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
1
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
th
February 2018 and will close at 5pm on Monday
9
th
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/
1
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
1
Contact Details: We need your contact details to take your comments into account.
Agent (if applicable)
Yes
Title
Mr
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)
3a
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
3b
Please indicate which of the following apply to your representation
Supporting
Objecting
3c
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 clients 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
4a
To which part of the Neighbourhood Plan does this representation relate? For
example page, paragraph, policy, map?
Please see attached covering letter.
4b
Please indicate which of the following apply to your representation
Supporting
Objecting
4c
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
4
th
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
to
Daventry District Councils Settlements and Countryside Local Plan (Part 2a) Issues and Options
consultation with respect to the site. These representations (dated 11
th
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 Councils
Part 2a Plan Emerging Draft consultation is similarly consistent with the aims of this policy.
25680/A3/JB/BT 2 4
th
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 Councils 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 Councils 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
rd
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 Councils 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 Councils Housing Needs Survey for Guilsborough (May 2016) sets out the following findings:
The 2013/14 DCLG data showed Daventry Districts 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
th
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 areas 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 clients 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 sites 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 clients site for housing will help to address this.
Policy 6: Transport, Traffic and Parking
We support the aims of this policy. Development of our clients 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 clients 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 thatOpen 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 clients 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
th
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 villages heritage and any proposals for our clients
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 clients 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 villages 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 clients 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 Councils 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 clients 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
th
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
11
th
March 2016
De
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
Ba
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.
T
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).
T
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.
W
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
th
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.
Fu
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.
C
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’
.
Th
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.
Fo
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
th
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.
A
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.
N
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.
I
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.
To
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?
Ba
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.
B
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.
I
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
th
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.
If
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.
We
would be grateful if you could give consideration to our comments and keep us abreast of future
stages of the production of this document.
In
the meantime if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Y
ours faithfully,
RU
SSELL CROW
Associate
APPENDIX 1
Site Location Plan
166m
173m
158m
171m
M
E
A
N
E
L
S
T
W
L
T
R
C
H
O
E
T
E
R
L
C
H
U
U
N
O
A
T
E
D
N
T
O
R
E
T
O
N
O
R
H
I
G
H
170m
165m
160m
Track
Guilsborough
Track
War
Meml
Guilsborough
The Old
House
PO
Sch
PW
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.
N
60
80
100m
20
0 40
APPENDIX 2
Site Concept Plan
166m
173m
158m
171m
173m
M
E
A
N
E
L
S
T
W
L
T
R
C
H
O
E
T
E
R
L
C
H
U
U
N
H
I
G
H
Track
Guilsborough
Dripwell Spinney
Track
War
Meml
Guilsborough
The Old
House
PO
House
Sch
Pol Ho
PW
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
- - - -
N
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.
60
80
100m
20
0 40
APPENDIX 2
Call For Sites Form (March 2016)
1
Daventry District Part 2 Local Plan – Call for Sites
Guidance Notes
January 2016
Closing date for responses – 11
th
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
2
of
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
2
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
th
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.
3
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
c/o Agent
c/o Agent
c/o Agent
c/o Agent
Mr
Russell Crow
Barton Willmore
Regent House, Prince's Gate, 4 Homer Road, Solihull
B91 3QQ
4
Site Interest
1.
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):
2.
Are there other owners/agents of this site?
Yes
No
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
N
o
Title
Name
Organisation
(where relevant)
5
Address
Postcode
Telephone
Email address
Does this owner support your proposal for the site?
Yes
No
Site Information
3.
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
6
3
4.
Adjacent
land use (eg. Housing, employment, retail, leisure
etc.)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Proposed Use
& Capacity
5.
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.
7
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)
8
1
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.
6.
Is the site
an expansion of an existing business?
Yes
No
If yes, please provide details of existing site and its development:
7. Are you promoting your site as a rural exception site?
1
Yes
No
8.
Would you be
agreeab
le to
only
part of your site be
ing
considered?
Yes
No
9.
Have you liaised with the town/parish Council regarding your proposal?
Yes
No
9
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
No
Don’t know
If yes, is this…?
Flood zone 1
Flood zone 2
Flood zone 3
Yes
No
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.
10
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
No
Don’t
know
24.
Mains water supply
25.
Mains
sewerage
26.
Electrical supply
27.
Gas supply
28.
Landline telephone/broadband internet
29.
Is
the site safely and directly accessible from an existing (adopted) highway?
Yes
No
If not, can a new access be provided?
Yes
No
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
No
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.
11
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
s
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
No
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.
200m.
200m - approx. two hourly.
400m.
200m.
9km.
300m.
400m.
400m.
600m.
Adjacent.
2.5km - Ravensthorpe.
N/a.
12
33.
Are you aware of any other constraints which may aff
ect the suitability of the site?
Availability
34.
Ar
e there any ownership or title constraints which you are aware of?
Yes
No
If yes, please provide details below:
35.
Are there any
restrictive covenants on the land which might affect the deliverability of the site?
Yes
No
If y
es, please provide details below:
36.
Must any land in other ownership be acquired to develop the site?
Yes
No
If yes, please provide details below:
Not that we are aware of at this time.
13
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)
No
If (a) or (b) do any of these require relocation before the site could be developed?
Yes
No
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
No
If ‘No’, when will the site be available?
6
-
10 years
11
-
15 years
16+ years
Achievability
39.
Has the site been marketed for
sale for the use proposed
in
your answer to question 5?
Yes
No
Don’t know
If yes,
how long has the site been marketed for, and
what level of interest has been received?
n/a
14
40.
In your opinion, are there any market factors or financial im
plications that could restrict potential
delivery on site within:
a)
0
-
5 years?
Yes
No
b)
6
-
10 years
Yes
No
c)
11
-
15 years
Yes
No
d)
16+ years
Yes
No
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.
15
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
st
to March 31
st
).
Year
Residential
-
estimated no. of units
Commercial
-
estimated flo
orspace m
2
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
20
10-15
2
1
Concept Plan attached.
Chrome Web Store
It looks like you haven't installed the Fill Chrome Extension Add to Chrome