OPTIONS PAPER OPTIONS TO DETERMINE A RURAL SETTLEMENT...

1 | P a g e

SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN PART 2a

OPTIONS PAPER

OPTIONS TO DETERMINE A RURAL SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY FOR SOUTH

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE DISTRICT

January 2016

2 | P a g e

CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Purpose 4

3. National Context 4

4. Local Context 6

5. Background 8

6. Settlement audit methodology 10

7. Options for establishing a rural settlement hierarchy 12

8. Suggested scoring for determining the settlement hierarchy 31

9. Analysis of results 33

10. Next steps 36

11. Appendices 36

3 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This settlement audit and hierarchy options paper has been produced to

set out the evidence and options to determine a new settlement hierarchy.

1.2 A settlement hierarchy ranks settlements according to their size and their

range of services and facilities. In the planning system the position of a

settlement in the hierarchy is intended to inform decisions about new

developments such as housing.

1.3 Settlements provide services to local populations. Large settlements tend

to provide more services, be more accessible and have a greater population

of users. Over time, settlement hierarchies emerge and evolve on a local,

regional and national basis. However rural settlements tend to have a

more limited offer of services in comparison with larger urban centres and

are generally considered to be unsustainable locations for new

development, particularly as many people travel by car from rural to urban

locations for work, schooling and shopping. However there is a need for

housing development in rural locations to support the local community. It

is important to ensure that any development reflects the size and relative

accessibility of the settlement.

1.4 The District has a number of employment sites, promoting and maintaining

rural economic development that is appropriate in scale and impact is vital

to building more sustainable communities. It is important to recognise that

these business and employment opportunities both serve the rural service

centres as well as the wider rural community.

1.5 South Northamptonshire area is no different, with the market towns of

Brackley and Towcester at the top and relatively remote hamlets towards

the bottom. Whilst it is usually easy for anyone to identify settlements at

either end of a hierarchy, those in between are often less clear.

1.6 It is important to note that a settlement's position within the hierarchy

does not mean that development is appropriate and deliverable, or that it

is to be avoided. Other factors must be considered such as environmental

constraints, available development sites and local character.

4 | P a g e

2. PURPOSE

2.1 The South Northants Local Plan Part 2a must identify a settlement hierarchy. A settlement hierarchy will demonstrate a robust and justifiable approach to the classifications of villages and rural settlements to support the policies and proposals within the local plan. This is a technical report which sets out the relative sustainability of the settlements by identifying the services, facilities and access to settlements within the Plan area, options to determine the sustainable and hierarchy of villages across the District; thereby achieving clarity on each settlement’s potential role within the District.

3. NATIONAL CONTEXT (POLICY)

3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies the need to plan

for sustainable development. The NPPF does not define sustainability but identifies core principles of sustainable development. This includes supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the type of development required to meet the needs of present and future generations, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s need.

3.2 Sustainable development is promoted in rural areas, the NPPF identifies

that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Creating and maintaining strong rural economies is critical to supporting sustainable and vibrant rural communities. Strong rural economies offer those living in rural areas better opportunities for work in their local community. More and better quality local employment opportunities help to reduce the out-migration of young people and retain skilled workers. The NPPF also provides a framework within which local communities and Local Planning Authorities can develop their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, with the overarching guiding principle of a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

3.3 The key principles contained within the NPPF, of particular relevance to the

settlement audit and subsequent hierarchy are:

Patterns of growth should be actively managed in order to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable (para.17).

In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should recognise

5 | P a g e

town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality and should also define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes (para.23).

In rural areas, the retention and development of local services and

community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship, should be promoted through local and neighbourhood plans (para.28).

In preparing local plans, local planning authorities should support a

pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion (para.30).

Sustainable development should be promoted in rural areas by

locating new housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby (para.55).

3.4 In March 2014 the National planning practice guidance (NPPG) was published as practice guidance to support the NPPF. The NPPG reiterates that Local Plans “should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development” and recognises the importance of “issues facing rural areas in terms of housing supply and affordability, and the role of housing in supporting the broader sustainability of villages and smaller settlements”.

