Fillable The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted (Daventry District Council)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted (Daventry District Council) Form

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

The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted (Daventry District Council)

On average this form takes 42 minutes to complete

The The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted (Daventry District Council) form is 52 pages long and contains:

0 signatures
133 check-boxes
107 other fields

Country of origin: UK
File type: PDF

Use our library of forms to quickly fill and sign your Daventry District Council forms online.

BROWSE DAVENTRY DISTRICT 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

The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted to Daventry

District Council. The district council are now required to consult on the plan for a period of

6 weeks. The Plan and supporting documents are available to view electronically at

https://www.daventrydc.gov.uk/living/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/submitted-

neighbourhood-plans/ Hard copies are available to inspect at Daventry District Councils

Offices and Seaton Village Store, High Street, Guilsborough, NN6 8PU

This consultation seeks your views on whether the Guilsborough Neighbourhood

Development Plan meets the basic conditions

which are that the plan;

• Must be appropriate having regard to National Policy

• Must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development

• Must be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan for

the local area

• Must be compatible with human rights requirements

• Must be compatible with EU obligations.

All comments received will be sent to an independent examiner who will examine the plan.

If the examiner determines that the plan meets the basic conditions then a referendum shall

be held on whether to ‘make’ the Neighbourhood Plan.

The consultation period starts on Monday 19

February 2018 and will close at 5pm on Monday

April 2018.

How to submit your comments?

Comments can be submitted via the following:

• Email: planningpolicy@daventrydc.gov.uk

• Post: Local Strategy, Daventry District Council, Lodge Road, Daventry, NN11 4FP

(Please ensure that there is sufficient time to guarantee delivery to our offices by the

closing date for comments)

Completing the comments form

There are two parts to this comment form:

• Part A: Personal /Agent contact details

• Part B: For Comment

Contact Details

If you have any questions, comments or queries please contact us using the details below:

Local Strategy: Telephone: 01327 302559

Email: planningpolicy@daventrydc.gov.uk

Address: Local Strategy, Daventry District Council, Lodge Road, Daventry, NN11 4FP

Website: http://www.daventrydc.gov.uk/living/planning-policy/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/the-basic-

conditions-that-a-draft-neighbourhood-plan-or-order-must-meet-if-it-is-to-proceed-to-referendum/

Guilsborough

Neighbourhood Development Plan

COMMENTS FORM

Part A: Contact Details

Contact Details: We need your contact details to take your comments into account.

Agent (if applicable)

Yes

Title

First Name

James

Last Name

Bonner

Job Title (where

relevant)

Senior Planner

Organisation (where

relevant)

Barton Willmore

Email (if provided we

will always contact

you this way)

To which part of the Neighbourhood Plan does this representation relate? For

example page, paragraph, policy, map?

Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 4 and Policy 9

Please indicate which of the following apply to your representation

☐

Supporting

☒

Objecting

Please provide reasons for your answer to 3b. Please be mindful that any

objections should refer to why the Neighbourhood Plan does not meet the Basic

Conditions.

If you are objecting please also set out what changes you consider are necessary to

ensure the plan meets the Basic Conditions.

Please see attached covering letter for further detail. In summary: our objection revolves

around the lack of certainty on housing delivery within the village, which will only

exacerbate existing and worsening affordability issues. This would not lead to sustainable

development within Guilsborough. We have identified how our client’s site, to the west of

Coton Road, would help in this respect, particularly with the delivery of affordable

housing. The designation of part of this site as formal Open Space would undermine this

and, regardless of its developability, we consider the designation is flawed and should

not be taken forward as part of the Plan to again ensure conformity with the adopted

Development Plan, the emerging Local Plan and national planning policy guidance. We

consider that the above changes would help ensure the GNDP meets the basic conditions

as set out in the legislation.

IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE PLEASE USE THE RELEVANT

SECTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.

Additional Comments

To which part of the Neighbourhood Plan does this representation relate? For

example page, paragraph, policy, map?

Please see attached covering letter.

Please indicate which of the following apply to your representation

☐

Supporting

☐

Objecting

Please provide reasons for your answer to 4b. Please be mindful that any

objections should refer to why the Neighbourhood Plan does not meet the Basic

Conditions.

If you are objecting please also set out what changes you consider are necessary to

ensure the plan meets the Basic Conditions.

Click here to enter text.

IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE PLEASE USE ADDITIONAL

COPIES OF THIS PAGE.

