7 Appraisal of SUE distribution around the four main towns

Reasons for selecting the alternatives

7.1 The purpose of this component of work was to reconsider alternative locations for the distribution of sustainable urban extensions at each of the towns of Northampton, Daventry, Towcester and Brackley in order to determine whether the approach in the JCS as submitted needed to be revised.  A number of potential alternative SUE locations were proposed by stakeholders during the Examination hearings in April/May 2013.  In their view, these alternative locations should be allocated in the JCS either as well as or instead of the SUEs already allocated in the JCS as submitted.  The JPU was asked by the Inspector to address acknowledged shortcomings in the SA work done to date, particularly relating to the reasons for selecting SUE sites around Northampton and other urban areas, and ensuring the assessment was carried out on a comparative basis and related to the reassessed new housing needs of the area.

7.2 Although broad areas around the four main towns were considered by the JPU in the 2007 Issues and Options and 2009 Emergent Core Strategy, the boundaries were not as well defined as the currently allocated SUE locations and those promoted by stakeholders, and decisions had not yet been made regarding the number of dwellings, employment land and other infrastructure to be delivered at different SUEs.  Therefore, in order to ensure that the stakeholder promoted SUE locations as well as other alternative SUE locations considered earlier in the JCS preparation process were appraised in a comparable way to the allocated SUEs, LUC and the JPU agreed to reconsider all potential locations around all four towns for this component of the SA Addendum work.  This exercise was also used by the JPU to check whether any locations other than the allocated SUEs and those proposed by stakeholders performed any better. 

7.3 The JPU prepared maps for each of the four towns showing the boundaries of the allocated SUEs and those alternative SUE locations propose by stakeholders.  SUE alternatives were either:

  • Proposed by stakeholders in response to the call for sites for this SA work by the JPU;
  • Previously proposed for consideration in the West Northamptonshire Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment; or
  • Identified by the JPU either as all or part of an SUE allocation in the submitted JCS or as an  additional land parcel abutting the urban area of each of the four towns, each large enough to accommodate at least 1,000 dwellings, as this was what the minimum number of dwellings proposed for the currently allocated SUEs. 

7.4 Each alternative SUE location was given a site code based on the source of the site’s identification.  The locations of the SUE alternatives and their site codes are shown in Figures 7.1-7.8 in Appendix 15.  Different colour coding has been used to identify whether the SUE alternative was proposed by a stakeholder in response to the call for sites for this SA work by the JPU, was previously proposed for consideration in the West Northamptonshire Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment or has been identified by the JPU as described above.

Identifying reasonable alternatives

7.5         The first task that LUC undertook for this component of work was to determine whether any of the SUE alternative locations were not ‘reasonable’.  This was determined on the basis of the reasonableness criteria developed during the Scoping stage (and shown in Table 4.1).  Only 16 sites did not meet the reasonableness criteria and were therefore not included in the appraisal of alternative SUE locations described in this chapter.  These sites are shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 List of alternative SUE locations that were not considered to be reasonable alternatives and reasons why

Sites identified as unreasonable

Reasons for sites being deemed unreasonable

Northampton

SHLAA NBC203

The site is not in West Northamptonshire but the Borough of Wellingborough.

SHLAA NBC023

Roughly 65-70% of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b and in the Borough of Wellingborough.

NJO_01

Roughly 60% of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b.

NJO_02

The site is not in West Northamptonshire but the Borough of Wellingborough.

NJO_08

Roughly 60% of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b.

NJO_25

The majority of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b.  Furthermore, the majority of the site is European designated as the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA/RAMSAR, SSSI,  and Local Wildlife Site.

NJO_26

The majority of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b.  Furthermore, the majority of the site is European designated as the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA/RAMSAR, SSSI,  and Local Wildlife Site.

NJO_27

The majority of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b.  Furthermore, the majority of the site is European designated as the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA/RAMSAR, SSSI,  and Local Wildlife Site.

NJO_28

The majority of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b.  Furthermore, the majority of the site is European designated as the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA/RAMSAR, SSSI, SPA and Local Wildlife Site.

NJO_29

The site contains Clifford Hill Motte Castle Scheduled Monument.

NJO_31

Most of the site is covered by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b.

Daventry

DJO-11

Roughly 70% of the site is within Borough Hill Field Local Wildlife Site.

Towcester

TJO-10

Roughly 80% of the site is within Easton Neston Registered Park and Garden.

TJO-11

The entire site is within Easton Neston Registered Park and Garden.

TJO-12

The entire site is within Easton Neston Registered Park and Garden.  Furthermore, roughly 50% of the site is within Easton Neston Conservation Area.

TJO-13

The entire site is within Easton Neston Conservation Area.  Furthermore, roughly 60% of the site is within Easton Neston Registered Park and Garden.

Brackley

BJO-03

The site is not in West Northamptonshire but Aylesbury Vale District.

