wellingborough & Northampton on route X47 - see full timetable for details

timetable continues 28 for other stops see pages 16-17 on next page 29 X4 X4 towards Corby & Peterborough

Wellingborough Rd to Peterborough Brambleside

Furnace Lane A4500 Brambleside cemetery Pennine Way Rockingham Road

Shakespeare Rd

Blandford Ave Bath Road ve A n Neal Ave

r r a

a Kingsley Ave B B The Pyghtle The Pyghtle Hallwood Rd Severn Way Severn Severn Way Severn X4 Mallard Cl Hornby Rd ve Britannia Rd Burghley Rd Bath Road Streeton A ElizabethWay Way d towards el Townley King St ﬁ Park Rd Way h t Northampton r Victoria St o Charles St Northampton Rd Northampton Rd evenings & Sundays Wellingborough Rd N Pollard St Man Prince St Manor Rd o r

R R Queen St William St d d Grafton St Wood St Avondale Rd Earls Barton Rockingham Road Harrowick Ln Harrowick Ln Wellington St Regent St High St Duke St Havelock St

St Crispin Rd Union St St h Buccleuch St Bath Road All Saints ig Field St King St H Aggate Way Church Churchill Rd

Northﬁeld Ave Carlton St a Windmill Avenue West St skd ill S E t Park St Park Park St Park Doddington Rd Newlands Stamford Rd Earls Broad St Centre Victoria St The Square B573 New St Montagu St Barton Northall St Station Rd Station Rd Newland St Medical Downthorpe End t Kettering Mill Rd Cenre Spring Gdns S d l town centre Morrisons o Northampton Rd Northampton Rd

Shefﬁeld Shefﬁeld

G G

Way

Way Northﬁeld Ave t

W t Durban Rd S S

n Downthorpe Hill

o h

Trafalgar Rd g Mill Rd s s

i i

l l

i Queen St

H H W W Downthorpe Hill Horsemarket St Mary’s Rd London Rd St Peter’s Avenue Deeble Road Market Pl Market Pl cemetery Linden Ave Linden Ave

Station Rd Northampton Rd bus stops St Mary’s Rd Compton Way Windmill Avenue Windmill Avenue Headlands towards Peterborough Headlands Bowling St Mary’s X4 Green Road towards Northampton Station Rd Hospital towards rail station Piper’s Hill Rd Northampton Broadway Cheyne Walk Cheyne Walk Mill Dale Rd Mill Dale Rd

London Rd Hawthorn Rd Roundhill Rd e Headlands Headlands v A e St Michael’s Rd id s l

l i i H H The Oval d R evening buses after 8pm Mondays - Saturdays Netherfield Tresham College and Sunday buses go along Wellingborough Road and the A4500 Lewis Rd Barton Road Highfield Rd Northampton Highfield Rd Kettering Rd Grafton St town centre Martin Rd Whiteford Dr St Edmund’s St St Andrew’s Rd Andrew’s St St Andrew’s Rd Andrew’s St Wellingborough Rd Broad St Wicksteed North Gate Park bus station Grosvenor Cliftonville rail Billing Road Bryant Road Shopping Pytchley Road Northumberland Rd station Gold St Centre Highfield Rd Northumberland Rd Northampton Cliftonville Rd St James Rd St Peter’s Way General towards Hospital X4 Kettering & Cattle Market Rd Cattle Market Rd Victoria Promenade Peterborough Sussrex Rd Bridge St Bridge St Pytchley Road Morrisons Pytchley Road St James Beckett’s Park Retail Park Bedford Rd

Towcester Rd Holdenby

RIVER NENE Pytchley Lane Tesco A14 Kettering Parkway A509 bus stops Venture Park towards Peterborough towards Northgate Bus Station Odeon Cinema bus stops A14 X4 towards towards Peterborough Northampton 30 towards Northampton 31

x4 tt apr18.indd 26 x413/04/2018 tt apr18.indd 14:44 27 13/04/2018 14:44 ! Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, lime Grove, grantham, NG31 9jd ENCLOSURE 3 ENCLOSURE

ENCLOSURE 3

Previous submissions to OTC in relation to sites development ! Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, lime Grove, grantham, NG31 9jd

OUNDLE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF BIGGIN & BENEFIELD ESTATE IN RESPECT OF SITES REFERENCE 14 (LAND SOUTH OF WAKERLEY CLOSE), 15N(LAND NORTH OF BENEFIELD ROAD) AND 15S(LAND SOUTH OF BENEFIELD ROAD).

Pre-amble

1. These submissions arise from a meeting with prospective allocation landowners at The Courthouse on 20 May 2015. At that meeting, members of the Neighbourhood Plan Working Party Housing Sub-Group, outlined to landowners their current proposals for the allocation of housing sites within the forthcoming Oundle Neighbourhood Plan.

2. In respect of land owned by the Biggin & Benefield Estate, the sub-group were proposing the following;

! That in respect of Site 14N: Land north of Benefield Road; a housing allocation of 110 dwellings; comprising a mix of 2-bed (38%); 3 &4-bed (34%) and 5-bed properties(28%). Twenty-five percent of dwellings to comprise affordable housing. The site to include provision for a festival site, and the balance of the land to be identified as a reserve allocation (‘preferred expansion site’). ! That in respect of Site 14S: Land south of Benefield Road; the site to be identified as a reserve allocation (‘preferred expansion site’). ! That in respect of Site 15: Land south of Wakerley Close; site to be allocated for 9 dwellings (5-bed units).

3. At the meeting we were provided with a draft allocation plan for the three sites with a red-hatched notation for the allocated sites, a green shading for the proposed festival site, and blue shading for the preferred expansion sites. The plan also shows in a thick red line what we understand to comprise a cycleway network. We understand that one of the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan group is to include within the plan a circular cycleway network around the whole town, with the expectation that this will be development funded as far as practicable.

4. The landowner has been invited to comment upon the proposed allocations and the community benefit elements associated with the proposed allocations. Comments are invited by 10 June 2015.

Commentary

5. The landowner in this case has been invited to comment upon the proposed allocation and treatment of their sites only. In so far as we have not been provided with information or location regarding other proposed housing sites being considered to be included in the Neighbourhood Plan we reserve at this stage our ability to comment on the same comparatively with my clients land in terms of meeting the CIL Regulations 122 and 123 as the full plans emerge.

6. My clients wish to record their SUPPORT for the proposed housing allocations outlined in respect of sites 14N, 14S and 15. We understand that these proposed allocations are in line with the community consultation undertaken to date in that it supported the distribution of housing across several sites rather than a concentration in one particular area.

7. In supporting the principle of the proposed allocations / site designations we would also wish to confirm that in principle the landowner will be willing to make provision, as part of any housing allocation on site 14N the provision of an area of open space that may serve as a festival site for the town, for the holding of events.

8. We trust that these submissions made on behalf of our clients will be viewed positively. My clients consider that the proposed housing allocations above will enhance the robustness and delivery of the Neighbourhood Plan when made and be consistent with the objectives of the Council’s housing objectives in the Development Plan

A. SITE 15: ALLOCATION

9. Whilst the landowners have explored the potential of accessing the site via Wakerley Close (there is a retained strip that may make this feasible), they have also explored the possibility of accessing the site directly from Benefield Road , with a driveway running alongside the western boundary of the Wakerley Close dwellings. This in our view represents the preferred option, particularly if, as anticipated the site is suggested to comprise 5-bedroomed , larger, detached properties.

10. The allocation (as given to us at the meeting), does not show this potential driveway access to the west of Wakerley Close. We would suggest that the access driveway is included within the allocation. We append to this statement a revised plan with the suggested treatment of this allocation.

We would suggest;

(i) That the allocation includes an access strip to the west of the Wakerley Close estate, to allow direct access to the land from Benefield Road, as an alternative to accessing the site via Wakerley Close if this proves impractical.

B.SITE 14N ALLOCATION

11. We note that the plan provided to us distinguishes between the residential allocation on the southern portion of the overall site, with a separately shaded area being identified as the festival site. On the plan provided to us, the festival site ‘allocation’ extends to some 13.6 acres (5.5ha). This is substantially larger than has previously been identified, and is not much different in area terms to the housing allocation.

12. It has been our understanding that the so called ‘festival site’ will comprise an area of public open space that will be available for use by members of the public for informal play and recreational purposes. It will however be sufficiently sized to enable use as a festival site, for special outdoor events. The expectation is that a suitable arrangements can be made whereby the land can be transferred to or leased to the Town Council or another suitable body.

13. Whilst the landowners are not averse to the principle of providing sufficient land for use as a festival site, nor indeed negotiating terms for the long-lease or transfer of the land, what it is important to understand that as well as serving as a festival site, the land will also serve as a public open space for the development site and the wider community. In this respect, we feel it is important that the land is regarded as an integral element of the housing allocation, and not, as the differential treatment of the site and the housing allocation suggests, as a completely separate entity. It is important that on a year round basis the land is available for use by residents and the wider community, and not reserved for the exclusive use for specific events.

14. As the expectation is that the open space / festival land will be delivered as part of the housing allocation, we believe it to be important that the housing allocation be drawn to include the open space land as well. Attached to this statement we include a suggested treatment of the site and the allocation. This shows a housing allocation that includes the land suggested for the festival site, and a non-area-specific-notation that makes clear that included within the housing allocation is a requirement to provide a community open space area.

15. We believe that this is a better approach for the following reasons;

! It makes clear that the open space area will be required to be delivered as part of the housing allocation, and will meet the open space needs of the development as well as that of the wider community. . ! It is not specific about either the size of the site or its precise location. We believe that these are matters that are best determined through on-going discussions with the Neighbourhood Plan group and the Town Council. Factors such as highways design, infrastructure provision, or further archaeological investigations, may have a bearing on site size and its precise location. We feel that to precisely define the open space site at this stage is neither practical or desirable.

16. We wish to emphasise that the suggestions we make are intended to make delivery of the festival site more effective as part of the housing allocation. It provides a measure of flexibility that we consider is beneficial to everybody. The suggestion we make has no bearing upon the overall housing number proposed for the allocation. This remains at 110.

17. As a further comment, we have some concerns about the specific mix of housing proposed. Whilst the split proposed suggests a fairly even mix of unit sizes, and would anticipate that this would be achieved as part of the development in any event. Whilst the Plan might usefully allude to the need for an appropriate mix of house types and sizes within the allocated site, we would be concerned about the plan being over-prescriptive in this respect, at this stage in the planning process.

18. We note the inclusion on the plan provided to us of an illustrative cycleway route. Whilst in principle this could be accommodated on the site, it is important that such provision does not impact upon overall scheme viability and we would expect that this would form part of more detailed discussions on the exact package of community benefits that may flow from the development (most particularly the size, siting and delivery of the festival space). Clearly it is important for us to understand how the cycleway matter is dealt with more broadly within the NP, and we would be in a position to comment further once this is known.

We would suggest;

(ii) That site 14N be modified to incorporate the community open space area within it, rather than treating the open space as a separate area.

(iii) That the allocation includes a non-area specific notation, along the lines suggested on the attached plan, that makes clear the requirement for a community open space area to be provided.

(iv) That the relevant policy that allocates site 14N includes suitable text to refer to the community open space requirement

(v) That the plan is not overly specific in terms of the desired housing mix in terms of unit sizes.

C.RESERVE SITES

19. In the context of the wider plan, and the fact that the overall amount of housing land that may be explicitly allocated is limited, we support the identification of ‘preferred expansion sites’ as they were termed when we met.

20. We believe that it would be preferable to refer to them as ‘reserve sites’. Whilst the anticipation is that the land will not be required during the time period of the plan, we believe that the plan should provide a measure of flexibility on this point, so that if circumstances were to change, then these sites could be brought forward early, to deal with certain contingencies.

21. On-going monitoring locally and district wide, for example, through the Annual Monitoring Report process, will identify whether circumstances requiring intervention arise.

22. In these circumstances, we believe that suitable clarification should be provided within the plan itself about what the reserve site designation actually means, and the circumstances under which such sites might be brought forward during the period of the Plan, if any specified circumstances arise.

We would suggest;

(vi) That the ‘preferred expansion sites’ are referred to as ‘reserve housing sites’ and that the Neighbourhood Plan recognises that there should be flexibility during the Plan Period when they may be brought forward should circumstances in the future require those sites to contribute to housing provision in Oundle sooner rather than later. This is good planning practice when allocating reserve sites and such flexibility in entirely in accord with Government advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy Guidance.

Conclusions

23. The foregoing sets out our general, in-principle support for the allocations proposed. The submissions above offer what we hope will be seen as constructive contributions that better support the Neighbourhood Plan objectives in relation to these sites.

24. We would wish to work constructively with the NP Group to develop and flesh out our site proposals in due course, including indicative master-plans for the sites in question, and we look forward to hearing from you in this connection..

Mike Sibthorp Planning

June 2015

POS

SITE 14N

R SITE 15

!!Residential allocation Suggested depiction of requirement for POS community open space as part of allocation 14N

Reserve site

Biggin & Beneﬁeld Estate Land west of Oundle ! Suggested proposals map changes Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, lime Grove, grantham, NG31 9jd Scale: NTS @A4 Drawing No: MSP.1017/401 ! Mike Sibthorp Planning Logan House, lime Grove, grantham, NG31 9jd ENCLOSURE 4 ENCLOSURE

ENCLOSURE 4

Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspectors report The Pannngli Inspectorate Templ e Quay House Report to East 2 The Square Templ e Quay Bril sto BS1 6PN Northamptonshire �01 Council

08 Jul y 2009 an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

SECTION 20

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO THE

EAST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE RURAL NORTH, OUNDLE AND THRAPSTON

DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT

Document submitted for examination on 11 January 2008 Examination hearings held between 7 and 17 October 2008 and between 29 April and 1 May 2009

File Ref(s): PINS/G2815/429/2 (LDF000831) East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Abbreviations used in this report

AMR Annual Monitoring Report (produced by East Northamptonshire Council) CSS The Core Spatial Strategy. The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Doc. No. Document Number, reference to a document in the Examination Library DPD Development Plan Document (see also, “the plan” and “RNOTP”) an LDD within the LDF ELR Employment Land Review HMA Housing Market Area LDD Local Development Document within the LDF LDF Local Development Framework LDS Local Development Scheme LNR Local Nature Reserve NNJPU North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit pdl previously developed land PPS (No.) Planning Policy Statement with number, e.g. PPS12 RNOTP Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan (also “the plan”) RSS Regional Spatial Strategy (East Midlands Regional Plan) SCI Statement of Community Involvement SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment SPA Special Protection Area (for Conservation) SPD Supplementary Planning Document (an LDD within LDF) SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage System The Council East Northamptonshire Council The County Northamptonshire County Council Council The Local Plan The East Northamptonshire District Local Plan, 1996 The Plan The RNOTP (see above), which is a DPD The 2004 Act The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended)

2 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

1. Introduction and Overall Conclusion

1.1 Under the terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the purpose of the independent examination of a development plan document (DPD) is to determine:

(a) whether it satisfies the requirements of s19 and s24(1) of the 2004 Act, the regulations under s17(7), and any regulations under s36 relating to the preparation of the document.

