TECHNICAL PAPER: Rural Settlement Hierarchy

East Northamptonshire Local Plan January 2021

TECHNICAL PAPER:

Rural Settlement Hierarchy

East Northamptonshire Council of 51 FOUR TOWNS PLAN – DEFINING A SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY – version 0.1 (13 January 2021) Author: Principal Planning Policy Officer

If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format (large print, tape format or other languages) please contact us on 01832 742000.


Document Version Control Author (Post holder title) Principal Planning Policy Officer Type of document Strategy / policy/ plan /action plan / procedure / guidelines /

protocol / statement * delete as appropriate Version Number 0.1 Document File Name Settlement Hierarchy background paper Jun 17 Issue date 13 January 2021 Approval date and by who (SMT / committee) Document held by (name/section) Planning Services (Planning Policy) For internal publication only or external also? Internal only / internal and external * delete as appropriate Document stored on Council website or Eunice?

Eunice / Website * delete as appropriate

Next review date Change History Issue Date Comments 0.1 13 January 2021 1st draft version 1.0 NB: Draft versions 0.1 - final published versions 1.0 Consultees Internal External e.g. Individual(s) / Group / Section e.g. Stakeholders / Partners /Organisation(s) Community Partnership team North Northamptonshire Joint Planning and

Delivery Unit (NNJPDU) Distribution List Internal External e.g. Individual(s) / Group / Section e.g. Stakeholders / Partners /Organisation(s) Community Partnership team North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Town/ Parish Councils

Links to other documents Document Link North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) 2011-2031, adopted July 2016 (Local Plan Part 1)

http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/docs/Joint%20Core%20Strategy%202011-2031%20High%20Res%20version%20for%20website.pdf

Additional Comments to note






Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 5 2.0 Reviewing previous evidence gathering/ studies for defining a

rural settlement hierarchy 6

3.0 Defining/ naming individual villages 10 4.0 Choosing an appropriate methodology for undertaking a bespoke

assessment of rural settlements 13

5.0 Quantitative assessment – review of rural services and

constraints 16

6.0 Qualitative assessment – Further analysis of results of rural

services and constraints survey results 20

7.0 Is it appropriate to include additional sub-division or

categorisation for villages within the settlement hierarchy? 31

8.0 Recommendations and conclusions 34 9.0 Glossary of terms 38 Appendices: Appendix A – Rural Survey of Services and Facilities Appendix B – Rural Survey of Services and Facilities (overall

ranking)

Appendix C – Verbatim feedback from Parish Councils/ Parish

Meetings, November 2018 – January 2019

Appendix D – Town centres: concentric zones


1.0 Introduction 1.1 The current Local Plan Part 1 (“North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031”,

adopted July 2016) contains a four tier spatial hierarchy (Table 1/ Policy 11). This consists of:

• Growth Towns; • Market Towns; • Villages; and • Open Countryside (including hamlets, farmsteads and settlements with a

dispersed built form).

1.2 The Local Plan categorises the 12 towns within the North Northamptonshire area (Corby Borough, East Northamptonshire District, Kettering Borough and the Borough of Wellingborough) as follows:

• Growth Towns (Corby, Kettering, Rushden, Wellingborough); • Market Towns (Burton Latimer, Desborough, Higham Ferrers, Irthlingborough,

Oundle, Raunds, Rothwell, Thrapston). 1.3 Beside the 12 towns within North Northamptonshire, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS)

includes just two spatial designations for the rural areas; i.e. Villages (established settlements) or Open Countryside. With the exception of the largest villages (Earls Barton, Finedon, Irchester and Wollaston; all within the Borough of Wellingborough), and the proposed Tresham Garden Village (Deenethorpe Airfield, Policy 14) the Local Plan Part 1/ JCS does not name individual villages.

Role of the Local Plan Part 2 in defining a settlement hierarchy 1.4 The JCS (paragraph 5.12) allows for the definition of a more detailed rural settlement

hierarchy through the Local Plan Part 2. By contrast, it must be recognised that the Local Plan Part 1 contains a clear spatial strategy for the 12 towns within North Northamptonshire. In practice, the process of defining a rural settlement hierarchy would involve:

• Reviewing previous evidence gathering/ studies for defining a rural settlement hierarchy;

• Defining/ naming individual villages; • Choosing an appropriate methodology for undertaking a bespoke assessment of

rural settlements • Quantitative assessment – review of rural services and constraints; • Qualitative assessment – Further analysis of results of rural services and

constraints survey results; • Comparison of alternative approaches; • Recommendations and conclusions.

1.5 This paper will follow this process. It will conclude with recommendations as to how a

settlement hierarchy for the rural areas could be defined through the Local Plan Part 2.


2.0 Reviewing previous evidence gathering/ studies for defining a rural

settlement hierarchy 2.1 The North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (JPU) document, “Developing a

settlement hierarchy for the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy” (July 2012)1 explains that the settlement hierarchy is a critical mechanism which underpins the spatial development strategy at the local level, thereby providing a “practical framework within which decisions…can be made” (NPPF Core planning principles, paragraph 17). This considered potential approaches that could be applied in defining a settlement hierarchy for the JCS (Local Plan Part 1).

Adopted spatial strategy/ policy framework 2.2 Current and emerging development plan documents (Local Plan Part 2 and/ or

Neighbourhood Plans) include more detailed spatial development strategies for individual rural built up areas. Extant Plans that incorporate settlement specific development strategies are defined by Table 1 (below).

Table 1 Development plan document

Settlements/ categories Relevant policies

Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan (RNOTP), adopted July 2011

The RNOTP previously defined a four tier rural settlement hierarchy. This was replaced by the JCS/ Local Plan Part 1 Policy 11, although the RNOTP retains a specific two-tier settlement distinction:

• Villages with defined settlement boundaries (39 villages within the Plan area); and

• Villages without defined settlement boundaries (10 villages within the Plan area)

Paragraphs 4.7-4.10; Policy 2

Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036, “made” (adopted) December 2019

The Neighbourhood Plan sets a spatial strategy of development restraint for the village of Wakerley; that development will be restricted to the re-use or conversion of buildings where it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposal will not harm the character and quality of the village environment

Policy BW2

Brigstock Neighourhood Development Plan 2011-2031, “made” January 2019

The Neighbourhood Plan allocates land for development, in line with indicative requirements for the village (1st draft Local Plan Part 2 Figure 19, November 2018) and 2016 Housing Needs Survey

Policies B1 and B3

1 http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/docs/Settlement%20Hierarchy%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20JUL12.pdf

http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/docs/Settlement%20Hierarchy%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20JUL12.pdf


Table 1 Development plan document

Settlements/ categories Relevant policies

Chelveston cum Caldecott Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2031, “made” (adopted) July 2017

The Neighbourhood Plan sets individual spatial development strategies for the three settlements (Chelveston, Caldecott, Chelston Rise) that make up the parish. The LPP2 should incorporate these into any settlement hierarchy. It allocates a range of minor housing sites (<10 dwellings) across the three settlements.

Section 5.1; Policy H1

Glapthorn Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2031, "made" July 2018

The Neighbourhood Plan focuses upon the village of Glapthorn, allocating a range of sites (5 dwellings or less) around the built up area. It recognises the relationship between the wider parish and Oundle (north), although the Plan does not set any specific policies regarding those parts of the parish that adjoin the Oundle urban area.

Policies 1-3; sections 6.7-6.8

King’s Cliffe Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018-2031, “made” October 2019

The Neighbourhood Plan allocates brownfield and infill sites within the existing King’s Cliffe built up area. It provides a range of spatial policies, recognising King’s Cliffe’s local service role.

Policy H1

Rushden Neighbourhood Plan, "made" June 2018

The Neighbourhood Plan sets a settlement boundary, distinguishing between the urban and rural parts of Rushden parish. Most policies relate to development within the main urban area). The Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road ribbon development (urban outlier) is recognised in the Plan as rural.

Paragraph 3.8; Policy H1

Stanwick Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016-2031, “made” July 2017

The Neighbourhood Plan defines the built up area of Stanwick village by way of a linear settlement boundary. It focuses upon design, character and development management within the built up area, but does not make site specific development land allocations.

Paragraph 6.2; Policy HSG1

Warmington Neighbourhood Plan, “made” December 2019

The Neighbourhood Plan sets a linear settlement boundary for the main built up area, continuing the previous mixed-use allocation from the RNOTP. It also recognises rural outliers (e.g. Eaglethorpe), for which countryside policies should apply.

Policies W1-W2


2.3 In addition to the 35 villages with settlement boundaries defined through the RNOTP, the

settlements of Brigstock, Chelveston, Caldecott, Chelston Rise, Glapthorn, King’s Cliffe, Stanwick and Warmington have settlement boundaries, defined through the respective Neighbourhood Plans. These either update those previously defined in the RNOTP or define entirely new boundaries. The boundaries are intended to provide an effective development management framework for the peripheral areas of each settlement, to distinguish between the main built up areas of villages and their surrounding rural hinterland.

2.4 The Avenue Road ribbon development/ “urban outlier”, has written boundary criteria, defined by Rushden Neighbourhood Plan Policy H1 (“made” June 2018). The ribbon development, whilst forming part of Rushden, is physically separated from the main urban area. The Neighbourhood Plan defines the Avenue Road area as “rural”; within detailed spatial strategy for this part of Rushden (Policy H1).

2.5 The 10 villages within the RNOTP area that do not currently have a settlement boundary could, in the first instance, be regarded as “sensitive areas where infill development will be resisted or subject to special control” (JCS Policy 11(2)(b)). In the case of Wakerley, the Neighbourhood Plan has set a spatial strategy of development restraint, with any additional growth needs directed towards Barrowden (Rutland).

2.6 The status of the other RNOTP Category ‘B’ Network Villages should be reviewed through the settlement hierarchy assessment; given that the RNOTP specifies that these “do not have a defined village planning boundary; due either to their special historic conservation interest or to a small scale, scattered or dispersed built form” (paragraph 4.10). The RNOTP generally restricts development within Category ‘B’ network villages to the re-use of existing buildings; in practice treating these as “open countryside” in accordance with the overall National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) presumption in favour of the re-use of suitable redundant or disused rural buildings (NPPF paragraph 79).

2.7 Spatial development strategies for individual rural settlements are currently covered by the RNOTP (paragraphs 4.9-4.11) or “made” Neighbourhood Plans. However, there are no explicit spatial development strategies for the villages of Hargrave, Newton Bromswold and Ringstead; although Neighbourhood Plans are in preparation for Hargrave and Ringstead (anticipated completion by 2021-22).

Previous evidence base (JCS/ Local Plan Part 1) 2.8 The Local Plan Part 2 (RNOTP and DLP) defined a 4-5 tier rural settlement hierarchy;

although since 2016 this has mostly been replaced by JCS Policy 11/ Table 1. The previous Local Plan settlement hierarchy was considered to be overly complicated and, in response, the JCS initially considered a simplified three-tier rural settlement hierarchy (Settlement hierarchy background paper, July 2012):

• Principal Villages (named); • Other Villages; • Open Countryside (including hamlets or settlements of a dispersed built form).


2.9 The JPU settlement hierarchy paper recommendations were not ultimately taken forward into the JCS (Local Plan Part 1). This was due to concerns that the designation of named “Principal Villages” implies a sequential approach to development, thereby subjecting these specific named settlements to unsustainable development pressures.

Previous evidence base (RNOTP/ Local Plan Part 2)

2.10 The RNOTP settlement hierarchy was developed with reference to a range of evidence base studies. These were undertaken between 2003 and 2009. The most relevant documents, which informed the RNOTP, are as follows:

• Settlement Hierarchy – Defining Category A and B Villages, January 20092; • Integrated approach to Sustainable Rural Planning in East Northamptonshire,

January 20063; • Design for the Future Discussion Papers, 2004-54.