Local Strategy

Daventry District Council

Lodge Road

Daventry

NN11 4FP

VIA EMAIL

25680/A3/JB/BT

April 2018

Dear Sir / Madam,

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE SUBMISSION VERSION GUILSBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD

DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSULTATION

LAND OFF COTON ROAD, GUILSBOROUGH

Barton Willmore LLP is instructed by the owners (Mr & Mrs Wills, the ‘client’) of the land west of

Coton Road, Guilsborough (the ‘site’) to provide representations to the Submission Version of the

Guilsborough Neighbourhood

Development Plan (‘GNDP’). We have previously made representations

Daventry District Council’s Settlements and Countryside Local Plan (Part 2a) Issues and Options

consultation with respect to the site. These representations (dated 11

March 2016) are included at

Appendix 1 alongside their supporting plans:

• Site Location Plan, prepared by Barton Willmore LLP (Appendix 1); and

• Site Concept Plan, prepared by Barton Willmore LLP (Appendix 2).

The Site was also submitted to Daventry District Council (the ‘Council’) in March 2016 and the

corresponding Call for Sites form is appended, as Appendix 2, to these representations for information.

Our client supports Guilsborough Parish Council in the production of the GNDP, but there are a

number of concerns that we consider should be addressed in order to ensure that the GNDP meets

the basic conditions; and that the village continues to grow in a sustainable

manner whilst meeting

the housing needs of existing and future residents, including, importantly, affordable housing needs.

We set out our response below:

Policy 1: General Development Policy

This policy is broad and appears to be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the West

Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (the Part 1 Plan) – particularly given it leaves

specific detail for settlements such as Guilsborough to the respective Part 2 Plans. The Council’s

Part 2a Plan Emerging Draft consultation is similarly consistent with the aims of this policy.

25680/A3/JB/BT 2 4

April 2018

Policy 2: Village Confines

The GNDP includes flexibility to account for and reflect potential changes to the Development Plan.

However, Policy 2 sets out a number of exceptional circumstances through which development

outside the Village Confines can be justified. These exceptional circumstances are not consistent

with those currently set out within draft Policy RA2 of the Council’s Local Plan Part 2a. In particular

Policy 2 (and as a result Policy 3 – see below) should be revised to reflect the need to address a

shortfall in five year housing land supply (or three years in the case of a made Neighbourhood Plan

which includes allocations to meet housing needs) , should the case arise.

It is noted that the Council have recently been able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing in

the District, and the housing requirement in the Rural Areas (when measured against the Core

Strategy Policy S3) has been exceeded. However, as set out in the Council’s April 2017 Housing Land

Availability report, 1,404 of the 2,360 dwelling requirement is reliant on planning permissions rather

than completions; and, as noted in the Housing Implementation Strategy 3

Quarter Monitoring

Report (January 2018), there are planning permissions that are due to expire (see Moulton, Sandy

Hill Lane North, which has expired) and other sites which will face delayed delivery (see Long Buckby

– East of Station Road).

The GNDP should include sufficient flexibility to reflect the potential for the five year housing supply

position to slip. This is required to ensure conformity with the forthcoming Policy RA2 and to help

address housing need. In its current form the GNDP would be contrary to Paragraph 184 of the NPPF.

Policy 3: Housing General

Although the Council can currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply, this is not something

which can be assumed to remain unchanged – particularly given the GNDP Plan period runs to 2029.

As with Policy 2, we consider that Policy 3 should be amended to be consistent with draft Policy RA2

of the Council’s Local Plan Part 2a (specifically Paragraph 5.2.21) . Despite the current potential

supply of housing in the Rural Areas, we highlight the need for a steady supply of housing to be

provided, including sufficient flexibilit y to ensure sustainable development is promoted throughout

the Plan period. One important aspect of this is the delivery of affordable housing .

In terms of housing numbers in the GNDP, the supporting text within the housing section suggests

that the overall target is up to 28 dwellings, delivered through a range of sites from single dwellings

all the way up to one development of 11 or 12 homes. However, neither GNDP Policy 3 nor the

Policies Map at Figure 9 appear to identify any specific development sites or locations to deliver this

‘small-scale housing’, or the larger site (which is still referred to as ‘small-scale’ despite it being

major development). Given affordable housing will not be delivered on any site below 10 dwellings,

there is no certainty that the local affordable housing need could be delivered through the GNDP.

This raises significant concerns about the ability for the GNDP to plan positively for local housing

needs.

The Council’s Housing Needs Survey for Guilsborough (May 2016) sets out the following findings:

• The 2013/14 DCLG data showed Daventry District’s lower quartile house price to income ratio

to be 7.89; i.e. house prices are nearly eight times higher than in comes. The national ratio

at the time was 6.45.

• For Guilsborough Parish the estimated cost of living is 2.36 times the UK average.

• The average price paid for a property in Guilsborough in 2014/15 was just over £444,450.

• 85 responses (27% of Guilsborough Parish) to the Housing Needs Survey were received, with

11 respondents stating they have or could have a housing need. This includes three specific

requests for Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership and Start er Home properties. There are

numerous respondents who require a new home for various reasons including downsizing,

moving out and the need for a larger home.