(b) whether it is sound.

1.2 This report contains my assessment of the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan (the RNOTP) in terms of the above matters, along with my recommendations and the reasons for them, as required by s20(7) of the 2004 Act.

1.3 I consider the legal requirements first and then deal with the relevant matters and issues considered during the examination in relation to the soundness of the DPD as set out in revised Planning Policy Statement (PPS)12.

1.4 When the DPD was submitted, PPS12 (2004): Local Development Frameworks was in force, but in June 2008, it was replaced by PPS12 (2008): Local Spatial Planning. Although the tests of soundness are now presented in a different and simpler way, they cover the same matters as before. Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12 indicates that to be sound, a DPD should be justified, effective and consistent with national policy, along with a continuing requirement for the DPD to satisfy the legal/procedural requirements and be in conformity with regional planning policy. Justified means that a DPD should be founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Effective means that the submitted DPD should be deliverable, flexible and able to be monitored.

1.5 The Government intends that spatial planning objectives for local areas, as set out in the Local Development Framework (LDF), should be aligned not only with national and regional plans, but also with shared local priorities set out in Sustainable Community Strategies where these are consistent with national and regional policy. National policy emphasises the importance of spatial planning, requires local planning authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement and follow its approach, and to undertake proportionate sustainability appraisal. PPS12 (2008) also confirms that the rigour of the examination process remains unchanged and inspectors will be looking for the same quality of evidence and content as before. Consequently, the publication of the new PPS12 does not materially affect the procedure or matters to be examined in terms of this DPD.

3 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

1.6 In line with national policy, the starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The changes I have specified in this binding report are made only where there is a clear need to amend the document in the light of the legal requirements and/or the tests of soundness in PPS12. None of these changes should materially alter the substance of the overall plan and its policies, or undermine the sustainability appraisal and participatory processes already undertaken.

1.7 It is with these requirements in mind that, when it became apparent after the hearings held in October 2008 that further work would be required before the DPD might be held to be sound, I wrote to the Council by letter dated 31 October 2008. This had the effect of adjourning the examination during which time the Council produced a revised (and extensive) set of suggested changes which were advertised, consulted upon and subjected to further sustainability appraisal. I have been able to consider the representations made on these further changes and also hold further hearings in April 2009. The result is that the examination has been unduly protracted and the changes set out in this report and its annexes are extensive. This is not in the spirit of the 2004 Act and Regulations. Such an approach should be regarded as an exception and by no means establishing a template for the conduct of future examinations.

1.8 My overall conclusion is that the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan is sound, provided it is changed in the ways specified. The principal changes which are required are, in summary: a) A new section describing a Housing Implementation Strategy is inserted to follow paragraph 1.18. (see report paragraph 3.29) b) Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 are expanded to include the criteria used to define settlement boundaries on the Proposals Map. (see report paragraphs 3.1289) c) The lists of villages in Categories A (paragraph 4.5) and B (paragraph 4.6) are amended. (see report paragraph 3.126) d) The last part of policy 2 referring to replacing existing dwellings with higher density new development is deleted. (see report paragraph 3.14) e) The development strategy for Oundle (section 8) is substantially rewritten. (see report paragraphs 3.65, 91, 107 and Annex 2) f) Policies 10, 12, 16, 17 and 19 are deleted. (see report paragraphs 3.14, 20, 22, 143 and 169) g) Policy 20 on affordable housing is substantially amended. (see report paragraph 3.143) h) Policy 22 on Open Space, Sport and Recreational Facilities is substantially amended. (see report paragraph 3.172)

4 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

1.9 I have highlighted in bold within this report all of the changes required to meet the legal requirements and to make the DPD sound. I include as Annex 1 to the report a list of all of the changes suggested by the East Northamptonshire Council during various stages of the examination, except where a change is superseded by a change within the main report. Where I refer to a change number in the body of my report this is emboldened within the list at Annex 1. As the changes to the development strategy for Oundle, section 8 of the DPD, are so extensive these are set out separately as Annex 2. All other changes listed in Annex 1 are of a minor nature required to update the DPD or to otherwise correct or clarify the document. I endorse and agree that these additional changes should be made. Any consequential minor corrections, such as paragraph numbering, spelling or grammatical errors may also be corrected.

1.10 As this is a site allocations DPD the Council have prepared a submission proposals map to illustrate the areas of land to which the policies and proposals in the DPD apply. These include allocations for specific land uses and settlement boundaries. I have considered representations made on the proposals map as if they were made to the relevant DPD policy and in terms of the criteria for boundary definition. However, as the proposals map itself is not part of the DPD (see paragraph 2.6 below), I am able only to make suggestions as to the way the proposals map is drawn at adoption. The Council have produced a list of proposed changes to the proposals map (prefixed ‘PM’) which are included in Annex 3 to this report and which I endorse. Within my report I deal only with those areas or boundaries which have been subject to representation and where I do not agree with the Council’s interpretation of the DPD criteria. Possible changes to the proposals map, when adopted, are identified in bold italics in this report.

2 Legal Requirements

2.1 For the most part I am satisfied that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. However, there are three exceptions, which I consider below.

Consistency with the Local Development Scheme

2.2 Section 19(1) of the 2004 Act requires local development documents to be prepared in accordance with the Local Development Scheme (LDS). A joint LDS for North Northamptonshire approved in March 2007 shows the submission of the RNOTP as September 2007 when, in fact, it was not submitted until January 2008. This is a technical breach of this statutory requirement but the examination stage has been delayed to allow for further consultation on a number of soundness issues. It would not, in my opinion, be in the public interest to delay the adoption of this DPD any further. The Council’s suggested change U012 provides an update of the position.

5 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

2.3 In terms of the content of the DPD, the mixture of “strategic” policies with detailed development control and site allocations policies comes within the description of the document under the “Role and subject” section of the Local Development Scheme. I drew attention to the fact that reference is made in paragraph 6.19 of the DPD to the adoption of the Open Space Strategy as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) but this was not included in the March 2007 Local Development Scheme available at submission. However, since then, the 2008 Planning Act together with the 2009 amendment regulations have removed the requirements for SPDs to be listed in the Local Development Scheme.

List of superseded policies

2.4 Appendix 1 of the DPD identifies the policies in existing plans which will be superseded by policies in the DPD to meet the requirements of Regulation 13(5). As agreed during the examination it is not appropriate to include the Core Strategy or other DPDs in this list and the Council have produced an amended version which fully meets the statutory requirements.

2.5 Appendix 1 of the DPD shall be replaced by the proposed amended version, as set out in Annex 1 to this report.

The submission proposals map

2.6 As stated in Regulation 6(1)(b) the submission proposals map is a Local Development Document which sits separately within the LDF and is updated each time a DPD is adopted. The statutory procedures for adoption of the proposals map differ from those for the DPD itself. Although it may for practical purposes be attached to this DPD that can only be until such time as another DPD is adopted within the Local Development Framework for East Northamptonshire. I have amended suggested change U097 to that effect (Annex 1).

2.7 The Proposals Map shall be deleted from the RNOTP and included within the Local Development Framework as a Local Development Document.

6 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Other statutory requirements

2.8 The Statement of Community Involvement was produced jointly by the North Northamptonshire Councils, found sound by the Secretary of State and was formally adopted in October 2006. It is evident from the documents submitted by the Council, including the Regulation 28 and 31 Statements and its Self Assessment Paper, that the Council has followed the SCI procedures for public consultation closely. I am satisfied that the submitted DPD is sound in this regard.

2.9 It is evident (Docs. 310 & 333) that the Council have carried out a process of sustainability appraisal alongside the preparation of the DPD. A revised sustainability appraisal has been carried out supporting the changes put forward after submission (Doc. 921)

2.10 Parts of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area /Ramsar site lie within the plan area. Appropriate Assessment Screening under the Habitats Regulations was carried out but following representations by Natural England a revised assessment was prepared in April 2008 (Doc. 332). In particular, the green infrastructure proposals in Policy 6 may impinge on the SPA. I agree that the suggested additions to the policy and supporting text are necessary to make clear that any effects on the European site will be mitigated to satisfy the Regulations. The Appropriate Assessment Screening report has been updated further in document 922.

2.11 Policy 6 and its supporting text shall be amended in accordance with proposed changes U030 and 031, as set out in Annex 1 to this report.

2.12 I am satisfied that the DPD has regard to national policy.

2.13 The East Midland Regional Assembly indicated at submission that the DPD was in general conformity with the then approved Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8). In March 2009 the East Midlands Regional Plan was approved by the Secretary of State and replaced RSS8. Subsequently, on 21st April 2009, the Regional Assembly confirmed that the RNOTP remains in general conformity with the Regional Plan.

2.14 I am satisfied that the DPD has had regard to the sustainable community strategy for the area.

2.15 I am satisfied that the DPD complies with the specific requirements of the 2004 Regulations including the requirements in relation to publication of the prescribed documents; availability of them for inspection and local advertisement; notification of DPD bodies and provision of a list of superseded saved policies.

2.16 Accordingly, I am satisfied that, subject to the changes identified above, the legal requirements have all been satisfied.

7 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3 Justified; Effective and Consistent with National Policy

3.1 In this section I consider in turn each of the main matters which I have identified as relevant to my consideration of the soundness of the submitted DPD. I have considered the submitted representations as part of the process of identifying these matters. Sitespecific issues are included under the appropriate main matter except for the special policies relating to individual sites in the countryside and settlement boundaries, as shown on the proposals map, which I consider at the end of this report.

Matter A. The scope and timescale of the plan. Issues: 1. Whether the DPD is an adequately spatial plan in its overall scope and content. 2. Whether the plan period should be extended to cover 15 years from the likely date of adoption later in 2009. 3. Whether individual policies in the DPD are consistent with, or unnecessarily duplicate, national planning policy guidance and policies in the adopted Core Spatial Strategy for North Northamptonshire. 4. Should the DPD include a trajectory and strategy for the development of previously developed land?

3.2 Issue 1: A spatial plan. Paragraph 2.1 of PPS12 gives guidance on the nature of Spatial Planning. An important aspect of this is that spatial planning involves far more than conventional land use planning. It should be a means to ensure the coordination of programmes and policies across a broad spectrum of agencies in order to shape the future of an area.

3.3 Section 3 of the RNOTP includes a clear vision for the area and a distinct set of outcomes which would require the involvement of a wide range of agencies for their achievement. The Monitoring Framework also shows the extent to which the delivery of the various policies will involve decisions and activities by other public sector bodies. Nevertheless, the majority of the policies in the plan are phrased in terms of the decisionmaking responsibility of the Local Planning Authority, mostly in terms of the consideration of planning applications. I consider this to be a somewhat narrow approach which does not fully recognise the potential of spatial planning. For example, more direct expression might have been given to the initiatives suggested in the Rural Strategy.

3.4 I recognise, though, that this document started life as a local plan review. The early preparatory “Design for the future” stages of the document were extended and converted to those required under the 2004 Act. I suspect that the document might well have been somewhat different in nature had it been started afresh as part of the Local Development Framework process. I

8 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

do not go so far as to conclude that the document is unsound for these reasons and I am sure that in the future, with a clear understanding of what is required, there will be ample opportunity to remedy these shortcomings.

3.5 As I state in paragraph 2.3 above, the overall scope and content of this DPD comes within its relevant description in the local development scheme. I agree, however, that the term used for section 4 “strategic” policies has the potential to confuse with the rôle of the Core Spatial Strategy and I endorse the Council’s proposed change (H002) to “Area wide spatial policies”.

3.6 Issue 2: The plan period. In the context of the delivery of housing, the advice in PPS3 paragraph 53 is that the policies and strategies in local development documents should enable the continuous supply of housing for at least 15 years from adoption. Paragraph 4.13 of the more recently issued PPS12, referring only to Core Strategies, states that the time horizon should be 15 years.

3.7 I am aware that the issue of the time horizon for the Core Strategy was discussed during the examination of that DPD. In his report the Inspector supports the 2021 enddate for the strategy but acknowledges that an early review will be required which will carry the plan forward to 2026 in accordance with the emerging revision of RSS8. That review is now under way.

3.8 Thus, the fact of the matter is that to remain consistent with the Core Strategy this DPD should not prejudge decisions about the distribution of housing development between 2021 and 2024 which will need to be taken as part of the Core Strategy review. Given the largely rural nature of this plan area it cannot be assumed that development should necessarily continue, even in the towns of Thrapston and Oundle, at the same annual rate as during the current plan period. That would be but one of the options to be considered during the Core Strategy review. However, as I set out later in this report, I consider it essential that this DPD should comply with the principles of PPS3 to demonstrate that the housing provisions of the Core Strategy can be delivered up to 2021. At the very least, to comply with paragraph 55 of PPS3, a supply of specific and developable (i.e. allocated) sites should be identified up to 10 years from adoption in 2009.

3.9 Issue 3: Consistency with national and strategic policies. In this section of my report I deal with those policies, or parts of policies, which are not considered under other matters later in this report and for which I consider there are outstanding issues. Thus, not every policy discussed under Matter A is listed.

3.10 Housing density, policy 2 and policy 10. The last sentence in policy 2 puts a blanket restriction on an increase in density when

9 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

existing “windfall” residential sites are redeveloped, whether they be in town or village locations. This part of the policy is not only contrary to advice in PPS3, which seeks to make the most effective use of previously developed land and the regional target for this in policy 3 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, but it runs directly counter to criterion f) of policy 15 in the adopted CSS. There is no clear justification for such a policy.

3.11 Furthermore, the reference to density in criterion c) is unnecessary because it is a product of the elements of site design and layout which are already covered.

