Fillable Sustainability-assessment Sustainability Assessment

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Sustainability-assessment Sustainability Assessment Form

Use Fill to complete blank online SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

Sustainability-assessment Sustainability Assessment

On average this form takes 121 minutes to complete

The Sustainability-assessment Sustainability Assessment form is 23 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 0 check-boxes
  • 482 other fields

Country of origin: UK
File type: PDF

Use our library of forms to quickly fill and sign your South Northamptonshire Council forms online.

BROWSE SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
Page 1 of 51
Appendix F: Basic Conditions Statement
Attachment B: Sustainability Assessment
Kislingbury Parish
Neighbourhood Development Plan
- Sustainability Assessment
Prepared by the NDP Steering Group
Page 2 of 51
CONTENTS
Page
Section 1 Introduction 4
1.1 Sustainability Assessment
4
1.2 The Kislingbury Challenge 4
1.3 Framework Report 5
1.4 Sustainability Assessment Approach 5
1.5 Plan Objectives 7
1.6 Monitoring 8
Section 2 Strategic Option Assessment 9
2.1 Potential Sites 9
2.2 Approach 9
2.3 Site Assessment against Site Evaluation Criteria 9
2.4 Site Options Assessment 11
2.5 Additional Information provided by Consultees 18
2.6 Site Assessment against Plan Objectives (Preferred Sites) 19
Section 3 Additional Policy Assessment 22
3.1 Introduction 22
3.2 Common Policies 22
3.3 Additional Policies 23
Section 4 References 27
Tables
1.
NDP Sustainability Objectives 5
2.
Plan and Sustainability Objectives
7
3.
Preliminary Site Option List 9
4.
Site Evaluation Criteria 10
5.
Stage 1. Site Option Assessment 12
6.
Stage 1. Site Option Assessment Summary
14
7.
Stage 2. Site Option Assessment (preferred sites) 15
8.
Stage 2. Site Option Assessment Summary (preferred site) 17
9.
Additional Information 18
10.
Site Assessment (Preferred Sites) against Plan Objectives 19
11.
Site Assessment (Preferred Sites)against Plan Objectives Summary 20
12.
NDP Policies directly linked to the JCS Plan Policies 22
13.
Additional Policies 23
14.
Additional Policy Assessment against NDP Objectives 24
15.
Additional Policy Assessment against NDP Objectives Summary 26
16.
Reasonable Walking Distances 29
17.
Record Maps 41
Appendices 28
A.
Notes to Table 4 28
B.
Criteria for Site Selection 30
C.
Site Selection Spreadsheet 36
D.
Record Maps 41
E.
Statutory Consultees Responses 46
Page 3 of 51
Kislingbury Parish Council
The Parish Office
The Paddocks
Baker Street
Gayton
NN7 3EZ
Email: a_addison@btinternet.com
http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/index.php
Page 4 of 51
Section 1: Introduction
The Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) identifies the development objectives for the
Parish of
Kislingbury (the Parish) and sets out planning policies to realise these which, as required by the
Localism Act, must
comply with the West Northants Joint Core Strategy Plan adopted on December 15
th
2014 (JCS Plan).
1.1 Sustainability Assessment
The environmental assessment of plans with a significant environmental impact is a requirement of the EC
Directive
on the assessment of plans and programmes on the environment (Directive 2001/42/EC), known
as the Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive.
To be in line with the West Northants Joint Core
Strategy Plan
a need for an additional approximately 50
homes during the plan period 2013 – 2027 has been identified, approximately 40 by way of an Allocated
development Site and the remainder through windfall infill developments.
Sustainability Assessment is a process to assess the social, environmental and economic impacts of a Plan
and is a
requirement for local development documents under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004. This
requirement does not extend to neighbourhood development plans. However, because
sustainability is important to
the Parish Council and local community and because the Parish is located
entirely within the Nene River Valley then sustainability has been a paramount consideration in the
development of
the Plan, and sustainability has guided the decisions, and the options have been subject to
Sustainability Assessment.
A Sustainability Assessment of the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Development Plan has been undertaken on
the site allocation within the plan. The focus of this
Assessment is, therefore, on the detailed proposals for
sites and developments for a rural village that is a small part of
the District covered by the JCS Plan. Equally
in this document an assessment is made of all the Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the NDP against
Sustainability criteria in order to demonstrate conformance with the NPPF and JCS Plan.
1.2 The Kislingbury Challenge
The Plan is the response of the Parish Council to the JCS Plan requirement that some 50 new homes be built
in
Kislingbury between 2014 and 2029. The challenge facing the Parish Council is to identify sites for these
houses in a
village that is entirely within the Nene River Valley, which does not want development, and is
concerned about the impact of
expansion upon the natural environment and quality of life and services,
and wants to protect the Village from being absorbed by Northampton Borough.
The Plan is largely, albeit not exclusively, about housing so it is housing options and the implementation of
the
preferred option that is the primary focus of the Assessment. Other aspects of living and working in
Kislingbury are
important and are considered but, as the baseline data and consultations demonstrate,
housing is by far the issue
that most concerns residents.
Page 5 of 51
1.3 Framework Report
A Sustainability Assessment Framework report (the Framework Report – Attachment A to the Basic
Conditions Statement) was produced in May 2015. This outlined the
relevant planning policies and
documents that apply to the Kislingbury NDP and included some baseline
data. More detailed information
can be found in Appendix H- Basline Report for Kislingbury and Evidence Inventory, under the following
headings:
Parish Demographics
Housing Need and Provision
Environment and Conservation
Transport, Traffic, and Travel
Community Services and Youth
Flooding and Groundwater
Employment and the Economy
1.4 Sustainability Assessment Approach
A starting point for appraising the effects of the proposed Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan is provided
through the
identification of overriding sustainability objectives. These were identified in the sustainability
Assessment Framework
Report and are set out below in Table 1. Those that are not applicable to the NDP
have been removed.
Table 1
NDP Sustainability Objectives
SA Objective
A
SA1
Reduce the need to travel and facilitate modal shift
B
SA2
Reduce / minimise the potential increase in congestion
C
SA3
Avoid sensitive development within areas of high noise levels or poor air quality
D
SA4
Protect the fabric and setting of designated and undesignated heritage assets
E
SA5
Maintain and enhance the structure and function of habitats and populations of species, including
those specifically protected.
F
SA6
Enhance and protect greenspace networks and habitat connectivity, including river and stream
corridors, to assist in species migration and dispersal.
G
SA9
To improve community safety, reduce crime and the fear of crime
H
SA12
Continue to improve energy efficiency of dwellings
I
SA16
To improve health and reduce health inequalities
J
SA17
To create high quality employment opportunities and develop a strong culture of enterprise and
innovation
K
SA18
Ensure that the quality, character and local distinctiveness of the landscape, and the features within
them are conserved and enhance
L
SA19
Enhance the form and design of the built environment
M
SA20
To ensure that the housing stock meets the housing needs of the local people
N
SA21
To develop and maintain a balanced and sustainable population structure with good access to services
and facilities
O
SA22
To reduce spatial inequalities in social opportunities
P
SA25
Maintain and continue to improve the quality of ground and river water
Q
SA26
Reduce risk of flooding
R
SA27
Improve efficiency of water use
S
SA28
Identify opportunities to implement strategic flood risk management options/measures to reflect the
objective in the River Nene Catchment Flood Risk Management Plan
These objectives are derived from the sustainability objectives which were used to appraise the West Northants
JCS Plan.
Page 6 of 51
An exercise was undertaken at the early stage of Sustainability Assessment to identify from
the JCS Plan the
sustainability objectives most relevant and useful for appraising the Kislingbury
Neighbourhood Plan. This
exercise is reported on in Sections 5 and 6 of the SA Framework Report.
Whilst the Core Strategy
sustainability objectives operate well at the level of the West Northants, which includes the South Northants
District, the
resulting sustainability objectives set out above in Table 1 required further development in
order to provide a useful tool for assessing the individual sites.
Thus to ensure a proper Sustainability Analysis of the Kislingbury Plan the following approach has been
used:
1.
The Kislingbury Sustainability Objectives (Table 1) were used to inform the development of Plan
Objectives for
the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan. Table 2 shows the compatibility between the
sustainability objectives and
the Plan objectives.
2.
The JCS Plan, and hence the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan, requires the allocation of sites for
development. The use of the Kislingbury Sustainability Objectives listed in
Table 1 was considered
insufficient as a tool for distinguishing the sites on the basis of their sustainability
credentials.
Therefore the sustainability objectives were used
to
develop site evaluation criteria. The site
evaluation criteria used are set out in Table 4 under Section 2.3 of this
report.
3.
The Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan includes planning polices specific to the Parish which although
compliant
with those in the JCS Plan are not present in that Strategy. These additional policies are
detailed, and apply
only to Kislingbury. The Kislingbury Sustainability Objectives listed in Table 1
operate at too general a
level to be useful for assessment of these Policies. These are, therefore,
assessed against the Plan Objectives
listed in Table 2
In summary, Assessment proceeds by:
•
appraising the site options using a set of site evaluation criteria which are derived from the
Kislingbury
Sustainability Objectives and which were the subject of community input during two
village
meetings in 2014 and two Village Questionnaires; and
•
appraising additional policies against the Plan Objectives.
Page 7 of 51
1.5 Plan Objectives
Table 2 lists the Plan objectives and shows how these deliver the Sustainability Objectives. (Source NDP and Sustainability Framework)
Table 2: Plan and Sustainability Objectives
Plan Objective
Sustainability Objectives
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Q
R
S
POH1
To provide a limited amount of new housing to meet local needs;
including a greater range of affordable/low cost housing for Kislingbury
residents.
POH2
To provide a mix of housing types including smaller homes for elderly
villagers
wishing to downsize and for young singles, couples or
families needing their first
home.
POH3
To ensure that new development is of high quality design, is built to a
high
sustainability standard and reinforces local distinctiveness.
POH4
To ensure that the design and location of new development is
resilient to the
effects of climate change and flooding.
POE1
To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces.
POE2
To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views.
POE3
To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village.