2.11 The 2009 Settlement Hierarchy paper was informed by the most recent comprehensive

assessment of rural services and facilities. It reviewed the earlier village categorisations set out in the submission RNOTP (January 2008). The RNOTP Inspector found this assessment “…to be a thorough and comprehensive piece of work. It fully justifies the categorisation of settlements…” (Inspector’s Report, paragraph 3.125, 8 July 20095).

2.12 As part of the Local Plan Part 2, it is noted that this evidence is now over a decade old. Population data has been updated through the 2011 Census and subsequent estimates. Also, the range of local services and facilities has changed; e.g. through Post Office and/ or pub closures or changes to local bus services. It is therefore timely to update this data accordingly and consider the implications of these updates for rural settlement networks.

2 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=365&fileID=1488 3 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=267 4 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=273 5 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=397&fileID=1609

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=365&fileID=1488

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=267

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=273

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=397&fileID=1609


3.0 Defining/ naming individual villages

3.1 Appendix A (Survey of rural services and facilities) assesses 61 rural settlements within

the District. The majority of these are specified through the Current Local Plan Part 2 (2011 RNOTP and 1996 District Local Plan) or new Neighbourhood Plans. Table 2 (below) sets out the current positions for each, as at spring 2020. Table 2 RURAL SETTLEMENTS WITH DEFINED SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THE POLICIES MAP RNOTP – villages with settlement boundaries Aldwincle Harringworth Stoke Doyle Apethorpe Hemington Sudborough Barnwell Islip Tansor Upper Benefield Laxton Thorpe Waterville Bulwick Lilford Thurning Clopton Little Addington Titchmarsh Collyweston Lowick Twywell Cotterstock Lutton Wadenhoe Deenethorpe Nassington Woodford Denford Polebrook Woodnewton Easton on the Hill Slipton Yarwell Great Addington Southwick “Made” (adopted) Neighbourhood Plans – settlements with locally defined spatial development strategies/ settlement boundaries Brigstock Chelveston Warmington Caldecott Glapthorn Chelston Rise King’s Cliffe BUILT UP AREAS WITH WRITTEN SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Defined by “made” (adopted Neighbourhood Plans) Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road ribbon development (Rushden Neighbourhood Plan)

Wakerley (Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan)

RURAL SETTLEMENTS WITHOUT SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES RNOTP – villages without settlement boundaries Achurch Blatherwycke Fineshade Ashton Deene Fotheringhay Lower Benefield Duddington Pilton RNOTP – settlements defined as “Open Countryside” Armston Luddington in the Brook Wigsthorpe

3.2 The following freestanding villages, all in the south of the District (outside the RNOTP area), do not currently have any explicit defined status within the adopted development plan:

• Hargrave; • Newton Bromswold; • Ringstead.


3.3 The Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road part of Rushden, to the south east of

the main built up area, constitutes a significant area of “ribbon development”. It may be considered to be an “urban outlier”. This status is confirmed by the Rushden Neighbourhood Plan, which defines this as the “rural” part of Rushden.

3.4 The Crow Hill part of Irthlingborough to the north of, but wholly detached from, the main urban area could similarly be regarded as an “urban outlier”. Appendix A reveals that this “settlement” has a limited range of services and facilities (convenience store, community hall etc), although its estimated population in excess of 1000. The Local Plan Part 2 will need to address the status (spatial strategy) for this built up area, although for completeness it has been included within the Survey of rural services and facilities, in view of its physical detachment from the larger main urban area to the south.

Rural settlement typologies

3.5 The development of a rural settlement hierarchy is necessary to reflect the extensive differentiation between villages. Given that the JCS (Local Plan Part 1) does not refer to individual rural settlements, it is necessary for the Local Plan Part 2 to provide additional clarity and certainty in respect of individual rural settlements to give sufficient strategic direction for Community/ Neighbourhood Plans if/ when these are prepared.

3.6 As stated, the majority of settlements are named in the adopted Local Plan Part 2 or Neighbourhood Plans. Three distinctive rural settlement types are identified:

• Freestanding villages; • Urban outliers; • Rural outliers.

Freestanding villages 3.7 The 2012 Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper for the JCS noted that the majority of

rural settlements are defined by Parish. Established villages could be defined in the following ways:

• Parish designation, including explicit title reference; e.g. Duddington with Fineshade, Lilford cum Wigsthorpe, Chelveston cum Caldecott;

• Church of England Parish Church; or • Google Maps destination.

Urban outliers 3.8 Appendix A has assessed the urban outliers at Crow Hill (Irthlingborough) and Avenue

Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road ribbon development (Rushden). For completeness these have been assessed (without prejudice) as if they are freestanding settlements, due to their physical separation from the main built up areas.

3.9 Other potential urban outliers may also be considered through the Local Plan Part 2, including:


• Elmington/ Laxton Drive (former Oundle Railway Station/ Riverside Hotel), Oundle (within Ashton Parish); and

• Brooks Road, Raunds.

3.10 Common characteristics of urban outliers include:

• Urban/ suburban character; • Clear connection to nearby larger urban area; • Not defined by any Parish reference or designation.

Rural outliers 3.11 Several rural parishes include outlying groups of buildings, farmsteads or hamlets;

detached from the main built up areas of villages. These may be referred to as “rural outliers”, given that these are nearly always closely related to a larger, established village. Chelston Rise, within Chelveston cum Caldecott Parish, has its status as a rural settlement confirmed by the Neighbourhood Plan. Other rural outliers must, by default, be regarded as “Open Countryside”, in the same way as Armston, Luddington and Wigsthorpe were treated in the RNOTP.

3.12 Clusters of properties, which may be regarded as rural outliers, include:

• Ashton Wold, Ashton; • Home Farm/ Barnwell Workshops, Barnwell; • Home Farm/ Bulwick Hall, Bulwick; • Slate Drift, Collyweston; • Brook Street, Hargrave; • Shotley, Harringworth; • Upper Laxton, Laxton; • Alley Farm/ Drayton Road, Lowick; • Papley (former Medieval village), Lutton; • Islington, Titchmarsh; • Woodwell, Woodford.

3.13 The list above is not exhaustive. Common characteristics of rural outliers include:

• Small groups of up to 10 agricultural workers’ cottages; • Dwellings associated with 1-2 agricultural, equestrian or forestry businesses; • Normally defined by the name of the principal rural business or estate property.


4.0 Choosing an appropriate methodology for undertaking a bespoke

assessment of rural settlements 4.1 Methodologies utilised for earlier studies all contain both quantitative and qualitative

aspects. To develop an effective methodology, it is essential to effectively apply a suitable quantitative approach (e.g. matrix), while recognising that the qualitative aspect is essential in understanding the varied character and specific local issues affecting different rural settlements.

4.2 The RNOTP methodology was developed during the Plan Examination (2008-9), in

response to the Inspector’s requirement (October 2008) that further studies and evidence were necessary in order for the Plan to be deemed “sound”. On the basis that this approach was endorsed by the RNOTP Inspector it is intended to update this work for the Local Plan Part 2. This updated work will similarly apply a combination of an overall matrix/ scoring, while considering local matters affecting individual villages/ urban outliers.

Approaches to defining a rural settlement hierarchy 4.3 The previous Local Plan settlement hierarchy focused upon those villages which have a

local service role. King’s Cliffe, which was designated a “Local Service Centre” for the rural north area, was identified for a significant quantum of growth (200 dwellings, 2011-2021; RNOTP paragraph 4.13). The majority of the previous Local Plan requirement has already been delivered, at Sovereign Grange between Willow Lane and Fineshade Close.

4.4 The previous Local Plan spatial strategy for rural areas, namely the local services emphasis, was comprehensively reviewed for the new JCS (Local Plan Part 1). This was largely due to the introduction of Neighbourhood Planning, which allows for additional growth to be promoted locally.

4.5 The RNOTP previously defined a four tier rural settlement hierarchy:

• Local Service Centre – King’s Cliffe; • Smaller Service Centres – Nassington, Warmington; • Category ‘A’ Network Villages – other villages with a defined settlement

boundary; • Category ‘B’ Network Villages – villages without a defined settlement boundary.

Other potential approaches – Wellingborough 4.6 In setting a suitable village settlement hierarchy for the District, consideration should also

be given to recent Borough Council of Wellingborough (BCW) evidence. The Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough (Local Plan Part 2), adopted February 2019, in line with JCS Policy 11, proposes a two-tier hierarchy for its villages (plus Open Countryside). This spatial direction was based on analysis in the Settlement Boundary Background Paper (April 2016) 6:

6 http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/downloads/file/7028/settlement_hierarchy_background_paper_-_april_2016

http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/downloads/file/7028/settlement_hierarchy_background_paper_-_april_2016


• Village – The majority of villages with the Borough, including the four largest

villages (Earl’s Barton, Finedon, Irchester and Wollaston) named in the JCS; • Restraint Villages – Smallest settlements, with restricted levels of services and

facilities and of a sensitive character or conservation interest. 4.7 An earlier draft version of the Local Plan Part 2 (“Site Specific Development Plan

Document”) had proposed a three tier hierarchy7:

• Limited service villages – Earls Barton, Finedon, Irchester and Wollaston; • Network villages (most villages); • Restraint villages – Easton Maudit, Hardwick, Strixton, Sywell old village.

4.8 As the strategy developed, the Borough Council of Wellingborough moved away from a

three tier approach. In considering these two approaches, local views expressed through the various consultations were that “none of the rural residents or parish councils considered a need to identify settlements that should accommodate more than their local need, but that there were some settlements where development ought to be restricted” (Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper, April 2016, paragraph 2.12).

4.9 The Wellingborough Plan adopted simplified settlement hierarchy, in contrast to the four tier approach previously adopted for the RNOTP. This was argued to be consistent with JCS Policy 11; insofar as it “seeks to treat the majority of the settlements the same, does not seek to identify that some should accommodate more than their own local needs, but identifies some settlements which because of their special characteristics or lack of services or facilities should have more restricted levels of development” (Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper, April 2016, paragraph 5.2).

Possible approaches for the Local Plan Part 2 to a rural settlement hierarchy 4.10 It is considered that the four tier settlement hierarchy for the RNOTP has proven to be

overly complicated. It highlights “service centres”, each of which (particularly King’s Cliffe) has hosted a significant quantum of development within the past decade. Apart from this, the principal rural settlement differentiation is whether or not a village has a defined settlement boundary; such that small scale new build development should respectively be normally supported or not within the existing built up area.

4.11 Since RNOTP Policy 1 has been replaced by JCS Policy 11 (the current spatial development strategy), the spatial strategy in force for East Northamptonshire since July 2016 largely reflects the Wellingborough Plan approach:

• Rural settlements/ villages – 44 settlements that are appropriate to accommodate infill development;

• Restraint settlements/ villages – 13 defined rural settlements that are not appropriate to accommodate infill development;

• 4 rural settlements (Crow Hill urban outlier, Hargrave, Newton Bromswold and Ringstead), currently (as at autumn 2020) with no development plan status.

7 https://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/downloads/file/4636/rural_settlement_hierarchy

https://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/downloads/file/4636/rural_settlement_hierarchy


4.12 If it is concluded that the (now defunct) RNOTP settlement hierarchy is overly complicated; there are then two distinct approaches that the Local Plan Part 2 could apply:

1. Retention/ rolling forward of current rural settlement hierarchy on the assumption that this is appropriate, but incorporating the four rural settlements that currently have no development plan status; or

2. Comprehensively reviewing the existing evidence base to develop a new District-wide rural settlement hierarchy.

4.13 The 2nd approach would provide a comprehensive update to the rural settlement

hierarchy. It would entail fully updating earlier assessments of villages’ services, facilities and overall sustainability in order to inform a rural settlement hierarchy for the Local Plan Part 2.