 

Approach to the appraisal

7.6 Each reasonable alternative SUE location was appraised against the SA Framework using the following assumptions.  The detailed appraisal matrices for each reasonable alternative SUE location around the four towns are presented in Appendices 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Assumed characteristics of SUE development for the four towns

7.7 In order to enable the appraisal of SUE site options around the four main towns to be carried out in a consistent way, LUC defined a generic SUE and set out below a list of assumptions about what the SUE development would incorporate. 

7.8 The starting point for these assumptions was the criteria set out in Policy SDA1 in the former Northamptonshire County Structure Plan 1996-2016.  Those criteria were then updated taking into account overarching policies in the JCS as submitted such as S10: Sustainable Development Principles, C1: Changing Behaviour and Achieving Modal Shift and E6: Education, Skills and Training.  The common criteria included in the JCS policies for the SUEs around the four main towns were also taken into account (i.e. policies N3-N9, D3, T3, B2 and B3).

7.9 Therefore, it was assumed that for any of the site options considered around the four main towns, the SUE development would:

  • Provide a balance and range of housing and employment.
  • Incorporate a local centre with shops and retail services including a small supermarket, and other facilities.
  • Be adjacent to and integrated with the existing urban areas.
  • Include schools and nurseries.
  • Include local open spaces and children’s play areas as well as other sport and leisure provision.
  • Include greenspace and wildlife corridors.
  • Include local waste management facilities.
  • Incorporate sustainable transport links, including walking and cycle routes to connect with the main urban area.
  • Include appropriate highway improvements.
  • Include flood risk management measures.
  • Require archaeological and ecological assessment of the site and incorporate any necessary mitigation in the design.
  • Be developed to high standards of energy efficiency and in accordance with the principles of sustainable design and construction.

Assumptions for determining the significance of effects for each SA objective

7.10 A set of assumptions for determining the significance of effects for each SA objective were developed by LUC for appraising the alternative SUE locations.  These assumptions are presented in Appendix 5, and draw on the baseline information referred to in Chapter 3, as well as the GIS data provided by the JPU (as listed in Chapter 4).

Summary of the appraisal findings

7.11 The following sections report on the findings of the SA work undertaken on all the potential SUE locations by town starting with Northampton, and followed by Daventry, Towcester and Brackley.  Tables are presented for each SA objective for each town, listing those sites that would be considered to result in significant effects (whether positive or negative) and including those with uncertainty or mixed effects, so long as these related to a potentially significant effect.

7.12 Each table is divided into three columns:

  • The first column includes those sites likely to result in significant effects that are allocated in the JCS as submitted.
  • The second column lists those alternative sites likely to result in significant effects that have been proposed by stakeholders.
  • The third column lists those reasonable alternative sites likely to result in significant effects that are not allocated in the JCS as submitted, nor put forward as alternatives by stakeholders.

7.13 At the end of the section on each town, a summary table of the findings of the appraisal for all the sites considered for that town is presented.

7.14 It should be noted that, although the JCS as submitted provided more detail on the delivery of the SUEs, and some of the stakeholders promoting alternative sites provided their own detailed assessments and proposals, all the sites were appraised on the same basis using the assumptions above.  This was in order to ensure that all sites were appraised in a consistent and systematic manner.

Northampton

7.15 This section summarises the appraisal findings of the sites around Northampton.  A map of all the sites considered is shown in Figures 7.1-7.5 in Appendix 15.  The tables summarising the likely significant effects for each SA objective include significant effects (both positive and negative) that have been identified as part of overall mixed effects (e.g. ++/--, ++/-. --/+).  Potential but uncertain significant effects (++? or --?) are also included.

SA Objective 1: Air quality and noise

Table 7.2 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 1: Air quality and noise

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

NJO-18

NJO-18 & SA45

NJO-17

NBC208, 209, 804 and 805

SNC012

SNC079

NJO-14

NJO-15

NJO-19

NJO_20 & NJO _21a

NJO_22 & NJO _21b

 

7.16 Twelve of the site options around Northampton were found to have the potential for significant negative effects in relation to air quality and noise.  All of the sites are located in the south  along the M1 motorway.  All of the site options are likely to have mixed effects on this objective overall as they all will also have a minor positive effect in relation to sustainable transport due to the assumption that sustainable transport links such as walking, cycle and bus routes would be incorporated into new SUE development. 

7.17 Twenty two site options could have a minor negative effect in relation to noise as they are directly adjacent to either the M1 motorway or ‘A’ roads to industrial areas.  The other sites (19 in total) are likely to have negligible effects on noise. 