The most reliable data is the affordability ratio, and looking at the latest ONS figures, the ratio of

lower quartile house price to lower quartile gross annual workplace-based earnings has risen from

25680/A3/JB/BT 3 4

April 2018

7.43 in 2013 to 10.17 in 2016 – a 36.9% increase. Whilst South Northamptonshi re remains the most

unaffordable District within the County, this area’s unaffordability rose slower than Daventry : from

9.26 in 2013 to 11.64 in 2016 – a 25.7% increase. Data from Zoopla also suggests that house prices

have continued to rise in Guilsborou gh – 3.43% in the last 12 months and 34.25% in the last 5

years.

The GNDP references the May 2016 Housing Needs Study and states a local need for three houses,

based on the Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership and Start er Home requests. Given the issues of

affordability – including in the two years since the survey – we consider that many of those

respondents wishing to either downsize, upsize or move out of their parents house would be

restricted in doing so either by lack of affordable properties or lack of suitably sized properties. The

absence of any certainty within the GNDP on how this will be addressed is of significant concern.

The identification of our client’s site as a suitable location for housing would help address the issues

raised with the GNDP and its approach to housing. It would provide certainty about the overall

number and location of housing, as well as affordable housing. It is suitably sized to deliver the

necessary range of housing types and sizes to respond to local needs, including th e identified need

for two-bedroom housing. As shown on the enclosed Concept Plan, the indicative layout shows how

a scheme for around 30 dwellings could be delivered sensitively on this site in a low-density manner

reflecting its edge of settlement locatio n. The site’s size means that this can be adjusted as needed.

It also shows suggested landscaping buffers; setbacks for views of the Church; pedestrian and cycle

connections to the village; and a new rural lane access from Coton Lane.

Policy 4: Affordable General

For the reasons set out in response to Policy 3, we consider that Policy 4 will be ineffective in

delivering the necessary affordable homes and the 40% target within the Core Strategy will be

difficult to meet. The identification of our client’s site for housing will help to address this.

Policy 6: Transport, Traffic and Parking

We support the aims of this policy. Development of our client’s site would also provide off-site

parking for the church, which is identified at Criterion 7 and as an existing local issue at Paragraph

161 of the GNDP:

“Opportunities to provide off-highway parking for users of the church will be

welcomed, as parking occurs at a village gateway with a difficult road

junction and bend with poor sight lines.”

Policy 9: Local Green Space, Open Space and Biodiversity

The GNDP identifies part of our client’s site as a Formal Recreational Open Space. Whilst this has

been scaled back from the Pre-Submission GNDP identifying the entire site as Local Green Space,

we nevertheless object to this proposed designation. The policy states that the ‘Historic Fort and its

setting’ are to be designated as ‘open space as highly valued areas’ for either recreational amenity

value or the contribution to visual amenity. It goes on to state that ‘Open Spaces should be protected

and enhanced’ and that any loss would require replacement provision of ‘ at least as good and

preferably better, quality, size, tenure, attractiveness and accessibility ’.

The wording of the policy and its supporting text have conflicting reasoning around what the purpose

of the designation is: the reasoning appears to revolve entirely around its apparent heritage value ;

whereas the wording of the actual policy appears to be almost entirely related to protecting areas

of land which have recreational and amenity value.

Our client’s site does not serve this purpose as it is not publicly accessible. The policy conflicts with

the typical understanding of open space . The NPPF defines open space as follows:

25680/A3/JB/BT 4 4

April 2018

“Open space: All open space of public value, including not just land, but also

areas of water (such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs) which offer

important opportunities for sport and recreation and can act as a visual

amenity.”

Whilst there is potential for open space to provide visual amenity, it is only alongside its primary

use for sport and recreation. The proposed area is not demonstrably more important in respect of

visual amenity than any of the more open fields surrounding the village, or indeed the land adjoining

the proposed Open Space designation – which itself is closer to the Church and not separated by

the development on Church Mount. The physical delineation shown on reference G4 of Figure 7 (and

the Policies Map at Figure 9) appears arbitrary and cuts across a number of boundaries without

reflecting an ‘on-the-ground’ reality. The extent of the Open Space designation at G4 also does not

align with the extent of the H1 (Historic Fort) boundary on Figure 9. It is not clear what purpose

this designation serves other than to block a potential development site which could otherwise prove

useful in meeting the future development needs of the local community.

It is also not clear, given its impreciseness, how this designation could be usefully implemented in

the assessment of any application. Protection of heritage assets is much more appropriately achieved

through other legislation, specific heritage policies within the Development Plan and other material

considerations such as the NPPF.

Whilst we support the aims of protecting the village’s heritage – and any proposals for our client’s

site would consider this in great detail when formulating a masterplan – the current approach of

Policy 9 is flawed in its designation of part of our client’s site as formal Open Space. As such, we

object to the policy and request that this proposed formal designation is removed from the GNDP.