3.12 However, I consider that the rest of policy 2 is adequate to achieve the control sought by the Council with an emphasis on good design which reflects advice in PPS1 as well as PPS3. I accept that the definition of “windfall development” could include green field sites should they fall within settlement boundaries but these will be few and the approach does not conflict with the CSS. The clarification of the scope of the policy provided by suggested change H006 is an important one in this regard but paragraph 4.10 as submitted includes within the definition of a windfall site “new development on the edge of villages where permitted under exceptional circumstances to meet local needs”. I recognise that this is taken from CSS policy 1 but it is not indicated in that policy that such sites are to be treated as windfalls. These are highly likely to be green field and would cover rural exception sites under policy 21 or such sites might be allocated to meet local needs, as suggested in paragraph 6.14. Such sites are not “windfall” in terms of PPS3 guidance. I do not agree that it is necessary, nor would it add value, to include a crossreference to CSS policy 1 as suggested by the Council. Rather, the reference should be deleted as unsound because it is contrary to national policy guidance.

3.13 Although there is a modicum of support for policy 10 in the representations it overlaps with policy 2 to some extent. In the face of criticism from the Government Office the Council have suggested a change S007 (U034) to add a crossreference to policy 2 and CSS policy 14 (adopted 13). To my mind such an addition is not only unnecessary but CSS policy 13, which is part of this Local Development Framework, already covers the same policy area to equal, if not more, effect and so this policy is superfluous. Not only that but it runs counter to the advice in paragraph 50 of PPS3 as it seeks to relate the density of new housing to existing densities. It does not represent a development of either PPS or CSS policy towards a density policy having regard to the factors identified in paragraph 46 of PPS3.

3.14 These aspects of RNOTP policy are unsound for the reasons stated. They are superfluous and so can be deleted with no effect on the overall strategy.

10 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

In order to make the DPD sound the following changes shall be made:

In paragraph 4.10, lines 46, the text “; and new development on the edge of villages that is permitted under exceptional circumstances justified on the basis of local need” shall be deleted.

The introductory paragraph of policy 2 shall be amended in accordance with suggested change H006.

Criterion c) in policy 2 shall be amended to commence “the scale and siting of any dwellings …”

The final sentence of policy 2 (Proposals … permitted.) shall be deleted;

Policy 10 and the accompanying text, paragraph 5.1, shall be deleted.

3.15 Flood Risk, policy 9. The inclusion of a 200 year standard of flood risk protection does not accord with PPS25 guidance and although I note the justification in paragraph 4.32 of the DPD this does not clearly relate to areas beyond the Nene flood plain at Thrapston. Nevertheless, I accept that there is justification for this standard in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA).

3.16 The Council have proposed change H008 to add the words “wherever possible” to the 4th paragraph in the policy which supports Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). As worded the “support” given to SUDS is conditional upon arrangements being made for long term maintenance and inspection. This comes from a recommendation in the SFRA. However, I am concerned that the amendment would be somewhat ambiguous. I recommend a more positive wording which more closely reflects the approach advocated in paragraph F14 of PPS25.

3.17 I agree that, for consistency, the policy should make reference to the flood risk zones shown on the Proposals Map. This requires a small change to the first paragraph.

In order to make the DPD sound the following changes shall be made to policy 9:

In the first paragraph, second line insert “(as shown on the proposals map)” after “flooding”;

The 4th paragraph shall be deleted and replaced by the following “Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) should be used wherever practicable. Planning conditions or obligations will ensure that the funding of the maintenance and inspection of the facility is guaranteed for the life of the development.”

11 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.18 Windfarms, policy 16. I recognise that there is wideranging support for this policy but Government policy is clear on the matter. The advice in paragraph 1(iii) of PPS22 is that policies which place constraints on the development of renewable energy technologies should not be included in local development documents. The more recent PPS1 on climate change goes further with paragraph 19 stating that policies should promote and not restrict such development and in the second bullet point of paragraph 20 stating that “the most exceptional circumstances” would be required to preclude renewable energy development. Paragraph 3.3.86 of the recently approved East Midlands Regional Plan urges the setting of criteria which “guide and inform” the location of such development.

3.19 I do not consider that policy 16 achieves this function. It may not amount to a “blanket ban” on development but it is highly negative in its wording and sets many hurdles to cross. I am not convinced that the landscape or environment of East Northamptonshire is so sensitive that there is justification for the inclusion of this policy contrary to a clear Government policy line; one appeal decision does not amount to such justification. The policy is unsound.

3.20 Furthermore, virtually all of the policy criteria are covered elsewhere in the RNOTP or under the “Protect assets” section of CSS Policy 13. Broader climate change issues are also covered in the CSS, this forming part of the LDF. In my opinion deletion of policy 16 and its accompanying text would have little effect on the integrity of the plan as a whole.

In order to make the DPD sound policy 16 and text paragraphs 5.2426 inclusive shall be deleted.

3.21 Parish Plans and Village Design Statements, policy 17. Paragraph 5.29 of the DPD correctly summarises the guidance in PPS1 and PPS7, paragraph 13. What that guidance says is that parish plans and village design statements may be used as tools to inform policies in the DPD, not that they should have such status as to be taken into account in the determination of planning applications. These are not statutory documents and at most might become supplementary planning documents if they support a DPD policy and do not allocate sites.

3.22 The Local Planning Authority may take any relevant matter into account as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications but this need not be stated in a DPD. As it is, I consider that the policy goes too far and is unsound because it does not comply with PPS7 advice. It should be deleted although paragraph 5.29 may remain, for information.

In order to make the DPD sound policy 17 shall be deleted.

12 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.23 Considerate construction, policy 18. This is purely a statement of intent and has no clear spatial element. Nevertheless, it has a laudable environmental objective which, I consider, brings it within the ambit of paragraph 32 of PPS1 and thus sound.

3.24 Issue 4: Trajectory for previouslydeveloped land. The advice in paragraph 43 of PPS3 is that a previouslydeveloped land (pdl) target and trajectory should be included in local development documents with reference in the following paragraph to the development of a delivery strategy. There is no target or trajectory in this DPD.

3.25 CSS policy 9 requires LPAs to implement brownfield development strategies to ensure that at least 30% of the overall housing requirements for North Northamptonshire are provided on previouslydeveloped land and buildings. In paragraph 3.81 it is stated that East Northamptonshire is expected to achieve 5060%. Of course, this is a districtwide figure.

3.26 I appreciate that a wide range of assumptions has had to be made about the likely contribution from “windfall” sites which are previously developed land (which includes garden areas). This plan area is also largely rural and I accept that a trajectory for the plan area alone would be of limited value. Nevertheless, it is a matter of concern that the districtwide trajectory which has been produced appears to show little more than 30% of all housing completions being achieved on previouslydeveloped land in future years.

3.27 I accept that in the particular circumstances applying to this partarea DPD it would not be appropriate to include either a target or trajectory and that the plan is not unsound because of it. Nevertheless, I would expect a districtwide trajectory to be included in the Annual Monitoring Report and this will need to feed into the review of the CSS. Consideration will also need to be given to the development of a brownfield development strategy at district and/or HMA level.

13 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Matter B. Housing supply and delivery. Issues: 1. Conformity with PPS3 guidance. In particular: a. whether a Housing Implementation Strategy should be included in the DPD; b. whether the requirement to identify a supply of housing land over 5, 10 and 15 year periods should be assessed district wide, for this plan area or subdivisions of it as given in Table 5 under Policy 10 of the CSS; c. the justification for including an allowance for rural windfalls in the housing trajectory rural area during the first 10 years post adoption.

2. Whether the SHMA provides an adequately robust and credible evidence base to support the thresholds and percentage requirements for different house sizes in Policy 11.

3.28 Issue 1a: The need to include a Housing Implementation Strategy. Contrary to the clear advice in paragraph 62 of PPS3 the submitted DPD does not include a Housing Implementation Strategy. I agree with the Government Office that this makes that aspect of the DPD unsound. Thus the Council’s suggested change (H001), as updated by further changes U00912, to include such a strategy is clearly necessary.

3.29 In order to make the DPD sound a new section, headed “Housing Implementation Strategy”, shall be added to follow paragraph 1.18 in accordance with suggested change H001 as amended by changes U00912, as set out in Annex 1 to this report.

3.30 Issue 1b: The identification of housing land supply at district, plan and subarea level. As I have indicated under Matter A, Issue 2, there are good reasons why this DPD need only identify sites for housing development until 2021.

3.31 The Council have produced detailed information during the examination, and also referred to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment published only in February 2009, which demonstrates to my satisfaction that, by making reasonable assumptions about the delivery of allocated sites, the fiveyear requirement across the district as a whole can be satisfied. This is somewhat of a departure from a strict interpretation of PPS3 which would require this to be demonstrated for “at the point of adoption of the relevant Local Development Document” which can only mean for what is more conventionally termed “the plan area”.

3.32 As indicated in paragraph 60 of PPS3 the process of ensuring a continuous fiveyear supply of deliverable site available for housing is linked to the monitoring process through the

14 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

production of an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). The current AMR is produced districtwide and I accept that for practicable purposes this will need to continue but, in the future, it will be necessary to monitor in relation to subareas also.

3.33 Difficulties have arisen in this examination because the RNOTP is a subdistrict plan for which there is no distinct strategic context deriving from the adopted CSS as to the level of housing provision required for the plan area. The adopted Core Strategy (Policy 10 Table 5) relates to the settlement hierarchy and divides East Northamptonshire into the three “smaller towns” which are grouped for this purpose, the three rural service centres and “East Northamptonshire rural”. The DPD covering the three smaller towns, where the majority of new development is to take place, and the rural service centre of Raunds, has not yet been published.

3.34 I consider it to be significant that separate figures are given in Table 5 of the CSS for housing provision in different parts of plan area. Despite the fact that the figures in CSS Table 5 are said to be indicative it is clear that a considerable amount of work was put into justifying them. CSS Policy 10 also states “Development plan documents will make provision for the amounts of housing development (net new dwellings) in the named settlements or group of settlements as set out in Table 5.”

3.35 The NNJPU have suggested that as the strategy steers more development to Thrapston than Oundle any shortfall in provision in Oundle could be made up by additional provision in Thrapston. However, I can find nothing in the adopted CSS to suggest that it would be appropriate for such virement to occur. To the contrary, both Oundle and Thrapston are “named settlements” under the terms of Policy 10. Unlike Rushden, Higham Ferrers and Irthlingborough they are not grouped and the towns have equal status within the hierarchy.

3.36 Consequently, I consider that it is necessary for the evidence base to show, in PPS3 terms, that the CSS Policy 10 requirements for housing delivery can be met for the towns of Thrapston and Oundle individually. As I discuss later this has been achieved for Thrapston but for Oundle, much additional work has had to be undertaken by the Council during the examination to establish that this can be done.

3.37 The position of the rural area is different. It is explicitly stated in paragraph 3.86 of the adopted CSS that the housing figures in Table 5 are indicative and the assumptions behind the figure are explained therein. This is envisaged to be largely through windfall development within village boundaries as provided for in CSS Policy 1.

15 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.38 The Council have estimated, based upon past completions, that the rural part of this plan area might be assumed to provide 92% of the rural area figure in CSS Table 5, i.e. 1343 out of 1460 dwellings. I have some reservations about such an approach, mainly because the policy to reduce the proportion of housing development outside the main towns and villages might alter the balance. However, this does not make the plan unsound. There is no more certain a methodology available and the situation will need to be monitored.

3.39 Existing planning permissions within the rural area total 120 dwellings deliverable within 5 years and there are only 168 dwellings allocated in the three service centres of King’s Cliffe, Nassington and Warmington together. Even assuming a blanket “windfall trend” figure of 43 a year, as discussed further below, this would yield 559 over the 13 years 200821, or just under 730 dwellings in total including the 168 dwellings on allocated sites. The 2008based residual requirement would be 945 dwellings, leaving a shortfall of 215 dwellings to be allocated to meet the requirements of CSS Table 5 (policy 10). If windfalls are excluded in the first five years the shortfall is 56 greater.

3.40 It is evident that the CSS figure is a kind of residual figure to make up the districtwide provision. It is not a target to be met or a minimum. Other than at King’s Cliffe, CSS policy 1 permits development outside village boundaries only “in exceptional circumstances, if it can be clearly demonstrated that it is required in order to meet local needs for housing, employment or services.” If the rural element was to be “ring fenced” then significant additional allocations would have to be made by extensions to villages. That would not be a sustainable option and would not accord with the spatial strategy or its objectives.

3.41 I consider that as it has been demonstrated that the allocations for Thrapston and Oundle can be met and that, in aggregate, the planwide requirement can also be met, the DPD complies with the Core Strategy and is sound in this regard. I also consider it to be of significance that a districtwide trajectory demonstrates that additional sites might be brought forward in Raunds and the Three Towns to meet CSS requirements to 2021 in accordance with PPS3 guidance. Unfortunately, the DPDs for those areas fall outside my remit for this examination and so I am unable to test whether the suggested allocations, particularly for years 610, are PPS3 compliant. This is a matter which will need to be resolved through subsequent examinations.

3.42 There is one element of the CSS spatial strategy which is given but passing reference in this DPD, in paragraphs 2.12 and 4.13, and that is the sustainable urban extension to the northeast of Corby, otherwise known as Priors Hall. This overlaps into East Northamptonshire but, in accordance with the Milton Keynes and South Midlands subregional strategy (MKSM) provision is made

16 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

for it in the Corby total housing allocation. It is a strategic site but there was no submission proposals map with the CSS. So to be consistent the area, including sites for a local centre and primary school, should be identified on the proposals map adopted at the same time as this DPD.

3.43 When the proposals map is first adopted in accordance with Regulation 14(4) it should show that part of the development area northeast of Corby which comes within East Northamptonshire district with an indexed reference to the relevant statements in the DPD (paragraphs 2.12 and 4.13).

3.44 Issue 1c: The inclusion of an allowance for rural windfalls in the first 10 years of the housing trajectory. The planwide housing trajectory as originally produced for the examination relied upon an assumption that unidentified “rural windfalls”, i.e. permitted under the terms of CSS policy 1 and RNOTP policy 2, will continue at a rate of 43 a year over the plan period. However, for such an approach, at least for the first 10 years post adoption, to comply with guidance in paragraph 59 of PPS3 it is necessary to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist.