3.5 The guidance adds that in rural areas all settlements can play a role in

delivering sustainable development and “blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing other settlements from expanding should be avoided unless their use can be supported by robust evidence”

3.6 The development of a settlement hierarchy is considered to be an

appropriate approach to identifying settlements for promoting sustainable development, by focusing development where residents have opportunities to access service and facilities in accordance with the NPPF.

6 | P a g e

4. LOCAL CONTEXT

West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy – Settlement hierarchy framework

4.1 The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) requires the Local

Plan Part 2a to define a new settlement hierarchy. It recognises that there is a need for development in the rural areas, but aims to ensure that the scale of development is consistent with the objective of meeting local needs and supporting local services.

4.2 The rural settlement hierarchy will need to be compliant with Policy R1 of the WNJCS. However the approach taken within the WNJCS provides some flexibility for the hierarchy within each area to be tailored to reflect specific local circumstances. In consultation with local communities the importance attached to a particular service/facility may vary or could take into account additional services and facilities to reflect local circumstances.

4.3 The WNJCS sets out a series of criteria that will form the basis for this

assessment as well as defining the 3 categories of settlement within which villages will be placed. The hierarchy will be based on a robust analysis of services and facilities either within a particular village or as part of a defined cluster of settlements, together with other factors specified in the WNCJC Policy R1. The WNJCS sets the following settlement categories:

1. Primary Service Villages - Have the highest level of services and facilities within the rural area to meet the day to day needs of residents including those from surrounding settlements. These settlements are the most appropriate for accommodating local housing and employment needs and would be the focus for service provision in the rural areas; 2. Secondary Service Villages - These settlements have a more limited range of services, but still provide scope to meet some local needs for housing, employment and service provision; 3. Other Villages - These villages have an even more limited range of services and are more reliant on the services of larger centres for day to day needs. The scope for development within these villages is likely to be limited to windfall infill development, although some housing to provide for local needs may be suitable.

7 | P a g e

4.4 There are some settlements that will not fit within the above categories. These settlements are likely to be very small, with few or no services and facilities, have environmental constraints and/or are in a remote location within the open countryside. These settlements may therefore be considered unsuitable for any development beyond that appropriate to an open countryside location. Such settlements would not have village confines.

4.5 The WNJCS suggests the following list of services and facilities:

Most Important Services and Facilities: Secondary School, Primary School, GP Surgery, General Food Store, Post Office, Village Hall/Community Centre, Public Transport (quality of service) and Public House/Restaurant.

Important Facilities and Services: Other Shops/Takeaways, Local Employment Provision, Libraries/Outreach Centres and Pre-school Provision.

Other Facilities: Play Area, Sports Ground and Allotments.

4.6 The WNJCS also considers that in preparing the settlement hierarchy regard will be given to the following criteria (but not exclusively):

1) the presence of services and facilities to meet the day to day needs of residents, including those from surrounding settlements;

2) opportunities to retain and improve the provision and enhancement of services critical to the sustainability of settlements;

3) accessibility, particularly by public transport, to the main towns and sustainable employment opportunities;

4) evidence of local needs for housing (including market and affordable housing), employment and services;

5) the role, scale and character of the settlement;

6) the capacity of settlements to accommodate development in terms of physical, environmental, infrastructure and other constraints;

8 | P a g e

7) the availability of deliverable sites including previously developed land in sustainable locations;

8) sustaining the rural economy by retaining existing employment sites where possible, by enabling small scale economic development, including tourism, through rural diversification and by supporting appropriate agricultural and forestry development;

9) protect and enhance the character and quality of the rural areas’ historic buildings and areas of historic or environmental importance; and

10) enabling local communities to identify and meet their own local needs.

Rural Service Centres - Towcester and Brackley

4.7 The Spatial Strategy set out in the WNJCS, identifies Towcester and

Brackley as Rural Service Centres. As such, they fall outside of the scope of the settlement audit since they play a key role in supporting the requirements within their locality and the wider needs of the area and their position in the settlement hierarchy has already been agreed.

5. BACKGROUND

5.1 The settlement hierarchy helps determine the location of development,

with information including local evidence bases, housing needs and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment assisting in determining the level of development for each area.