Policy 11: Valued Heritage Assets

The policy makes reference to the Historic Fort, which is apparently due to be scheduled by Historic

England. As above, whilst we support the protection of the village’s heritage assets – both designated

and non-designated – we have concern about the level of protection Policy 11 affords to the Historic

Fort ahead of its formal designation. Existing/forthcoming policy and national guidance provide detail

around the protection of heritage assets commensurate to their significance. It is our view that the

wording of the policy places unnecessary and unsubstantiated restrictions on the sensitive

development of our client’s site; especially given the uncertainty about the extent of protection –

for instance the inconsistency between G4 on page 58 and H1 on the Policies Map (H1 is also not

referenced anywhere else within the GNDP).

Accordingly, we consider that the policy should take a more proportionate view on the Historic Fort

to ensure conformity with the Development Plan, i.e. Policy BN5 of the Core Strategy and draft Policy

ENV8 of the Council’s Local Plan Part 2a.

Conclusions

Our client supports the principle and production of the GNDP, however there are some shortcomings

that we consider result in the Plan not being in general conformity with national and local planning

policy. Principally this revolves around the lack of certainty on housing delivery within the village,

which will only exacerbate existing and worsening affordability issues. This would not lead to

sustainable development within Guilsborough.

We have identified how our client’s site , to the west of Coton Road, would help in this respect,

particularly with the delivery of affordable housing. The designation of part of this site as formal

Open Space would undermine this and, regardless of its developability, we consider the designation

is flawed and should not be taken forward as part of the Plan to again ensure conformity with the

adopted Development Plan, the emerging Local Plan and national planning policy guidance. We

consider that the above changes would help ensure the GNDP meets t he basic conditions as set out

in the legislation.

25680/A3/JB/BT 5 4

April 2018

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further and would be grateful if you

could give consideration to our comments. If you have any queries regarding the above, please do

not hesitate to contact either me or Mark Sitch.

Yours sincerely,

JAMES BONNER

Senior Planner

Enc.

APPENDIX 1

Issues and Options Representations (March 2016)

Local Strategy Service

Daventry District Council

Lodge Road

Daventry

Northamptonshire

NN11 4FP

BY E

MAIL: planningpolicy@daventrydc.gov.uk

25680/A3/RC

March 2016

ar Sir/Madam,

REPRESENTATIONS TO DAVENTRY DISTRICT COUNCIL’S SETTLEMENTS AND COUNTRYSIDE

LOCAL PLAN (PART 2A) ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

LAND OFF COTON ROAD, GUILSBOROUGH

rton Willmore LLP is instructed by the owners of the land west of Coton Road, Guilsborough (Mr &

Mrs Wills) to provide representations to Daventry District Council’s Settlements and Countryside Local

Plan (Part 2a) Issues and Options Consultation.

he following information has been provided in support of these representations:

• Site Location Plan, prepared by Barton Willmore LLP (Appendix 1); and

• Site Concept Plan, prepared by Barton Willmore LLP (Appendix 2).

he Concept Plan sets out how a scheme for circa 30 residential dwellings can suitably be delivered

on the Site. We consider that a low density is befitting of this edge of settlement location and the

Concept Plan

also identifies a single vehicular access from Coton Road, a landscape buffer to the rural

edges, additional car parking for the Church and a pedestrian link through to the Guilsborough village

core. The density of the site can be increased if this is deemed necessary to deliver a higher level of

growth.

e now respond to the key parts of the Plan as follows:

Issue 2: How should the local plan address its relationship with Neighbourhood Plans?

We consider that the District Council should take a proactive role in assisting Parish Councils that are

seeking to progress Neighbourhood Plans.

25680/A3/RC 2 11

March 2016

Whilst we appreciate that the rural housing requirement to 2029 in the WNJCS (Policy S1) has been

exceeded, we seek to draw attention to the issues that can be caused by seeking to prevent sustainable

growth across the rural parts of the District and the negative impact this may have on the Council’s

ability to demonstrate a five-year supply. Whilst there is an urban focus to development overall, it

should not be at the expense of local communities thriving.

rthermore, whilst the Council considers that it has a five-year supply at this time, providing a range

of sites in terms of scale and location can only assist in adding flexibility to this position – which

should be sought through this document.

onsequently, we consider that the District Council should seek to support Neighbourhood Plans in

allocating sustainable growth opportunities or at the very least safeguarding land to deliver at an

appropriate time.

Issue 3: Vision - To ensure the Part 2 Local Plan delivers the vision of the WNJCS it is not

considered that the current vision needs to be changed, except to make it specific for the

District. Do you agree?