3.45 Consequently, I asked the Council whether they would be able to demonstrate, through the production of a revised trajectory for the RNOTP to 2021, that the CSS requirements can be met omitting any rural windfall allowance. However, I find that the resultant trajectory would distort the pattern of development by significantly underestimating the rural total and would also rely on longerterm sites in both Oundle and Thrapston coming forward before year 11 (2019) as well as taking the total amount of housing development in those towns well beyond the CSS (Table 5) requirements. Whether the identified longterm sites in Oundle and Thrapston should come forward before that date, by 2021 or a later date, is a matter for CSS review.

3.46 It is an important aspect of the CSS strategy for rural East Northamptonshire that, in the interests of sustainable development, the scale of housing development in smaller settlements should be more closely related to local need. The NNJPU, with responsibility for production of the CSS, have clarified that the figure given for the rural area in Table 5 of the CSS assumes a continuing but decreasing contribution from small scale infilling within villages, conversion of buildings and affordable housing, none of which can be easily allocated. This approach was endorsed in the Inspector’s report on his examination of the Core Strategy and subsequently the SHLAA has concluded that there is clear evidence for the inclusion of a windfall element in rural housing land supply, although not within the first 5 years of the trajectory. I also think it significant that the Government Office consider that the policy background applying in East Northamptonshire amounts to the

17 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

exceptional circumstances required to satisfy paragraph 59 of PPS3.

3.47 For all of these reasons I consider that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the inclusion of an allowance within the housing trajectory for windfall sites in the rural settlements.

3.48 Overall conclusion on Issue 1. I am satisfied that the DPD is sound in terms of its compliance with PPS3 guidance, in so far as that relates to the aggregate planwide housing provision. It follows that I do not consider there to be any justification for the allocation of additional sites in settlements within the plan area, other than in Oundle. PPS3 does not require the trajectory to be included within the DPD itself and so its omission would not render the DPD unsound. This is recognised in the suggested additional text (change U010) on the Housing Implementation strategy replacing paragraph 1.19 (see paragraph 3.28 above).

3.49 Issue 3: Justification for policy 11. The introductory section of policy 11 repeats national policy to encourage a mix of housing types to achieve mixed communities. The generalised reference to taking account of the findings of the SHMA is of no value in a policy. It is for the LPA to do that in formulating the policy.

3.50 I recognise that there is some justification for the approach from the conclusions reached in the SHMA but, to my mind, this does not warrant the lack of flexibility through the setting of site size thresholds with fixed percentage requirements. The wardbased analysis which supplements the SHMA relies heavily on 2001 census data. In my assessment it is not sufficiently robust to justify a policy of this detail. This appears to be recognised by the qualifications stated in the introductory paragraphs to Fordham’s secondary data analysis (Doc. 323).

3.51 The policy suggested in the SHMA for larger housing developments, i.e. of over 50 dwellings, is subject to the proviso “where a new community is being developed” which, within the RNOTP area, applies in practice only to the larger allocated sites in Oundle and Thrapston. As such I consider that the mix in the first criterion is sound.

3.52 Although the analysis in Table 4 of Doc. 323 indicates that more, larger dwellings are needed in Thrapston with more, smaller dwellings in most of the other wards within the RNOTP area there is a fair degree of variation in terms of the degree of the perceived mismatch. The data certainly does not justify the “at least 60%” requirement across the plan area outside Thrapston and the larger sites in Oundle.

3.53 I consider that the evidence supports no more than an indication that the balance of house types should be “mainly” within the

18 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

stated sizes and, in all cases this should be subject to the caveat that local needs surveys may suggest an alternative mix. I see no reason why this provision should be limited to the affordable housing sector. The advice in paragraph 22 of PPS3 refers to the profile of household types requiring market housing. The footnote suggested by change S008 (U035) can be incorporated within the policy.

3.54 In order to make the DPD sound, all but the final paragraph of policy 11 shall be deleted and replaced by the following text:

New housing development should include a mix of housing types to take account of local need. Unless specific housing needs information is available to suggest a more appropriate mix, proposals for new housing (including affordable housing) should provide:

1. On sites of over 50 units, an even split between 2,3 and 4 bed house types;

2. On smaller sites in Thrapston, a mix of house types to include mainly 3, 4 or more bedrooms;

3. On smaller sites other than in Thrapston, a mix which includes mainly 1 or 2 bedroom house types.

19 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Matter C. Infrastructure and Phasing. The strategies for Oundle and Thrapston. Issues: 1. The approach to infrastructure provision. 2. The inclusion of a phasing policy.

3.55 Under this heading I shall deal with general principles as to the provision of infrastructure and the inclusion of policies for the phased release of land for housing. I consider the choice of sites for housing, employment and other uses in each of the towns of Oundle and Thrapston in the following sections of this report before returning to other matters.

3.56 Issue 1. The approach to infrastructure provision. As submitted the DPD contains a separate general section on Infrastructure and Phasing with two policies, No. 3 on Phasing in Oundle and No. 4 on Phasing in Thrapston. Both policies suggest that the release of the allocated housing sites is dependent upon the delivery of the necessary infrastructure and services without any clear indication as to what that might mean in terms of the timing. This runs counter to paragraph 55 of PPS3 which requires sites for the first 5 years post adoption (in this case until 2014) to be available now (as an aspect of deliverability) with a reasonable prospect of availability for those sites allocated for years 610.

3.57 These policies are rendered largely superfluous by the more locally specific infrastructure policies for both Oundle (OUN1) and Thrapston (THR1 and 5). Furthermore, these policies are negatively phrased, placing potentially significant constraints on the grant of permission. The guidance in paragraph 4.27 of PPS12 is clear as to the need for timely, effective and conclusive discussion to ensure the deliverability of the chosen options. As I have pointed out, policy 6 in the adopted Core Strategy takes a positive approach to the timely delivery of infrastructure.

3.58 For these reasons, the approach taken in the submitted DPD is unsound. Thus, following an exploratory meeting, the Council have put forward an everevolving series of suggested changes primarily focussed on the need to meet community concerns in Oundle about the capacity of the local highway network to deal with the cumulative impact of developments in the town.

3.59 The first set of published changes, in June 2008, suggest (S004/ U025) the merging of policies 3 and 4 with policies OUN1 and THR5 respectively. I agree that suggested change U025 is necessary in the interests of effectiveness. This leaves a truncated section on Infrastructure and Phasing with minor wording changes U0224, together with a new paragraph on the Housing trajectory (change U026 and 027). I agree that the trajectory itself is better kept within the Annual Monitoring

20 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Report because it will need to be updated annually to reflect changing circumstances. It is no more than an indication of where development will occur and by when.

3.60 The Council have also suggested (changes H013 and H019) a re phrasing of policies OUN1 and THR1 to make them more positive. However, this applies only to the introduction. Even when changed the policies would still require developers to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure and services will be in place. The wording used in policy THR1 is acceptable in so far as it comes within the terms of Circular 05/2005 with regard to the contributions a developer might reasonably expected to make to serve the development proposed but a different approach is taken in policy OUN1.

3.61 Paragraph 8.2 identifies deficiencies in local infrastructure provision in Oundle and indicates that an holistic approach will need to be taken. However, it is primarily for the planmaking authority to do this, looking across the board at the implications for infrastructural provision of the proposed developments. For allocations to be made there should be a reasonable prospect of development taking place in the timescale envisaged, and that should, in itself, take account of any infrastructure delivery requirements.

3.62 I consider it to be most unfortunate that a key stakeholder, namely the County Highway Authority, should have found it necessary to make formal representation that the suggested amended text for paragraph 8.3 (change H012) still did not present the correct position with regard to further traffic studies and modelling work for Oundle. However, the revised wording agreed with the County Council only a week before the further hearings (changes U0624) makes the position very clear and that wording should be included for the DPD to be sound. I think it important to note that there is strategic “clearance” for no more than the 610 dwellings provided for in CSS Table 5. Otherwise the suggested new paragraph (change U064) and replacement additional policy text (change U066) make clear that transport assessments will be required for each site in accordance with Department of Transport guidance, which covers the cumulative effect on traffic movements.

3.63 As a result of these changes I consider it to be unduly onerous and beyond Government policy guidance to include a general policy requirement to demonstrate cumulative impact. The statement in policy OUN1 that the rate of development will be dependent upon the delivery of the necessary infrastructure remains unduly negative in stance and should reflect the positive wording of CSS policy 6, i.e. development “will be supported by the provision of the necessary infrastructure”.

21 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.64 Finally on the issue of infrastructure, it has been suggested that the continued reference to community concerns within suggested change U061 to paragraph 8.3 is unnecessary. This is a statement of fact and I do not consider that its inclusion is unsound.

3.65 In order to make the DPD sound the following changes shall be made:

Paragraph 8.3 shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes U0614 inclusive, as set out in Annex 1 to this report.

Policy OUN1 shall be amended to read: “Planning permission will be granted for the development of the sites outlined at policies OUN2OUN4 of this plan provided it can be demonstrated that any additional infrastructure, services and facilities required to support the development will be provided as it proceeds. In respect of transport infrastructure, transport assessments for all major sites will need to be undertaken in accordance with PPG13 and the Department for Transport guidance, to the satisfaction of the highway authority. Other necessary infrastructure requirements will need to be addressed by the developer to the satisfaction of the relevant statutory undertakers.”

The indicator and targets under policy OUN1 shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes U098, U099 and H014,

Policy THR1 shall be amended in accordance with suggested change U085, as set out in Annex 1 to this report.

3.66 Issue 2. The inclusion of a phasing policy. As submitted policy THR5 states that development would be phased in line with the projected availability of school places. No further detail is given nor was there clear evidence to support any restriction of this nature. Consequently, the Council effectively withdrew this provision through change H020. It is unjustified and thus unsound. I do not regard the remaining policy to be a true phasing policy because it relates to one site (Thrapston South) only.

3.67 In Oundle, submitted policy OUN3 allocates two sites and indicates that development would be focused on site 1 (Ashton Road/Herne Road) with longer term needs met through development on a greenfield site at Creed Road. The reference to “phasing” in the title of policy 3 is lost in the suggested merger as is the reference to development being “related to” the

22 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

delivery of a high quality business development at East Road under policy OUN2. This linkage is unjustified and hence unsound.

3.68 Through the process of the examination the Council’s position has evolved. During the hearings in October 2008 the Council conceded that they could not justify giving preference to the Ashton Road site over the Creed Road site even though the latter is in a more peripheral, less sustainable location. In the submitted DPD the target for commencement at Ashton/Herne Road is 2011 with that for Creed Road as 2013 but in the advertised posthearing change H016 the target for commencement at Creed Road is brought forward to 2011 (see below).

3.69 In paragraph 3 of the note attached to my letter of 31 October 2008 I indicate that the submitted DPD is unsound because it fails to allocate sites for housing in Oundle necessary to meet the CSS requirements at least to year 10 postadoption. In response, the Council have identified additional sites (see paragraph 3.82 below) but have also chosen to suggest a significant restructuring and rewording of the Oundle section of the DPD with two distinct policies, OUN3 and OUN4. Revised policy OUN3 (as in change IN027) would list 3 sites in “phase 1” with a timescale of up to 2014. All 3 sites have a target (H016(3)) for commencement of 2011. A new policy OUN4 (change IN029), described as “phase 2” would be prefixed by the words “After 2013, the release of an additional site … is proposed” which date is also repeated in the target (IN029(3)). It is this version of the policies which was consulted upon in February and March 2009 and has been subject to sustainability appraisal. Thus, in both the submitted DPD and the published changes there are phasing policies for the Oundle housing sites.

3.70 Only a week before the hearing on 30 April 2009, largely in response to the County Highway Authority’s comments, the Council came forward with a further suggested change to remove the references to phasing altogether and to regroup the sites under policy OUN4 on a geographical basis. The target dates for commencement remain the same except that for Glapthorn Road it is stated to be 2014 rather than 2013 (change U079).

3.71 Although these further very late changes were notified to those involved in the hearings and were posted on the web site I do not consider that the publicity was sufficiently wide. Despite the Council’s protestation that there had never been a phasing policy, only an indication as to the estimated delivery date, I do not agree that this is a reasonable interpretation of either the submitted DPD or the published changes. The submitted DPD includes a clear policy intention to prioritise the Ashton/Herne Road site and the published changes, as stated above, include a

23 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

specific indication that phase 2 is for release after 2013. Thus I consider that the latest prehearing changes represent a significant change of emphasis. To compound the situation the posthearing changes schedule includes yet further wording changes to both policies OUN3 (change U070) and OUN4 (change U077) which have had very limited circulation. Oundle Town Council have rightly expressed concern about the nature of the further changes made and the abandonment of phasing. For procedural reasons I consider that it is wrong to alter the basic approach of the policies at such a late stage and consider that I am only able to include changes based upon those published in February subject to minor or inconsequential adjustments to ensure that they are up to date.

3.72 I also consider that an element of phasing is appropriate to ensure not only that local infrastructural provision is provided to support development but also to manage housing supply over the plan period in accordance with the Core Spatial Strategy. I refer to paragraph 3.60 of the CSS which states that local policies should ensure that the supply of housing in East Northamptonshire is not exhausted early in the plan period.

3.73 The assumptions made for the purpose of the housing trajectory show all of the plan allocations being developed by 2015 with the full CSS requirement (to 2021) being taken up by 2018. There is no provision at all for the years 2015/2018 which is hardly a “continuing supply of housing land” as required by PPS3. Indeed, on the realistic assumption that completions will be at a low rate until at least mid2010, followed (optimistically) by a very marked peak in 20113, this might be described as a “boom and bust” scenario.

3.74 This would suggest that in order to ensure a continuing supply of housing in accordance with PPS3, phase 2 ought to be held back, ideally until 2016, but that option has not been discussed or consulted upon. In the circumstances I consider that the revised policies should continue to refer to phase 1 and 2 as in the published changes although an adjustment of (new) policy OUN4 to commence after 2014 would be logical to avoid overlap of the phases, to smooth the supply and to take account of the probable 2009 adoption date, with the phasing relating to years 15 and 610. This is as in change U079.

3.75 The revised policies and text for the Oundle Housing Strategy section of the DPD, paragraphs 8.711 with policy OUN3 and new OUN4 are set out in a separate Annex 2 to this report. See paragraph 3.90 following my consideration of more detailed Oundle housing issues, including alternative sites.