5.0 Quantitative assessment – review of rural services and constraints

5.1 Three main typologies of rural settlement have been identified. In categorising individual

settlements it is necessary to demonstrate that the settlement hierarchy is “Justified”; i.e. an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence (NPPF, paragraph 35(a)). The methodology for assessing rural services and constraints, derived from the 2009 RNOTP settlement hierarchy study and which will form the basis for this updated study, relates to:

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

5.2 The level of services, constraints and population are all quantitative measures, whereby

scoring matrices enable settlements to be assessed consistently in relation to one another. Built form and conservation interest are the principal qualitative considerations in refining the quantitative data and ultimately making recommendations regarding the status of individual rural settlements.

Data sources 5.3 During autumn 2018 a desk based assessment of rural services and facilities was

undertaken. This updated an earlier (2009) assessment undertaken for the RNOTP. A number of documents and web based resources were utilised to inform the study, including:

• Retailing, garages, doctors, dentists, pubs, fast food outlets, rural businesses – “yell.com”8 website;

• Post Office Branch Finder9; • Primary schools, bus services and mobile libraries – Northamptonshire County

Council10; • Community Halls – East Northamptonshire Council Community Partnership and

Democratic Services teams; • East Northamptonshire Open Space and Playing Pitch Strategy (April 2017)11. • Internet Connectivity5 • Mobile Phone Coverage6

5.4 The desk based assessment was followed by a consultation with Parish Councils and

Parish Meetings during November 2018 – January 2019, as a check for accuracy and to

8 http://www.yell.com/ 9 http://www.postoffice.co.uk/branch-finder 10 http://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/pages/default.aspx 11 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/info/200193/adopted_local_plan/65/development_plan_documents/9 5 https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/broadband-map#15/52.4828/-0.4679/test/ 6 https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/mobile-phone-providers/article/mobile-phone-coverage-map

http://www.yell.com/

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/branch-finder

http://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/pages/default.aspx

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/info/200193/adopted_local_plan/65/development_plan_documents/9

https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/broadband-map#15/52.4828/-0.4679/test/

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/mobile-phone-providers/article/mobile-phone-coverage-map


derive any further local intelligence of which officers may have been unaware. 18 separate responses were received. Consultation feedback is reported at Appendix C.

5.5 The desk based assessment and Parish feedback have been combined to populate the assessment matrix (Appendix A). The data is considered to be correct, as at late 2018/ early 2019. It should be recognised that detailed information regarding local services and businesses may have changed further, during intervening months (2019-20). During 2020, many local services and facilities will have been acutely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, which may affect their medium/ longer term future. This paper reflects the position at January 2019; i.e. over 12 months before the Covid-19 outbreak (February/ March 2020).

Scorings for local services 5.6 The presence of a defined local service or facility (Appendix A) has been awarded one

point. Since the 2009 study the presence of a Church of England Parish Church has been added to the scoring matrix as a local facility, reflecting the fact that this is a key indicator of an established rural settlement.

5.7 Other facilities and services fall into more than one category. In the case of Post Offices there are two categories; Sub-Post Offices and mobile/ “Outreach” services. On this basis, two points are given to villages for a fixed Post Office, or one point for an “Outreach” service.

5.8 Several services under Northampton County Council have been restricted following the recent financial inspection. As such Bus services in the district have seen considerable change. The previous “Call Connect” service has ceased to exist meaning that it was necessary to adjust the scoring for this service. As defined by NCC’s webpage, Weekend/ Sporadic bus services were awarded one point, daily services 2 points and hourly (or more frequent) services 3 points.

Internet connectivity 5.9 The 2009 settlement hierarchy study (prepared for the RNOTP examination) is

considered to provide a good overarching template for updating the rural services review. However, sustainability measures have needed to be reviewed, in light of various technological and legislative changes during the past decade. Studies by bodies such as the Country Land & Business Association (CLA)12 have been undertaken to consider whether conventional measures of “sustainability” (e.g. a Post Office or bus service) remain relevant for the 21st century.

5.10 The CLA study emphasised the need to recognise modern communications technology as a measure of rural sustainability. Accordingly, internet connectivity and phone coverage have been incorporated into the rural services review (Appendix A) as new measures of sustainability. The majority of rural settlements have below national average internet connectivity, therefore settlements that had above average speeds were award a score of 1, settlements with considerably above average speeds received a scoring of 2,

12 Sustainable Villages – Making rural communities fit for the future (Country Land & Business Association, 2018): https://www.cla.org.uk/strongfoundations

https://www.cla.org.uk/strongfoundations


similarly phone coverage was scored on the basis of 1 for a average signal strength and 2 for a strong signal strength.

Scorings for constraints 5.11 Appendix A defines a series of constraints, which are awarded negative scorings. These

have been applied to key development constraints likely to impact upon the sustainability for development in each settlement:

• Within 2km walking (minus 2 points) or 5km cycling (minus 1 point) of an urban

centre • Number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (minus one for each Scheduled

Ancient Monument within or adjacent to the built up area) • Conservation Areas, with additional score for those with Article 4(2) Directions

(minus one, or minus two for Conservation Areas with Article 4(2) Directions) • Flood risk areas affecting built up areas (minus one)

5.12 A change to the earlier (2009) methodology has been made, to reflect the adopted

spatial development strategy. The 2009 study gave positive scorings to villages such as Ashton and Islip, with access to higher order services and facilities within 2km; i.e. Oundle and Thrapston respectively. This has now been reversed, with negative scorings now given to settlements that are in close proximity to urban centres. This “policy on” approach gives recognition to the adopted spatial policy, whereby “Development in the rural areas will be limited to that required to support a prosperous rural economy or to meet a locally arising need, which cannot be met more sustainably at a nearby larger settlement” (Policy 11(2)(a)). 2km and 5km concentric rings for Corby, Higham Ferrers, Irthlingborough, Oundle, Raunds, Rushden, Stamford and Thrapston are shown at Appendix D.

5.13 The previous negative scorings (Settlement Hierarchy – Defining Category A and B Villages, January 2009) for proximity to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA)/ Ramsar site has been removed. This reflects the adoption of the Mitigation Strategy in November 2016 that entails payment of a Mitigation Strategy “tariff” for all residential development within 3km of the SPA/ Ramsar site.

5.14 The scorings for services and constraints have been given a total “Sustainability Rating”. In addition, recent (2016) population estimates have also been taken into account. This applies an assumption that larger villages with larger populations are more likely to be able to support and sustain local services in the longer term. The population estimates for each settlement have been awarded scores as follows, up to a maximum 11.

Table 3 Population Estimate (2016) Score >1000 11 901-1000 10 801-900 9 701-800 8 601-700 7 501-600 6 401-500 5 301-400 4


Table 3 Population Estimate (2016) Score 201-300 3 101-200 2 1-100 1

5.15 Most settlements have a discrete (2016) population estimate. However, for some urban

outliers or multiple settlement Parishes population estimates have been apportioned in the following way:

• Total Parish populations have been evenly split where one or more settlements are of a similar size (e.g. Lower and Upper Benefield; Lowick and Slipton);

5.16 The sustainability and population scores are added together to give a total score by which settlements may then be ranked. Section 6.0 below analyses these findings.


6.0 Qualitative assessment – Further analysis of results of rural

services and constraints survey results 6.1 This section of the study provides a quantitative analysis of the overall sustainability and

population scoring for each of the 61 rural settlements assessed (Appendix A). It is further refined by a qualitative analysis, in recognition that the character, built form or setting of these varies vastly.

Summary results: overall sustainability and population score (Appendix B) 6.2 Total scores and populations vary greatly. Predictably, the largest villages (>1000

population) achieved the highest overall scores (20 or more). Additionally, Nassington (by virtue of its range of services and facilities), also scored 20 by this assessment.

6.3 The next ranking settlement, Islip, scored 18; this was mainly due to earlier improvements to services at the village and Thrapston implemented in association with Rushden Lakes, but subsequently withdrawn/ scaled back. It is important to highlight that Islip has received a considerable negative scoring due to its’ proximity to Thrapston (JCS, Policy 11(2) (a)). Scorings for other settlements range between 14 (Collyweston; Titchmarsh) and 1 (Fineshade; Wigsthorpe). Based upon these overall scorings, the following thresholds may be considered:

Table 4 Overall score possible classification 20 and above Large/ service village 3-19 Other village/ rural settlement 0-2 Open countryside

6.4 The assessment reveals a significant distinction between the large or service villages

and others. Other settlements are defined by a continuous spectrum of scores (Appendix A). This raises a significant matter for further consideration; i.e. what should constitute a “village” or “settlement” for the purposes of defining a settlement hierarchy?

6.5 Defined “villages”; i.e. those with a Church of England Parish Church, score at least 3. This is therefore considered to represent an appropriate threshold to distinguish between a “settlement” and open countryside. Application of the scorings above could give rise to the following District-wide rural settlement hierarchy:

Table 5 Large/ service villages King’s Cliffe, Easton-on-the-Hill,

Stanwick, Woodford, Nassington, Ringstead, Brigstock, Warmington, Crow Hill (Irthlingborough)

Other (small) villages/ rural settlements

49 rural settlements (listed at Appendix A)

Open countryside Blatherwycke, Chelston Rise, Fineshade, Wigsthorpe


Qualitative analysis 6.6 In order to define an appropriate settlement hierarchy for the Local Plan Part 2, it is

necessary to understand that the quantitative assessment (Appendix A) matrix should be refined through further, qualitative analysis. This will consider a range of factors and supporting evidence, which do not fit with quantitative scoring by way of a matrix. With reference to the earlier RNOTP settlement hierarchy methodology (Settlement Hierarchy – Defining Category A and B Villages (January 2009), paragraph 4.3.1), possible qualitative assessment measures could include:

• Conservation of the built environment – including scenic quality and local vernacular/ detail

• Form – scarce, fragile or ancient characteristics of the local built environment • Character and scale – sense of place including the setting of buildings and

settlement itself in the wider landscape • Networks – linkages and relationships between settlements

6.7 To reiterate, there are a number of issues outstanding that the Local Plan Part 2 will

need to address:

• Wider spatial setting of settlements; that is, built up areas with a close relationship to a larger/ main urban area; e.g. Crow Hill urban outlier (Irthlingborough); Ashton and Glapthorn (Oundle); Stanwick (Raunds); Denford and Islip (Thrapston);

• Providing a robust but flexible spatial framework for Neighbourhood Planning; • Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Settlements/ built up areas with a close relationship to a larger/ main urban area

6.8 The JCS spatial development strategy (Policy 11(2)(a) addresses scenarios where built up areas, which are closely related to a larger urban area, should be addressed in managing development. These are reflected in the “policy on” approach, reflected in negative scorings (paragraph 5.12, above) for settlements such as Ashton and Islip that are closely related to larger urban areas. Each such built up area is considered below.

Crow Hill urban outlier (Irthlingborough) 6.9 Crow Hill, as an urban outlier to Irthlingborough, contains a number of local facilities,

including rural businesses (e.g. Frontier Centre), convenience store, community centre and a regular bus service. It has, however, recently lost some certain services and facilities; e.g. the “Crow’s Nest” pub (closed in 2012).

6.10 Crow Hill is closely related to the main urban area of Irthlingborough of which it has always been regarded part. Nevertheless, Crow Hill is physically separate and has a significant population in its own right (estimated at over 1000) and limited development constraints. While Crow Hill does retain some local services, functionally it is likely that these predominantly serve Irthlingborough residents and business. However, Addington Road is served by a continuous pavement and street lighting, connecting Crow Hill and the main urban area.