POE4
To conserve and enhance biodiversity.
POE5
To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land.
POE6
To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution from
traffic
congestion.
POT1
To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths, where
appropriate.
POT2
To position new development such that current problems with
congestion, parking
and road safety are not exacerbated and, if
possible, reduced.
POEC1
To encourage and support home working.
POEC2
To provide local affordable housing for local employees.
POC1
To give preferential access to some new homes for people with a
strong local
connection.
POC2
To integrate new housing into Kislingbury such that today’s rural
look and feel is
maintained.
POC3
To provide homes for younger people and young families and so
counter the
growing demographic imbalance.
POC4
To preserve important village assets.
Page 8 of 51
1.6 Monitoring
Monitoring of this SA will be carried out by South Northants District Council. The district council will look at
the
significant effects identified in this SA and compare them to its own SA monitoring framework. If the
significant
effects identified are not covered by the district council's SA monitoring framework then the
district council will need
to add additional indicators to its SA monitoring framework.
Page 9 of 51
Section 2: Site Option Assessment
2.1 Potential Sites
Initially 11 potential sites were identified all from the West Northants JCS Plan SHLAA. These are listed in
Table 3.
These sites have a potential
capacity some 35 times that required (at the Core Strategy density of 35
homes/hectare) for the new housing
requirement. However, many of them are completely unsuitable due
to Environmental considerations.
Table 3: Preliminary Site Option List
Site Id
SHLAA Ref.
Description
Size HA
1
SNC561
Willow View
0.28
2
SNC276
Mill Road
0.74
3
SNC635
Beech Lane East
6.60
4
SNC581
A4500 South
6.52
5
SNC340
Camp Lane
1.34
6
SNC636
Hall Farm Camp Lane
10.25
7
SNC301
Rothersthorpe Road East
6.08
8
SNC397
Rothersthorpe Road
4.28
9
SNC637
Millers Close
1.82
10
SNC302
Rothersthorpe Road West
1.62
11
SNC596
Pineham
11.25
2.2 Approach
Sustainability has been a major consideration throughout the Plan and potential sites were assessed using
the Site Evaluation Criteria shown in Section 2.3 below, and against the Plan Objectives, to
identify and
confirm the sites with the greatest sustainability credentials. The Plan Objectives were assessed in Section 1
against the Sustainability Objectives presented in the Framework Report (Table 1) to ensure that they
supported the Sustainability Objectives. The Sustainability Objectives identified in the Sustainability
Framework Report, Section 6, are based on those used in the West Northants JCS Plan.
The
Site Evaluation
Criteria have been derived from these Sustainability Objectives. The preferred sites were then further
evaluated against the Plan
Objectives to ensure both thoroughness and consistency.
2.3 Site Assessment against the Site Evaluation Criteria
Kislingbury is a small village and not all site evaluation criteria are equally useful when assessing relative
sustainability. For example, in a village the size of Kislingbury distances to essential services are all within the
acceptable limits, but its location makes conservation and improvement of the environment very significant.
It is also located on and very close to Zone 3 Flood Zones, which makes some sites very difficult.
From the Questionnaires and the Village Meetings we have been able to distil the key issues that concern
the Village. Some criteria are seen as more important than others to sustainable life in the village. These are:
•
a strong preference for sites that maintain the gap between the Village and Northampton;
•
a strong preference for sites on which the Housing need of the Village can be met;
•
a strong antipathy for development that exacerbates existing traffic problems in the village; and
•
a desire for development to be inside the ‘village envelope’, not necessarily within the existing Village
Confines.
Page 10 of 51
This, together with the different usefulness of tests, suggests a two-stage application of the Evaluation
tests
in which:
•
in Stage 1 all sites are appraised using the most significant tests (site evaluation criteria) to
produce an
initial sustainability ranking and thus, preferred sites; and then
•
Stage 2 further appraises the preferred sites using the remaining site evaluation criteria.
Table 4 lists the site evaluation criteria tests (in Stage 1 and Stage 2 groups) and gives notes on their
assessment
method. These notes are further elaborated on in Appendix A to this document.
Table 4: Site Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Tests (Stage 1)
Method of Assessment
1
Is the Site Available?
From SHLAA assessment and Landowner
Responses
2
Is the site a Brownfield or green field site?
Included as it is a key criterion in the NPPF.
Assessed by site visit.
3
Is the site within the existing built up area of the
village
From SHLAA Map.
4
Is the Site Contiguous with the existing Village Confines?
From SHLAA Map
5
Is the site free from flood risk?
Information supplied by Environment Agency
6
Is the site particularly sensitive from a landscape
standpoint?
Information from NCC Archaeological Dept, and
Natural England
7
Is the site highly sensitive environmentally or
ecologically?
Information from Natural England
Evaluation Tests (Stage 2)
8
Does the Site lie between the Village and Northampton?
From SHLAA Map
9
Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to the
site?
From SHLAA Map and Site Visit
10
Are there tree preservation orders?
Assessed using Tree Preservation Order Map
11
Is the site of archaeological significance or interest?
Assessed using advice from NCC Archaeological
Dept
12
Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets?
Information from Historic England
13
Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to moderate agricultural
land, or worse)
Landowner Information, and site assessment
14
Does the site have any infrastructure deficiencies?
Information from NCC Highways and
AngliaWater
15
Will the local traffic impact be acceptable?
Assessment from SHLAA Map and Site Visit
16
Is the Site subject to constraints regarding feasibility and health
factors, i.e. pollution
Assessed by Site Visits and Landowner
Information
17
Offer easy pedestrian access to amenities
All sites are equally feasible assessed against
these criteria. They are included as they
demonstrate necessary attributes of
Sustainability. See Appendix A
18
Is community healthcare reasonably accessible?
19
Is a bus stop reasonably accessible?
20
Are shops reasonably accessible?
21
Are community facilities reasonably accessible?
22
Are local schools reasonably accessible?
SHLAA Map can be seen in Appendix D
Page 11 of 51
2.4 Site Options Assessment
Stage 1 of the Site Option Assessment:
•
applies the site evaluation criteria that, as described earlier, are most important to the Parish
and most
useful in distinguishing the sustainability credentials of sites; and
•
applies the site evaluation criteria to all the sites that have been identified in the JCS Plan SHLAA
process.
Table 5 assesses the Stage 1 Site Evaluation Criteria as:
•
PP - Very Positive
•
P – Positive
•
Neutral
•
N - Negative
•
NN - Very Negative
Table 6 summarises the Stage 1 Assessment.
Stage 2 Site Option Assessment (preferred sites)
Stage 2 of the Site Option Assessment applies the site evaluation criteria:
•
that, as described earlier, are important but less use in separating sites on sustainability
considerations;
•
only to those sites that have emerged as the preferred locations for new housing.
In this assessment:
All tests are significant, and the impact is assessed as :
PP - Very Positive;
P - Positive;
Neutral;
N - Negative; or
NN - Very Negative.
•
Reasonable walking distances are specified in Table 16 in Appendix A.
Each Assessment was given a Score and the Site Selection was driven by those that achieved the highest
positive score. See Appendix 8 for details of Score Values.
A copy of the Guidance Notes used for assessing each Site is shown in the Appendix.
A copy of the Spreadsheet recording the site assessments is attached in the Appendix
Page 12 of 51
Table 5: Stage 1 Site Option Assessment (See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)
Site SHLAA Number
Selection Criteria Test
SNC561
SNC276
SNC635
SNC581
SNC340
SNC636
SNC301
SNC397
SNC637
SNC302
SNC596 **
1
Is the Site Available?
SHLAA assessment is
that this site would
be suitable if
available
Impact: N -5
Identified as
available in
SHLAA.
Confirmed as
available by
Owner.
Impact: PP 10
SHLAA identified the
site as unavailable
and unsuitable and
excluded it from
consideration
Impact: NN -50
SHLAA identified
the site as
unavailable and
unsuitable and
excluded it from
consideration
Impact: NN -50
Available
confirmed by
owner
Impact: PP 10
SHLAA assessment
is that this site
would be suitable if
available
Impact: N -5
Identified as
available in SHLAA.
Confirmed
available by Owner
Impact: PP 10
Available
confirmed by
owner
Impact: PP 10
SHLAA identified
the site as
unavailable and
unsuitable.
Impact: NN -50
Identified as
available in
SHLAA
Impact: P 5
SHLAA identified
the site as
unavailable and
unsuitable and
excluded it from
consideration
Impact: NN -50
2
Is the site a Brownfield or
Greenfield site?
Greenfield
Impact: NN - 10
Greenfield
Impact: NN -10
Greenfield
Impact: NN - 10
Greenfield
Impact: NN - 10
Greenfield
Impact: NN -10
Brownfield some
contamination
Impact: P 5
Greenfield
Impact: NN - 10
Greenfield
Impact: NN - 10
Greenfield
Impact: NN-
10
Greenfield
Impact: NN -10
Greenfield
Impact: NN -10
3
Is the site within the existing
built up area of the
village
Outside built up area
but with one
boundary contiguous
to Built up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up
area but with
one boundary
contiguous to
Built up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up area
but with one
boundary contiguous
to Built up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up
area with no
boundaries
contiguous
Impact: NN -10
Outside built up
area but with one
boundary
contiguous to Built
up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up
area but with one
boundary
contiguous to Built
up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up
area but with one
boundary
contiguous to Built
up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up
area but with
one boundary
contiguous to
Built up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up
area but with
one boundary
contiguous to
Built up area
Impact: N -5
Outside built up
area with no
boundaries
contiguous
Impact: NN -10
Not Applicable
4
Is the Site Contiguous with
the existing Village
Confines?