5.2 The existing saved policies of the adopted South Northamptonshire Local

Plan (1997) originally set a hierarchy of settlements, splitting rural settlements between the classes of Limited Development villages, Restricted Infill Villages and Restraint Villages. The definition of settlements between these criteria was originally set by the Northamptonshire Structure Plan.

5.3 A settlement audit took place in 2008; this work was completed to support

the introduction of the Council’s Interim Rural Housing Policy (IRHP). The evidence base for the IRHP was based on the availability of key services and facilities within villages; it did not provide comprehensive assessment of their sustainability and provided no indication of the accessibility of the

9 | P a g e

villages and their residents, or the interrelationship between various settlements.

5.4 In October 2013, the Council started the process of preparing the SNC Local

Plan Part 2a. This involved the publication of the Issues Consultation stage of the Local Plan. This marked the start of the formal process when the public, parish councils and the development industry were asked for their views on the issues that should be covered in the Local Plan.

5.5 The Issues Consultation produced two papers; these identified the issues

and potential approach in determining settlement hierarchies. The consultation documents were:

The Local Plan: Issues paper (October 2013)

Topic Paper: Proposed methodology – determining a rural settlement hierarchy for South Northamptonshire District (October 2013)

The Local Plan Issues paper outlined the scope of the Local Plan and the issues that the Plan will need to address and provided an opportunity for stakeholders to influence at an early stage. The topic paper set out how the Council will prepare the hierarchy and sought views on the proposed methodology. Consultation on the Issues paper ran from October 2013 – 24th January 2014. The responses from this consultation can be found on the Council’s website at http://www.southnorthants.gov.uk/4700.htm

5.6 South Northamptonshire Council’s Economic Development Strategy 2012-

2015

The Council’s Economic Development Strategy (2012-2015) identified that 70% of the population live in rural areas across the District. It recognises that the loss of local businesses, such as shops and pubs which provide essential services to these communities creates a risk of dormitory communities, caused in part by the large number of residents living in the District, but travelling out for work and leisure interests. It highlighted that whilst it is important to protect what is special about the District, strategies are required to strengthen the rural economy and support the vitality of the villages.

http://www.southnorthants.gov.uk/4700.htm

10 | P a g e

6. SETTLEMENT AUDIT METHODOLOGY

6.1 The NPPF stresses that local planning authorities should ensure that the local plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area .

6.2 A settlement audit was undertaken in the summer of 2015. The results of

this audit have helped inform a detailed hierarchy based on each settlement’s level of service provision and accessibility. In turn, this forms part of the evidence base that helps to inform where new development may be directed by the Local Plan in a sustainable way that encourages close proximity of housing, jobs and services.

6.3 There are 90 villages and hamlets in South Northamptonshire. Each village

has been included within the audit of key community services and facilities, accessibility criteria and population data of the settlements.

6.4 The work completed in the summer of 2015 updated the previous audit

survey of 2008. In order to assess the availability of services and facilities and recognising valuable local knowledge that parish councils have, the council contacted all Parish Councils across the District to complete a survey (village audit) on local knowledge of services and facilities (Appendix 1). Where no response was received from parishes, the Council has endeavoured to compile the relevant information from site visits and desktop analysis.

6.5 This survey work has been used for the following purposes that collectively

assist in the determination of the settlement hierarchy.

To compare the relative sustainability of settlements based on a standard set of services and facilities

To identify possible links between settlements to gain a picture of the relationship of settlements to one another and the manner in which certain settlements may act as a local service centre for surrounding smaller settlement with few or no facilities of their own; and

To enhance and complement information held about existing services and wider demographic, economic and social factors.

6.6 In addition known infrastructure and environmental constraints in or

around a settlement will be taken into account as part of a qualitative assessment to determine the overall sustainability of a settlement. This

11 | P a g e

could include consideration of Conservation areas, landscape areas and Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI).