6.11 In the case of the upper Crow Hill urban outlier, the alternative approaches could either be to define it within the “other villages” category, or to continue to regard it wholly as part of the Irthlingborough urban area (i.e. with no distinctive spatial development strategy, separate to the main urban area).These approaches were considered through the Irthlingborough workshops (28 November 2017 and 4 April 2018). Feedback from both highlighted that Crow Hill contains various services that serve the town as a whole. Accordingly, the 1st draft Local Plan Part 2 (November 2018) proposed that Crow Hill should be regarded as part of the main urban area; a matter which raised little/ no objection. The emerging Irthlingborough Neighbourhood Plan may also provide further spatial direction.

Ashton and Glapthorn (Oundle) 6.12 Ashton and Glapthorn are both closely associated with the Oundle urban area. In each

case, the main village is freestanding. However, both parishes also contain built up areas that are closely related to the main built up area. This reflects the close functional relationships between these villages and Oundle, including a need to avoid coalescence and inappropriate development beyond the periphery of the town.

6.13 In the case of Laxton Drive and Elmington (east of the River Nene, within Ashton Parish), these built up areas are physically detached from both the main urban areas and the current Ashton village (although they are closely associated with the Roman settlement of Ashton; a Scheduled Monument). Laxton Drive is suburban in character, while Elmington (A605) has some characteristics of ribbon development. The presence of a strong physical barrier (the River Nene) means that this urban outlier could not be regarded a functional element of Oundle for the purposes of development management, so must therefore be regarded as “rural”. Laxton Drive and Elmington contain no local services or facilities (with the exception of the frequent X4 bus service).

6.14 Glapthorn Parish includes small parts of the Oundle urban area (e.g. Old Farm Lane, Oundle). Like Ashton, the main village is freestanding, but the Parish itself physically adjoins the urban area. These parts of Glapthorn Parish should therefore be considered “urban” regardless of their administrative status, although the “made” Glapthorn Neighbourhood Plan provides additional policy direction for those parts of the Oundle urban area within Glapthorn Parish.

Stanwick (Raunds) 6.15 Stanwick, the largest village within the District is, nevertheless, closely related to Raunds.

The current extent of the Raunds urban area reflects the Raunds/ Stanwick Parish boundary. Stanwick is served by a range of services and facilities appropriate to a village of its size. On this basis, Stanwick should be considered a freestanding rural settlement, regardless of its physical proximity to Raunds.

Denford and Islip (Thrapston) 6.16 Denford and Islip are both closely related (i.e. within easy walking distance) to Thrapston.

Denford (to the south) is separated from Thrapston by the A14. While a small number of properties (e.g. Denford Edge) are situated between the village (albeit south of the A14) and Thrapston, the two settlements are clearly separated by a 1km rural buffer.


6.17 Islip is separated from the Thrapston urban area (to the west) by the River Nene. Bridge Street and Kettering Road (Islip) form an urban continuum, separated solely by the river. This proximity raises some issues regarding the status of Islip within the settlement hierarchy.

6.18 The main village of Islip (north of Kettering Road and the Woolpack pub) has always been a freestanding entity. The main village contains a range of services typical of a village of its size, including a parish church, village hall, pub (Rose and Crown), bowling green and working mans club. South of Kettering Road is an area of ribbon development (1-73 Kettering Road), which includes Islip Garage. To the west – beyond the A6116 roundabout – is the Primark and Islip Furnace employment area, one of the main economic hubs for the District.

6.19 The ribbon development south of Kettering Road has a suburban character. Kettering Road has a tarmac pavement, providing a continuous connection between Thrapston and the Primark warehouse. Street lighting is continuous between the A6116 roundabout and Thrapston.

6.20 Despite the close functional relationship between Islip as whole and Thrapston the village is considered to form a freestanding entity. Whilst Islip benefits from access to higher order services and facilities at Thrapston, the village itself contains a typical range of services for a settlement of its size. In this regard, Islip is considered to be a freestanding rural village.

Ribbon developments 6.21 Parishes such as Ashton and Islip include areas of ribbon development situated upon

main highways (Elmington and Kettering Road, respectively). The Crow Hill urban outlier consists of upper (main built up area) and lower (Addington Road ribbon development) elements.

6.22 Some urban areas also include peripheral/ outlying areas of ribbon development. The most significant of these is the Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road urban outlier, to the south east of the main Rushden urban area. This part of Rushden is defined as “rural” in the Rushden Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan (Policy H1) explicitly defines the spatial development strategy for this part of Rushden.

6.23 A further area of ribbon development is also identified at Raunds. Brooks Road, to the north east of the town, forms an area of transition between the main urban area and open countryside beyond. With possible the exception of the Avenue Road/ Bedford/ Newton Road area of Rushden (with a population of around 600 and some local services), other areas of ribbon development are all small scale and function entirely as part of the main settlement.

Providing a robust but flexible spatial framework for Neighbourhood Planning

6.24 The potential three tier hierarchy (Table 5, above), needs to have regard to emerging Neighbourhood Plans, and those that have recently been “made” (adopted). The Neighbourhood Plan for Stanwick, “made” (adopted) in July 2017 does not propose any


site specific allocations, instead focusing upon managing development within the existing built up area.

6.25 By contrast, the “made” village Neighbourhood Plans for Brigstock, Chelveston cum Caldecott, Glapthorn, King’s Cliffe and Warmington all allocate land for development. In the case of Chelveston cum Caldecott, the Neighbourhood Plan allocates sites at each of the three constituent settlements (Caldecott, Chelston Rise and Chelveston) that make up the Parish, setting individual spatial development strategies for each.

6.26 The Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan (made December 2019), directs a spatial strategy for development restraint at Wakerley. The Plan specifies that further development, where this is needed to meet local needs, should be delivered at the larger village of Barrowden (Rutland).

6.27 Arguably, the differing approaches between Stanwick and the other Neighbourhood Plans could negate the need to distinguish between the largest and other villages (i.e. applying the Wellingborough Plan approach). The Stanwick Neighbourhood Plan proposes no additional development in contrast to proposals for significantly smaller “other villages” such as Caldecott, Chelveston or Glapthorn; instead focusing upon local design and character and managing development within the current built up area.

6.28 In the case of the third built up area within Chelveston cum Caldecott Parish, the quantitative assessment (Appendix A) found that Chelston Rise should be regarded as “Open Countryside”, in terms of its scoring. However, the Neighbourhood Plan already treats Chelston Rise as a settlement in its own right and has also allocated a modest quantum of land for housing development, so this ought to be reflected in the Local Plan Part 2.

6.29 Accordingly, to ensure a meaningful and relevant settlement hierarchy, that for the Local Plan Part 2 should consider the findings below.

• Chelston Rise should also be categorised as an “other” (small/ freestanding) village, in recognition of spatial strategy, set out in the “made” Neighbourhood Plan.

• Crow Hill, as an urban outlier for Irthlingborough (i.e. physically separate from the main urban area), despite having a number of local services is nevertheless wholly urban in character and built form.

• Ashton is a freestanding village, although some parts of the Parish (Elmington and Laxton Drive) have a close functional relationship to Oundle. Elmington and Laxton Drive are physically separated from Oundle but could not be regarded as a freestanding settlement in their own right.

• Glapthorn is a freestanding village, although some parts of the Parish form part of the urban area of Oundle.

• Denford is a freestanding village and is clearly separated from Thrapston by the A14 and a 1km buffer zone/ open countryside.

• Islip functions as a freestanding village, physically separated from Thrapston by the River Nene.


• Stanwick, as the largest village within the District, should still be regarded

as a large/ service village by virtue of its size and range of services, despite its proximity to Raunds and there being no significant development is proposed there through the Neighbourhood Plan.

• In all cases, areas of ribbon development functionally form part of a larger main settlement. In the case of the largest (Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road) ribbon development, the status of this is set through the Rushden Neighbourhood Plan, so this should be recognised in the Local Plan Part 2.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

6.30 The RNOTP previously designated 10 “Category ‘B’ Network Villages”, by virtue of their special historic conservation interest or built form (RNOTP paragraph 4.10). The Wellingborough Local Plan (Part 2) similarly includes a “Restraint Village” category, where development opportunities are greatly restricted. Other neighbouring local authorities with extensive rural hinterlands (e.g. South Kesteven13) have widely applied the restraint village designation, effectively designating large numbers of settlements as open countryside. Such a spatial strategy is also set for Wakerley in the made Neighbourhood Plan.

6.31 The JCS allows for the Local Plan Part 2 and/ or Neighbourhood Plans to designate sensitive areas where infill development will be resisted or subject to special control (Policy 11(2)(b)). Section 3.0 (above) represents that current development plan position whereby villages without defined settlement boundaries should, in the first instance, be regarded as areas of special control/ development restraint in accordance with Policy 11(2)(b).

6.32 National policy changes set out in the NPPF include a general presumption in favour of the conversion/ re-use of redundant rural buildings for residential use; i.e. “Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless…the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting” (NPPF paragraph 79). The NPPF differs from earlier national policy, which previously included a general presumption against the conversion of rural buildings to residential use in open countryside locations away from established settlements.

6.33 This national policy change has implications for the RNOTP “Category ‘B’ Network Villages” (minus Wakerley), with reference to the relevant Local Plan policies (JCS policies 11 and 13, and RNOTP Policy 2). Like NPPF paragraph 79, RNOTP Policy 2 sets a presumption against new build residential development outside the defined settlement boundaries. Therefore RNOTP Category ‘B’ villages are effectively rendered “Open Countryside” for the purposes of development management, despite in all cases being “established settlements” (JCS Policy 13).

13 http://www.southkesteven.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=25219

http://www.southkesteven.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=25219


6.34 The quantitative assessment (Appendix A/ Table 5, above) found that it could be appropriate to regard Blatherwycke and Fineshade (plus Armston and Wigsthorpe) as “Open Countryside”. By contrast, this assessment concludes that Achurch, Ashton, Lower Benefield, Deene, Duddington, Fotheringhay, Pilton and Wakerley are “established settlements” in accordance with JCS Policy 13. JCS Policy 11(2)(b) allows sensitive areas where infill development will be resisted to be designated; although any such designation would need to be considered within the framework of supporting a prosperous rural economy (JCS Policy 11(2)) and maintaining sustainable villages (JCS Vision). Therefore, there must be a clear justification for any decision to designate individual villages as sensitive areas, as any such decision could restrict the scope for Neighbourhood Planning to set Parish-level spatial planning approaches.

6.35 The RNOTP Category ‘B’ Network Villages fall into two types; special historic conservation interest, or small scale, scattered or dispersed built form. Table 6 (below) categorises these villages accordingly. Table 6 Special historic conservation interest Small scale, scattered or dispersed built form Ashton Achurch Lower Benefield Blatherwycke Deene Fineshade Duddington Pilton (also significant historic conservation interest) Fotheringhay Wakerley [current spatial strategy already set by the

“made” Neighbourhood Plan]

6.36 The 2009 Settlement hierarchy study for the RNOTP included qualitative assessments for Armston, Ashton, Lower Benefield, Blatherwycke, Luddington in the Brook and Wigsthorpe. This evidence base provided a basis for determining the status of each within the RNOTP settlement hierarchy. Ashton and Lower Benefield were classified Category ‘B’ Network Villages (i.e. unsuitable to accommodate infill development), despite their overall scorings, predominantly due to their specific historic character and functional relationship with a neighbouring village respectively.

Ashton 6.37 Ashton’s historic character is emphasised through the Conservation Area Review (July

201714). This review was prompted due to specific circumstances. “Ashton represents a rather unique case in that the village has remained in private ownership for a considerable amount of time. However, several properties and parcels of land have been sold on the open market over the past two-to-three years which in turn has given rise to development pressures in the area. As such, it is considered a timely point to review the conservation area, so as to ensure that its boundary is appropriate, and also to produce documentation which will assist the decision-making process.” (Planning Policy Committee, 22 February 2016, Agenda Item 10). Protection of Ashton’s historic character is therefore a critical aspect of managing development at that village.