24 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Oundle – sitespecific issues: 1. Housing – a. the detailed provisions of policy OUN3; b. whether additional sites should be allocated in this DPD and the consideration of alternative site options. 2. The East Road employment site policy OUN2. 3. School sites – policies OUN4 and OUN 5

3.76 Issue 1: a. Policy OUN3 provisions. Policy OUN3 sets detailed requirements for both allocated sites. The Council accepted that there is no longer any justification for the safeguarding of land on the Ashton Road/Herne Road site for additional educational facilities in association with the adjacent Prince William School. That aspect of the policy is unsound and I agree with the Council’s suggested changes in that regard (U070 and H017).

3.77 In view of the size of the Ashton Road/Herne Road site and its highly sustainable location it would be contrary to PPS3 advice to assume any lower a density than 30 dwellings per hectare. The concerns of residents about traffic conditions in the vicinity generated largely by the school and exacerbated by onstreet parking are preexisting factors which should be taken into account in the traffic assessment required under policy OUN1. I am not convinced that this aspect justifies the “up to 145 dwellings” restriction in the policy and consider that the “around” terminology used for the Creed Road site would provide greater flexibility. It may not be strictly necessary to include the detailed criteria for a masterplan but I do not regard that aspect as unsound. A similar consideration applies to the detailed masterplan requirements for the Creed Road site. The change (U077) to the estimate of dwelling numbers for that site is simply an update.

3.78 Issue 1: b. Additional and alternative housing sites. The approach to the choice of housing sites in Oundle has proved to be the most contentious issue in this examination. As I indicate in paragraph 3.69 above, the acknowledged failure (DPD paragraph 8.11) to meet PPS3 requirements to allocate specific sites for housing to meet CSS requirements for 10 years post adoption is unsound. As at April 2008 there had been 161 dwelling completions in Oundle since April 2001 leaving 449 to be completed to meet the CSS requirements to 2021, a 13 year period, making the 5 year requirement 173 dwellings. With 9 dwellings under construction and a further 27 with permission, to meet the guidance in paragraph 55 of PPS3, specific deliverable sites should be allocated to provide a total of 137 dwellings and a further 173 dwellings should be allocated on specific developable sites for years 610 (201318), leaving sites for another 103 dwellings to be allocated “where possible” for the remainder of the CSS plan period to 2021. For reasons

25 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

stated in paragraph 3.8 above, I do not consider it appropriate to extend this to year 15 postadoption (now 2024).

3.79 As submitted the DPD identifies only the Ashton/Herne Road site as being developed before 2013. Thus, on the face of it the DPD fails to comply with the PPS3 requirements for a fiveyear supply in Oundle. However, when the two OUN3 sites are taken together with the amended total for Creed Road of 145, they total 290 dwellings and the latest evidence is that development is likely to start on both sites by 2011, so meeting the five year requirement. Furthermore, the districtwide five year supply is adequate. Apart from failing to allocate sufficient land to provide a 10 year supply, the Council have also failed to provide convincing reasons for not being able to allocate specific developable sites for the full plan period, especially as the sites identified in paragraph 8.11 as possible longer term sites are specific. They are not broad locations and might have been expected to have been shown on the proposals map.

3.80 I acknowledge that a review of the CSS has already commenced and that that the Council expect to commence a review of this DPD in mid2010. However, I do not accept as a general approach that this is a reason not to comply with PPS3 guidance relating to allocations for this plan period. Unless planning permission has been granted in the interim, allocations will always be open to review, especially should the national, regional or strategic context change. Thus I conclude that to be sound this DPD should make allocations to satisfy the full CSS requirements.

3.81 A number of alternative sites have been advocated through the DPD preparation process. These include the four possible longerterm sites identified in submitted DPD paragraph 8.11. A comparative sustainability study by RTP (Doc. 322) was used to justify the choice of sites but detailed scrutiny of this document has revealed that the areas assessed are too large and thus insufficiently sensitive to properly weigh the sustainability of the actual development sites or to take sufficient account of potential mitigation measures. At my request the Council commissioned further, more detailed, sustainability work of specific sites (Doc. 923) and I am satisfied that its conclusions are generally robust.

3.82 On this basis I am satisfied that the Council are justified in allocating Ashton Road/Herne Road (RTP matrix score +16). Although Creed Road is marginal (+1) it is a longstanding allocation. As for the additional sites now suggested for allocation the Dairy Farm (+15) scores strongly, as does Glapthorn Road (+7). The two sites included in change U082 as having longerterm potential both obtain scores of +1. It has been explained that the site to the rear of the cemetery, Stoke Doyle Road, was mistakenly listed as discounted in the RTP

26 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

study as the access difficulties can be overcome and I accept that. Many of the discounted sites also attract strongly positive scores but are justifiably discounted as open land. East Road/Eastwood Road scores +15 but, as I discuss below, I consider it is correctly discounted as an employment site.

3.83 Despite the concerns expressed by English Heritage I find no reason why the fact that the buildings at the Dairy Farm, Stoke Doyle Road, are listed need prevent development as a matter of principle. The suggested policy (change IN027) includes criteria to address this issue. Although the suggested policy states “up to 25 dwellings” this was based on an average density. In their final statement the Council acknowledge that only 20 dwellings are assumed in the trajectory due to the constraints and I consider that “around 20” would be a more realistic assumption leaving the final number to be determined at application stage. I do not agree that it would be more appropriate to leave the site unallocated, to come forward as a windfall site. Generally, PPS3 encourages all urban potential sites to be allocated. I accept that this site is deliverable within 5 years.

3.84 The site at Hillfield Road/Glapthorn Road had not previously been promoted through the DPD consultation process by the land owner, Oundle School. Nevertheless, the site had been advocated by the town council as being a well contained accessible site and although reservations have been expressed about traffic generation and potential surface water flooding I have no reason to assume that these are unresolvable issues. As stated in paragraph 8.3, DPD policy 9 applies to flood risk assessment in accordance with PPS25 guidance.

3.85 The site is currently in use as a playing field by Oundle School. Although some have disputed the level of use it is described by Oundle Town Council as “little used”. Evidently, the “Scitech” development permitted in 2004 included the regrading and levelling of a preexisting playing field so it is not, strictly, correct to describe that as a replacement facility for the “New field” at Glapthorn Road (suggested change U076). However, it is clear from the statement provided on behalf of the school that the upgraded facility at Home Close will more than compensate for the loss of New Field, which will effectively be surplus to requirements. There is neither public use of the field nor any prospect of it.

3.86 The Council commissioned an audit and assessment of open space and playing fields from PMP. This study (Doc. 309) indicates that there is no deficiency of open space provision in Oundle, a fact which is borne out by the town council. The recommended local standard of 1.69 ha. of open space per 1000 population, as set out in paragraph 6.21 of the DPD, will not be compromised. Therefore, despite the comments by Sport England, I conclude that PPG17 requirements will be met.

27 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.87 Nevertheless, the site is clearly not “available now” and so is not deliverable within the terms of paragraph 54 of PPS3 but there does seem to be every prospect that it will become available for development by 2014, in other words it is “developable”. In view of my comments about the need to ensure a continuing supply of land for housing I consider that this should remain a “Phase 2” site. An estimate of 80 dwellings capacity may be conservative given the RTP assessment of 100.

3.88 Together the Dairy Farm (20) and Glapthorn Road (80) sites will provide 100 dwellings, the two original allocations 290, yielding 390 out of the 413 required to meet CSS requirements. PPS3 advice does not preclude potential “windfall” developments to be taken into account from year 11 onwards and, given the nature of Oundle, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that 8 (not 34) dwellings a year might be supplied from this source.

3.89 Consequently, I do not consider it to be necessary to allocate either of the identified longerterm sites in Oundle through this DPD. There is no reason why they should not be mentioned but it is an issue for the next review of the CSS whether there is the infrastructural capacity, particularly highways, to accommodate more than the 610 dwellings currently provided for. Paragraph 8.11 as amended by suggested change U082 is correct.

3.90 The suggested changes to the Oundle Housing Strategy section of the DPD are extensive. As I conclude that in order to be sound the DPD should incorporate the two phase approach in the February 2009 published changes with some later updates, I have set these out in full in a separate annex 2 to this report.

3.91 In order to make the DPD sound the Housing Strategy section within chapter 8, paragraphs 8.78.11 and policy OUN3 shall be deleted and replaced by a new section as set out in full in Annex 2 to this report.

3.92 Annex 2 replaces the Council’s suggested changes U06882; IN02532 and H016.

3.93 Issue 2: The East Road Employment Site. There are, in fact, two adjacent employment sites off East Road although they were considered together under the 2006 Atkins Employment Land Review (ELR)(Doc. 316) as site 8. Policy OUN2 relates to the northern part and states that the site is to be redeveloped for high quality, predominantly business class uses. To the south of this lies the Eastwood Road Trading Estate which, as an existing employment site, is shown on the submission proposals map as subject to DPD policy 23. [Note: Policy 23 applies to the sites listed in Appendix 4 which includes the whole 2.07 ha. area of site 8. This is not apparent from the submission proposals map.]

28 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.94 It is an undisputed fact that these sites are very well located close to the town centre on the edge of the conservation area with residential areas, a school and open space in the immediate vicinity. The northern area has been analysed in the latest Roger Tym appraisal of the sustainability of alternative sites for housing (Doc. 923) and scores (+16 overall) equally as highly as Ashton Road/Herne Road, higher than either of the two additional sites put forward by the Council to make up the shortfall in housing land supply. It is on this basis that the two sites have been promoted as a better alternative for housing development.

3.95 With regard to sustainability considerations I consider it to be an essential part of the equation that employment provision is easily accessible from residential areas in order to encourage employees to walk or cycle to work rather than to use cars. Bus services are also more effective in serving town centre locations than outoftown employment areas. Thus the locational advantages of this site for housing apply equally for employment, especially should it in future be primarily within the B1 office sector rather than B2 general industry as provided for in the policy.

3.96 The justification for the approach taken in policy OUN2 stems from the recommendations of the ELR which was produced somewhat later than desirable in the DPD preparation process and led to the rejection of a favoured option for mixed use (as recommended in the 2005 Roger Tym/Innes development brief) over the combined area. In paragraph 5.49 of the ELR, site 8 is identified as presenting a rare opportunity to provide high quality Bclass floorspace, providing employment for the northern part of the district, not just for Oundle.

3.97 Although certain assumptions in the ELR have been criticised, I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions of my colleague Inspector in paragraphs 1416 of his appeal decision in which he rejects the argument (also put to me) that there is a surplus of employment provision in Oundle and no clear evidence that any additional site should be allocated. The ELR clearly justifies the need for additional employment land, particularly in the rural north, and to protect existing employment sites generally. I consider it to be a sound approach that the plan should seek to encourage additional employment provision in Oundle to balance the proposed housing growth in the town.

3.98 Both landowning interests have questioned the viability of the proposed redevelopment scheme solely for employment. There have been difficulties in letting the existing units on the trading estate and there remains vacant land. It seems to me that this stems largely from the nature of the existing units themselves, factors which might not apply should the land be redeveloped

29 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

in conjunction with the OUN2 site. Although the DPD does not provide for this, it wouldn’t prevent it either, policy 23 being simply a protective policy for the use. Many of the detailed points in relation to the Eastwood Road site do not affect the soundness of the DPD because policy 23 provides scope to consider them in the context of any planning application for change of use.

3.99 The ELR also recognises that a scheme for a high quality business use on site 8 may not be viable without specific measures of public intervention. In that regard it is unfortunate that this DPD does not identify what such measures might be and when they might realistically be delivered. As it is, the indicator remains that the site should be redeveloped by 2016. Policy OUN2 itself refers to a design workshop involving stakeholders and local people. I agree that this presents a sensible way forward but the terms of reference of the workshop must include a full appraisal of the feasibility and viability of the redevelopment envisaged which appears to me to be somewhat aspirational in nature. Unless positive proposals are brought forward through this process to provide a clear commitment to delivery then the future uses for this area will need to be reconsidered in a review of this DPD.

3.100 The Council’s suggested change H015 to paragraph 8.6 of the supporting text is vague in the reference to a “longer target date for completion”. Then, further change U067 says little more than the policy. The first sentence of this, only, should be inserted in paragraph 8.6.

3.101 Subject to that I consider that policy OUN2 and the application of Policy 23 to the Eastwood Road Trading Estate is sound.

3.102 In order to make the DPD sound the following text shall be inserted after the second sentence in paragraph 8.6: “The site is allocated to make a significant contribution to providing new employment opportunities to balance housing growth over the plan period.”

3.103 Issue 3: School site policies OUN4 and OUN5. The effectiveness of these specific policies relating to school sites in Oundle depends to a very large extent on the position of the education authorities with regard to their implementation. Paragraph 4.28 of PPS12 emphasises the importance of the engagement of key stakeholders in the delivery of policy.

3.104 The need for the expansion of facilities at Prince William School has been confirmed by the school authorities themselves and with the omission (change H017) of the reference to safeguarding land within the Ashton Road/Herne Road housing site, because the need for it could not be substantiated, I consider that the remaining policy is PPG17 compliant and thus

30 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

sound. Alternative access arrangements to the school are beyond the scope of this DPD.

3.105 Similar considerations do not apply to policy OUN5 concerning Oundle CE school on Milton Road. From the County Education Authority representation it transpires that there would only be a need for expansion of the school if a decision (not reached at the time of submission) is taken to reorganise educational provision to a twotier system. Even then implementation would be “some years away.”

3.106 From this I deduce that there is inadequate justification for the inclusion of this policy. Moreover, it cannot be implemented until a replacement school site has been identified, which this DPD does not do. That is an essential element for the policy to be sound because otherwise it cannot be delivered. There is nothing to be gained by including an ineffective policy of this nature in the DPD. As it is unsound it should be deleted, although an amended paragraph 8.19 might remain as no more than an indication of possible options, including car parking.

3.107 In order to make the plan sound policy OUN5 and its targets and indicator shall be deleted from the DPD along with the last two sentences in paragraph 8.14; paragraphs 8.15, 16 in their entirety and the first sentence in paragraph 8.19. The first sentence in paragraph 8.19 to be replaced by the following text: “Should there be a need to relocate the Milton Road primary school, preferred new uses for the existing buildings include additional public or community facilities.”

Thrapston – sitespecific issues: 1. The adequacy of the policies for regeneration (THR2 and 3) and employment (THR4). 2. The sustainability of the choice of Thrapston South (policy THR5) as the main housing development site as compared to alternatives evaluated and the safeguarding of a secondary school site at Springfield Farm.