Outside Confines but
with one or more
boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside Confines
but with one or
more boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside Confines but
with one or more
boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside of Confines
with No Boundaries
Contiguous with
Confines
Impact: NN -50
Outside Confines
but with one or
more boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside Confines
but with one or
more boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside Confines
but with one or
more boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside Confines
but with one or
more boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside Confines
but with one or
more boundaries
contiguous with
Confines
Impact: N -5
Outside of
Confines with No
Boundaries
Contiguous with
Confines
Impact: NN -50
Not Applicable
5
Is the site free from flood
risk? (2 criteria)
Potentially poorly
drained soil saturated
after rain. Flood Zone
3
Impact: NN -55
Potentially
poorly drained
soil saturated
after rain. Flood
Zone 3,
protected by
Bund
Impact: N -10
Potentially poorly
drained soil saturated
after rain. Flood Zone
3
Impact: NN -55
Potentially poorly
drained soil
saturated after rain
Flood Zone 3.
Impact: NN -55
Mostly drained soil
No Risk of Flood
Impact::PP 15
Well drained soil
No Risk of Flood
Impact: PP 20
Well drained soil
No Risk of Flood
Impact: PP 20
Well drained soil
No Risk of Flood
Impact: PP 20
Well drained soil
No Risk of Flood
Impact: PP 20
Potentially
poorly drained
soil saturated
after rain. No
Risk of Flood
Impact: P 5
Not Applicable
Page 13 of 51
** SNC596 is excluded from the Assessment as it is the Subject of a Planning Approval for an Extension of the Pineham Industrial Estate and therefore no
longer available.
6
Is the site particularly
sensitive from a Geodiversity
and Landscape
standpoint?
(2 Criteria)
Mineral Deposits of
Medium Significance.
Landscape Issues.
Major impact on
surrounding natural
landscape and views.
There are no
environmental
constraints on this
site
Impact: NN -10
Mineral Deposits
of Medium
Significance.
Landscape
Issues. Major
impact on
surrounding
natural
landscape and
views. There are
no
environmental
constraints on
this site
Impact: N -5
Mineral Deposits of
Medium Significance.
Major impact on
surrounding natural
landscape and views.
Large amount of
significant hedgerows
and trees
Impact: NN -25
Mineral Deposits of
Medium
Significance. Major
impact on
surrounding
natural landscape
and views. Large
amount of
significant
hedgerows and
trees
Impact: NN -25
No geological or
Landscape issues.
Medium impact on
surrounding
natural landscape
and views. Small
amount of
significant
Hedgerows or
Trees
Impact: PP 10
Mineral Deposits of
Medium
Significance.
Medium impact on
surrounding
natural landscape
and views. Small
amount of
significant
Hedgerows or
Trees
\impact: N - 5
Mineral Deposits of
Medium
Significance. Major
impact on
surrounding
natural landscape
and views. Small
amount of
significant
Hedgerows or
Trees
Impact: N -10
Mineral Deposits
of Medium
Significance.
Medium impact
on surrounding
natural
landscape and
views. Small
amount of
significant
Hedgerows or
Trees
Impact: N - 5
Mineral Deposits
of Medium
Significance.
Major impact on
surrounding
natural
landscape and
views. There are
no
environmental
constraints on
this site
Impact: N -5
Mineral Deposits
of Medium
Significance.
Major impact on
surrounding
natural
landscape and
views. There are
no
environmental
constraints on
this site
Impact: N -5
Not Applicable
7
Is the site highly sensitive
environmentally or
ecologically?
Very little or no plant
life, animal life or
insect life of
significance on this
site
Impact: PP 10
Very little or no
plant life, animal
life or insect life
of significance
on this site
Impact: PP 10
Plant life, bird life,
insect life of major
significance on this
site
Impact: NN -10
Plant life, bird life,
insect life of major
significance on this
site
Impact: NN -10
Very little or no
plant life, animal
life or insect life of
significance on this
site
Impact: PP 10
Very little or no
plant life, animal
life or insect life of
significance on this
site
Impact: PP 10
Very little or no
plant life, animal
life or insect life of
significance on this
site
Impact: PP 10
Very little or no
plant life, animal
life or insect life
of significance
on this site
Impact: PP 10
Very little or no
plant life, animal
life or insect life
of significance
on this site
Impact: PP 10
Very little or no
plant life, animal
life or insect life
of significance
on this site
Impact: Pp 10
Not Applicable
Page 14 of 51
Table 6: Stage 1 Site Option Assessment Summary
(See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)
Site SHLAA Number
Selection Criteria Test
SNC561
SNC276
SNC635
SNC581
SNC340
SNC636
SNC301
SNC397
SNC637
SNC302
SNC596 **
1
Is the Site Available?
N -5
PP 10
NN -50
NN -50
PP 10
N -5
PP 10
PP 10
NN -50
P 5
NN -50
2
Is the site a Brownfield or green
field site?
NN -10
NN -10
NN - 10
NN -10
NN -10
P 5
NN -10
NN -10
NN -10
NN -10
NN -10
3
Is the site within the existing built
up area of the
village
N -5
N -5
N -5
NN -10
N -5
N -5
N -5
N -5
N -5
NN -10
4
Is the Site Contiguous with the
existing Village Confines?
N -5
N -5
N -5
NN -50
N -5
N -5
N -5
N -5
N -5
NN-50
5
Is the site free from flood risk?
(2 Criteria)
NN -55
N -10
NN -55
NN -55
P 15
PP 20
PP 20
PP 20
PP 20
P 5
6
Is the site particularly sensitive
from a Geodiversity and
Landscape
standpoint? (2
Criteria)
NN -10
N -5
NN -25
NN -25
PP 10
N -5
N -10
N -5
N -5
N -5
7
Is the site highly sensitive
environmentally or
ecologically?
PP 10
PP 10
NN -10
NN -10
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
Score
-80
-15
-160
-210
25
15
10
15
-45
-55
** SNC596 is excluded from the Assessment as it is the Subject of a Planning Approval for an Extension of the Pineham Industrial Estate and therefore no longer available.
Key
Impact
Impact Code
Strong Positive
PP
Positive
P
Neutral
-
Negative
N
Strong Negative
NN
This Assessment produced a preferred list containing sites SNC340, SNC636, SNC301, and SNC 397. These were then further assessed using the Stage 2
criteria.
Page 15 of 51
Table 7: Stage 2 Site Option Assessment (preferred sites) (See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)
Site SHLAA Number
Selection Criteria Test
SNC340
SNC636
SNC301
SNC397
8
Does the Site lie between the Village and
Northampton?
The site adjoins a built up area of the
Village
Impact: P 5
The site adjoins a built up area of the Village
Impact: P 5
The site adjoins a built up area of the Village
Impact: P 5
The site adjoins a built up area of the
Village
Impact: P 5
9
Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to
the
site?
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3
sides
Impact: PP 10
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides
Impact: PP 10
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides
Impact: PP 10
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3
sides
Impact: PP 10
10
Are there tree preservation orders?
No Tree Preservation Orders
Impact: PP 10
No Tree Preservation Orders
Impact: PP 10
No Tree Preservation Orders
Impact: PP 10
No Tree Preservation Orders
Impact: PP 10
11
Is the site of archaeological significance or
interest?
Some evidence of archaeological
features ground works or deposits
Impact: N -5
Some evidence of archaeological features
ground works or deposits
Impact: N -5
Some evidence of archaeological features
ground works or deposits
Impact: N -5
Some evidence of archaeological
features ground works or deposits
Impact: N -5
12
Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets?
Some Impact on Conservation area
Impact: N -5
Major Impact on Conservation Area
Impact: NN -10
Major Impact on Conservation Area
Impact: NN -10
No Impact on Conservation Area
Impact: P 5
13
Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to
moderate agricultural land, or worse)
Very Good Soil Quality
Impact: N -5
Excellent Soil Quality
Impact: NN -10
Excellent Soil Quality
Impact: NN -10
Excellent Soil Quality
Impact: NN -10
14
Does the site have any infrastructure
deficiencies?
Minimal Investment needed to
access Services
Impact: P 5
Access to all services already
Impact: PP 10
Minimal Investment needed to access Services
Impact: P 5
Minimal Investment needed to
access Services
Impact: P 5
15
Will the local traffic impact be acceptable?
Traffic will increase volumes at
Village Congestion points
Impact: N -5
Traffic will increase volumes at Village
Congestion points
Impact: N -5
Traffic will increase volumes at Village
Congestion points
Impact: N -5
Traffic will increase volumes at
Village Congestion points
Impact: N -5
16
Is the Site subject to constraints regarding
feasibility and health factors
At least 50 metres from un-
neighbourly effects
Impact: NN -10
At least 50 metres from un-neighbourly effects
Impact: NN -10
At least 50 metres from un-neighbourly effects
Impact: NN -10
At least 100 metres from un-
neighbourly effects
Impact: NN -5
17
Rights of way and Footpaths (2 Criteria)
No Rights of way. No existing
footpaths/pavements but can be
created
Impact: P 5
No Rights of way. There are existing footpaths
roads
Impact: PP 20
No Rights of way. No existing
footpaths/pavements but can be created
Impact: P 5
No Rights of way. No existing
footpaths/pavements but can be
created
Impact: P 5
18
Is community healthcare reasonably accessible?
There are Health Care facilities
within a 15 minute car drive
Impact: N -5
There are Health Care facilities within a 15
minute car drive
Impact: N -5
There are Health Care facilities within a 15
minute car drive
Impact: N -5
There are Health Care facilities
within a 15 minute car drive
Impact: N -5
19
Is a Bus Stop reasonably accessible and are there
Cycle Paths? (2Criteria)
Bus stop within 10 minutes walk. No
existing Cycle paths or roads for
cycling but a new cycle path could be
created to meet existing paths or
roads
Impact: N -10
Bus stop within 10 minutes walk. No existing
Cycle paths or roads for cycling but a new cycle
path could be created to meet existing paths
or roads
Impact: N -10
Bus stop within 5 minutes walk. No existing
Cycle paths or roads for cycling but a new cycle
path could be created to meet existing paths
or roads
Impact: Neutral 0
Bus stop within 5 minutes walk. No
existing Cycle paths or roads for
cycling but a new cycle path could be
created to meet existing paths or
roads
Impact: Neutral 0
20
Are shops reasonably accessible?