6.38 Given Ashton’s unique circumstances, there is a strong argument for the Local Plan Part 2 to recognise that this village is a “sensitive area”; such that a restraint strategy is required. Indeed, recent landownership changes have reemphasised to need to maintain

14 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/info/200156/conservation/1542/conservation_areas/2

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/info/200156/conservation/1542/conservation_areas/2


protection for its historic character through the Local Plan; such that this could effectively “trump” (override) the possibility for the Local Plan to allow for Neighbourhood Planning to determine what new development (if any) could come forward at Ashton.

Lower Benefield, Deene, Duddington and Fotheringhay 6.39 Lower Benefield, Deene, Duddington and Fotheringhay have all previously been subject

to restraint policies, largely due to their historic character. However, unlike Ashton, there is no specific recent evidence to support the continued application of restraint policies to these historic villages. These are clearly established settlements and it is important to recognise that Neighbourhood Planning can allow for locally directed development to come forward. Any such development would continue to be required to fulfil substantive development management criteria with particular reference to JCS policies 2 and 3, given the presence of many significant designated heritage assets.

Achurch, Fineshade and Wakerley 6.40 Achurch, Fineshade and Wakerley have functional or historic links to neighbouring

villages; i.e. Thorpe Waterville, Duddington and Barrowden (Rutland) respectively. That said; a Neighbourhood Plan is under preparation for Duddington with Fineshade. The Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan sets a strategy of restraint for Wakerley, due to the built character of the village and its functional and historic relationship with Barrowden.

6.41 For Achurch, as at 2019/20 there was no Neighbourhood Plan in preparation. However, its status as a freestanding settlement (including Parish Church) should be recognised.

6.42 Fineshade is a dispersed settlement, but includes two distinctive built up parts; Fineshade Abbey (including Bottom Lodge) and Top Lodge. The latter forms a significant tourist hub for the Rockingham Forest, so this role could be recognised through the Local Plan. Furthermore, the emerging Neighbourhood Plan provides an additional opportunity to define a spatial strategy for Fineshade.

6.43 In the spirit of “Localism”, it is important for the Local Plan Part 2 to provide sufficient flexibility and opportunities for Neighbourhood Plans to set detailed local spatial development strategies, in accordance with JCS Policy 11(2)(c).

Pilton 6.44 Like Ashton, Pilton’s historic character and built form has been recently assessed for the

Pilton, Stoke Doyle and Wadenhoe Village Design Statement15, adopted February 2016. This describes Pilton as a ‘shrunken’ village (paragraph 2.1.3), noting that the population has halved since 1881. The Village Design Statement also proposes that the village farm should continue to be the economic hub of the village (paragraph 2.6.2). On this basis, the Local Plan Part 2 should give flexibility to allow for a future Neighbourhood Plan to set more detailed local policies and/ or spatial strategies, while the Village Design Statement provides up to date detailed criteria to support JCS development management (“Protecting Assets”) policies.

15 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/9056/adopted_pilton_stoke_doyle_and_wadenhoe_village_design_statement

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/9056/adopted_pilton_stoke_doyle_and_wadenhoe_village_design_statement




Blatherwycke and Luddington in the Brook 6.45 The 2009 RNOTP settlement hierarchy study found that Blatherwycke functions as a

freestanding village (paragraph 4.6.4). By contrast, Luddington in the Brook (of a similar character and built form) was regarding as forming part of a network of settlements (rather than a freestanding village), due to its relationship to nearby larger villages (Hemington, Great Gidding and Thurning). Accordingly, Blatherwycke was designated a Category ‘B’ Network Village, while Luddington was classified as Open Countryside.

6.46 Blatherwycke’s circumstances have changed little since 2008/9, so the justification for its previous Local Plan designation as a freestanding village ought to continue. By contrast, the example of Chelston Rise (Chelveston cum Caldecott) provides a reference point for Luddington. It is considered that there is no longer a case to preclude possible new development at Luddington through the Local Plan Part 2, although (as in the case of Wakerley) a future Neighbourhood Plan could do so where this can be justified.

6.47 Additionally, Luddington enjoys access to a range of rural services at Great Gidding; within 1.5km walking distance. This position is reflected in the revised scoring in the latest quantitative assessment (Appendix A). Given the new opportunities allowing for limited development through Neighbourhood Planning it is considered appropriate to allow for Luddington’s spatial development strategy to be set through the Local Plan Part 2 and/ or a future Neighbourhood Plan.

Armston and Wigsthorpe 6.48 The 2009 RNOTP settlement hierarchy study (section 4.4) considered whether it would

be appropriate to include Armston and Wigsthorpe within the settlement hierarchy. It was found that both hamlets are situated at the end of narrow/ semi-metalled roads, so neither is appropriate for further residential development, other than that related to established agricultural businesses.

6.49 Notwithstanding, the updated assessment has found that Armston enjoys strong internet/ broadband coverage. However, both Armston and Wigsthorpe retain an open countryside/ rural character. Both settlements have strong functional connections to larger nearby villages; Polebrook and Lilford respectively. Given the character and functional status of the two hamlets, it is considered that the RNOTP restraint policy remains appropriate for Armston and Wigsthorpe.

Identification of established settlements in accordance with JCS

6.50 As shown, there is a significant difference in terms of population, services and facilities, between the eight large/ service villages and other villages. The Local Plan Part 2 does however need to identify those settlements by name that are classified as “Villages” in accordance with JCS Table 1; compared to “Open Countryside” settlements (i.e. hamlets or rural outliers).

6.51 Section 5.0 (above) provides a quantitative assessment for rural sustainability. This provides a starting point for setting a possible 2-3 tier rural settlement hierarchy (Table 5, paragraph 6.5, above). This should be refined and developed further by way of a


qualitative assessment such as that within this section. By this process, a breakdown of rural settlements could be proposed.

6.52 Potential changes to the initial hierarchy of settlements (Table 1, section 2.0 above) are suggested through reference to the quantitative and qualitative analyses at sections 5.0 and 6.0. Table 5 (above) may then be modified (Table 7, below) to take account of qualitative factors; i.e.:

• Historic character – built form, character and/ or scale; • Relationships between settlements; and/ or • Role of Neighbourhood Plans in defining local spatial development strategies.

Table 7 Large/ service villages Brigstock, Easton on the Hill, King’s

Cliffe, Nassington, Ringstead, Stanwick, Warmington, Woodford

Other villages/ rural settlements 48 rural settlements16 (Table 8, below) Open countryside/ restraint villages

Armston, Ashton, Wakerley, Wigsthorpe (plus rural outliers)

Table 8 Large/ service villages Brigstock Nassington Warmington Easton on the Hill Ringstead Woodford King’s Cliffe Stanwick Other villages/ rural settlements Achurch Denford Newton Bromswold Aldwincle Duddington Pilton Apethorpe Fineshade Polebrook Barnwell Fotheringhay Slipton Benefield (Lower) Glapthorn Southwick Benefield (Upper) Great Addington Stoke Doyle Blatherwycke Hargrave Sudborough Bulwick Harringworth Tansor Clopton Hemington Thorpe Waterville Caldecott Islip Thurning Chelston Rise Laxton Titchmarsh Chelveston Lilford Twywell Collyweston Little Addington Wadenhoe Cotterstock Lowick Woodnewton Deene Luddington in the Brook Yarwell Deenethorpe Lutton Open countryside/ restraint villages Armston Wakerley Wigsthorpe Ashton

6.53 The Crow Hill urban outlier (Irthlingborough) is not included as a separate settlement, due to its urban character and historic status as part of the main urban area. This

16 49 settlements, including the Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road urban outlier; treated as a freestanding settlement for the purposes undertaking the rural services review/ sustainability assessment (Appendix A)


approach was in the 1st draft Local Plan and no significant objections were raised during the consultation (November 2018 – February 2019). The emerging Irthlingborough Neighbourhood Plan may also provide further direction in this regard.

6.54 The spatial development strategy for the Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road (Rushden) ribbon development is set by the Neighbourhood Plan. The Rushden Neighbourhood Plan has, however, informed the draft Local Plan Part 2, regarding ribbon development locations at Irthlingborough and Raunds.


7.0 Is it appropriate to include additional sub-division or categorisation

for villages within the settlement hierarchy? 7.1 This assessment seeks to address the following matters:

1. Defining rural settlements that constitute “villages” in accordance with the JCS

settlement hierarchy (Table 1/ Policy 11); and 2. Consideration of whether or not is appropriate to include additional sub-division or

categorisation for “villages”?

7.2 The more detailed qualitative assessment at section 6.0 (above) followed the initial rural services review (section 5.0/ Appendix A). Section 5.0 (above) and Appendix A incorporate a number of changes to the rural services review (e.g. Broadband speeds), which are necessary to develop a robust methodology for defining a settlement hierarchy. Application of the qualitative analysis (section 6.0) has identified further suggested changes to the initial (quantitative) assessment at section 5.0. The key difference are as follows:

• Crow Hill urban outlier – Proposed designation as part of the main urban area through in 1st draft Local Plan Part 2 (November 2018);

• Blatherwycke – Suggested classification as an “Other village”, due to its freestanding character;

• Chelston Rise – Classification as an “Other village”, by virtue of its defined status and spatial strategy in the Chelveston cum Caldecott Neighbourhood Plan;

• Fineshade – Suggested classification as an “Other village”, due to its functional role as a tourist hub for the Rockingham Forest and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, which provides an opportunity to define a specific local spatial strategy;

• Armston – Suggested restraint village/ open countryside, reflecting size and character as a rural hamlet, rather than a freestanding village;

• Ashton – Suggested designation for special control through restraint policies (restraint village/ open countryside designation), due to its special historic character;

• Wakerley – Classification for special control through restraint policies (restraint village classification), by virtue spatial strategy defined in Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan (Policy BW2);

• Other RNOTP Category ‘B’ Network Villages – Proposed reclassification within the “Other villages” category, giving sufficient flexibility to allow for Neighbourhood Planning.

7.3 Table 9 (below) considers the relative merits of including a more detailed rural settlement

hierarchy within the Local Plan Part 2. It compares the 1st draft Local Plan Part 2 (approach 1) and Wellingborough Plan (approach 2) hierarchies, to assess whether further sub-division of “villages” or rural settlements (i.e. larger/ smaller categories of rural settlement), would be appropriate for the Plan.

7.4 Through the Regulation 18 consultation (Planning Policy Committee, 3 April 2017, Agenda Item 517) respondents views varied as to whether a more detailed settlement hierarchy should be applied for the Local Plan Part 2. Of the 11 respondents who

17 http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/760/planning_policy_committee

http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/760/planning_policy_committee


commented, 5 argued that it would be appropriate to include a more detained settlement hierarchy; while 6 argued that growth requirements should be based on capacity, services or relationships with higher order centres.

Table 9 Comparison of alternative approaches (1 and 2) Approach Description Key advantages Key disadvantages 1 Two tier village/ rural

settlement hierarchy, plus “Open Countryside” (Large/ service villages, Other villages/ rural settlements (including urban outliers) and Open Countryside (including rural outliers))

Rural services survey/ quantitative analysis reveals clear distinction between the eight largest villages and others; Recognition of the vast differentiation between the largest and smallest rural settlements.

Little recognition of the different roles and relationships between individual settlements/ groups of settlements; Need to recognise the implications of Localism; i.e. the role of Neighbourhood Planning in setting distinctive non-strategic planning policies.