3.108 Policy THR1 on infrastructure provision is considered under Matter C, Issue 1, above.

3.109 Issue 1: The adequacy of the policies for regeneration (THR2 and 3) and employment (THR4). I accept that the Employment Land Review has established that there is no general need to allocate new greenfield sites for employment development in Thrapston. Under the CSS the focus is on regeneration and policies THR2 and 3 are linked to 4 in this regard.

31 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.110 Policies THR 2 and 3 derive from the conclusions of the Healthcheck and associated Regeneration Masterplan. In that regard the strategy and choice of sites is clear. As with some other employmentrelated policies, relevant stakeholders appear not to have been adequately engaged in order to identify suitable alternative sites so as to facilitate relocation of existing businesses. However, I accept that there is no positive policy intention to see the relocation of the cattle market. The policy seeks to set a brief for redevelopment of the site should such relocation occur. Within these limitations the policies are sound.

3.111 The desire by the current site owners to see the relocation of Scotts and a redevelopment of the site, possibly for housing, has been cited as an example of the restrictions imposed by the DPD policies as they stand. Although Scotts is physically separate from the Cosy Nook with which it has been bracketed as Atkins site 12 in Appendix 4, all subject to policy 23, I do not consider that to be an unsound approach as the whole area is in existing employment use. As I indicate above, with some amendment for clarity I do not consider that policy 23 places an absolute restriction on redevelopment should the criteria be met. It should also be read with policy THR4 which sets a clear direction as to where new employment development is expected to go.

3.112 In conclusion on this issue, I consider this section of the DPD and policies THR24 to be sound.

3.113 Issue 2. Thrapston South (policy THR5) and the safeguarding of a secondary school site at Springfield Farm. I will deal with the secondary school issue first because the Council have chosen to withdraw this proposal. It was clear at an early stage in the examination that there was no justification deriving from a clear indication of need by the Education Authority for a site to be provided for a secondary school in Thrapston. Indeed, section 37 in the preferred options document explicitly states that there is not enough growth to justify a further school site. It is an aspiration to reduce travel distances for secondary pupils, but no more than that. Thus, this proposal is unsound and I agree the Council’s suggested change (as part of U085) to remove it from policy THR1 (see paragraph 3.65 above). However, the Council also suggest (change H018) the retention of a noncommittal statement identifying Springfield Farm as a possible site. This is acceptable.

3.114 It has been suggested that Springfield Farm should be allocated for housing in place of the extension eastwards in the Huntingdon Road area between the town and the A14 bypass. This is on the basis that there is little to choose in terms of access to the town centre and Huntingdon Road will result in a

32 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

large development affected by noise from the A14. It seems to me that the latter point should be dealt with through layout and conditions imposed on any consent. There is a lot to be said for completing development in the southern area whilst Springfield Farm, to the north, is less well contained. Furthermore, in the refined Roger Tym Sustainability Assessment Springfield Farm scores less well overall (+4) than Huntingdon Road (+8). Consequently, I am satisfied that the most appropriate option has been chosen.

3.115 Policy THR5, as submitted, contains a requirement that the delivery of housing should be phased in line with the projected availability of school places. Again, such an approach has not been justified. I agree that the requirement be deleted from policy THR5 (suggested change U087) for the policy to be sound. Deletion of the last sentence in paragraph 9.1 (suggested change U095) is a consequential amendment which I endorse.

3.116 The approach under policy THR5, as amended, would be to require a master plan for the development related to phasing to “trigger thresholds for additional infrastructure”. In view of this requirement the words which follow the criteria are an unnecessary duplication.

3.117 Similarly the statement that longer term development sites will be brought forward through a review of the plan is superfluous. As it has been established that this DPD allocates almost sufficient land in Thrapston to meet the CSS requirements for housing to 2021 and the trajectory shows a continuing supply over the plan period there is no need to mention longterm sites, certainly not as a policy. Indeed, this could be construed as prejudicing the review of the Core Strategy now under way. In the interests of consistency, and thus soundness, the statistics on housing land supply in paragraph 9.12 should be updated to an April 2008 base.

3.118 Finally, I note that a small site at Washington Court has been advocated for housing development through the DPD process. This has been appraised and given a good sustainability score (+5). I do not consider it necessary to allocate the site at the present time although, I assume, it will be a contender in the future, subject to the CSS.

3.119 In order to make the DPD sound policy THR5 shall be amended in accordance with suggested change U087, as set out in Annex 1 to this report, except that all words after the criteria (a.i.) shall be omitted.

3.120 The second sentence in paragraph 9.12 shall be deleted and replaced by “Of this total, 445 were complete by

33 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

April 2008; with a further 23 under construction and 44 with planning permission but not yet started.”

Matter D. The identification of a settlement hierarchy. Issues: 1. Whether additional settlements should be classified as smaller service centres. 2. Whether category A and B settlements have been correctly classified. 3. Is there a case for the identification of settlement boundaries for category B villages and should the criteria for the drawing of boundaries be included in the DPD?

3.121 Issue 1: Smaller Service Service Centres. The approach to the definition of a settlement hierarchy stems primarily from the adopted Core Spatial Strategy. The CSS specifies Oundle and Thrapston as rural service centres and identifies King’s Cliffe as a local service centre or “secondary focus”. Otherwise, in paragraph 3.8 of the CSS it is stated that DPDs may identify Limited Local Service Centres within which the small scale needs of a group of villages may be focussed.

3.122 RNOTP Policy 1 identifies Nassington and Warmington as Smaller Service Centres and it is there (as well as in King’s Cliffe) that small allocations have been made for housing. All of the other villages are categorised as either A or B with development proposals considered under policy 2.

3.123 It is correct, as stated in paragraph 4.9 of the DPD, that Nassington and Warmington were recommended to be local service centres in the Baker Associates report (Doc. 308). However, that study covered only a part (central north) of the plan area and thus it was not within the remit of that study to consider the other sizeable settlements of Brigstock, Easton on the Hill and Woodford. However, work by Entec (Doc. 305) on village services identifies that these villages retain a wide range of services which raises a question as to the justification for not including them as smaller service centres permitting the allocation of housing sites to meet the CSS requirement for housing within the rural part of the district.

3.124 During the course of the examination the Council have produced additional information. It is evident that a combination of sources has been used, including surveys of the interdependency of the various centres and relationships with nearby larger urban centres. From this I am satisfied that Brigstock looks to Corby, Easton on the Hill to Stamford and Woodford to Thrapston. Islip is within walking distance of Thrapston centre. As such they do not fulfil the local service centre rôle for groups of surrounding villages in the same way as do Warmington and Nassington. Thus I consider that the

34 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

choice of only those two larger villages to be smaller service centres has been adequately justified.

3.125 Issue 2: Category A and B settlements. I indicated in section C of the note accompanying my letter of 31 October 2008 that the Council had not adequately justified the choice of those villages named in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of the DPD as either category A or category B. In particular, the survey information on rural services dated from 2003. As a result the Council have carried out a full reassessment of the villages and update of the rural services study and published this in document 925 which has been the subject of public consultation. Although some further representations have been made I find this to be a thorough and comprehensive piece of work. It fully justifies the categorisation of settlements and indicates that some changes should be made (changes IN001 and IN002). The reason for these changes is very clearly set out in sections 4.36 of the document.

3.126 In order to make the DPD sound, the listing of villages in category A in paragraph 4.5 shall be amended in accordance with suggested change IN001 (Lowick and Wadenhoe to be added) and, in paragraph 4.6, Lowick, Wadenhoe and LuddingtonintheBrook shall be deleted from the list of category B villages in accordance with suggested change IN002.

3.127 Issue 3. Settlement boundaries. There has been extensive consultation during the DPD preparation process on both the principles and detail of the drawing of settlement boundaries. Category B settlement are, by definition either more highly constrained or have a more limited range of services than those in category A. In order to accord with the strategic (CSS) intention, in the interest of sustainable development, to focus development in the settlements with better access to services I consider it sound to exclude category B settlements from the infill potential provided under policy 2, which is the primary purpose of the settlement boundary.

3.128 I have drawn attention elsewhere to the status of the proposals map and its relationship to this DPD. The reference in paragraph 4.4 of the submitted DPD to the criteria for the definition of settlement boundaries is to the preferred options document which will have no status once the DPD has been adopted. There would also be difficulties in any boundary review in isolation. Consequently, the Council have suggested (change H004(7)) that the criteria be included in the DPD, with similar treatment (changes H004(3&4)) for Oundle and Thrapston. These changes will make the DPD sound. In the interests of clarity the criteria need to be lettered a, b, etc., rather than as bullet points.

35 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.129 In order to make the DPD sound paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes H004(17) except that the criteria under change H004(4) shall be lettered a.g. and those under change H004(7) shall be lettered a.f.

3.130 Many individual representations have been made to the lines drawn on the submission proposal map to depict the settlement boundaries for the purpose of applying DPD policy 2. This is an issue of soundness in so far as it affects the implementation of the policy through decisions on planning applications and hence the effectiveness of the DPD. As the details are of a sitespecific nature I deal with these in the final section of this report.

Matter E. Affordable Housing – General Policies 19 and 20 and text paragraphs 6.19. Issue: The justification for site size thresholds and percentage targets in terms of PPS3 guidance, including the viability assessment.

3.131 In my letter to the Council dated 31 October I requested that a viability assessment be undertaken in accordance with the guidance in Paragraph 29 of PPS3 in order to demonstrate the extent to which the affordable housing target for the plan area and the sitesize thresholds and percentage requirements take account of the likely economic viability of land for housing including the risks to delivery and the likely availability of finance.

3.132 At the time of submission and during the earlier part of the examination noone could reasonably have predicted the seismic shift in the state of the housing market which would follow as the result of the worldwide recession. This has fundamentally altered the viability of all housing schemes, at least in the short term.

3.133 Thus it is fortunate that the viability assessment carried out for the Council by EDAW (Doc. 927) has been able to take these factors into account in so far as it is possible to do so. As a result of the findings of the assessment the Council have recognised that the affordable housing policies in the submitted DPD were unsound and have put forward a series of changes which significantly alter the plan content in this regard. These changes have been the subject of further publicity and sustainability appraisal.

3.134 The focus of my deliberations is, therefore, on the soundness of the DPD as proposed to be changed and the justification for the remaining elements of policy.

3.135 In their proposal to delete Policy 19 (Changes IN0101) and to replace it with an indication within the text of the overall plan

36 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

wide target (IN014) the Council have recognised that this element of the submitted DPD is unsound in so far as it is appropriate to identify targets as a product of policy rather than as policies in themselves. The target also makes assumptions about affordable housing yield on individual sites which must be tempered by the amendments required to the thresholds in policy 20. In this regard, it is inconsistent with the requirements for individual siterelated viability assessments to “expect” the listed sites to deliver a particular number. Thus, I consider that the inclusion of supporting text as in change U048 is a sound way forward.

3.136 In the submitted plan policy 20 is very specific in its requirements to achieve 40% affordable housing on all sites of 15 dwellings or more generally but on all sites of 5 or more dwellings in rural areas which, I am informed, means outside Thrapston and Oundle. There are also varying requirements in terms of the balance between social rented and intermediate housing. General questions have been raised about the feasibility of this approach and despite the SHMA work it is not clear that the original evidence base is sufficiently robust at the more detailed local level.

3.137 I consider that the revised Policy 20 as suggested in change IN013(1) is an appropriate response to the conclusions of the EDAW affordable housing assessment. It provides considerable flexibility but gives a general indication of the level of affordable housing provision the Council are seeking (40%), with reference to the target in CSS Policy 15. The approach may not be fully PPS3 compliant but that guidance was written before the current economic difficulties. I do not consider it to be unduly onerous for developers to provide viability assessments in relation to individual sites; this would be part of the application process and should not delay development to any significant extent. This is especially the case as the revised policy would apply only to sites of 10 dwellings or more (15 in Oundle and Thrapston). In view of the rural nature of much of the area this lower threshold is reasonable although the terms of DPD Policy 2 are such that few rural sites are likely to be so large.

3.138 Nevertheless, it is still necessary to consider whether the viability assessment itself is sufficiently robust to justify the provisions of the revised policy. Aspects of the methodology have been challenged and examined further by way of a hearing. It seems to me that the crux of the matter is whether the remaining requirement for a minimum of 20% of the units on sites of 15 or more dwellings has been adequately justified. This requirement, in combination with other community benefits sought through s106 obligations, should not be such as to cast serious doubt on the deliverability of housing sites.

37 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.139 Following an independent analysis of the EDAW affordable housing viability model and comments made on it in representations, EDAW have produced a variance analysis in an attempt to demonstrate the robustness of the approach. Due to time constraints this examines only two development sites in the plan area (Thrapston and Ashton Road, Oundle). I agree that build cost variations over time should be assumed and an increasing discount applied. It also seems reasonable to allow for the costs of meeting the Code for Sustainable Homes standards at least to level 5. On that basis the developer’s profit would be reduced to little over 10% against the 20% which had been used as a measure of viability. 3.140 I recognise that profit margins may be squeezed in the current economic circumstances and this may be feasible for sites which are already partially complete due to developers having to cut values to achieve sales. However, the unchallenged evidence from industry representatives is that banks are requiring developers to show that their proposed schemes generate higher profit margins now than they did previously and that a 20% profit margin might well be the minimum sought. This leads me to doubt that a scheme showing a 10% profit would attract funding and consequently it would be unlikely to proceed. 3.141 My conclusion from this is that the viability assessment, allowing for potential variance, fails to justify a policy to require a minimum 20% proportion of affordable housing. Such a policy would be unsound for that reason. 3.142 In anticipation of this possible conclusion the Council have suggested a fallback position of there being no stated minimum provision with the Council seeking up to 40% affordable housing on all sites over the stated thresholds. In the light of the evidence I consider this to be a sound approach. It is pragmatic and flexible in order to allow viability factors to be considered entirely in relation to sitespecific factors. In practice this means that the policy approach will be the same in Oundle and Thrapston as elsewhere, only the lower threshold being different. This enables the two parts of the revised policy to be combined. 3.143 In order to make the DPD sound the following changes shall be made: Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes IN006 and 007 as set out in Annex 1 to this report; Paragraph 6.3 shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes IN008(1)(4) as set out in Annex 1 except that in suggested change IN008(3) the last two sentences (commencing “The larger schemes …”) shall not be included;

38 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Paragraph 6.4 shall be amended in accordance with suggested change IN009 as set out in Annex 1; Paragraphs 6.5 and Policy 19 shall be deleted; Paragraph 6.6 shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes IN012 and U045 as set out in Annex 1; The last sentence of paragraph 6.7 shall be deleted and replaced with the following text: “In Oundle and Thrapston affordable housing will be sought only on sites of 15 dwellings or more;” Policy 20 shall be deleted and replaced by a new policy to read as follows: “On all development sites of 15 dwellings and over and on sites of between 10 and 14 dwellings outside of Oundle and Thrapston, based on local housing need an element of affordable housing will be sought of up to 40% of the total number of dwellings proposed, although the finally agreed proportion will depend upon specific site viability. Public subsidy will be sought in order to maintain affordable housing provision at or near the 40% target for individual sites wherever possible. Affordable units should comprise 75% social rented and 25% intermediate housing, unless an alternative tenure split is agreed with the Council in response to local needs.” The associated indicators shall be amended in accordance with suggested change IN013(2) and the targets shall be amended in accordance with change U047, as set out in Annex 1 to this report. 3.144 Gypsies and travellers. Paragraph 6.156.18 set out the position with regard to provision for gypsy and traveller needs. As submitted this does not make it sufficiently clear why no site provision has been made in this plan area, apparently contrary to guidance in Circulars 1/2006 and 4/2007. I agree that the additional text suggested by the Council (changes U0502) would make this section of the DPD sound. 3.145 In order to make the DPD sound, paragraphs 6.15 and 6.17 and the footnotes shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes U0502 as set out in Annex 1 to this report.