6.7 It will be important that, even when the hierarchy is agreed there are a

number of considerations that may then affect the scale of development

that may be considered appropriate for a particular settlement. New

homes put pressure on existing natural resources, infrastructure and

services so there needs to be a balance struck between the need for new

homes and the impacts that result from more development. In many cases

funding can be secured from new developments that mitigate impacts in a

satisfactory way. The Council are engaging with appropriate service

providers to investigate whether there are constraints to housing growth

which would limit the capacity of particular settlements to accommodate

development. In addition there may be other environmental

considerations that may limit development. Issues may include:

Impacts on the environment, air quality, water supply, sewerage and sewage and flood risk

Capacity of key services (education and health)

Impacts on the very important and attractive historic town and village centres which are valued by residents and are important visitor attractions

Important views and approaches

Impacts on parking and access to and through village and town centres due to the narrow street patterns

the need to enable local businesses to grow on better and less constrained sites

the need or aspirations of a settlement to enhance or support key facilities and services including the provision of new community buildings, facilities, sporting and play areas

The need to maintain the viability of key facilities for example schools, local shops, public houses

6.8 Together with information from the housing options paper this survey

information will provide an evidence base for the level of growth which can be accommodated in a sustainable form. It will also provide evidence for future policies for the area and information to help maximise benefits and the potential for developer contributions by understanding current

12 | P a g e

facilities and the potential need for improvements to existing facilities or new additional facilities.

7. OPTIONS FOR ESTABLISHING A RURAL SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY

What services and facilities should be included in the assessment and what weight should be attached to them?

7.1 This survey work provides valuable information that will form the basis of

this settlement hierarchy work in accordance with the WNJCS. However there are a number of options in addition to those set out in the WNJCS that could affect a village’s position in the hierarchy. These options and a series of questions are set out below. Table 1 below sets out the services and facilities identified in the WNJCS together with the WNJCS suggested importance.

7.2 The West Northants Joint Core Strategy suggested a level of importance of

these services and facilities. The services/facilities have been categorised into three groups:

Most Important Services and Facilities

Important Facilities and Services

Other Facilities

13 | P a g e

Table 1: Services and facilities identified in the WNJCS together with their suggested importance Service and facility Suggested category of importance

in WNJCS Secondary School Most Important

Primary school Most Important GP surgery/Health centre Most Important

General food store Most Important

Post office Most Important Village Hall Most Important

Community Centre Most Important Public transport (quality of service)

Most Important

Public House Most Important

Restaurant Most Important

Café/takeaway Important Other shops Important

Permanent library Important Outreach centres Important

Pre-school provision Important

Local Employment provision Important Play area Other

Sports ground/pitch Other

Allotment provision Other

QUESTION 1 Yes No No opinion

Based on Table 1 above should all of the services and facilities listed in the WNJCS be included in the settlement hierarchy appraisal?

If you have answered no, please specify which services and facilities should not be included and the reasons why:

14 | P a g e

7.3 Some of the services and facilities that are considered to be of ‘most importance’ in the WNJCS are scarcer than others. For example there are only a limited number of secondary schools and GP surgeries serving the District than village halls and primary schools. One consideration could be to score these scarce facilities as more important than others. For illustrative purposes, Table 2 below sets out a possible scoring system for these facilities and services. This assumes that all services and facilities set out in the WNJCS are included in the assessment but some are considered more important than others based on scarcity and perceived importance.

Table 2: Possible scoring based on importance of services and facilities Service and facility Possible category

of importance Possible weighting

Secondary School Most Important 10

GP surgery/health centre Most Important 10

Primary school Very Important 8 General food store Very Important 8

Post office Very Important 8 Public transport (quality of service bus to urban area)

Very Important 8

Public House Very Important 8

Local Employment provision Very Important 8

Village Hall/Community Centre

Important 6

Pre-school provision Important 6 Permanent library Important 6

Restaurant/Café/Takeaway Less Important 4

Other shops Less Important 4 Play area Less Important 4

Outreach centres Less Important 4 Sports ground/pitch Less Important 4

Allotment provision Less Important 4

15 | P a g e


Do you agree that service and facilities that are scarcer but of perceived importance should score more; for example a secondary school or GP surgery?

Please explain your response:

QUESTION 3 Yes No No opinion If you answered “Yes” to Question 2 – do you consider that secondary schools and doctors surgeries should be the only two services/facilities that are scored as “Most Important”?


16 | P a g e


Do you consider any other services /facilities in the WNJCS (Table 2) should be perceived as “Most Important”?