We do not raise objection with the retention of the WNJCS vision except to make it specific to Daventry,

however, highlight the Council’s intention to support

‘vibrant rural communities’

and

‘a diverse rural

economy’

ese are aspirations that are not deliverable without sensible and sustainable levels of growth

throughout the Plan period in sustainable rural locations such as Guilsborough. The land to the west

of Coton Road, by virtue of its location and excellent links to the village core, is extremely well

positioned to assist in the sustainable growth of Guilsborough over the Plan period.

Issue 4: Objectives - To ensure the Part 2 Local Plan delivers the objectives of the WNJCS

it is not considered that the current objectives need to be changed except to make them

specific for the District. Do you agree?

We do not raise objection with the retention of the WNJCS objectives except to make it specific to

Daventry, however, highlight objective 9 to deliver rural housing to support local services and 10 to

ensure rural communities thrive and remain vital.

r the reasons set out above in relation to Issue 3, we again consider the land west of Coton Road

in Guilsborough to be a good location for the Council to meet their stated objectives.

In terms of objective 14, we consider that this Site can be delivered whilst respecting the heritage

assets nearby and the development can indeed be advantageous to those features through the

provision of landscaping and car parking for the Church.

Issue 22: Policy R1

Q22d. Mindful of the spatial distribution in the WNJCS is there a case for further housing

allocations in the rural areas?

Yes.

Q22e. If yes, what circumstances, in light of policy R1, would justify this?

25680/A3/RC 3 11

March 2016

To maintain or enhance rural communities in accordance with the core planning principles set out at

paragraph 17 (bullet 5) and paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Q22f. Who should the additional housing be for?

Option B - Market Housing with policy compliant affordable housing.

s the District Council rightly acknowledge, some locations – including Guilsborough – have not

undergone significant expansion during the WNJCS period to date. Therefore, whilst the total quantum

of development for the rural areas has been met to 2029 against Policy S1 of the WNJCS, it would not

be appropriate to proceed on the basis of restricting all growth in Guilsborough.

or in our view would it be sensible to deliver housing only for local/specialist needs; market housing

– with a policy compliant level of affordable housing – can breathe new life in to a village and enhance

the viability of local services and facilities.

n the case of Guilsborough there are a wide range of facilities, including a Primary and Secondary

School, Doctor’s Surgery, public house and retail provision. The presence of a Secondary School,

which is a key facility, is seen as a particularly significant benefit for Guilsborough compared to most

rural settlements.

support these services and facilities through sensible levels of growth is of benefit to the existing

community and also to smaller settlements in the surrounding area that rely on Guilsborough for such

provision, and the land west of Coton Road is ideally situated to sustainably deliver such growth. Of

particular importance is the ability to provide a pedestrian link through to the village core, where key

facilities including retail and education are situated.

Issue 23: Settlement Hierarchy

Q23c. Do you agree with what is identified as most important, important and other?

sed on the information provided we are supportive with the assessment of the importance of varying

services and facilities. However, further detail will be required in terms of the distances adjudged to

be acceptable and the level of bus service required to meet certain criteria and subsequently we will

reserve our full judgement until the next stage of this document has been progressed.

ased on our assessment, Guilsborough has: seven of the most important services – scoring 9; 2-3 of

the important services – scoring 2; and all of the other services – scoring 2. This would give a total

prospective score of 13. We would anticipate that Guilsborough will be assessed as one of the most

sustainable locations for development in the rural areas – which given the level of service provision is

the only sensible outcome of such an appraisal in the context of Daventry District.

Issue 25: Settlement Hierarchy

Q25a. How should criteria 2-10 be applied to the Settlement Hierarchy?

A number of these criteria are subjective in nature; consequently we consider that a description against

each (Option B) is the most appropriate method to rank settlements against these criteria.

t is considered that trying to force a numeric system against such matters will be prone to inaccuracies

which would diminish the overall robustness of the hierarchy.

25680/A3/RC 4 11

March 2016

Issue 27: Village Confines

Q27a. What is the most suitable approach for establishing Village confines in the

District?

We consider that at least the Primary and Secondary Service Villages should have confines, as this

provides clarity and certainty to residents and developers.

it was feasible to do this for the ‘Other Villages’ as well then that would be our recommendation.

Summary

We trust that these representations are helpful to the District Council as they progress this document

and look forward to ongoing dialogue with you in relation to the land west of Coton Road,

Guilsborough.

would be grateful if you could give consideration to our comments and keep us abreast of future

stages of the production of this document.

the meantime if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ours faithfully,

SSELL CROW

Associate

APPENDIX 1

Site Location Plan

166m

173m

158m

171m

170m

165m

160m

Track

Guilsborough

Track

War

Meml

Guilsborough

The Old

House

Sch

Legend

Site Boundary

4.05Ha / 10.00Ac

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of HMSO. Crown Copyright Reserved. Licence No. 100019279.