Shops within 10 minutes walk of the
site
Impact: P 5
Shops within 10 minutes walk of the site
Impact: P 5
Shops within 10 minutes walk of the site
Impact: P 5
Shops within 10 minutes walk of the
site
Impact: P 5
Page 16 of 51
Site SHLAA Number
Selection Criteria Test
SNC340
SNC636
SNC301
SNC397
21
Are community facilities reasonably accessible?
There are cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within 10 to 20
mins walk of site
Impact: P 5
There are cultural, religious and recreational
facilities within 10 to 20 mins walk of site
Impact: P 5
There are cultural, religious and recreational
facilities within 10 to 20 mins walk of site
Impact: P 5
There are cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within 10 to 20
mins walk of site
Impact: P 5
22
Are local schools reasonably accessible?
There are schools with available
places within 10 to 20 mins walk or
cycle from the site
Impact: P 5
There are schools with available places within
10 to 20 mins walk or cycle from the site
Impact: P 5
There are schools with available places within
10 to 20 mins walk or cycle from the site
Impact: P 5
There are schools with available
places within 10 to 20 mins walk or
cycle from the site
Impact: P 5
Page 17 of 51
Table 8: Stage 2 Site Option Assessment Summary (preferred sites) (See Appendix C for detailed Assessment Spreadsheet)
** Information provided by the Owner after the assessment process was complete makes site SNC636 unsuitable as it is not available for Development.
•
Of the three remaining Sites SNC397 is the most suitable, being available and large enough, and most crucially it fits to the confines of the Village in
the least intrusive way, and is the site allocated in the Plan.
•
SNC340 is available and suitable, and could accommodate the number of Houses needed, but is negatively affected by a number of factors which
were clearly identified in previously refused Planning Applications, and most crucially does not fit to the Confines of the Village in a way which
maintains a cohesive Village unit. It also reduces the gap between the Village and Northampton significantly.
•
SNC301 is large enough, but the shape makes the likely layout of any development very unattractive. Major Gap reduction impact.
Site SHLAA Number
Selection Criteria Test
SNC340
SNC636 **
SNC301
SNC397
8
Does the Site lie between the Village and Northampton?
P 5
P 5
P 5
P 5
9
Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to the
site?
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
10
Are there tree preservation orders?
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
PP 10
11
Is the site of archaeological significance or interest?
N -5
N -5
N -5
N -5
12
Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets?
N -5
NN -10
NN -10
P 5
13
Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to moderate agricultural land, or worse)
N -5
NN -10
NN -10
NN -10
14
Does the site have any infrastructure deficiencies?
P 5
PP 10
P 5
P 5
15
Will the local traffic impact be acceptable?
N -5
N -5
N -5
N-5
16
Is the Site subject to constraints regarding feasibility and health factors
NN -10
NN -10
NN -10
N -5
17
Rights of Way and Footpaths? (2 Criteria)
P 5
PP 20
P 5
P 5
18
Is community healthcare reasonably accessible?
N -5
N -5
N -5
N -5
19
Is a Bus Stop reasonably accessible and are there Cycle Paths? (2 Criteria)
?
N -10
N -10
Neutral 0
Neutral 0
20
Are shops reasonably accessible?
P 5
P 5
P 5
P 5
21
Are community facilities reasonably accessible?
P 5
P 5
P 5
P 5
22
Are local schools reasonably accessible?
P 5
P 5
P 5
P 5
Score
5
15
5
25
Key
Impact
Impact Code
Strong Positive
PP
Positive
P
Neutral
-
Negative
N
Strong Negative
NN
Page 18 of 51
2.5 Additional Information provided by Consultees
Table 9: Additional Information
Site SHLAA Number
SNC561
SNC276
SNC635
SNC581
SNC340
SNC636
SNC301
SNC397
SNC637
SNC302
SNC596 **
SHLAA Site Description
Willow View
Mill Road
Beech Lane East
A4500 South
Camp Lane
Hall Farm Camp
Lane
Rothersthorpe
Road East
Rothersthorpe
Road
Millers Close
Rothersthorpe
Road West
Pineham
NCC Transport
No Issues
Access width
could be an Issue
No Issues
No Direct Access
from A4500 would
be allowed
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
Access major
Constraint
No Issues
No Issues
NCC Minerals
In Mineral Safeguard
Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral Safeguard
Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
Not in Mineral
Safeguard area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
NCC Archaeology
No Known activity
Earthworks,
possibly
Manorial.
Extensive
remains
No Known Activity.
Ridge and Furrow
No Know Activity.
Adjacent to Bronze
age activity
Potentially
archaeologically
sensitive.
Investigation
needed
Possible Iron Age
and Romano British
activity, and Ridge
and Furrow
Ridge and Furrow
Iron age activity
no known
activity
Ridge and
Furrow
Natural England
No known sites for
nature conservation
or landscape. No
record of protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites for
nature conservation
or landscape. No
record of protected
species
No known sites for
nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of protected
species
No known sites for
nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of protected
species
No known sites for
nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of protected
species
No known sites for
nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites for
nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of protected
species
Environment Agency
Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 2
Flood Zone 2
Flood Zone 1
Flood Zone 1
Flood Zone 1
Flood Zone 1
Flood Zone 1
English Heritage
No Issues
Adjacent to
Historic Church
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
Development
would affect
Conservation area
and Open
Countryside
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
Highways Agency
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
No Issues
Proximity to M1
Proximity to M1
No Issues
Anglia Water
Overall Green
Overall Green
Overall Amber
Overall Amber
Overall Green
Overall Amber
Overall Amber
Overall Green
Overall Amber
Overall Amber
No Issues
Owner
No Response
Available
Not Available
Not Available
Available
Not Available
No Response
Available
Available
No Response
Not Available
Other
Daventry Council No
Comments. Village
Hall is opposed to
development on this
site
Daventry Council
No Comments
Daventry Council No
Comments. NBC
states that
developments on this
site must meet
Borough needs. KPFA
states that part of site
is leased to them
Daventry Council
No Comments. NBC
will incorporate
this site into Upton
Park SUE. KPFA are
negative about
development on
this site
Daventry Council
No Comments.
Village Hall has
many issues with
this site if chosen
for development.
KPFA are
supportive of
development on
this site.
Daventry Council
No Comments. NBC
states that
developments on
these sites must
meet Borough
needs
Daventry Council
No Comments.
Village Hall
concerns over
reduction of gap,
increased traffic,
and loss of
farmland.
Daventry Council
No Comments.
Village Hall has
concerns about
traffic
congestion and
pollution. Access
should be only
from
Rothersthorpe
Road
Daventry Council
No Comments
Daventry Council
No Comments
NBC states that
developments on
this site must meet
Borough needs
Negative/Positive/Neutral
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Negative
Neutral
Negative
Page 19 of 51
2.6 Site Assessment against Plan Objectives (preferred sites)
Assessment of the potential sites against the Site Evaluation Criteria produced a preferred list of 4 sites of which one was stated as not available by the
Owner after the Assessment was completed. As a secondary assessment the remaining three are appraised against the Plan
Objectives which, as explained in
Section 1, map to the sustainability objectives but are more effective, at this level of detail, in establishing the sustainability credentials.
Table 10: Site Assessment (Preferred Sites) against Plan Objectives
Site SHLAA Number
Objective
Size (ha)
SNC340
SNC301
SNC397
1.34 HA
6.08 HA
3.7 HA
POH1
To provide a limited amount of new housing to meet local needs;
including a
greater range of affordable/low cost housing for Kislingbury
residents.
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
POH2
To provide a mix of housing types including smaller homes for elderly
villagers
wishing to downsize and for young singles, couples or
families needing their
first home.
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
POH3
To ensure that new development is of high quality design, is built to a
high
sustainability standard and reinforces local distinctiveness.
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the
Objective.
Impact: PP
POH4
To ensure that the design and location of new development is
resilient to the
effects of climate change and flooding.
Site may be prone to
Surface Water Flooding
at the North East end
Impact: P
Site not subject to Flooding
Impact: PP
Site not subject to Flooding
Impact: PP
POE1
To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces.
N/A
N/A
N/A
POE2
To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views.
Encroaches on Gap,
Landscape and View
Impact: NN
Gap reduction and Site
would spoil landscape view
from Conservation area
Impact: NN
Site will minimally impact
view and landscape
Impact: N
POE3
To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village.
Visible from
Conservation Area
Impact: N
Site detracts from
Conservation Area and
Green
Impact: NN
No Impact on the Historic
Environment of the Village
Impact: PP
POE4
To conserve and enhance biodiversity.
Uses Open Countryside
with minimal impact on
Biodiversity
Impact: P
Uses Open Countryside with
minimal impact on
Biodiversity
Impact: P
Uses Open Countryside
with minimal impact on
Biodiversity
Impact: P
POE5
To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land.
Would use Site efficiently
for Housing but
Agricultural Land would
be lost
Impact: N
Would use Site efficiently for
Housing but Agricultural
Land would be lost
Impact: NN
Would use Site efficiently
for Housing but
Agricultural Land would be
lost
Impact: NN
Page 20 of 51
Table 11: Site Assessment (Preferred Sites) against Plan Objectives Summary
Site SHLAA Number
Objective
Test
SNC340
SNC301
SNC397
POH1
To provide a limited amount of new housing to meet local needs;
including a greater range of
affordable/low cost housing for Kislingbury
residents.
PP
PP
PP
POH2
To provide a mix of housing types including smaller homes for elderly
villagers wishing to downsize and
for young singles, couples or
families needing their first home.
PP
PP
PP
POH3
To ensure that new development is of high quality design, is built to a
high sustainability standard and
reinforces local distinctiveness.
PP
PP
PP
Site SHLAA
Number
Objective
Size
SNC340
1.34 HA
SNC301
6.08 HA
SNC397
3.7 HA
POE6
To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution from
traffic
congestion.
Would Increase Traffic
at Choke Points
Impact: NN
Would increase traffic but
some could avoid Village
Impact N
Would increase traffic
but some could avoid
Village
Impact N
POT1
To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths, where
appropriate.
Site delivers the Objective
Impact: P
Site delivers the Objective
Impact: P
Site delivers the Objective
Impact: P
POT2
To position new development such that current problems with
congestion, parking
and road safety are not exacerbated and, if
possible, reduced.