2 JCS/ Wellingborough Plan approach (Table 1/ Policy 11) – Single village/ rural settlement category, plus “Open Countryside” (Villages/ rural settlements (including urban outliers) and Open Countryside (including rural outliers))

Recognition of varied character, characteristics, roles and relationships for rural settlements; Comprehensive, qualitative settlement by settlement assessment; Considered in detail through JCS preparation and Examination; Recognition of the role of Neighbourhood Planning in setting distinctive non-strategic planning policies.

No recognition of the vast differentiation between the largest (Stanwick) and smallest (Deene) villages; Little “added value” over and above JCS Table 1/ Policy 11.

Analysis

7.5 As demonstrated by Table 9, each approach has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The evidence gathered through the qualitative assessment at sections 2.0 and 6.0 (above) may also provide a useful evidence base for Neighbourhood Plans. The remainder of this section will consider how the findings of this assessment may be applied to policy writing for the Local Plan Part 2.

Approach 1: Inclusion of larger/ service villages category 7.6 The quantitative assessment (section 5.0, above/ Appendix A) revealed a clear

differentiation in scoring between the eight large/ service villages (plus the Crow Hill urban outlier), and other rural settlements. In this respect, a robust case could be put forward for designating a two tier rural settlement hierarchy.

Approach 2: single “village”/ rural settlement category, as for JCS Policy 11/ Table 1 (the “Wellingborough approach”)

7.7 The qualitative assessment has raised questions about the appropriateness of the Local Plan Part 2 providing a more detailed settlement hierarchy for the rural area. This is, in part, due to the role of neighbourhood planning, in setting out detailed local policies and/


or spatial strategies for individual settlements. For example, the Neighbourhood Plan for Stanwick (the largest and highest scoring village) does not propose any development land allocations. By contrast, other “made” Neighbourhood Plans for smaller villages include development land allocations.

7.8 Chelston Rise, despite its low overall scoring, should be designated a village in the Local Plan Part 2 by virtue of its status in the Neighbourhood Plan. By contrast, Wakerley should be designated a restraint village, by virtue of the spatial development strategy set out in the Neighbourhood Plan (Policy BW2).

7.9 In the case of Stanwick (“made” Neighbourhood Plan), if a larger village category is proposed through the Local Plan Part 2 it would be inappropriate to exclude the largest village from such a designation. However, the Neighbourhood Plan does not propose further housing development at that village, so arguably the designation of Stanwick as a large/ service village could be regarded as undermining the spatial approach for that “made” Neighbourhood Plan.

Approach 2: designation of “restraint villages” or areas special control 7.10 Armston, Ashton, Wakerley and Wigsthorpe were all identified as “restraint” villages, or

“sensitive areas where infill development will be resisted or subject to special control” (JCS Policy 11(2)(b)) in the 1st draft Local Plan Part 2. The 2011 Localism Act, which introduced Neighbourhood Planning, allows for local communities to plan for additional development in rural areas where this is supported locally, or steer development to a particular part of a Neighbourhood Area. This is reflected in JCS Policy 11(2)(c).

7.11 It is therefore argued that particular circumstances would need to be demonstrated for the Local Plan Part 2 to apply development restraint at particular locations (i.e. this approach is considered an exception). In practical terms, designation of restraint villages would require that Open Countryside policies should apply in these locations. Arguably, such restrictive strategies are generally inappropriate for the Local Plan Part 2, as this could be regarded as conflicting with the spirit of “Localism”.

7.12 The qualitative assessment (sections 2.0 and 6.0) considered whether smaller rural settlements (i.e. RNOTP Category ‘B’ Network Villages) should be designated for development restraint or special control. Such a designation (the exception) is only considered appropriate for Armston, Ashton, Wakerley and Wigsthorpe; due to the particular circumstances for each of these settlements.


8.0 Recommendations and conclusions 8.1 This study has been prepared in order to provide a systematic set of recommendations,

to enable an appropriate rural settlement hierarchy to be established for the Local Plan Part 2. It considers whether or not there is a need to develop a more detailed settlement rural settlement hierarchy, over and above the JCS (Policy 11/ Table 1). It also considers how individual rural settlements should be designated within the settlement hierarchy for the Local Plan Part 2.

Overview 8.2 A comprehensive set of recommendations is necessary in order to ensure that the

chosen settlement hierarchy is “sound”; i.e., ”Positively prepared”, “Justified”, “Effective” and “Consistent with national policy” (NPPF, paragraph 35). This study paper provides a systematic approach to setting out clear and justifiable recommendations.

1. Review the current Local Plan (JCS and RNOTP) settlement hierarchy and spatial

development strategy.

2. Defining those individual settlements that should be considered within the scope of a rural settlement hierarchy, together with rural settlement typologies.

3. Choosing an appropriate methodology for undertaking a bespoke assessment of

rural settlements.

4. Assessment of rural services and constraints – quantitative assessment, to deliver settlement by settlement scorings.

5. Analysis of survey results, including detailed qualitative assessment, to “refine”

initial quantitative assessment and potential rural settlement hierarchy.

6. Comparison of two alternative approaches, focusing upon whether or not a two tier village hierarchy would be appropriate for the Local Plan Part 2.

Recommendations 8.3 The comparison of the alternative approaches (section 7.0) demonstrates that the Local

Plan Part 2 must include sufficient flexibility to allow for local spatial development strategies to be developed through Neighbourhood Plans. This reflects the overall spatial development strategy, as defined by JCS Policy 11/ Table 1.

Larger/ service villages 8.4 Given their sizes (population), and levels of services and facilities, the following potential

“higher order” villages were identified through assessment of rural services and constraints:

• Brigstock


• Easton on the Hill • King’s Cliffe • Nassington • Ringstead • Stanwick • Warmington • Woodford

8.5 The qualitative assessment (section 6.0) found that the designation of larger/ service

villages could be at odds with “made” Neighbourhood Plans (e.g. Stanwick). Given the varied spatial development strategies set out in different Neighbourhood Plans, an argument could be put forward that this approach could undermine the opportunities presented by Neighbourhood Planning for communities to shape their own spatial strategies.

Other villages/ rural settlements 8.6 Most rural settlements retain some level of local services and facilities, although these

vary greatly. The majority of rural settlements (including urban outliers) would be expected to fall within this category. Capacity, services or development constraints vary greatly. The need to allow for development to support the rural economy or meet a locally arising need should be enabled through Neighbourhood Plans, Local Plan spatial strategy in the neighbourhood (town/ parish) context.

Open Countryside/ restraint villages 8.7 This paper has considered whether the inclusion of a “restraint village” category could be

appropriate, as allowed for through JCS Policy 11(2)(b). The Neighbourhood Plan for Chelston Rise allows for some development at this location, despite the rural services and facilities scoring (Appendix A) indicating, in the first instance, that this should be regarded as Open Countryside. Other small settlements (e.g. Armston) achieve higher scores; e.g. due to broadband coverage. Armston is regarded as a restraint village due to its overall character and built form.

8.8 Overall, the qualitative assessment has demonstrated that there should be a presumption against designating restraint villages or areas of special control in all but exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, apart from rural outliers, the following settlements are considered to fulfil this category:

• Armston; • Ashton; • Wakerley; • Wigsthorpe.

8.9 On the basis of this assessment, a hierarchy of settlements for the Local Plan Part 2 is

recommended at Table 10 (below).


Table 10 Growth Town Rushden Market Towns Higham Ferrers Oundle Thrapston Irthlingborough Raunds Large freestanding (service) villages Brigstock Nassington Warmington Easton on the Hill Ringstead Woodford King’s Cliffe Stanwick Small freestanding (other) villages/ rural settlements Achurch Denford Newton Bromswold Aldwincle Duddington Pilton Apethorpe Fineshade Polebrook Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road ribbon development (urban outlier)18

Fotheringhay Slipton

Barnwell Glapthorn Southwick Benefield (Lower and Upper) Great Addington Stoke Doyle Blatherwycke Hargrave Sudborough Bulwick Harringworth Tansor Clopton Hemington Thorpe Waterville Caldecott Islip Thurning Chelston Rise Laxton Titchmarsh Chelveston Lilford Twywell Collyweston Little Addington Wadenhoe Cotterstock Lowick Woodnewton Deene Luddington in the Brook Yarwell Deenethorpe Lutton Open countryside/ restraint villages Armston Wakerley Ashton Wigsthorpe

Urban/ rural outliers 8.10 The Irthlingborough stakeholder workshops (28 November 2017 and 4 April 2018)

highlighted that Crow Hill contains various services that serve the town as a whole. Accordingly, the 1st draft Local Plan Part 2 (November 2018) proposed that Crow Hill should be regarded as part of the main urban area; a matter which raised little/ no objection. The emerging Irthlingborough Neighbourhood Plan may provide further direction.

8.11 The draft Rushden Neighbourhood Plan has designated the Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road ribbon development (urban outlier) as “rural”. This defines a spatial approach for managing development, which may be appropriate to consider in the case of other urban outliers.

18 Spatial development strategy for Avenue Road/ Bedford Road/ Newton Road ribbon development defined by Rushden Neighbourhood Plan Policy H1, so would not need to be included within the Local Plan Part 2 hierarchy.


8.12 The status of other urban outliers (e.g. Laxton Drive/ Elmington, Oundle and Brooks

Road, Raunds) should depend upon their respective character. Rural outliers should normally be regarded as “Open Countryside” for the purposes of managing development. However, it is noted that the Laxton Drive/ Elmington area is predominantly urban in character around the former railway station/ Riverside Hotel, but Elmington is more rural. Brooks Road (Raunds) is predominantly suburban and is likely to be incorporated within the Raunds urban area, as defined by the Northdale End development to the north-east of the town.


9.0 Glossary of terms Term Definition

Core Strategy (or “Core Spatial Strategy”) – North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS)

The overarching strategic development plan document (or Local Plan document) for the District. This defines strategic development planning policies for North Northamptonshire (Corby, East Northamptonshire, Kettering and Wellingborough). The first Core Strategy (adopted June 2008) is now under review and it is anticipated that the replacement Joint Core Strategy (JCS) review will be adopted during 2014.

District Local Plan “Old style” land use Local Plan, introduced through 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. A small number of saved policies from the 1996 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan remain in force for the Four Towns Plan area

DPDs Development Plan Documents. Overarching term for all policy documents which form part of the statutory development plan, including Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans, and Minerals and Waste Plans.

JPC North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Committee – the committee with responsibility for agreeing the JCS.

JPU North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit – the partnership/ team with responsibility for preparing the JCS.

Local Plan The statutory part of the development plan produced by the local planning authority or, in the case of the emerging JCS, a partnership of local planning authorities; consisting of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (Part 1) and site specific Part 2 Plans.

Neighbourhood Plan A DPD produced by Town/ Parish Councils, as opposed to a local planning authority. If approved through a referendum, this will then become part of the statutory development plan.

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework. The principal statement of national planning policy (adopted March 2012). All DPDs need to demonstrate general consistency with the NPPF.

Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan

Current Local Plan Part 2 (adopted July 2011), covering the area of the District north of the A14, plus the parishes of Denford, Great Addington, Little Addington and Woodford


Term Definition

Rural outlier A physically separate part of a village that is at some distance from the main built up area. Normally functionally part of the larger established village; generally regarded as open countryside for the purposes of development management.

Spatial development strategy The vision and policies within the adopted Core Strategy/ emerging JCS review which define the quantum, type and overall approach to development at a “local” (i.e. sub-regional or individual settlement) level

Urban outlier A separate part of a town that is at some distance from the main urban area. The Avenue Road/ Newton Road/ Bedford Road part of Rushden and Crow Hill part of Irthlingborough are physically separated from the main urban areas and are therefore described as “urban outliers”.

USAF United States Air Force. The Chelston Rise estate (near Caldecott) was formerly owned by the USAF.