Scale

Date

RevisionProject No Drawing No

Drawing Title

Project







Offices at Reading London Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Ebbsfleet Edinburgh Leeds Manchester Solihull

J:\25000 - 25999\25600 - 25699\25680 - Guilsborough - Promotion Of Land For Residential Development\A4 - Dwgs & Registers\M Planning\25680 - SL-P-03 - Site Location Plan.dwg - Layout1

Check byDrawn by

bartonwillmore.co.uk

Certificate FS 29637

25680

Land at Guilsborough

SL-P-03

Site Location Plan

01.02.16

1:2,500@A3

M.S. A.P.

100m

0 40

APPENDIX 2

Site Concept Plan

166m

173m

158m

171m

173m

Track

Guilsborough

Dripwell Spinney

Track

War

Meml

Guilsborough

The Old

House

Sch

Pol Ho

Planted Landscape

Buffer

View to Church

Create a Rural Lane

Access via adjacent field

Pedestrian/Cycle

Connection Only

Create a Car Park

for Church Use

Coton Road

Legend

Site Boundary

4.06Ha / 10.03Ac

Public House

Church

Village Hall

Local Shop / Post Office

Primary School

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of HMSO. Crown Copyright Reserved. Licence No 100019279.

The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured

Revision

Date

Drn

Ckd

- - - -

Scale

Date

RevisionProject No Drawing No

Drawing Title

Project







Offices at Reading London Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Ebbsfleet Edinburgh Leeds Manchester Solihull

J:\25000 - 25999\25600 - 25699\25680 - Land At Guilsborough\A4 - Dwgs & Registers\M Planning\25680 - RG-M-04 - Concept Plan Including Village Core.dwg - A3

Check byDrawn by

bartonwillmore.co.uk

Certificate FS 29637

25680

Land at Guilsborough

RG-M-04

Concept Plan Including Village Core

11.03.16

1:2,500@A3

M.S. R.C.

100m

0 40

APPENDIX 2

Call For Sites Form (March 2016)

Daventry District Part 2 Local Plan – Call for Sites

Guidance Notes

January 2016

Closing date for responses – 11

March 2016

What is the “Call for Sites”?

The Council is preparing a part 2 Local Plan for the District which will supplement the West

Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and cover development up to the year 2029. The part 2 plan

will be formed of two parts, the Settlements and Countryside Local Plan (part 2a) and the Gypsies,

Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Local Plan (part 2b). As part of this process, the Council is

seeking to identify sites that may be suitable for allocating for development in the Part 2 Local Plans.

The information collected will form part of the evidence base for the Part 2 Local Plan.

Who can put forward sites?

Sites may be put forward by developers, landowners, town and parish councils, and other interested

parties. You do not need to be the landowner to put a site forward however it may affect how the

site is assessed.

What uses can sites be put forward for?

The Council is particularly looking to find suitable sites for new housing, affordable housing,

employment, retail and Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople uses. However sites for other

purposes may still be put forward for consideration.

Is there a minimum size of site that can be put forward?

Sites for the following land uses should meet the following criteria:

• Housing sites should be able to deliver at least 5 dwellings

• Employment sites should have a minimum area of 0.25 hectares or at least 500m

floorspace.

This represents the minimum size of site that it is considered feasible to allocate in the plan. There is

no minimum size for sites put forward for other purposes.

What density should I use for housing sites?

Ideally an assessment should have been undertaken of the locality to determine what the

appropriate density assumptions are. A brief explanation of how this has been arrived at should be

included in section 5. Where this assessment has not been undertaken an assumption of 25

dwellings per hectare can be used for these purposes

Will my information be kept confidential?

Any information that is supplied to the Council cannot be kept confidential. Copies of all responses

will be available for inspection at the Council Offices and may be included in a summary schedule of

responses to be made available on the Council’s website.

Will my site be allocated for development in the Local Plan?

Inclusion of sites within the assessment does not mean that development will be suitable or that

planning permission would be granted, but it does demonstrate availability. All sites put forward to

the Council will be considered but will not necessarily be included as allocations in the plan.

All sites will be subject initially to a site assessment process in order to determine their suitability for

inclusion as allocations in the Part 2 Local Plan.

What happens next?

Following the Issues and Options consultation, the Council will assess sites through the updating of

its evidence base and this will help to inform the content of the draft part 2 plans, due to be

published at the end of the year.

Who can I contact for further information or assistance?

If you require any further information or assistance please email planningpolicy@daventrydc.gov.uk

or telephone 01327 302559.

How should sites be submitted to the Council?

Sites should be submitted to the Council using this call for sites form. A separate form should be

completed for each site.

This should be accompanied by a map (preferably Ordnance Survey base at an appropriate scale e.g.