Based on the suggestions in Table 2 above. Do you think that the 4 categories of importance outlined (i.e. Most important, very important, important, less important) are suitable for this hierarchy assessment?

If no please specify which should be changed and your reasons why:

17 | P a g e


Referring to Table 2 do you consider that all “Most Important” services are of equal value and importance to the local community and therefore scored equally?

For example; should a secondary school score the same as a Doctors surgery?

If no please specify your reasons why:

QUESTION 7 Yes No No opinion Referring to Table 2 do you consider that all “Very Important” services are of equal value and importance to the local community and therefore scored equally?


18 | P a g e


Referring to Table 2 do you consider that all “Important” services are of equal value and importance to the local community and therefore scored equally?


QUESTION 9

Yes No No opinion

Referring to Table 2 do you consider that all “Less Important” services are of equal value and importance to the local community and therefore scored equally?


19 | P a g e

7.4 As outlined in Section 4, the West Northants Joint Core Strategy sets out a

list of services and facilities and suggests a level of importance attached to them. However the Local Planning Authority, with consultation can vary the importance of a service/facility and can also take into account additional services and facilities, to reflect local circumstances. Table 3 below sets out the additional services and facilities included in the village audit 2015.

Table 3: List of services and facilities not included in the WNJCS Dentist

Petrol station

Residential home/Day care Bank/building society

Social/working men’s club Permanent police station

Adult education facility

Park/wildlife site Church/chapel

Mobile service Other religious building

7.5 Unlike those services and facilities set out in the WNJCS, the additional

services and facilities have not been categorised as to the level of perceived importance.

QUESTION 10 Yes No No

opinion Referring to Table 3 should all/some or none of the additional services and facilities be included in the settlement hierarchy appraisal?


20 | P a g e

If you have answered Yes to Question 10 please state the level of importance each service and facility should have - ‘Most Important’, “Very Important ‘Important’ or ‘Less important’?

Dentist Petrol station

Residential home/Day care Bank/building society

Social/working men’s club Permanent police station

Adult education facility

Park/wildlife site Church/chapel

Mobile service Other religious building

QUESTION 11 Yes - other services/facilities should be included

No – no more to add

No opinion

Are there other services and facilities that should be included in the settlement hierarchy appraisal apart from those listed in Tables 2 and 3 above?

If yes please specify which other services/facilities should be included and your reasons why.

21 | P a g e

What assessment should be made if there is more than one of any service or facility present in a settlement?

7.6 If there is more than 1 of a particular service or facility within a settlement

then it could be considered that this adds to its sustainability. This is particularly the case if that facility is considered to be one of the most important ones as set out in Table 2 above. Table 4 below suggests some possible scoring.

Table 4: Possible scoring based on duplication of services or facility

Score For each additional “Most Important” or “Very Important” service or facility

2 additional points per service/facility where there is more than 1 of any type


As suggested in Table 4, should the presence of more than one type of “Most Important” or “Very Important” service result in additional scores being given? For example; if there are two public houses should this result in an additional score?


22 | P a g e

Clustering of villages and their location

7.7 Due to the rural nature of the District, the majority of the settlements are not self-sustaining and rely on other villages/towns to provide services and facilities. As such distances between settlements can be important in terms of sustainability of a settlement.

7.8 Larger urban areas such as Northampton, Milton Keynes, Banbury and

Daventry have the widest range of facilities including those generally not available in the District including hospitals, cinemas and rail connections.

7.9 Rural service centres (Brackley and Towcester) possess a wider range of

services and facilities than the villages but less than the larger urban areas. The more rural villages generally have more limited services/facilities and are less self-sufficient in their ability to meet daily requirements such as access to facilities and employment opportunities. Therefore they rely on nearby towns or larger villages to access some services and facilities


opinion One option could be to adopt a cluster approach, i.e. grouping settlements/ villages together so that services and facilities are considered to be shared. Do you agree with this approach?