RURAL SURVEY OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES (updated January 2019) Appendix A

VILLAGE/ SETTLE-MENT/ URBAN OUTLIER SE

RVI

CES

CO

NVE

NIE

NC

E ST

OR

E (1

)

PETR

OL

STA

TIO

N/ G

AR

AG

E SE

RVI

CES

(1)

POST

OFF

ICE

(Out

reac

h 1,

or 2

if s

ub-p

ost o

ffice

)

CO

MM

UN

ITY

HA

LL (1

)

C o

f E C

HU

RC

H (1

)

BU

TCH

ERS

(1)

HA

IRD

RES

SER

S (1

)

G P

SU

RG

ERY/

MED

ICA

L C

ENTR

E (1

)

SCH

OO

L (1

, or 2

if s

econ

dary

sch

ool)

MIS

C. R

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S - F

AR

MS/

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S ET

C (1

)

PUB

LIC

HO

USE

(1)

FAST

FO

OD

TA

KEA

WA

Y (1

)

BU

S SE

RVI

CE

1 (W

eeke

nd/ S

pora

dic

1, D

aily

2, H

ourly

3)

OU

TDO

OR

SPO

RTS

FA

CIL

ITY/

PLA

YIN

G F

IELD

(1)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

) IN

TER

NET

CO

NN

ECTI

VITY

(2 fo

r con

side

rabl

y ab

ove

aver

age,

1 fo

r abo

ve a

vera

ge)

PHO

NE

CO

VER

AG

E (S

tron

g 2,

Ave

rage

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y SC

OR

E

CO

NST

RA

INTS

WIT

HIN

WA

LKIN

G (2

KM

) OR

CYC

LIN

G (5

KM

) DIS

TAN

CE

OF

UR

BA

N C

ENTR

E (-1

if w

ithin

5km

; -2

if w

ithin

2km

)

SCH

EDU

LDED

AN

CIE

NT

MO

NU

MEN

TS (N

O)

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N A

REA

(-1,

or -

2 fo

r Art

icle

4(2

))

FLO

OD

RIS

K (-

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y R

ATI

NG

POPU

LTA

TIO

N E

STIM

ATE

(201

6)

POPU

LATI

ON

SC

OR

E

CU

RR

ENT

STA

TUS

(Set

tlem

ent B

ound

ary/

No

Settl

emen

t B

ound

ary/

Ope

n C

ount

rysi

de)

OVE

RA

LL S

CO

RE

(Sus

tain

abili

ty +

Pop

ulat

ion

Scor

e)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

)

King's Cliffe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 N 1 1 16 -2 -1 13 1,54

7 11 SB 27 N

Stanwick 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Y 15 -1 14 1,96

7 11 SB 26 Y Easton on the Hill 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 N 2 15 -1 -2 12

1,031 11 SB 26 N

Woodford 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Y 1 14 -1 -2 -1 10 1,47

7 11 SB 25 Y

Ringstead 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 N 12 -1 11 1,48

4 11 None 23 N Nassington 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 N 14 -1 -1 12 871 9 SB 23 N

Brigstock 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Y 11 -1 -1 -1 8 1,38

2 11 SB 22 Y

Warmington 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 11 -1 -1 9 1,01

0 11 SB 22 N Crow Hill (Irthling-borough) 1 1 3 1 N 2 1 9 -2 -1 6

1,073 11 None 20 N

Islip 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Y 1 9 -2 -1 -1 5 847 9 SB 18 Y



RVI

CES

CO

NVE

NIE

NC

E ST

OR

E (1

)

PETR

OL

STA

TIO

N/ G

AR

AG

E SE

RVI

CES

(1)

POST

OFF

ICE

(Out

reac

h 1,

or 2

if s

ub-p

ost o

ffice

)

CO

MM

UN

ITY

HA

LL (1

)

C o

f E C

HU

RC

H (1

)

BU

TCH

ERS

(1)

HA

IRD

RES

SER

S (1

)

G P

SU

RG

ERY/

MED

ICA

L C

ENTR

E (1

)

SCH

OO

L (1

, or 2

if s

econ

dary

sch

ool)

MIS

C. R

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S - F

AR

MS/

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S ET

C (1

)

PUB

LIC

HO

USE

(1)

FAST

FO

OD

TA

KEA

WA

Y (1

)

BU

S SE

RVI

CE

1 (W

eeke

nd/ S

pora

dic

1, D

aily

2, H

ourly

3)

OU

TDO

OR

SPO

RTS

FA

CIL

ITY/

PLA

YIN

G F

IELD

(1)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

) IN

TER

NET

CO

NN

ECTI

VITY

(2 fo

r con

side

rabl

y ab

ove

aver

age,

1 fo

r abo

ve a

vera

ge)

PHO

NE

CO

VER

AG

E (S

tron

g 2,

Ave

rage

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y SC

OR

E

CO

NST

RA

INTS

WIT

HIN

WA

LKIN

G (2

KM

) OR

CYC

LIN

G (5

KM

) DIS

TAN

CE

OF

UR

BA

N C

ENTR

E (-1

if w

ithin

5km

; -2

if w

ithin

2km

)

SCH

EDU

LDED

AN

CIE

NT

MO

NU

MEN

TS (N

O)

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N A

REA

(-1,

or -

2 fo

r Art

icle

4(2

))

FLO

OD

RIS

K (-

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y R

ATI

NG

POPU

LTA

TIO

N E

STIM

ATE

(201

6)

POPU

LATI

ON

SC

OR

E

CU

RR

ENT

STA

TUS

(Set

tlem

ent B

ound

ary/

No

Settl

emen

t B

ound

ary/

Ope

n C

ount

rysi

de)

OVE

RA

LL S

CO

RE

(Sus

tain

abili

ty +

Pop

ulat

ion

Scor

e)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

)

Titchmarsh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 2 10 -1 -1 -1 7 607 7 SB 17 N Collyweston 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Y 1 1 11 -2 -2 7 553 6 SB 17 Y Yarwell 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Y 10 10 310 4 SB 14 Y Polebrook 1 1 1 1 1 3 N 8 -1 -1 -1 5 483 5 SB 13 N Woodnewton 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Y 8 -1 7 462 5 SB 13 Y Barnwell 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 N 9 -1 -1 -1 -1 5 392 4 SB 13 N Denford 1 1 1 1 2 Y 2 2 10 -1 -1 8 291 3 SB 13 Y Glapthorn 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Y 9 -1 -1 7 276 3 SB 12 Y

Avenue Road etc (Rushden) 1 2 N 1 4 -1 -1 2 625 7

SB (written) 11 N

Little Addington 1 1 1 1 2 N 1 7 -1 6 330 4 SB 11 N Aldwincle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y 7 -1 6 329 4 SB 11 Y Great Addington 1 1 1 1 2 1 N 7 -1 -1 5 327 4 SB 11 N Sudborough 1 1 1 2 N 2 1 8 -1 -1 -1 5 204 3 SB 11 N Southwick 1 1 1 1 3 1 N 1 9 -1 -1 7 183 2 SB 11 N



RVI

CES

CO

NVE

NIE

NC

E ST

OR

E (1

)

PETR

OL

STA

TIO

N/ G

AR

AG

E SE

RVI

CES

(1)

POST

OFF

ICE

(Out

reac

h 1,

or 2

if s

ub-p

ost o

ffice

)

CO

MM

UN

ITY

HA

LL (1

)

C o

f E C

HU

RC

H (1

)

BU

TCH

ERS

(1)

HA

IRD

RES

SER

S (1

)

G P

SU

RG

ERY/

MED

ICA

L C

ENTR

E (1

)

SCH

OO

L (1

, or 2

if s

econ

dary

sch

ool)

MIS

C. R

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S - F

AR

MS/

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S ET

C (1

)

PUB

LIC

HO

USE

(1)

FAST

FO

OD

TA

KEA

WA

Y (1

)

BU

S SE

RVI

CE

1 (W

eeke

nd/ S

pora

dic

1, D

aily

2, H

ourly

3)

OU

TDO

OR

SPO

RTS

FA

CIL

ITY/

PLA

YIN

G F

IELD

(1)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

) IN

TER

NET

CO

NN

ECTI

VITY

(2 fo

r con

side

rabl

y ab

ove

aver

age,

1 fo

r abo

ve a

vera

ge)

PHO

NE

CO

VER

AG

E (S

tron

g 2,

Ave

rage

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y SC

OR

E

CO

NST

RA

INTS

WIT

HIN

WA

LKIN

G (2

KM

) OR

CYC

LIN

G (5

KM

) DIS

TAN

CE

OF

UR

BA

N C

ENTR

E (-1

if w

ithin

5km

; -2

if w

ithin

2km

)

SCH

EDU

LDED

AN

CIE

NT

MO

NU

MEN

TS (N

O)

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N A

REA

(-1,

or -

2 fo

r Art

icle

4(2

))

FLO

OD

RIS

K (-

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y R

ATI

NG

POPU

LTA

TIO

N E

STIM

ATE

(201

6)

POPU

LATI

ON

SC

OR

E

CU

RR

ENT

STA

TUS

(Set

tlem

ent B

ound

ary/

No

Settl

emen

t B

ound

ary/

Ope

n C

ount

rysi

de)

OVE

RA

LL S

CO

RE

(Sus

tain

abili

ty +

Pop

ulat

ion

Scor

e)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

)

Luddington in the Brook 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 10 -1 -1 8 57 1 OC 11 N Ashton 1 1 1 1 3 N 7 -2 -1 4 240 3 NSB 10 N Benefield (Lower) 1 1 1 3 N 2 8 -1 -1 -1 5 177 2 NSB 10 N Tansor 1 1 1 1 3 N 1 8 -1 -1 6 172 2 SB 10 N Lowick 1 1 1 1 2 1 N 1 8 -1 -1 -1 5 149 2 SB 10 N Duddington 1 1 1 1 N 2 6 -1 -2 -1 2 281 3 NSB 9 N Thorpe Waterville 1 1 1 N 1 4 -1 -1 2 211 5 SB 9 N Benefield (Upper) 1 3 1 N 2 7 -1 6 177 2 SB 9 N Wadenhoe 1 1 1 1 Y 1 5 -1 -1 -1 2 249 3 SB 8 Y Harringworth 1 1 1 N 2 5 -1 -1 3 246 3 SB 8 N Bulwick 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 6 -1 -1 4 173 2 SB 8 N Apethorpe 1 3 Y 1 1 6 -1 -1 4 162 2 SB 8 Y Fotheringhay 1 1 1 3 N 6 -3 -1 2 119 2 NSB 8 N Chelveston 1 1 Y 2 -1 -1 0 478 5 SB 7 Y



RVI

CES

CO

NVE

NIE

NC

E ST

OR

E (1

)

PETR

OL

STA

TIO

N/ G

AR

AG

E SE

RVI

CES

(1)

POST

OFF

ICE

(Out

reac

h 1,

or 2

if s

ub-p

ost o

ffice

)

CO

MM

UN

ITY

HA

LL (1

)

C o

f E C

HU

RC

H (1

)

BU

TCH

ERS

(1)

HA

IRD

RES

SER

S (1

)

G P

SU

RG

ERY/

MED

ICA

L C

ENTR

E (1

)

SCH

OO

L (1

, or 2

if s

econ

dary

sch

ool)

MIS

C. R

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S - F

AR

MS/

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S ET

C (1

)

PUB

LIC

HO

USE

(1)

FAST

FO

OD

TA

KEA

WA

Y (1

)

BU

S SE

RVI

CE

1 (W

eeke

nd/ S

pora

dic

1, D

aily

2, H

ourly

3)