39 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Matter F. DPD Section 7 – Economic policies. Issues: 1. The justification for policy 23 on protected employment sites and the treatment of Deenethorpe Airfield; 2. The adequacy and appropriateness of policies 24 and 269 covering individual businesses and sites; 3. The compatibility of policy 30 with PPS7 guidance; 4. The scope of policy 33, lorry parking.

3.146 Issue 1: Policy 23. The strategy which seeks to protect all 31 existing employment sites in the district derives from the Employment Land Review (ELR). I comment on this in more detail in the context of the East Road site in Oundle, see paragraphs 3.93101 of this report, and generally I consider that this study provides a reasonably robust and credible evidence base sufficient to justify the employment strategy of this DPD. It should also be borne in mind that the wider strategy is contained within the adopted CSS, regional and subregional strategies. Although the CSS identifies specific employment requirements for East Northamptonshire district as a whole, as indicated in the ELR the main opportunities for additional development lie in other parts of the district outside the RNOTP area. I am satisfied that there is no strong case for the identification of additional sites within this plan area.

3.147 Appendix 4 (to become 5 under suggested change U054) lists the existing employment sites as identified in the ELR. These do not include Deenethorpe Airfield which contains uses largely within former airfield related buildings spread over a wide area. This cannot be described as a conventional employment site and, as it is located within the otherwise open countryside, I consider that the inclusion of a specific policy (DA1) is a sound approach.

3.148 As for Policy 23 itself, although I consider this to have been adequately justified I do not consider that it will be as effective as intended owing to a lack of clarity in wording. The inclusion of a reference to “changes of use” causes confusion as to whether that relates to the land or buildings and there is an inherent contradiction between a change “only” being acceptable provided there is no loss of employment but then to set out the circumstances under which such a situation may be contemplated. I propose revised wording to achieve the intended aims.

3.149 In order to make the DPD sound policy 23 shall be deleted and replaced by the following reworded policy:

The existing employment sites, identified in Appendix 5, are protected for employment use. Proposals for re development or changes of use of existing buildings

40 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

should ensure that the overall provision of employment after development is no less than that of the current use or most recent use. A reduction in the level of employment or development for nonemployment uses will be permitted only when it can be demonstrated that: a. there is no realistic prospect of the site or buildings being used or reused, including redevelopment, for employment purposes; or b. constraints associated with the site or buildings mean these would be unsuitable for reuse, in terms of siting, design, access, layout and relationship to neighbouring buildings and uses.

3.150 Issue 2: The adequacy and appropriateness of policies 24 and 269. Policies 24 and 28 are regarded as contingency measures aimed at addressing the possibility of the sites being vacated by the existing operators. I agree that the policies are prudent measures for specific sites each in a specific context. With regard to Policy 24, no convincing case has been put forward to support the need to expand the Islip Furnace site to the east. The balance of proposed uses is derived from the ELR and concerns about the visual impact of warehousing is covered by other policies. Similarly, Oundle Marina is in a rural location and it has not been clearly established that a wider range of uses would be appropriate. Under both policies, opportunities will arise to shape proposals in the event of the sites coming forward for redevelopment.

3.151 To be fully effective, Policy 26 should be consistent with the supporting text in paragraph 7.22. The policy should be expanded to be more explicit about the types of developments which may be permitted.

3.152 In order to make the DPD sound Policy 26 shall be amended to include the words “visitors’ moorings, support facilities and other associated infrastructure” between “boats” and “along” in line 3 of the policy.

3.153 Turning to Policy 27, there are concerns about the current state and future use of the Riverside Hotel near Oundle. The Council are working with the land owner to bring the site back into use. Generally, the policy encourages the reuse of a dilapidated development in a prominent location.

3.154 Policy 29 and its supporting text highlight a range of proposals that the Council intend to pursue in association with the restoration of Lilford Hall and Park. Clearly, the Council and the land owner should be engaged in shaping the associated aspects of the restoration proposals to enable the proposals to come to fruition. As it stands, the policy is sufficiently clear in

41 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

terms of providing guidance on the associated developments that the Council consider appropriate for the restoration project to be successful. The policy is sound.

3.155 Issue 3: The compatibility of Policy 30 with PPS7 guidance. The guidance in PPS7 and the supporting text for the policy highlights the preference for reusing rural buildings for employment generating uses. However, neither the PPS nor the supporting text precludes the reuse of rural buildings for residential use where it would be more appropriate in view of the location. This aspect of the guidance should be reflected in the policy.

3.156 In order to make the DPD sound the words “or residential use, where the location or building is more appropriate for such a use and” shall be inserted in place of “uses” in line 2 of policy 30.

3.157 Issue 4: The scope of Policy 33, lorry parking. It might be expected that as there is an identified shortage of lorry parking adjacent to the strategic road network which is causing problems, either in terms of highway safety or the environment within the plan area, positive steps would have been taken through the DPD process to have identified and consulted upon suitable sites. I regard a criteriabased policy of this kind to be no more than a stopgap although it is not unsound as framed. More work needs to be done to identify suitable locations for lorry parking so that a more robust and sitespecific policy can be included in a review of the DPD.

Matter G. Transport, accessibility and parking. Issues: 1. The adequacy of policy 7 in particular in tackling rural accessibility problems and encouraging walking an cycling 2. The appropriateness of the parking standards in policy 8.

3.158 Issue 1: Policy 7. The policy approach to improvements in rural transport and in providing for walking and cycling is drawn from the CSS and Local Transport Plan. In my view it correctly identifies a need to improve bus services in King’s Cliffe and Nassington as a reflection of the status of those settlements as service centres within the rural settlement strategy. Oundle is relatively well served by the X4 strategic bus route and the CSS includes proposals for improved services to Thrapston.

3.159 The policy might have gone further to indicate what is the “planned network” for cyclists and pedestrians to link the proposed new housing areas in Oundle and Thrapston to the town centres, but overall I consider policy 7 and its supporting text to be sound.

42 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

3.160 Issue 2: Policy 8. As the Council have correctly identified, guidance in PPS3 no longer seeks an average maximum parking provision in new residential developments of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. However, it remains an important aspect of national policy, in the interests of sustainable development, that parking provision should take account of accessibility and design factors and not be a dominant feature in new housing layouts. As this DPD covers a predominantly rural area where public transport is limited, I consider that policy 8 provides an appropriate balance. It is sound.

Issues arising under matters H (renewable energy and climate change) and K (sustainability appraisals) have been in incorporated within other matters, mainly AC.

Matter I. The natural and built environment. Policies 6, 1215 and 22. Issues: 1. The scope of policy 6 on green infrastructure and its relationship with policy 5 and figure 9 in the adopted CSS; 2. The adequacy of policy 13 in relation to locally listed buildings and the treatment of conservation areas within this LDF; 3. Whether policies 14 and 15 should contain more detail on the actions necessary to protect and enhance LNRs and biodiversity generally; 4. The justification for the inclusion of policies 12 (Important Open Space) and 22 (Open Space, Sport and Recreational facilities).

3.161 Issue 1: Green Infrastructure, policy 6. I consider the changes required to this policy, to satisfy the requirements of English Nature for appropriate assessment, in paragraph 2.10 of this report.

3.162 Policy 6 is strongly linked to policy 5 in the CSS. CSS Policy 5 in itself is comprehensive and classifies green infrastructure corridors between those of subregional significance and local corridors, as shown in figure 9. Factual corrections will be required to paragraphs 4.17 and 4.22 of this DPD in this regard. This policy adds very little to the strategic policy except that it provides for specific improvements to specified cycling routes crossing into neighbouring counties. In seeking to implement the policy it will be necessary to consider these crossboundary concerns. CSS policy 13 also applies in terms of landscape protection. I consider that DPD policy 6 is sound.

3.163 Issue 2: Locally listed buildings and conservation areas. Policy 13 should be read with CSS policy 13 in which criterion (o) provides for the conservation and enhancement of a range of designated environmental assets and landscape. The DPD policy relates specifically to “locally listed” buildings and thus complements the CSS and reflects paragraph 6.16 of PPG15,

43 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

although there is no statutory protection for such buildings. It is sound.

3.164 There is no policy with regard to conservation areas only a statement referring to conservation area appraisals. Thus, the Council is relying on CSS policy 13 in conjunction with PPG15. Whereas the adopted Local Plan contains a suite of policies which apply in conservation areas these have either not been saved or replaced by the CSS. Consequently there appears to be no basis to show these areas on the proposals map other than by reference to paragraph 5.11. This is a procedural point which the Council will need to resolve before adopting the proposals map.

3.165 Issue 3: Biodiversity and the natural environment. It has been suggested that policies 14 and 15 should contain more detail as to the proposed means of implementation and the management of Local Nature Reserves and to identify additional sites through the Biodiversity Action Plan. I consider that this section of the DPD adequately identifies those bodies and agencies responsible for the management of LNRs and care is needed not to include undue detail at this level. Only a broad policy context is required. That is achieved in these policies which I consider to be sound.

3.166 The Biodiversity Action Plan (Doc.260) is a very comprehensive document giving detail on the measures to be taken to protect different species and habitats. However, any spatial element (sites) should be identified through the LDF process at an appropriate level.

3.167 Issue 4: Open Spaces, policies 12 and 22. Both of these policies deal with open land within the towns and villages and the submission proposals map shows many areas as subject to one or the other policy, sometimes both. This resulted in many sitespecific representations.

3.168 It became clear through the examination that the concept of “Important Open Land” is a carry over from the existing local plan, policy EN20. In discussing the justification for the identification of additional areas it became apparent that there had been no recent field based appraisal of these sites and new ones appeared to have been included on the basis primarily of local perceptions rather than systematic analysis against clear criteria. Indeed, the original work underlying the areas shown in the local plan is some 15 years old. This does not satisfy the more rigorous requirements on soundness for inclusion in this DPD and the policy is unsound. The Council have now acknowledged this by suggesting (change IN003) the deletion of policy 12 and its supporting text which means that the very similar saved local plan policy EN20 will remain in force. To emphasise this the Council have suggested (change

44 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

IN005) the insertion of a new Appendix 2 setting this out and additional text following paragraph 5.13 (change IN004). I agree that the deletion is necessary to make the plan sound. The inclusion of additional text and the appendix is not necessary for soundness because the local plan policy remains part of the LDF, but it helps to clarify the position. Consequently I endorse its inclusion as a minor change.

3.169 In order to make the DPD sound, policy 12 and the supporting text, paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 shall be deleted as in suggested change IN003.

3.170 The justification for policy 22 is the work carried out in 2006 by PMP. This is an open space audit and study carried out in accordance with PPG17 guidance. In my letter to the Council dated 31 October 2008 I set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the accompanying note the reasons why I considered the submitted policy did not meet PPG17 requirements and was unsound. In essence this is because the policy seeks to resist the loss of all existing open space with no reference to the possibility that alternative provision might be made which would have wider benefit for the community. I also referred to the identification (on the proposals map) of areas for inclusion under this policy which have no public access, in some cases private gardens, and asked that these be reappraised.

3.171 As a result the Council have comprehensively reappraised the policy and the areas shown on the proposals map as subject to it. From this I am satisfied that the revised policy would be PPG17 compliant and ought to be included in the DPD for it to be sound. I am also satisfied that the adjustments suggested to the proposals map properly reflect the criteria and are consistent and justified.

3.172 In order to make the DPD sound policy 22 and the supporting text in paragraphs 6.186.22 shall be amended in accordance with suggested changes IN015 024, as set out in Annex 1 to this report.

Matter J. The adequacy of mechanisms for implementation and monitoring

3.173 It is not suggested that there has been no involvement with key stakeholders such as the Environment Agency and the Water Authorities but it is not always as clear as it might be who exactly is responsible for the delivery of the necessary infrastructure to support development and how the programmes of these agencies dovetail with the underlying assumptions on development rates, especially for housing.

3.174 As the Council have explained, much work has been done at the strategic (CSS) level to determine the overall levels of

45 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

development at various locations within the plan area. Targets and indicators have been included under each policy in the DPD but for an indication of the bodies responsible for delivery it is necessary to refer to the separate monitoring framework, document 254.

3.175 I find this to be just about adequate for the purpose of supporting the policy choices within this DPD, and thus sound. However, I consider that it will be necessary to develop this area of work following the CSS review to establish more clearly how necessary infrastructural improvements are to be achieved, and by when.

3.176 In terms of the monitoring processes, the existing annual monitoring report provides statistics on a districtwide rather than planarea basis. In part the difficulty in this respect stems from the fact that the plan area is not recognised in the CSS. These issues will need to be addressed through the forthcoming plan reviews.

Sites in Open Countryside – Special Policy Areas.

1. Brigstock Camp, policy BC1. Issues: a. The history of the site and area covered; b. The sustainability of the site and appropriateness for business or a wider range of uses; c. The need for any policy at all.