Site will not deliver the
Objective
Impact: N
Site will not deliver the
Objective
Impact: N
Site will not deliver the
Objective
Impact: N
POEC1
To encourage and support home working.
N/A
N/A
N/A
POEC2
To provide local affordable housing for local employees.
Site will deliver the
Objective
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
POC1
To give preferential access to some new homes for people with a
strong local
connection.
Site will deliver the
Objective
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
POC2
To integrate new housing into Kislingbury such that today’s rural
look and feel
is maintained.
Outside Village Confines
and Gap will be reduced
Impact: N
Outside Village Confines and
Gap will be reduced
Impact: N
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: P
POC3
To provide homes for younger people and young families and so
counter the
growing demographic imbalance.
Site will deliver the
Objective
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
POC4
To preserve important village assets.
Site will detract from view
and landscape
Impact: NN
Site will detract from view and
landscape
Impact: NN
No Impact on Important
Village Assets
Impact: PP
Page 21 of 51
Site SHLAA Number
Objective
Test
SNC340
SNC301
SNC397
POH4
To ensure that the design and location of new development is
resilient to the effects of climate change and
flooding.
P
PP
PP
POE1
To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces.
N/A
N/A
N/A
POE2
To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views.
NN
NN
N
POE3
To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village.
N
NN
PP
POE4
To conserve and enhance biodiversity.
P
P
P
POE5
To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land.
N
NN
NN
POE6
To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution from
traffic congestion.
NN
N
N
POT1
To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths, where
appropriate.
P
P
P
POT2
To position new development such that current problems with
congestion, parking and road safety are not
exacerbated and, if
possible, reduced.
N
N
N
POEC1
To encourage and support home working.
N/A
N/A
N/A
POEC2
To provide local affordable housing for local employees.
PP
PP
PP
POC1
To give preferential access to some new homes for people with a
strong local connection.
PP
PP
PP
POC2
To integrate new housing into Kislingbury such that today’s rural
look and feel is maintained.
N
N
P
POC3
To provide homes for younger people and young families and so
counter the growing demographic
imbalance.
PP
PP
PP
POC4
To preserve important village assets.
NN
NN
PP
Key
Impact
Impact Code
Strong Positive
PP
Positive
P
Neutral
--
Negative
N
Strong Negative
NN
Page 22 of 51
Section 3: Additional Policy Assessment
3.1 Introduction
The NDP contains policies that are common to the JCS Plan and policies that are particular to the NDP. In this
section those policies that are particular to the NDP are assessed against the NDP
Objectives to determine
their sustainability impact.
3.2 Common Policies
The Table below lists those policies in the NDP that are directly linked to, and supportive of, Objectives and
Policies in the JCS Plan. This Linkage is clearly shown in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Basic Conditions
Statement, of which this Sustainability Assessment is an Attachment.
Table 12: NDP Policies directly Linked to the JCS Plan Policies
C1
Green space and Landscaping
C2
Assets of Community Value
C3
Broadband – Fibre to the Premises
C4
Community Facilities and Services
D
1
Good Design
EM1
Heavy Goods Traffic
H
1
Tenancy mix
H2
Homes for Sale to Local Residents
H
3
Affordable Housing
H
4
Allocation of Affordable Housing
H5
Size of Homes
H
6
Lifetime Home Standards
HE1
Historic Environment
HS1
Scale of New Development
HS
2
Infill Housing
HS3
Site Allocation
T1
Traffic Congestion
T2
Pedestrian Footways
Page 23 of 51
3.3 Additional Policies
Additional policies are present to support the achievement of the local objectives, to improve sustainability
and
to mitigate the negative effects of the new developments. For these reasons the cumulative effect is
overwhelmingly
positive and mitigation is not required. The only additional Policy is:
Table 13: Additional Policy
HS4
Specific Requirements for the Development of
the Allocated Site
Page 24 of 51
Table 14: Additional Policy Assessment against NDP Objectives. (Policy identified in Table 13)
Policy
NDP Objective
HS4
POH1
To provide a limited amount of new housing to meet local needs;
including a greater range of affordable/low cost housing for Kislingbury
residents.
Site will deliver the Objective.
Impact: PP
POH2
To provide a mix of housing types including smaller homes for elderly
villagers wishing to downsize and for young singles, couples or
families needing their first home.
Site will deliver the Objective.
Impact: PP
POH3
To ensure that new development is of high quality design, is built to a
high sustainability standard and reinforces local distinctiveness.
Site will deliver the Objective.
Impact: PP
POH4
To ensure that the design and location of new development is
resilient to
the effects of climate change and flooding.
Site not subject to Flooding
Impact: PP
POE1
To protect and enhance the village’s open spaces.
N/A
POE2
To protect, enhance and conserve the landscape and views.
Site will minimally impact view
and landscape
Impact: N
POE3
To protect and enhance the historic environment of the village.
No Impact on the Historic
Environment of the Village
Impact: PP
POE4
To conserve and enhance biodiversity.
Uses Open Countryside with
minimal impact on Biodiversity
Impact: P
POE5
To use land efficiently and to preserve high quality agricultural land.
Would use Site efficiently for
Housing but Agricultural Land
would be lost
Impact: NN
Page 25 of 51
Policy
NDP Objective
HS4
POE6
To position development in order to avoid increasing pollution
from
traffic congestion.
Would increase traffic but
some could avoid Village
Impact N
POT1
To link all developments to the village centre with footpaths,
where
appropriate.
Site delivers the Objective
Impact: P
POT2
To position new development such that current problems with
congestion, parking and road safety are not exacerbated and, if
possible, reduced.
Site will not deliver the Objective
Impact: N
POEC1
To encourage and support home working.
N/A
POEC2
To provide local affordable housing for local employees.
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
POC1
To give preferential access to some new homes for people with a
strong local connection.
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
POC2
To integrate new housing into Kislingbury such that today’s
rural
look and feel is maintained.
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: P
POC3
To provide homes for younger people and young families
and so
counter the growing demographic imbalance.
Site will deliver the Objective
Impact: PP
POC4
To preserve important village assets.
No Impact on Important Village
Assets
Impact: PP
Page 26 of 51
Table 15: Additional Policy against NDP Objectives Assessment Summary – as per Table 14
POLICIES
HS4
POH1
PP
POH2
PP
POH3
PP
POH4
PP
POE1
N/A
POE2
N
POE3
PP
POE4
P
POE5
NN
POE6
N
POT1
P
POT2
N
POEC1
N/A
POEC2
PP
POC1
PP
POC2
P
POC3
PP
POC4
PP
Key
Impact
Impact Code
Strong Positive
PP
Positive
P
Neutral
--
Negative
N
Strong Negative
NN
Page 27 of 51
4.0 References
Additional information on the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan can be found in the following documents:
•
Kislingbury – Background Data
•
JCS Landscape Analysis
•
January 2013 Questionnaire Summary
•
March 2014 Village Meeting Report
•
October 2014 Village Meeting Report
•
October 2014 Village Survey Report
•
SNC Housing Survey Feedback
•
Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Assessment Framework Report
All are available on the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan website
http://www.kislingburyonline.co.uk/plan2014_index.php
Page 28 of 51
Appendices
Appendix A: Notes to Table 4 – Site Evaluation Notes
1.
Greenfield Sites
This criterion encourages the use of previously developed land. In so doing it both improves
sustainability by
seeking to avoid the loss of Greenfield land and re-using and improving previously
developed land. Sites that are
previously developed, especially if they are now derelict or no longer in
productive use, are rated positively in
sustainability terms. Greenfield sites are rated negatively.
2.
Traffic Volumes
Traffic congestion is a concern for residents. Of greatest concern is the volume of Traffic on the
Bugbrooke Road,
and near the Primary school on the High Street. The volume of traffic through this route,
particularly during the rush hour times when children are also going to school, increases the hazard to
school children from the associated danger and air pollution.
The Two most critical Volume ‘hotspots’ are: (the other two shown relate to School drop off/pick up)
a)
The give way traffic flow over the Nene River Bridge, which can cause traffic to back up the High
Street.
b)
the junction of Camp Lane, Rothersthorpe Road, The Green and the High Street. Traffic coming
from all the directions can cause congestion.
Sites that would have an access within 50 metres of a traffic hotspot were considered less sustainable
than
those with an access between 50 and 100 metres, and still more unsustainable than those whose
access would
be more than 100 metres from a ‘hotspot’, and rated negatively. Such traffic would add
to local air pollution
through increased local congestion, add to the pedestrian hazard and be in direct
conflict with the expressed
wishes of the majority of residents who already suffer from congestion at
these locations.
Traffic Hotspots
Key
Hotspots 100 Metre Radius
Page 29 of 51
3.
Assessed by proximity.
In this context reasonably accessible means a reasonable walking distance. These were appraised
using the
guidance given in Figure 5.6 (d) of Sustainable Settlements. A Guide for Planners, Designers
and Developers which suggests that for housing developments in urban, that is high density,
settlements the walking distance
targets in Table 16. For rural communities these distances are
ambitious.
Sites beyond these distances will receive a negative sustainability rating; sites within these distances
will be
viewed positively.
Table 16
Reasonable Walking Distances
C
o
mm
uni
ty
h
ea
l
t
h
care
f
ac
ili
t
i
es………1000
m
A
bu
s
st
op……..
400
m
A
s
hop……..
800
m
D
i
str
i
ct
o
r
l
e
i
s
u
re
ce
n
tre
(
t
h
e
v
ill
age
h
a
ll
,
y
ou
t
h
c
lub
,
c
o
mm
uni
ty ce
n
tre
a
nd lib
rary
……..
1500
m
Pr
i
mary
sc
hool……..
600
m
S
ec
ond
ary
sc
hool……..
1500
m
Page 30 of 51
Appendix B: Criteria for Site Selection
Guidance Notes for Site Assessment
Stage 1 Selection Criteria – to eliminate the non-starters
1. Is the Site Available?
a. The Owner has indicated either in response to Consultation or through SHLAA Assessment that the site is
available for development.