OU

TDO

OR

SPO

RTS

FA

CIL

ITY/

PLA

YIN

G F

IELD

(1)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

) IN

TER

NET

CO

NN

ECTI

VITY

(2 fo

r con

side

rabl

y ab

ove

aver

age,

1 fo

r abo

ve a

vera

ge)

PHO

NE

CO

VER

AG

E (S

tron

g 2,

Ave

rage

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y SC

OR

E

CO

NST

RA

INTS

WIT

HIN

WA

LKIN

G (2

KM

) OR

CYC

LIN

G (5

KM

) DIS

TAN

CE

OF

UR

BA

N C

ENTR

E (-1

if w

ithin

5km

; -2

if w

ithin

2km

)

SCH

EDU

LDED

AN

CIE

NT

MO

NU

MEN

TS (N

O)

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N A

REA

(-1,

or -

2 fo

r Art

icle

4(2

))

FLO

OD

RIS

K (-

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y R

ATI

NG

POPU

LTA

TIO

N E

STIM

ATE

(201

6)

POPU

LATI

ON

SC

OR

E

CU

RR

ENT

STA

TUS

(Set

tlem

ent B

ound

ary/

No

Settl

emen

t B

ound

ary/

Ope

n C

ount

rysi

de)

OVE

RA

LL S

CO

RE

(Sus

tain

abili

ty +

Pop

ulat

ion

Scor

e)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

)

Hargrave 1 1 1 Y 1 4 -1 3 241 3 None 7 Y Laxton 1 1 1 1 N 4 -1 3 236 3 SB 7 N Deenethorpe 1 Y 2 2 5 5 135 2 SB 7 Y Newton Bromswold 1 1 1 1 2 N 6 -1 5 67 1 None 7 N Hemington 1 1 1 N 3 -1 2 259 3 SB 6 N Achurch 1 1 Y 1 3 3 211 3 NSB 6 Y Twywell 1 1 1 Y 1 4 -1 3 174 2 SB 6 Y Cotterstock 1 3 N 4 -1 -1 2 153 2 SB 6 N Wakerley (Barrowden) 1 1 1 1 1 N 5 -1 -1 3 78 1 NSB 6 N Lutton 1 1 1 N 3 3 191 2 SB 5 N Lilford 2 Y 1 3 -1 2 103 2 SB 5 Y Caldecott 1 1 N 2 4 -1 3 100 1 SB 5 N Slipton 1 1 N 2 -1 1 149 2 SB 4 N Clopton 1 1 N 2 2 136 2 SB 4 N Thurning 1 1 1 N 3 4 95 1 SB 4 N



RVI

CES

CO

NVE

NIE

NC

E ST

OR

E (1

)

PETR

OL

STA

TIO

N/ G

AR

AG

E SE

RVI

CES

(1)

POST

OFF

ICE

(Out

reac

h 1,

or 2

if s

ub-p

ost o

ffice

)

CO

MM

UN

ITY

HA

LL (1

)

C o

f E C

HU

RC

H (1

)

BU

TCH

ERS

(1)

HA

IRD

RES

SER

S (1

)

G P

SU

RG

ERY/

MED

ICA

L C

ENTR

E (1

)

SCH

OO

L (1

, or 2

if s

econ

dary

sch

ool)

MIS

C. R

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S - F

AR

MS/

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

BU

SIN

ESSE

S ET

C (1

)

PUB

LIC

HO

USE

(1)

FAST

FO

OD

TA

KEA

WA

Y (1

)

BU

S SE

RVI

CE

1 (W

eeke

nd/ S

pora

dic

1, D

aily

2, H

ourly

3)

OU

TDO

OR

SPO

RTS

FA

CIL

ITY/

PLA

YIN

G F

IELD

(1)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

) IN

TER

NET

CO

NN

ECTI

VITY

(2 fo

r con

side

rabl

y ab

ove

aver

age,

1 fo

r abo

ve a

vera

ge)

PHO

NE

CO

VER

AG

E (S

tron

g 2,

Ave

rage

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y SC

OR

E

CO

NST

RA

INTS

WIT

HIN

WA

LKIN

G (2

KM

) OR

CYC

LIN

G (5

KM

) DIS

TAN

CE

OF

UR

BA

N C

ENTR

E (-1

if w

ithin

5km

; -2

if w

ithin

2km

)

SCH

EDU

LDED

AN

CIE

NT

MO

NU

MEN

TS (N

O)

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N A

REA

(-1,

or -

2 fo

r Art

icle

4(2

))

FLO

OD

RIS

K (-

1)

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y R

ATI

NG

POPU

LTA

TIO

N E

STIM

ATE

(201

6)

POPU

LATI

ON

SC

OR

E

CU

RR

ENT

STA

TUS

(Set

tlem

ent B

ound

ary/

No

Settl

emen

t B

ound

ary/

Ope

n C

ount

rysi

de)

OVE

RA

LL S

CO

RE

(Sus

tain

abili

ty +

Pop

ulat

ion

Scor

e)

DEF

INED

BY

PAR

ISH

(Y/N

)

Stoke Doyle 1 1 1 Y 3 -1 2 76 1 SB 4 Y Deene 1 1 1 Y 3 -1 2 44 1 NSB 4 Y Armston 1 N 2 3 -1 2 # 0 OC 3 N Pilton 1 1 Y 2 -1 -1 0 55 1 NSB 3 Y Blatherwycke 1 Y 1 -2 -1 -2 57 1 NSB 2 Y Chelston Rise 1 Y 1 -1 0 # 0 SB 1 Y Fineshade 1 N 1 1 # 0 NSB 1 N Wigsthorpe 1 Y 1 1 # 0 OC 1 Y

RURAL SURVEY OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES (overall ranking) Appendix B

VILLAGE/ SETTLEMENT/ URBAN OUTLIER O

VER

ALL

SC

OR

E (S

usta

inab

ility

+ P

opul

atio

n Sc

ore)

King's Cliffe 27 Stanwick 26 Easton on the Hill 26 Woodford 25 Ringstead 23 Nassington 23 Brigstock 22 Warmington 22 Crow Hill (Irthlingborough) 20 Islip 18 Titchmarsh 17 Collyweston 17 Yarwell 14 Polebrook 13 Woodnewton 13 Barnwell 13 Denford 13 Glapthorn 12 Avenue Road etc (Rushden) 11 Little Addington 11 Aldwincle 11 Great Addington 11 Sudborough 11 Southwick 11 Luddington in the Brook 11 Ashton 10 Benefield (Lower) 10 Tansor 10 Lowick 10

VILLAGE/ SETTLEMENT/ URBAN OUTLIER O

VER

ALL

SC

OR

E (S

usta

inab

ility

+ P

opul

atio

n Sc

ore)

Duddington 9 Thorpe Waterville 9 Benefield (Upper) 9 Wadenhoe 8 Harringworth 8 Bulwick 8 Apethorpe 8 Fotheringhay 8 Chelveston 7 Hargrave 7 Laxton 7 Deenethorpe 7 Newton Bromswold 7 Hemington 6 Achurch 6 Twywell 6 Cotterstock 6 Wakerley (Barrowden) 6 Lutton 5 Lilford 5 Caldecott 5 Slipton 4 Clopton 4 Thurning 4 Stoke Doyle 4 Deene 4 Armston 3 Pilton 3 Blatherwycke 2 Chelston Rise 1 Fineshade 1 Wigsthorpe 1


Appendix C – Verbatim feedback from Parish Councils/ Parish Meetings, November 2018 – January 2019 Parish Council/ Meeting

Date of response

Verbatim feedback

Aldwincle 20/11/2018 Two changes for Aldwincle. There is, of course, no Call Connect bus service at the moment following NCC’s cutbacks. Also, the village has a children’s play area but no outdoor sports/ recreation area unless the play area counts as such.

Apethorpe 29/11/2018 The only 'service' we have is our Church of St. Leonard which now only has Sunday services twice per month. The pub has been closed for over 2.5 years and there appears to be no plan for opening. We do not have a sports facility. The Apethorpe Tennis Club is reserved for members only. The Call Connect Service has been much reduced and now only runs to Oundle.

Blatherwycke 19/11/2018 There is not a Church of England Church in Blatherwycke. It was made redundant in the 1980s and is in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust. We no longer have access to Call Connect - it has been discontinued in our area. There are two Farms in Blatherwycke which presumably count as Local Businesses? We are able to use the redundant church building for our Parish Meeting with permission from the Churches Conservation Trust. I'm not sure if that counts as a Community Hall.

Brigstock 23/11/2018 The only change to your matrix for Brigstock is that the village does not now have a garage and petrol station.

Chelveston cum Caldecott

19/11/2018 Attached with changes in RED. The Village Hall is actually in Chelveston, not Caldecott (the village signs marking the changeover are just beyond it). There hasn’t been a garage or fuel station in the parish since circa 1988!

Collyweston 19/11/2018 With regards to your evidence base of rural services. The only item that is wrong on the list is that the Mobile Library has been withdrawn earlier this year by NCC. Sadly the bus passes that could be obtained through this service, is no longer available either. Otherwise everything else is correct.

Deene and Deenethorpe

20/11/2018 I should point out that neither Deene nor Deenethorpe have any bus services at all now since Call Connect ceased operating.

Denford 19/11/2018 No changes in Denford.


Parish Council/ Meeting

Date of response

Verbatim feedback

Glapthorn 07/12/2018 There are 4 farms located wholly or partly in Glapthorn (one wholly within and farmer resident in Parish; one partly Glapthorn and partly elsewhere with farmer resident in Glapthorn; two partly in Glapthorn with farmer resident of the outside Parish. In addition to one hairdresser; also one beauty salon in converted farm building. One riding school in Village No outdoor sports / playing field (except a MUGA attached to Primary school but not used by community). However, there is an on-going project to purchase land for a recreational area/playing field. Also, an allotments site (approx. 20 allotments) Other facilities include access to fibre broadband and decent mobile signal.

Hargrave 20/11/2018 This information is correct for Hargrave. Islip 29/11/2018 Services: Community Hall (2); Hairdressers (1); Rural businesses (12); Pubs (2); Outdoor sports

facility/ playing field (2) Lilford, Wigsthorpe Thorpe Achurch

28/11/2018 there is one alteration to Lilford entry (in red on matrix) although with the demise of the Call Connect Service most of these communities will be without a bus service.

Pilton, Stoke Doyle & Wadenhoe Parish Council

05/12/2018 Please amend the rural services list to reflect the fact that there are no bus services in Pilton, Stoke Doyle or Wadenhoe.

Stanwick 19/11/2018 Stanwick has a hair dressers (on High Street) Twywell 29/11/2018 Like many villages in East Northants, Twywell has recently lost the CallConnect bus service.


Parish Council/ Meeting

Date of response

Verbatim feedback

Woodford 06/01/2019 With regard to Woodford, the data you enclosed is more or less correct with the following exceptions. The Butchers closed last summer and is presently vacant There is a hairdressers in the village The bus service has been severely cut with effect of last summer. There are now only four journeys to Kettering per day and four returns (some are now routed on the A14 to Thrapston missing out Woodford). There is only one bus service to Thrapston (on weekdays – none at weekend) which permits a return journey. This service leaves Woodford late morning so there is no service early morning for workers. Consequently the bus service is now very limited for persons wishing to use it for travelling to work.

Woodnewton 31/12/2018 Woodnewton no longer has a mobile library service. Everything else stays the same (on the assumption that the fact that the pub offers a take-away service and a mobile fish and chip shop visits the village once a week does not constitute a "fast food take-away").

Yarwell 20/11/2018 i confirm the information on the template is correct

Appendix D – Town Centre Buffers

TECHNICAL PAPER: Rural Settlement Hierarchy

Documents

Transcript of TECHNICAL PAPER: Rural Settlement Hierarchy