23 | P a g e

A

s

e

t

A

A settlement’s proximity to a larger urban area / a rural service centre and to the “most important” facilities and services

7.10 If for example, proximity of a settlement to a larger more sustainable urban area is considered to be more sustainable and if proximity of a settlement to a secondary school or GP Surgery (as referred to in Question 2 above) is considered to increase the sustainability of a settlement then it would be possible to set out some weightings to reflect this. This is outlined in Tables 5 – 7 below. Appendices 2-7 provide illustrative maps to show the distances from the larger urban areas/Rural Service Centres, secondary schools, GP surgeries and local employment business parks across the District. These maps can provide an indication on the settlements that are more accessible to some of the services or facilities that are considered “Most Important”.


An alternative option is a “dispersed” approach, i.e. this considers individual settlements/villages on their own merits? Do you agree with this approach?


24 | P a g e

Table 5: Possible scoring based on proximity to larger urban areas (appendix 2) Distance from larger urban centre (Northampton/Milton Keynes/ Banbury, Daventry))

Score

Less than 10 km 6 10-12 km 5

12-14km 4 14-16km 3

16-18km 2 18-20km 1

Table 6: Possible scoring based on proximity to Rural Service Centres (Brackley and Towcester) (appendix 3)

Distance from rural service centres (Brackley and Towcester)

Score

Less than 2 km 6

2 - 4 km 5 4 – 6 km 4

6 – 8 km 3 8 – 10 km 2

More than 10 km 0

Table 7: Distance from “Most Important” service or facility (e.g.: Secondary School or GP Surgery) (appendices 4 and 5)

Distance from “Most Important” service or facility (eg: Secondary School or GP Surgery)

Score

Less than 1 km 6

1 - 2 km 4 2 – 3 km 2

25 | P a g e


Should a settlement’s distance from a larger urban area (eg: Milton Keynes, Banbury, Northampton) or a rural service centre (ie: Brackley or Towcester) be factored into the sustainability assessment?



opinion Should the nearest location of “Most Important” services and facilities be factored in to the sustainability assessment; if not present in the village?

For example; a settlement with a secondary school or GP Surgery would be given additional points to a settlement that does not have a secondary school; however should a settlement that is close to one with a secondary school be given additional points?


26 | P a g e

Settlement size

7.11 Although population may not be a reliable indicator of service/facility provision; it is not uncommon for settlements to provide greater or lesser services than their population would indicate. Table 8 below sets out a possible weighting system based on a settlement’s population.

Table 8: Possible scoring based on Population

Settlement Population Score 0-500 0

501-1000 1

1001-2000 2

2001–3000 3

3001-4000 4

Proximity of Employment Opportunities

7.12 The Council has published a Guide to Business Accommodation in South

Northants (2015). This guide accompanies a review of Employment Land in the district undertaken by GVA Grimley Ltd in 2013. There are approximately 60 main business parks located across the District. The proximity, availability and accessibility of employment via rural business parks can increase the overall sustainability of a settlement. Employment


Do you consider that settlements should be scored depending on the level of population within them?


27 | P a g e

provision is identified as an ‘important’ element of sustainability in the WNJCS. It is accepted there will be some employment in a village if there is a facility such as a shop, school or doctor’s surgery but additional employment opportunities are considered as a separate criterion. It may be that if a settlement is close to an employment site then it could be considered to be more sustainable. In addition the number of businesses on a particular site may offer more opportunities and further increase its sustainability. Based on this it is possible to set out some weightings to reflect this as follows in Table 9 below. Appendix 6 maps the location of the District’s business parks, these are colour coded based on the number of business units situated on each site. Appendix 7 provides a radial map providing an illustration on the distance from a business park to a nearby settlement(s).

us5).

This


Should local employment provision via business parks within or close to a settlement be weighted according to the distance from a settlement(s)?

If yes then please explain your response:

Table 9: Possible scoring based on size/proximity to a Business Park (appendices 6 and 7)

Distance Size Score

Less than 1km 1-10 units 2 1-2 km 1-10 units 1

Less than 1km 11-20 units 4

1-2 km 11-20 units 3 Less than 1km 21-30 units 6

1-2 km 21-30 units 5 Less than 1km 31 + units 8

1-2 km 31 + units 7

28 | P a g e


Should the capacity of the business park in terms of the number of business units be included in the sustainability appraisal?