1:2,500) showing a clear site boundary and extent of ownership. This is so that we can precisely

identify the site and record it on our own mapping system.

Details of sites should be sent by Friday 11

March 2016 to:

-Local Strategy Service, Daventry District Council, Lodge Road, Daventry, Northamptonshire, NN11

4FP

-By email to: planningpolicy@daventrydc.gov.uk

If you are not already on our consultation database you will automatically be added to our

consultation database unless you indicate otherwise.

Call for Sites: Site submission form

Closing date for responses – 11th March 2016

Please read the accompanying Guidance Notes before completing this form.

Contact Details

Title

Name

Organisation

(where relevant)

Address

Postcode

Telephone

Email address

Agent Details

Title

Name

Organisation

(where relevant)

Address

Postcode

Telephone

Email address

Mr & Mrs

Wills

c/o Agent

Russell Crow

Barton Willmore

Regent House, Prince's Gate, 4 Homer Road, Solihull

B91 3QQ

Site Interest

What is your interest in the site?

Owner (whole site)

Developer contracted to buy the land

Owner (part of site)

Developer speculative

Town or Parish Council

Local

Resident

Amenity/community group

Registered social landlord

Other (please specify):

Are there other owners/agents of this site?

Yes

If yes, please provide details below:

If there are more than two other owners, please complete their details on a separate sheet and attach

to this form.

Title

Name

Organisation

(where relevant)

Address

Postcode

Telephone

Email address

Does this owner support your proposal for the site?

Yes

Title

Name

Organisation

(where relevant)

✔

Address

Postcode

Telephone

Email address

Does this owner support your proposal for the site?

Yes

Site Information

Site name

Site addr

ess

Grid reference (if known)

Site area in hectares

(gross)

Developable site area in

hectares (net)

Current land use (eg.

Agriculture, employment,

unused/vacant etc.)

Type of site (eg. Green

field, previously

developed land)

Relevant planning history

(if known – please include

relevant planning

application numbers)

I have included an Ordnance Survey plan outlining the extent of the site

Land west of Coton Road, Guilsborough

Coton Road, Guilsborough

Easting: 467460 / Northing: 272723

4.05

2.78

Agriculture

Green field

n/a

✔

Adjacent

land use (eg. Housing, employment, retail, leisure

etc.)

North:

South:

East:

West:

Proposed Use

& Capacity

Please indicate the proposed preferred use for the site and provide further information as

requested.

If the site is proposed for mixed use, please tick a

ll that apply

Use

Yes

Basic information

–

eg. Area/number of

units/proposed floorspace/number of pitches

- If residential then please include a brief

explanation of how density has been

arrived at

Residential (market housing)

Residential (self

build

)

Residential (affordable housing)

Residential (starter homes)

Residential and uses associated with the centre of the village including retail and the

primary school.

Agriculture.

Coton Road and residential dwellings.

Agriculture and dwellings.

Developable area of 2.78ha and proposed density

of 10-15dph to allow a suitable development in this

setting.

Depending on local interest.

Policy compliant level of affordable provision

depending on number of market plots.

Depending on local interest.

✔

Office, research and development, light

industrial (B1)

General industrial (B2)/ Warehousing (B8)

Gypsy and travellers

pitch(es)

Travelling showpeople

Gypsy and trave

ller emergency stopping

place

Retail (please

which use class

)

Community facilities

eg. Community hall

(please specify)

Sports/leisure (please specify)

Open space

Energy generation

eg. Wind turbine, solar

farm

Other (please specify)

Rural exception sites: Small sites used for affordable housing in perpetuity where sites would not

normally be used for housing. Rural exception sites seek to address the needs of the local

community by accommodating households who are either current residents or have an existing

family or employment connection. Small numbers of market homes may be allowed at the local

authority’s discretion, for example where essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without

grant funding.

Is the site

an expansion of an existing business?

Yes

If yes, please provide details of existing site and its development:

7. Are you promoting your site as a rural exception site?

Yes

Would you be

agreeab

le to

only

part of your site be

ing

considered?

Yes

Have you liaised with the town/parish Council regarding your proposal?

Yes

✔

Suitability

10.

Is the site within a flood zone?

The Environment Agency website includes a flood map that can be used to determine if your site is

within a flood zone and if so, what level of flood zone this is. This can be found here:

http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

Yes

Don’t know

If yes, is this…?

Flood zone 1

Flood zone 2

Flood zone 3

Yes

Don’t

know

11.

Is the land classified as best and most versatile agricultural land?

12.

Are there any ecological features e.g. nature reserves, Sit

es of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSIs), local wildlife sites in close proximity to the site?

13.

Are there any geological features of significance that could affect the

development of the site?

14.

Are there any existing trees /hedgerow/woodlands on the

site?

15.

Are there any landscape features that could affect the site?

16.