3.177 Issue a. History and site area. Brigstock Camp is an area of derelict army huts located on the northern side of the A6116 about a mile to the northwest of the centre of Brigstock village. An area of some 4 ha. is the subject of saved policy BR3 in the adopted Local Plan and planning permission has been granted on appeal over a 10 ha. site for a secure hospital, which has not yet been implemented. It is this larger site to which policy BC1 in the submitted DPD applies as this has been treated as a commitment. Suggested change H021 is to amend the policy to refer only to the 4 ha. “brownfield” part of the site. I agree this change as the permission for a secure hospital includes large areas to provide a landscape setting.

3.178 Issue b. Sustainability and business or other uses. Although the current owners seek a wider range of uses, including residential, the relatively isolated location renders the site unsuitable, in my view, for such uses. However, low key business (office) uses on the more restricted area would be subject to the requirements within the policy for the introduction of sustainable transport measures, including a possible footpath and cycle link. These measures should be

46 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

achievable by obligation and would help to balance the locational disadvantages.

3.179 Issue c. The need for any policy. The preferred option (42.4) was to delete policy BR3 in the extant local plan and to treat the site as subject to policies for development in the open countryside under PPS7 guidance and the CSS. That would be a sensible way forward but it is not an option which is now available because local plan policy BR3 has been saved and so, under regulation 13(3) (DPD Appendix 1) unless a policy in the DPD replaces it, it will remain in force. As policy BR3 includes provision for a wide range of uses, including employment, and is clearly no longer appropriate, I agree that the policy in the DPD, subject to change H021 to limit the size of the site, represents a sound approach. The Council should ensure that the adopted Proposals Map properly delineates the “brownfield” part of the site.

3.180 In order to make the DPD sound policy BC1 shall be amended in accordance with suggested change H021.

2. Deenethorpe Airfield, policy DA1. Issue: The nature of any restriction of employment uses.

3.181 Although policy DA1 appears to have been introduced very late in the process the Council have clarified that it is primarily addressed at restricting any intensification of the existing aviation uses. From my own observations I consider it correct that the dispersed nature of the existing development and relatively isolated location renders it unsuitable for identification as an employment site especially as there is no clear evidence that any of the existing uses fall within class B. The policy does not limit any changes of use, in so far as permission may be required, to employment use. I find the policy to be sound.

Settlement boundaries – Proposals Map.

3.182 I deal with the principles of settlement boundary definition and the inclusion of criteria within the DPD under Matter D, issue 3, in paragraphs 3.127130 above.

3.183 I indicated for the purpose of the hearings that my consideration of the soundness of the DPD relates to the issue as to whether the boundaries as shown on the submission proposals map properly and consistently apply the published criteria for definition. My initial examination resulted in a recognition by the Council that this was not always the case and, as a result, I requested in paragraph 13 of the note attached to my letter of 31 October 2008 that a reassessment be carried out. Document 926 represents a comprehensive analysis of the additional work done and which has resulted in

47 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

the PM series of suggested changes to the boundaries. I endorse the majority of these and in the paragraphs below I make recommendations for further changes for the Council’s consideration.

3.184 It is the definition of category A village settlement boundaries which has proved the most contentious. In part this is due to the deliberately restrictive nature of the criteria used in order to minimise the potential for infill development under policy 2 in accordance with CSS Policy 1.

3.185 There have been difficulties in the interpretation of some of the criteria, particularly the second (b) in terms of peripherality and the fourth (d) in that the purpose of subdividing existing residential curtilages has not always been understood by landowners and there is scope for disagreement on the question of whether there is “capacity to extend the built form of the village”. The third criterion (c) excludes undeveloped land on the edge of villages even where such land is well enclosed. Furthermore, field surveys suggest that planning permissions (criterion e) have not always been recognised.

3.186 In the following sections I consider the boundary lines around individual settlements where representations suggest anomalies and inconsistencies against the criteria. Representations are not referenced individually.

3.187 Criterion a: existing employment uses, caravan sites or leisure uses on the edge of villages which are obviously detached from, or peripheral to, the main built up area. In Brigstock, the kennels area on the eastern side of the village has been correctly excluded as a peripheral nonresidential use. Change PM057 for the Great Addington Inset map seeks to limit the potential for further development to the rear of Redlands, Tea Tree Cottage and Leopard House. The change does not improve consistency with criterion a., but it is consistent with the aim of limiting infill development.

3.188 In the case of Lutton, I consider that the change set out in PM082 is in line with criterion a. By contrast, the former Reliance garage site is a large area of previously developed land which, although it is situated only just behind the church, abuts undeveloped land on two sites and so is properly described as peripheral. Therefore, I consider it is correct to exclude the site from the settlement under criterion a. Slater’s Drift at Collyweston is clearly well detached from the main part of the village; consolidation within this looseknit area would be contrary to the adopted CSS.

3.189 In Thurning, it is suggested that as Glebe Farm at the eastern end of Main Street has been included within the settlement boundary line, so should York Farm at the southwestern end.

48 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

In both areas the implications of including the farm in the settlement would be considerable potential for development which I consider would be contrary to the Core Strategy. Glebe Farm is on the edge of the village and should, logically be excluded under criterion a.

3.190 For the Proposals Map to be consistent with criterion a. the area of Glebe Farm at the eastern end of Main Street should be excluded from the settlement boundary for Thurning.

3.191 Criterion b: freestanding, individual or groups of less than 10 dwellings, nearby farm buildings or other structures which are obviously detached from, or peripheral to, the main built up area. Changes PM017 and PM018 at Nassington; PM024 at Warmington; PM033 at Brigstock; PM048 at Easton on the Hill; PM088 at Southwick; PM110 at Upper Benefield and PM122 at Woodford all exclude garage structures that are on the edge of the main built up area. Similarly the change at Lilford (PM072) seeks to exclude the green house structures adjacent to The Hermitage. These changes are consistent with the criterion.

3.192 Changes PM066 and 67 also exclude garages at Nene View from the Islip settlement boundary (criterion b) in addition to reducing the extent of adjoining curtilages (criterion d). In both cases the changes are consistent with the criteria.

3.193 Change PM039 is a revised boundary for Clopton which excludes the buildings at the Clopton Farm site and the group of dwellings to the north west of the Farm. This is consistent with the criterion. Change PM040 puts forward a similar case for the revised boundary at Pen y Bryn. The area proposed to be excluded is attached to the main built up area, and thus excluded in accordance with both criteria a. and b.

3.194 At Deenethorpe, the deletion of the Important Open Land designation for the part of the area between 56 Denethorpe Lane and New Cottages (change PM044) would initially suggest that the boundary could be drawn in to exclude New Cottages and the area beyond to 56 Deenethorpe Lane. However, there is a suggestion that an extant planning permission for a residential development in this area provides sufficient basis under criterion e. to retain the proposed boundary following the deletion of the Important Open Land designation. Should that not be the case the boundary should be revised in accordance with criterion b.

3.195 Suggested change PM049 is to include the 15 dwellings at 79 105 Stamford Road as an “outlier” within the settlement boundary of Easton on the Hill under criterion b. I do not consider there to be any parallel in terms of the triangular area around 2 Stamford Road eastwards to the junction with High

49 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Street. Although there is a small group of houses to the east, the area is a house within extensive grounds clearly separated from the main built up area by a stretch of open space. As such the area has correctly been excluded from the boundary under criterion b.

3.196 The proposed boundary change PM065 at Hemington excludes The Bungalow to the south of the main built up area and this seems to be consistent with the criteria. The development at the western end of the boundary is separated from the main built up area by the road and the undeveloped area to the west of No.1 on the main road through the Village.

3.197 For the Proposals Map to be consistent with criterion b. the western extent of the settlement boundary for Hemington should be revised to go as far as No.1 on the main road through the village.

3.198 On Newton Lane, Sudborough, the settlement boundary is drawn tightly around Beehive Barn and does not include a newly constructed house at Orchard Cottage. There is an orchard to the north of Beehive Barn which means that the curtilage of the new dwelling does not immediately abut the builtup area. Thus, the freestanding dwelling is peripheral and properly excluded from the settlement boundary under criterion b.

3.199 Criterion c: public open spaces and underdeveloped areas of land on the edge of villages. In Nassington, the exclusion of the undeveloped area between 21 and 25 Church Street (PM019) is consistent with what the criterion seeks to achieve. A notable anomaly within the Nassington settlement boundary is the area partially referred to as Homefield, adjacent to 30 Woodnewton Road. This is an undeveloped area to the west of the settlement and its inclusion appears to be inconsistent with criterion c. The Council should reassess this.

3.200 Change PM062 takes out the undeveloped area south of 25 Seaton Road from the settlement boundary line for Harringworth. The change is consistent with this criterion.

3.201 The boundary revision at Laxton draws the boundary in to exclude the undeveloped area around the Pump and the adjoining area to the rear of No.1 Main Street (change PM071). The change sets out a boundary which is more consistent with criteria c. and d. At Bulwick, although Millies Lane may have been laid out with a view to further development at its western end this undeveloped area abuts open countryside to the north and is properly excluded under criterion c.

3.202 Similarly the issues relating to the boundary at Titchmarsh also cover criteria c. and d. Although reference is made to draft

50 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

village boundary maps and previous consultation exercises this review is in the context of the DPD process with revised criteria. On the northern side of the village a farm track runs parallel to Chapel Street between Church Street to the west and North Street to the east. If the extensive garden area around Titchmarsh Hall, and Village Farm, was to be included within the boundary the potential for backland development would be considerable and thus contrary to the Core Strategy. It would appear, however, that the rear garden areas to the properties at the western end of the track, fronting Church Lane, might equally have been considered as having capacity to extend the built form of the village (criterion d.).

3.203 At the eastern end of Saint Andrews Lane southwards to Brook Farm cottage is a strip of well enclosed land but this has been excluded correctly either under criterion c. as undeveloped land or criterion d. as part of a residential curtilage with potential to extend. The Council acknowledge (PM102) that the boundary around and to the south of Brook Farm Cottage has not taken account of an extension to that property and that part of the curtilage with no capacity to extend the built form (criterion d). Field survey indicates that the boundary fails to take account of the balcony extension to the east of No. 29 St Andrews Lane.

3.204 For the Proposals Map to be consistent with criterion c. the settlement boundary east of No. 29 St Andrews Lane, Titchmarsh, should be drawn to include the whole of the extended house.

3.205 At the bottom of the dip on Roman Road, Titchmarsh, on the south side, is a triangular piece of open land between the road and a hedge, I agree that the area is detached from the settlement and should be excluded as undeveloped land under criterion c. However, there is an inconsistency in that an apparently undeveloped area of land to the south has been included within the settlement boundary. There is also potential access to Roman Road (criterion d.)

3.206 I agree that the extensive garden areas to the rear (east) of the stream at Polopit south of Littlewood House have potential for backland development with access across the ford to the south and thus have been correctly excluded under criterion d. Similarly the rear garden areas of the properties (Nos. 1826) on the western side have capacity for access from a field track. However, it is not clear why Nos. 14 and 16 are treated differently.

3.207 At Woodford, change PM121 sets out a boundary which is consistent with criteria c and d. Change PM123 excludes the section of Important Open Land and the adjacent undeveloped

51 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

area south of St Mary’s Church. The change is in line with criterion c.

3.208 Criterion d: curtilage of dwellings where the land has the capacity to extend the built form of the village. In Bulwick, change PM038 indicates that the Council are now satisfied that including the whole of the rear gardens of Nos. 25 and 28 along the main road would not contribute to extending the built form of the village. Change PM042 at Collyweston; PM076 at Little Addington; PM081 at Lutton; PM085 at Slipton; PM109 at Upper Benefield; and, PM125 at Woodnewton set out boundaries that promote consistency with criterion d.

3.209 The Proposed Changes (February 2009) Inset Map 15 would seem to indicate a minor drafting error in the boundary change for Cotterstock, Nevertheless, change PM043 which brings in the boundary to the south west of Stallingborough and the neighbouring properties seems consistent with criterion d. At Denford, change PM047 to exclude the area to the east of 4 Duck End is consistent with the criterion. Change PM068 sets out a change to include a bath house at 89 Lowick Road in Islip, as agreed on site. As previously stated, the Council should seek to provide accurate maps to aide the reading of the Plan. Other areas of land at Islip have been correctly excluded under this criterion.

3.210 Criterion e: areas of land currently with planning permission at 1 April 2008 adjoining the built up area. Change PM064 extends the settlement boundary to include the plot with extant planning permission between Coppice House and Walter’s Coppice, Hemington. The change is appropriate in view of the criterion. The change does not extend the boundary sufficiently to justify a further extension to include the dwellings south of Walter’s Coppice along the main road through the village subsequently; that group of dwellings should remain outside of the settlement boundary in accordance with criterion b.

3.211 In Polebrook, planning permission for a development at the Allotment Gardens on Kings Arms Lane has lapsed. Subsequently, the boundary has been revised in line with criterion c (change PM084). Similarly, the planning permission at change PM127 has also lapsed and the land north of Manor House Cottage has been excluded, correctly, from the boundary.

3.212 The boundary to the north of Tollymore, Corner Cottage and Ivy Cott, Thorpe Waterville, has been revised in line with the planning permission relating to the area now included in the boundary. The new position on the area now means the proposed change (PM096) is also consistent with criterion d.

52 East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan Inspector’s Report 2009

Changes PM108 and PM111 at Upper Benefield are consistent with criterion e.

3.213 Criterion f: proposed allocations are included. This not a criterion but a statement to clarify that land which is allocated in the plan for development, for example for housing or employment, has been included within the settlement boundary. I do not consider it to have been demonstrated that the RNOTP is unsound such as to warrant the making of any additional allocations on the edge of settlements, including the service centres of King’s Cliffe, Nassington and Warmington. CSS policy 1 will apply in such situations.

4 Overall Conclusion

4.1 I conclude that, with the amendments I recommend, the East Northamptonshire Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan satisfies the requirements of s20(5) of the 2004 Act and is sound in that it is justified, effective and consistent with national policy in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 4.52 of PPS12.

INSPECTOR

Attached:

Annex 1 – Schedule of the Council’s suggested changes to the DPD, as amended by recommendations within the main report.

Annex 2 Full text of changes to paragraphs 8.711 and policy OUN3 (paragraph 3.91 of this report refers)

Annex 3 Schedule of the Council’s proposed changes to the submission Proposals Map