PP – Score 10 – Available confirmed by Owner
P – Score 5 – Available identified through SHLAA
Neutral - Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – Would be suitable if Available
NN – Score -50 – Excluded for reasons of unavailability or unsuitability – SHLAA
2. Is the site a Brownfield or a Greenfield site?
o Designation of Site – Site choice to ensure the most efficient & effective use of land and the use of previously
developed land and buildings; also to consider feasibility of developing the site and conserve and where
possible enhance the landscape.
PP – Score 10 - Brownfield uncontaminated
P – Score 5 - Brownfield some contamination
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 - Brownfield heavy contamination
NN – Score -10 - Greenfield
3. Is the site within the existing built up area of the
village within the existing Confines
PP – Score 10 – Completely inside
P – Score 5 – inside with open space along one or more boundaries
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – outside, but with one boundary contiguous to built up area
NN – Score -10 – outside, with no boundaries contiguous to built up area
4. Is the Site Contiguous with the existing Village Confines?
PP – Score 10 – Completely inside Confines
P – Score 5 – Inside with one or more boundaries on edge of Confines
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – outside, but with one or more boundaries contiguous with Confines
NN – Score -50 – outside, with no boundaries contiguous with Confines
5. Is the site free from flood risk?
1. Flood Risk: ground water saturation and surface water drainage – avoidance of flood risk on sites, adjoining
and other areas in order to protect people and property from the risk of flooding.
PP – Score 10 - well drained soil
P – Score 5 - mostly drained soil
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - poorly drained soil saturated after any rain
NN – Score -50 - no drainage of soil
2. Flood risk: fluvial – avoidance of flood risk on sites, adjoining and other areas in order to protect people and
property from the risk of flooding.
Page 31 of 51
PP – Score 10 - no risk
P – Score 5 - flood zone 1 (low risk 1000 to 1 chance per
annum)
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - flood zone 2 (medium risk between 1000 to 1 &
100 to 1 fluvial) or Protected by Bund
NN – Score -50 - flood zone 3 (high risk 100 to 1 chance fluvial)
6. Is the site particularly sensitive from a landscape
standpoint?
1. The natural environment: Geodiversity - site choice should ensure protection and enhancement of all
geological features where possible and avoid irreversible losses.
PP – Score 10 - no geological, soil conservation interests or
mineral deposits in this site
P – Score 5 - geological, soil conservation interests or mineral
deposits in this site of minor significance
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - geological, soil conservation interests or mineral
deposits in this site of medium significance
NN – Score -10 - geological, soil conservation interests or mineral
deposits in this site of major significance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The natural environment: landscape settings, views and natural features - site choice should ensure protection
and enhancement of all biodiversity, Geodiversity and landscape features where possible and avoid
irreversible losses and should seek to protect and enhance the quality of the rural landscape plus maintain
and strengthen local distinctiveness and sense of place.
PP – Score 10 - no impact on surrounding natural landscape
setting and views of landscape including river and
water
courses, wooded areas and other natural
features
P – Score 5 - minor impact on surrounding natural landscape
setting and views of landscape including river and
water
courses, wooded areas and other natural
features
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - medium impact on surrounding natural landscape
setting and views of landscape including river and
water
courses, wooded areas and other natural
features
NN – Score -10 - major impact on surrounding natural landscape
setting and views of landscape including river and
water
courses, wooded areas and other natural
features
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Other natural environment constraints - site choice should ensure protection and enhancement of all
biodiversity and geological features where possible and avoid irreversible losses and should seek to protect
and enhance the quality of the rural landscape plus maintain and strengthen local distinctiveness and sense of
place.
PP – Score 10 - there are no environmental constraints affecting
this site.
P – Score 5 - small amount of significant hedgerows or trees
with or without Tree Preservation Orders, fields,
meads and
natural areas, ditches, water meadows,
water courses, meanders, riparian or other
features affecting this site.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - medium amount of significant hedgerows or trees
with or without Tree Preservation Orders, fields,
meads
and natural areas, ditches, water meadows,
water courses, meanders, riparian or other features
affecting this site.
NN – Score -10 - large amount of significant hedgerows or trees
with or without Tree Preservation Orders, fields,
meads
and natural areas, ditches, water meadows,
water courses, meanders, riparian or other features
affecting this site.
7. Is the site highly sensitive environmentally or
ecologically?
o Not be of special ecological significance
o The natural environment: biodiversity and ecology - site choice should ensure protection and enhancement of
all ecological and biodiversity features where possible and avoid irreversible losses.
PP – Score 10 - very little or no plant life, animal life, bird life or
insect life of significance on this site
P – Score 5 - some plant life, animal life, bird life or insect life
of minor significance on this site
Neutral - Not applicable
N – Score -5 - plant life, animal life, bird life or insect life of
medium significance on this site
NN – Score -10 - plant life, animal life, bird life or insect life of major
significance on this site
Page 32 of 51
Stage 2 Selection Criteria – to rank the short list of potential sites
8. Does the Site lie between the Village and Northampton?
o Urban sprawl – to avoid the loss of the green corridor of land around the villages.
PP – Score 10 - the site is wholly within a built up area of the
village
P – Score 5 - the site adjoins a built up area of the village
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - the site is in the region of a built up area, does
not adjoin and but is close to the village
NN – Score -10 - the site does not adjoin and is not near a built up
area and stands alone apart from the village
9. Are there natural or other obvious boundaries to the
site?
PP – Score 10 – Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides
P – Score 5 – Obvious Boundaries on 2 sides
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – Obvious Boundary on 1 side
NN – Score -10 – No Obvious Boundaries
10. Are there tree preservation orders?
PP – Score 10 – No tree preservation orders
P – Score 5 – not more than 3 tree preservation orders
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – up to 5 tree preservation orders
NN – Score -10 – more than 5 tree preservation orders
11. Is the site of archaeological significance or interest?
o Impact upon archaeological sites - site choice should seek to protect, maintain and enhance the historic
environment and archaeological assets.
PP – Score 10 - no evidence known of archaeological features,
ground works or deposits
P – Score 5 - possibility of archaeological features,
ground works or deposits
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - some evidence of archaeological features,
ground works or deposits
NN – Score -10 - strong evidence of archaeological features,
ground works or deposits
12. Does the site contain/adjoin any heritage assets?
3. Preserve historic character of village
4. Impact on the historic environment and heritage buildings of Kislingbury and the adjacent area - negative impact
to be avoided to preserve historic environment.
PP – Score 10 - enhance a conservation area or an historic/
heritage area, or historic/ heritage building(s) with
a positive
impact, e.g. improve derelict or run down
site
P – Score 5 - no impact on a conservation area, nor on an
historic/ heritage area, nor on historic/heritage
building(s)
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - some impact on a conservation area or on an
historic/heritage area or historic/heritage
building(s)
NN – Score -10 - major impact on a conservation area or on an
historic/heritage area or on historic/heritage
building(s)
13. Is the land graded 3a, or above? (good to moderate agricultural land, or worse)
PP – Score 10 – Graded 4 or worse (poor or very poor)
P – Score 5 – Graded 3a or 3b (good or Moderate)
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – Grade 2 (very good)
NN – Score -10 – Grade 1 (excellent)
Page 33 of 51
14. Does the site have any infrastructure deficiencies?
PP – Score 10 – Access to all Roads and Services already
P – Score 5 – Access to Roads and Services with minimal investment
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – Access to Roads and Services will need significant investment
NN – Score -10 – Access to Roads and Services will need complete development
15. Will the local traffic impact be acceptable?
o Have low impact on traffic flows
o Be subject to low traffic noise
PP – Score 10 – No Impact on Local Traffic
P – Score 5 – Small Impact on Local Traffic
Neutral – Score 0 – Not Applicable
N – Score -5 – Traffic will increase volumes at village congestion points
NN – Score -10 – Increased Traffic throughout the Village
16. Is the Site subject to constraints regarding feasibility and health factors
o Un-neighbourly sites - to be considered for feasibility of developing the site and for promotion of healthy life
styles.
PP – Score 10 - there are no unneighbourly factors affecting this
site.
P – Score 5 - the site is situated within 300m from an
electricity pylon/line, a source of industrial,
highways or otherwise
pollution (e.g. chemical, air,
noise or light resulting in nuisance or ill effects).
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - the site is situated less than 100m from an
electricity pylon/line, a source of industrial, highways
or
otherwise pollution (e.g. chemical, air, noise or
light, resulting in nuisance or ill effects).
NN – Score -10 - the site is situated less than 50m from an
electricity pylon/line, a source of industrial, highways
or
otherwise pollution (e.g. chemical, air, noise or
light, resulting in nuisance or ill effects).
17. Offer easy pedestrian access to amenities
1. Rights of Way – to be considered for feasibility of developing the site
PP – Score 10 - No rights of way on or accessing the site that
are apparent from a visual inspection
P – Score 5 - potential rights of way on or accessing the site
require investigation and may involve legal access
issues
being addressed
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - limited rights of way on or accessing the site
require investigation and will involve some legal
access issues
being addressed
NN – Score -10 - major rights of way on or accessing the site
require investigation and will involve some legal
access
issues being addressed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sustainability: footpaths - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and promote more
sustainable transport choices, in particular site choices should be located close to footpaths, in order to
promote sustainability and to reduce car usage and congestion within the town; also to improve air quality
(reduce air pollution) by encouraging people to walk rather than use the car.
PP – Score 10 - there are existing footpaths/ pavements or
roads edged for pedestrians accessing the site.
P – Score 5 - there are existing footpaths/ pavements or
roads edged for pedestrians within 10m of the site.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - no existing footpaths/ pavements or roads edged
for pedestrian use but can create a walkway to a
road
edged for pedestrians use.
NN – Score -10 - no existing footpaths/ pavements or roads edged
for pedestrian use and a walkway to a road edged
for
pedestrians use cannot be created.
18. Is community healthcare reasonably accessible?
Page 34 of 51
o Local infrastructure: PCCs, health centres and hospitals - site choice should take into account location of PCCs,
health centres and hospitals with available places, site choice should not have a detrimental effect on existing
provision or facilities that encourage and promote healthy life styles and reduce health inequalities.