Connectivity and Public Transport

7.13 The availability and frequency of public transport is an important factor in determining the most sustainable locations, providing an alternative to the car to enable people in rural communities to access services and facilities. It may be that if a settlement is accessible by public transport to a larger village or urban area then it could be considered to be more sustainable. In addition the frequency of service including for example a service in mornings, evenings and weekends could further add to a settlement’s sustainability. Table 10 below suggests a possible scoring.

Table 10: Possible scoring for public transport Bus service frequency – Bus service to urban area Score

Hourly service 6 Evening service 2

Daily service 2 Weekend service 2

Proximity to railway station (appendix 8)

Settlement with railway station 8 Settlement within 0-1 km from railway station 6

Settlement within 1-3 km from railway station 4 Settlement within 3-5 km from railway station 2

29 | P a g e


Should the Options look at the accessibility of public transport to primary service villages (a primary service village is a settlement with the highest level of services and facilities within the rural area)?



Should the Options look at the accessibility of public transport to larger urban areas (Banbury, Northampton and Milton Keynes)?


30 | P a g e


Should the frequency of services be considered as part of a settlement’s accessibility?



Some settlements have access to or are close to rail services. Should the assessment take account of the proximity/frequency of rail services and final destinations


31 | P a g e

8 SUGGESTED SCORING FOR DETERMINING THE SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY

8.1 For illustration purposes, Table 11 below sets out the possible criterion and scoring options that could be used to rank a settlement in the hierarchy. This is based on the suggestions made in this Paper and is subject to change depending on the outcome of the consultation.


Should services that are publically funded or subsidised (for example a bus service) score a lower score due to their potential vulnerability of services being reduced or stopped?


32 | P a g e

Table 11: Services and Facilities and suggested perceived importance

Possible suggested score

Most Important services and facilities

Secondary School 10

GP surgery/Health Centre 10

Very Important services and facilities

Primary School 8

General food store 8

Post Office 8

Public transport (proximity and frequency of public transport services)

0-8

Public House 8

Local Employment 0-8

Important services and facilities

Village Hall/Community Centre 6

Nursery/Pre-school provision 6

Permanent library 6

Less Important services and facilities

Restaurant/Café/Takeaway 4

Play equipment 4

Sports pitches/grounds 4

Allotments 4

Outreach centres 4

Social Club 4

Permanent police station 4

Dentist 4

Petrol station 4

Residential home/Day care 4

Bank/building society 4

Park/wildlife site 4

Adult education facility 4

Other services 4

Church/chapel 4

Other religious building 4

Mobile service 4

Other considerations

Distance to large urban centre 0-6

Distance to rural service centre 0-6

Distance from “Most Important” service or facility 0-6

Settlement population 0-4

Proximity to business park/size of business park 0-8

Bus service frequency to urban area 0-10

Proximity to rail station 0-8

33 | P a g e

9. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

9.1 Tables 12 and 13 collate the information gathered from the village audit on services and facilities and provides indicative scores for each settlement. It is based on the suggested scoring outlined in Table 11 for each of the services and facilities that a settlement has access too.

9.2 Table 12 presents the settlements in alphabetical order to avoid making

assumptions and pre-judging a settlement based on its category from the previous sustainability assessment undertaken in 2008. Table 13 orders the settlements numerically. Table 12: Possible scoring (by Settlement)

Village Score Village Score Abthorpe 27 Kislingbury 92

Adstone 23 Litchborough 50 Alderton 19 Little Houghton 66

Astcote 44 Lower Boddington 20

Ashton 58 Maidford 19 Aston-Le-Walls 39 Marston St Lawrence 30

Astwell 7 Middleton Cheney 136 Aynho 57 Milton Malsor 82

Blakesley 88 Moreton Pinkney 30

Blisworth 106 Nether Heyford 95 Bradden 22 Newbottle 12

Brafield on the Green 65 Old Stratford 86 Bugbrooke 120 Overthorpe 12

Caldecote 26 Passenham 19 Castle Ashby 13 Pattishall 41

Chacombe 77 Paulerspury 96

Charlton 75 Piddington 34 Chipping Warden 54 Potterspury 90

Cogenhoe 86 Preston Deanery 25 Cold Higham 27 Pury End 17

Cosgrove 39 Quinton 24

Courteenhall 23 Radstone 15 Croughton 84 Roade 126

Culworth 65 Rothersthorpe 45 Deanshanger 127 Shutlanger 43

34 | P a g e

Table 12: Possible scoring (by Settlement)