Are there any public rights of way that cross or adjoin the site?

17.

Is there any contaminated land that would affect the development of the site?

18.

Are there any uses which cou

ld affect the development of the site eg. Power

lines, railway lines, major highways, heavy industry, sewage treatment works

19.

Are there any topographical features that could affect the development of the

site?

20.

Are there any watercourses or water fea

tures in close proximity to the site?

21.

Are there any heritage assets within or adjacent to the site eg. Listed buildings,

conservation areas, scheduled monuments?

22.

Please list any features listed above:

✔

St Etheldreda Church is Grade II* Listed and Guilsborough and Coton War Memorial is Grade II Listed.

Individual trees can be seen on aerial images of the Site.

23.

Please provide any relevant information

of likely measures to address any of the above that you have

answered ‘YES’ to and refer to question number:

Utilities and facilities

Please tell us which of the following are available to the site

Yes

Don’t

know

24.

Mains water supply

25.

Mains

sewerage

26.

Electrical supply

27.

Gas supply

28.

Landline telephone/broadband internet

29.

the site safely and directly accessible from an existing (adopted) highway?

Yes

If not, can a new access be provided?

Yes

If yes, ple

ase indicate this on a scaled plan and attach it to this form. Please tick to confirm such a plan

is attached.

Plan attached

30.

Does the landowner/developer have control over the access?

Yes

Residential development would be located away from the heritage features and landscaping provided to

preserve the setting; in addition it is proposed to provide additional car parking for the Church.

Trees will be retained as part of the development where possible, and the landscape buffers proposed will

ensure that there is a significant increase in the level of planting on site.

✔

32.

Please indicate the distances of the following services and facilities from your site

Use/facility

Indicative distance (metres)

Primary school

Secondary school

GP surgery

General food store

Post office

Village hall/Community centre

Public transport (please provide detail

of the

frequency

of the service)

Public house/restaurant

Small shops/takeaways

Libraries/outreach centres

Pre

school provision

Play area

Sports ground

Allotments

Residential use

Local employment provision

Other, please advise:

31.

Is the site safely and realistically acce

ssible by public transport?

Yes

If so, how?

If not, how will your proposal achieve this?

The number 60 service between Welford and Northampton runs through the Site. Stops are located within

200m of the Site boundary.

✔

200m.

1km.

600m.

200m.

200m - approx. two hourly.

400m.

200m.

9km.

300m.

400m.

600m.

Adjacent.

2.5km - Ravensthorpe.

N/a.

33.

Are you aware of any other constraints which may aff

ect the suitability of the site?

Availability

34.

e there any ownership or title constraints which you are aware of?

Yes

If yes, please provide details below:

35.

Are there any

restrictive covenants on the land which might affect the deliverability of the site?

Yes

If y

es, please provide details below:

36.

Must any land in other ownership be acquired to develop the site?

Yes

If yes, please provide details below:

Not that we are aware of at this time.

✔

37.

Is the site…?

Vacant

Occupied

Partly occupied

If the site is cons

idered to be suitable for development, would all or part of the existing use remain in

occupation?

(a)

Yes

(b)

Yes, part

(c)

If (a) or (b) do any of these require relocation before the site could be developed?

Yes

If (c) what would be the time

table for the existing use to cease?

38.

Is the site available for development now

(in 0

5 years)

Yes

If ‘No’, when will the site be available?

10 years

15 years

16+ years

Achievability

39.

Has the site been marketed for

sale for the use proposed

your answer to question 5?

Yes

Don’t know

If yes,

how long has the site been marketed for, and

what level of interest has been received?

n/a

✔

40.

In your opinion, are there any market factors or financial im

plications that could restrict potential

delivery on site within:

5 years?

Yes

10 years

Yes

15 years

Yes

16+ years

Yes

Market factors include: economic viability of existing, proposed and

/or alternative uses, level of

potential market demand and projected rate of sales etc.

41. Please give details of market issues that have been considered and how any issues can be

overcome.

Local market evidence suggests that the area is in high demand.

✔

42.

If possible, based on current in

formation please provide an estimate of the scale of

development

to be built on site per annum (April 1

to March 31

Year

Residential

estimated no. of units

Commercial

estimated flo

orspace m

2016/17

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022

2027

2028+

TOTAL

Once commenced how many years is it expected to fully develop the site?

If known, how many developers would be involved in delivering the site?

If housing, at what density would the site be built (dwellings per hectare)?

43.

Please supply any additional information that may help assessment of the site.

10-15

Concept Plan attached.

Download
Save PDF to desktop

Email
Email completed PDF

Send for Signing
Email for others to sign

Print
Print document

NAME

The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted (Daventry District Council)

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document

Fillable The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted (Daventry District Council)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank The Guilsborough Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted (Daventry District Council) Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!