PP – Score 10 - there are existing Health Care Facilities with
available places within 10 minutes walk.
P – Score 5 - there are existing Health Care Facilities with
available places within 10 to 20 minutes walk.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - there are existing Health Care Facilities with
available places within a short bus or car journey of
not more
than 15 minutes.
NN – Score -10 - new Health Care provision will be needed.
19. Is a bus stop reasonably accessible?
1. Sustainability: public transport, buses - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and
promote more sustainable transport choices, promote healthy life styles and improve air quality (reduce air
pollution) by encouraging use of public transport rather than use of private cars.
PP – Score 10 - there is an existing bus route with easy access
on site.
P – Score 5 - there is an existing bus route within 5 minutes
walk.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - there is an existing bus route within 10 minutes
walk.
NN – Score -10 - there is an existing bus route more than 10
minutes walk away or there is no bus link available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sustainability: cycle paths - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and promote
more sustainable transport choices, promote healthy life styles and improve air quality (reduce air pollution)
by encouraging use of public transport rather than use of private cars.
PP – Score 10 - there are cycle paths/ roads for cycling
accessing the site.
P – Score 5 - there are cycle paths/ roads for cycling within
50m of the site.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - there are no cycle paths/ roads for cycling
accessing the site, but a new cycle path could be
made to meet
existing cycle paths/ roads.
NN – Score -10 - there are no cycle paths/ safe roads for cycling
accessing the site and a new cycle path could not be
made to meet existing cycle paths/ roads.
20. Are shops reasonably accessible?
o Sustainability: access to retail amenities - site choices should wherever possible reduce the need to travel and
promote more sustainable transport choices and promote healthy life styles. In particular, site choices should
be located within close walking distance (approx 5 mins) to shops and other retail amenities, in order to
promote sustainability and to reduce car usage and congestion within the village; also to improve air quality
(reduce air pollution) by encouraging people to walk rather than use the car.
PP – Score 10 - the Site is within 5 minutes walking distance of
local shops and/ or amenities.
P – Score 5 - the Site is within 10 minutes walking distance of
local shops and/ or amenities.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - the Site is within 20 minutes walking distance of
local shops and/ or amenities.
NN – Score -10 - the site is more than 20 minutes from local shops
and/ or amenities and it is likely that people will
travel
by car or bus rather than walk to them.
21. Are community facilities reasonably accessible?
o Cultural, religious and recreational facilities: libraries, places of worship, cinemas, sports & community
centres, evening classes, play parks and open spaces - site choice must take into account access to cultural,
religious and recreational facilities in order to promote equality of access and assist with engagement of local
community.
PP – Score 10 - there are existing cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within 10 minutes walk.
P – Score 5 - there are existing cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within 10 to 20 minutes walk.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
Page 35 of 51
N – Score -5 - there are existing cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within a 15 minute bus or car
journey.
NN – Score -10 - new cultural, religious and recreational facilities
will be needed.
22. Are local schools reasonably accessible?
o Local infrastructure: schools - site choice should take into account location of Primary and Secondary schools
with available places, site choice should not have a detrimental effect on existing provision or facilities; site
location should encourage or promote healthy lifestyles through walking or cycling if possible.
PP – Score 10 - there are existing schools with available places
within 5 to 10 minutes walk or cycle from the site.
P – Score 5 - there are existing schools with available places
within 10 to 20 minutes walk or cycle from the site.
Neutral – Score 0 – Not applicable
N – Score -5 - there are existing schools with available places
within a 30 minute bus or car journey from the site.
NN- Score -10 - new schools will have to be built.
Page 36 of 51
Appendix C: Site Selection Spreadsheet
Site Assessment Form
SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596
SHLAA Site Description Willow View Mill Road Beech Lane East A4500 South Camp Lane
Hall Farm Camp
Lane
Rothersthorpe
Road East
Rothersthorpe
Road
Millers Lane
Rothersthorpe
Road West
Pineham
Result of Consultee Views
NCC Transport No Issues
Access width
could be an Issue
No Issues
No Direct Access
from A4500
No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues
Access major
Constraint
No Issues No Issues
NCC Minerals
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
Not in Mineral
Safeguard area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
In Mineral
Safeguard Area
NCC Archaeology
No Known
activity
Earthworks,
possibly
Manorial.
Extensive
remains
No Known
Activity. Ridge
and Furrow
No Know
Activity.
Adjacent to
Bronze age
activity
Potentially
archaeologically
sensitive.
Investigation
needed
Possible Iron Age
and Romano
British activity,
and Ridge and
Furrow
Ridge and
Furrow Iron age activity
no known
activity
Ridge and
Furrow
Natural England
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
No known sites
for nature
conservation or
landscape. No
record of
protected
species
Environment Agency Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1 Flood Zone 1
English Heritage No Issues
Adjacent to
Historic Church
No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues
Development
would affect
Conservation
area and Open
Countryside
No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues
Highways Agency No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues No Issues Proximity to M1 Proximity to M1 No Issues
Anglia Water Overall Green Overall Green Overall Amber Overall Amber Overall Gren Overall Amber Overall Amber Overall Green Overall Amber Overall Amber No Issues
Owner No Response Available Not Available Not Available Available Not Available No Response Available Available No Response Not Available
Other
Daventry Council
No Comments.
Village Hall is
opposed to
development on
this site
Daventry Council
No Comments
Daventry Council
No Comments.
NBC states that
developments on
these sites must
meet Borough
needs. KPFA
states that part
Daventry Council
No Comments.
NBC will
incorporate this
site into Upton
Park SUE. KPFA
are negative
about
Daventry Council
No Comments.
Village Hall has
many issues with
this site if chosen
for
development.
KPFA are
Daventry Council
No Comments.
NBC states that
developments on
these sites must
meet Borough
needs
Daventry Council
No Comments.
Village Hall
concrns over
reduction of gap,
increased traffic,
and loss of
farmland.
Daventry Council
No Comments.
Village Hall has
concerned about
traffic
congestion and
pollution. Access
should be only
Daventry Council
No Comments
Daventry Council
No Comments
NBC states that
developments on
these sites must
meet Borough
needs
Negative/Positive/Neutral Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Neutral Negative
Page 37 of 51
Page 38 of 51
Stage 2 Selection Criteria SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397
8
The site adjoins a built up area of
the Village
The site adjoins a built up area of the
Village
The site adjoins a built up area of
the Village
The site adjoins a built up area of the Village
9
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3
sides
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3
sides
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3
sides
Obvious Boundaries on at least 3 sides
10
No Tree Preservation Orders No Tree Preservation Orders No Tree Preservation Orders No Tree Preservation Orders
11
Some evidence of archaeological
features groundworks or deposits
Some evidence of archaeological
features groundworks or deposits
Some evidence of archaeological
features groundworks or deposits
Some evidence of archaeological features
groundworks or deposits
12
Some Impact on Conservation area Major Impact on Conservation Area
Major Impact on Conservation
Area
No Impact on Conservation Area
13 Very Good Soil Quality Excellent Soil Quality Excellent Soil Quality Excellent Soil Quality
14
Minimal Investment needed to
access Services
Access to all services already
Minimal Investment needed to
access Services
Minimal Investment needed to access
Services
15
Traffic will increase volumes at
Village Congestion points
Traffic will increase volumes at
Village Congestion points
Traffic will increase volumes at
Village Congestion points
Traffic will increase volumes at Village
Congestion points
16
At least 50 meters from un-
neighbourly effects
At least 50 meters from un-
neighbourly effects
At least 50 meters from un-
neighbourly effects
At least 100 meters from un-neighbourly
effects
17.1 No Rights of way No Rights of way No Rights of way No Rights of way
17.2
No existing footpaths/pavements
but can be created
There are existng footpaths roads
No existing footpaths/pavements
but can be created
No existing footpaths/pavements but can
be created
18
There are Health Care facilities
within a 15 minute car drives
There are Health Care facilities
within a 15 minute car drives
There are Health Care facilities
within a 15 minute car drives
There are Health Care facilities within a 15
minute car drives
19.1
Bus stop within 10 minutes walk Bus stop within 10 minutes walk Bus stop within 5 minutes walk Bus stop within 5 minutes walk
19.2
No existing Cycle paths or roads for
cycling but a new cycle path could
be created to meet existing paths or
roads
No existing Cycle paths or roads for
cycling but a new cycle path could be
created to meet existing paths or
roads
No existing Cycle paths or roads
for cycling but a new cycle path
could be created to meet existing
paths or roads
No existing Cycle paths or roads for cycling
but a new cycle path could be created to
meet existing paths or roads
20
Shops within 10 minutes walk of the
site
Shops within 10 minutes walk of the
site
Shops within 10 minutes walk of
the site
Shops within 10 minutes walk of the site
21
There are cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within 10 to
20 mins walk of site
There are cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within 10 to 20
mins walk of site
There are cultural, religious and
recreational facilities within 10 to
20 mins walk of site
There are cultural, religious and recreational
facilities within 10 to 20 mins walk of site
22
There are schools with available
places withing 10 to 20 mins walk or
cycle from the site
There are schools with available
places withing 10 to 20 mins walk or
cycle from the site
There are schools with available
places withing 10 to 20 mins walk
or cycle from the site
There are schools with available places
withing 10 to 20 mins walk or cycle from the
site
Page 39 of 51
Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan
Site Selection Process
SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596
Consultee Responses
NCC Transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
NCC Minerals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
NCC Archaeology Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Natural England Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Environment Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
English Heritage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Highways Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Anglia Water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Owner no no Yes Yes Yes Yes no Yes Yes no no
Other Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Negative/Positive/Neutral Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Neutral Negative
Stage 1 Selection Criteria
1 -5 10 -50 -50 10 -5 10 10 -50 5 -50
2 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 5 -10 -10 -10 -10 0
3 -5 -5 -5 -10 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -10 0
4 -5 -5 -5 -50 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -50 0
5.1 -5 -5 -5 -5 5 10 10 10 10 -5 0
5.2 -50 -5 -50 -50 10 10 10 10 10 10 0
6.1 -10 -5 -5 -5 10 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 0
6.2 -10 -10 -10 -10 -5 -5 -10 -5 -10 -10 0
6.3 10 10 -10 -10 5 5 5 5 10 10 0
7 10 10 -10 -10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0
Total Score -80 -15 -160 -210 25 15 10 15 -45 -55 -50
Page 40 of 51
SNC561 SNC276 SNC635 SNC581 SNC340 SNC636 SNC301 SNC397 SNC637 SNC302 SNC596
Stage 2 Selection Criteria
8 5 5 5 5
9 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10
11 -5 -5 -5 -5
12 -5 -10 -10 5
13 -5 -10 -10 -10
14 5 10 5 5
15 -5 -5 -5 -5
16 -10 -10 -10 -5
17.1 10 10 10 10
17.2 -5 10 -5 -5
18 -5 -5 -5 -5
19.1 -5 -5 5 5
19.2 -5 -5 -5 -5
20 5 5 5 5
21 5 5 5 5
22 5 5 5 5
Total Score 0 0 0 0 5 15 5 25 0 0 0
Rejected/Selected
Rejected
Not
Available
Rejected Selected
Page 41 of 51
Appendix D: Record Maps
Mapping Policy
Record maps have been used throughout the planning process to communicate accurately the land under
consideration and to provide a record of the effect of each Phase of the planning process
Table 17: Record Maps
Record map
Content
1
Initial development options
2
Confirmed development options
3
Initial sustainability assessment
4
Development sites
Record Map 1 shows the location of all sites listed in the SHLAA.