Village Score Village Score Denton 69 Silverstone 107

Eastcote 26 Slapton 15 Easton Neston 26 Stoke Bruerne 72

Edgcote 6 Sulgrave 56

Evenley 70 Syresham 78 Eydon 39 Thenford 25

Falcutt 7 Thorpe Mandeville 38 Farthinghoe 73 Tiffield 49

Furtho 8 Upper Boddington 57

Gayton 58 Upper Heyford 10 Grafton Regis 40 Wappenham 22

Greatworth 61 Warkworth 0 Greens Norton 105 Weedon Lois 48

Grimscote 10 Weston 25 Hackleton 86 Whiston 13

Harpole 74 Whitfield 25

Hartwell 75 Whittlebury 57 Heathencote 0 Wicken 35

Helmdon 64 Wood Burcote 20 Hinton in the Hedges 32 Woodend 9

Horton 18 Yardley Gobion 92

King's Sutton 118 Yardley Hastings 84

Table 13: Possible scoring (by score)

Village Score Village Score

Middleton Cheney 136 Rothersthorpe 41

Deanshanger 127 Aston-Le-Walls 40 Roade 126 Cosgrove 40

Bugbrooke 120 Grafton Regis 40 King's Sutton 118 Eydon 36

Silverstone 107 Wicken 36

Blisworth 106 Piddington 35 Greens Norton 105 Thorpe Mandeville 34

Paulerspury 96 Hinton in the Hedges 32 Nether Heyford 95 Marston St Lawrence 30

35 | P a g e

Table 13: Possible scoring (by score)

Village Score Village Score

Kislingbury 92 Moreton Pinkney 30 Yardley Gobion 92 Abthorpe 27

Potterspury 90 Cold Higham 27

Blakesley 88 Caldecote 26 Old Stratford 86 Easton Neston 26

Cogenhoe 86 Eastcote 26 Hackleton 86 Preston Deanery 25

Yardley Hastings 85 Thenford 25

Croughton 84 Weston 25 Milton Malsor 84 Whitfield 25

Syresham 78 Quinton 24 Chacombe 77 Courteenhall 23

Charlton 75 Adstone 23 Hartwell 75 Bradden 22

Harpole 74 Wappenham 22

Farthinghoe 73 Lower Boddington 20 Stoke Bruerne 72 Wood Burcote 20

Evenley 70 Passenham 19 Denton 69 Alderton 19

Little Houghton 66 Maidford 19

Brafield on the Green 65 Horton 18 Culworth 65 Pury End 17

Helmdon 64 Radstone 15 Greatworth 61 Slapton 15

Ashton 58 Castle Ashby 14 Gayton 58 Whiston 13

Upper Boddington 57 Overthorpe 12

Whittlebury 57 Newbottle 12 Aynho 57 Upper Heyford 10

Sulgrave 56 Grimscote 10 Chipping Warden 54 Woodend 9

Litchborough 50 Furtho 8

Tiffield 49 Astwell 7 Weedon Lois 48 Falcutt 7

Astcote 44 Edgcote 6 Shutlanger 43 Heathencote 0

Pattishall 41 Warkworth 0

36 | P a g e

10. NEXT STEPS 10.1 The consultation responses to this Options paper will be used to establish a

preferred formula for scoring settlements against the level of services and facilities provision within or in close proximity to a settlement

10.2 The Council will then rank and categorise the settlements according to their score. We will consult further on these results via a preferred rural settlement hierarchy paper in late 2016.

11. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Settlement audit questionnaire

Appendix 2 – Proximity to larger urban areas

Appendix 3 – Proximity to rural service centres

Appendix 4 – Proximity to secondary schools

Appendix 5 – Proximity to GP surgeries

Appendix 6 – Business Parks by capacity

Appendix 7 – Business parks by proximity

Appendix 8 – Proximity to rail station

Appendix 9 – Indicative scoring for settlements based on services and facilities

Date post:	15-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

OPTIONS PAPER OPTIONS TO DETERMINE A RURAL SETTLEMENT...

Documents