Record Map 2 shows all SHLAA listed sites. Those coloured green have been confirmed as Available
by the Owner. Those that are not available are coloured pink.
Record Map 3 was created following the identification of the most sustainable options. These
are
coloured blue.
Record Map 4 shows the final site selected. The Selected Site is coloured Green.
Page 42 of 51
Record Map 1
Page 43 of 51
Record Map 2
Page 44 of 51
Record Map 3
Page 45 of 51
Record Map 4
Page 46 of 51
Appendix E: Statutory Consultees Responses
Introduction
In February 2015 the Framework Report for the Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan was sent to the three
statutory Consultees: The Department of the Environment, Natural England, and English Heritage.
Responses were received from:
Ms Roslyn Deeming, Adviser, Sustainable Development Team, Natural England
Ms Kerry Ginns, Adviser, Environment Agency
Mr Clive Fletcher, Principal Adviser, Historic Places, Historic England
Copies of these responses are provided as Attachments 1-3.
In addition we contacted:
NCC, Transport
Highways Agency
Anglia Water
NCC for Minerals and Archaeology
MP for Kislingbury
SNC
District Council Members for Kislingbury
County Council Member for Kislingbury
All Neighbouring Parish Councils
All Neighbouring Districts and Northampton Borough
Kislingbury Associations
Landowners
The responses received from these Consultees are included in the body of Evidence supporting the NDP.
Summary & Responses
A comment form was included in the submission to the statutory Consultees. A copy of this form is
supplied as Figure A-1.
Table I summarises both the suggestions from the Consultees and the response of the Kislingbury
Neighbourhood Planning Team. In providing this response it should be noted that the Kislingbury
Neighbourhood Plan will comply with the West Northants Joint Core Strategy which, in turn, will ensure
compliance with the requirements of the
statutory Consultees.
Page 47 of 51
Statutory Consultees Response Form
Site Response Form – From (insert name or Organisation):______________________
Site Reference Number from SHLAA Map:
1. Are there natural features of the site, trees,
landform, buildings or structures on the site
which should be preserved and which may
be negatively affected by development?
2. Is the site unsuitable for reasons such as
Infrastructure Deficiency, Flood Risk,
destruction of habitat, or any other reason?
3. Is the Site unsuitable from the point of view
of Access, and future contribution to Traffic
congestion/pollution?
4. Would a development on the Site affect the
local character – harm, no real change,
enhance?
5. Would development on the site have a
positive or negative effect on the
Conservation Area in the Village?
6. Would development on the Site affect
important views out of the Village?
7. Does the site include any designated
heritage assets, listed buildings, and
archaeological features?
8. Are there any other features of Local
historic interest, or is it adjacent to any
designated heritage asset or area?
9. Are there significant habitats on site, or
does the site form a link with a wider
network of habitats?
10. Is the site used by any protected species?
11. Does the site have a potential use which is
more valuable than a housing
development?
12. Is there any other reason why the site may
not be suitable.
Please answer below, if you prefer, giving your views on the site and whether you think it is suitable or
unsuitable, and why.
Please return this form to:
Tim Ward at timwarduk@aol.com
Page 48 of 51
Responses
Environment Agency
Site Response Form – From Environment Agency______________________
Site Reference Number from SHLAA Map:
13. Are there natural features of the site, trees,
landform, buildings or structures on the site
which should be preserved and which may
be negatively affected by development?
No comments
14. Is the site unsuitable for reasons such as
Infrastructure Deficiency, Flood Risk,
destruction of habitat, or any other reason?
Sites SNC 583, 635, 276 are located within 9 metres of a
main river and Flood zone 3
Sites SNC 561 is located in Flood zone 3
Sites SNC 340, 636 are located in Flood zone 2
The remainder of the sites are located in Flood zone 1
15. Is the Site unsuitable from the point of view
of Access, and future contribution to Traffic
congestion/pollution?
No comments
16. Would a development on the Site affect the
local character – harm, no real change,
enhance?
No comments
17. Would development on the site have a
positive or negative effect on the
Conservation Area in the Village?
No comments
18. Would development on the Site affect
important views out of the Village?
No comments
19. Does the site include any designated
heritage assets, listed buildings, and
archaeological features?
No comments
20. Are there any other features of Local
historic interest, or is it adjacent to any
designated heritage asset or area?
No comments
21. Are there significant habitats on site, or
does the site form a link with a wider
network of habitats?
No comments
22. Is the site used by any protected species?
No comments
23. Does the site have a potential use which is
more valuable than a housing
development?
No comments
24. Is there any other reason why the site may
not be suitable?
No comments
Please answer below, if you prefer, giving your views on the site and whether you think it is suitable or
unsuitable, and why.
Please return this form to:
Tim Ward at timwarduk@aol.com
Page 49 of 51
Natural England
Date: 09 March 2015
Our ref: 145530
Your ref: None
Tim Ward
Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee
BY EMAIL ONLY
Customer Services
Hornbeam House
Crewe Business Park
Electra Way
Crewe
Cheshire
CW1 6GJ
T 0300 060 3900
Dear Tim
Planning consultation: Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan – potential sites
Thank you for your letter and accompanying information which was received by Natural England on 23 February 2015
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved,
enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
We have reviewed the potential development sites that you have listed in your letter and can confirm that there are no statutorily
designated sites for nature conservation or landscape within the parish boundaries. We can therefore only offer you the following general
advice that existing hedgerows, woodlands, open spaces, watercourses and other landscape features should be retained where possible if
the sites are developed in the future. We suggest that the watercourse and hedgerow leading to the Camp Lane and Drain Local Wildlife
Site (within Upton Parish Council) are retained and enhanced where possible. We would also suggest that an undeveloped buffer zone is
retained beside the River Nene. In addition the traditional orchard adjacent to site SNC276 should be protected from any development
impacts.
We have no record of any protected species on the sites that you have listed but we recommend that the local authority make reference to
the Natural England Standing Advice for Protected Species which is available on our website. It helps local planning authorities better
understand the impact of development on protected or priority species should they be identified as an issue at particular developments.
This also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation with Natural England.
We suggest that you contact the Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust and Biodiversity Records Centre who may be able provide more detailed
local information for the Kislingbury area.
You may also find it useful to make reference to the National Character Areas (NCAs) which divide England into 159 distinct natural areas.
Each is defined by a unique combination of landscape, biodiversity, Geodiversity and cultural and economic activity. Their boundaries follow
natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision making framework for the natural
environment. Kislingbury falls within NCA 89: Northamptonshire Vales.
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4871120062775296?category=587130
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any
Page 50 of 51
queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Roslyn Deeming on 0300 060 1524. For any new consultations, or to
provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.
We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any
comments you might have about our service.
Yours sincerely
Roslyn Deeming Adviser
Sustainable Development Team East Midlands Area
Page 51 of 51
Historic England
Dear Mr Ward,
Thank you for your email. I am pleased to give you our initial advice relating to the sites identified as being
potentially suitable under the SHLAA.
Of those sites, SNC276 is adjacent to the grade I listed church of St Luke, and housing development there would
affect its setting. The setting of listed buildings is accorded special regard in the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990. We also note that the area is in the Kislingbury conservation area, the character and
appearance of which is also protected. The site is in an open area behind one of the last historic frontages to retain
its original relationship with the countryside beyond and to the Nene, which will be part of this character. I have
attached the Good Practice Advice, "The Setting of Heritage Assets" for your information.
The National Planning Policy Framework:
132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage
asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the
weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or
development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and
convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be
exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably
scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II*
registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
Site SNC301 is also located in an area in which the historic threshold between open countryside and the village
is preserved, allowing understanding of the original village form and its relationship with the land. It is also
located on one of the principal entrances to the village, meaning the impact of development on the setting of
the conservation area in this location will be likely to be high.
Development in these locations is therefore a source of concern. You will need therefore to assess the likely
impact of development on the setting of the church and on the character and appearance and the setting of the
conservation area and decide if this would accord with the requirements of the NPPF and the 1990 Act.
The other sites appear less contentious in terms of impacts on designated heritage assets, but we suggest
that if you have not already done so you contact Northamptonshire County Council's Archaeology team to
consult the Historic Environment Record, which will contain details of any non-designated heritage assets that
may be affected.
Yours sincerely,
Clive Fletcher | Principal Advisor, Historic Places
Telephone: 01159 861038
Mobile: 07771 502052
Historic England | Second Floor, Windsor House, Cliftonville, Northampton NN1 5BE
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

Sustainability-assessment Sustainability Assessment

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 14 November 2019

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document