SA Objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

Table 7.3 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

SA03

NJO-06

 

 

SA03 & SA53

SA04 & NJO-12

SA44 & SA52

SA60

SA61

NJO-10c

 

DDC070, 143 & 794

DDC062, 071, 111 & 793

NBC175

SHLAA 579 & 788

NJO-05

NJO-13

NJO-15

NJO-16

NJO_20 & NJO _21a

NJO-24 & SA20

 

7.18 Eighteen of the site options around Northampton could have a significant negative effect on this SA objective as they are within or adjacent to areas classified as high sensitivity for cultural heritage, including two sites allocated in the JCS as submitted and  six proposed by stakeholders.  Seven of the sites are located north of Northampton and seven to the west.  Only three lie to the east and one to the south.

7.19 Thirty five of the sites could have a minor negative effect as they are within 250m and 1km of Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens or Conservation Areas.  However, in all cases the potential for negative effects on cultural heritage assets will depend on the exact scale, design and layout of the new development and opportunities may exist to enhance the setting of heritage features (e.g. where sympathetic development replaces a derelict brownfield site which is currently having an adverse effect). 

7.20 One of the sites (NJO-39) is likely to have a negligible effect being in an area classed as having no known assets/issues.

SA Objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna

Table 7.4 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

SA03

NJO-06

NJO-09

NJO-11

NJO-18

SA04 & NJO-12

SA63

 

SA03 & SA53

SA31

SA44 & SA52

SA60

SA61

SA12 & SA62

NJO-10e

NJO-18 & SA45

NJO-17

DDC070, 143 & 794

DDC062, 071, 111 & 793

NBC175

NBC208, 209, 804 and 805

SNC012

SNC079

SHLAA 579 & 788

NJO-03

NJO-04

NJO-05

NJO-07

NJO-13

NJO-16

NJO-30

NJO-41

NJO-42

 

7.21 Thirty two of the site options have designated biodiversity sites within 250m of the site boundary and therefore have the potential to have a significant negative effect on this objective.  Some of the site options have Local Wildlife Sites or Potential Local Wildlife Sites within the site boundaries.  However, in all cases there is uncertainty attached (resulting in mixed effects overall) because it is recognised that the potential for effects will depend on the exact nature and design of development.  At the same time, it is assumed that all of the SUEs would incorporate an element of green infrastructure provision, which may help to create new areas of BAP habitats and contribute to habitat connectivity; therefore all sites could also have a minor positive effect on this element of the objective resulting in mixed effects overall for all of the site options.

7.22 Seven of the sites allocated in the JCS as submitted could have a significant negative effect on this objective, compared to ten of the sites proposed by external stakeholders.  Sixteen of the reasonable alternatives were found to have the potential for significant negative effects.  The distribution of the sites would suggest that there are no clear patterns of where effects are more likely to occur.

7.23 Twenty of the sites were appraised as having a minor negative effect against the objective due to the fact that they were between 250m and 1km from designated sites.  The majority of these sites are located to the south and east of Northampton.

SA Objective 4: Crime and community safety

Table 7.5 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 4: Crime and community safety

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.24 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Northampton in relation to crime and community safety.  The effects of new development on safety, crime and fear of crime will depend on design proposals and factors such as the inclusion of open spaces that are overlooked by buildings to improve safety and security and sufficient lighting.  These issues will not be influenced by the location of development and will instead be determined though the detailed proposals for each site.  Therefore, the effects of all development site options on SA objective 4 are negligible.

SA Objective 5: Education and training

Table 7.6 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 5: Education and training

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

NJO-06

SA04 & NJO-12

SA63

SA44 & SA52

SA61

SA12 & SA62

NJO-10a

 

DDC070, 143 & 794

NBC175

SNC079

SHLAA 579 & 788

NJO-07

NJO-13

NJO-15

NJO-16

NJO-19

NJO_22 & NJO _21b

NJO-30

NJO-33

NJO-35

NJO-42

NJO-43

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.25 Twenty three of the site options are within walking distance of at least one school or college so SUE development therefore would have an overall significant positive effect on this objective.  Another 11 sites (SA03, SA60, DDC062, 074, 111 & 793, NJO-03, NJO-04, NJO-05, NJO-09, NJO-10b, NJO-10c, NJO-18, NJO-18 & SA45 and NJO-18 & SA45) are within 800m of existing schools.  The distribution of sites with significant positive effects against this objective is evenly spread to the north, east, west and south of Northampton.

7.26 Three of the sites allocated in the  JCS as submitted have the potential for a significant positive effect on this objective due to their close proximity to existing schools and colleges.  Five sites proposed by stakeholders and 15 of the other reasonable alternatives were appraised as having a significant positive effect against this objective. 

7.27 Twenty eight of the site options are not within walking distance of an existing school or college, but it is assumed that all new SUE development would include provision for new school places to serve the growing population.  Therefore, all of the site options will have at least a minor positive effect on this objective. 

SA Objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

Table 7.7 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.28 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Northampton in relation to energy and climatic factors.  While all new development is likely to involve an increase in energy consumption over current consumption in West Northamptonshire, new development may offer good opportunities for incorporating renewable energy generation and it is assumed that new development will be built to high standards of energy efficiency.  The effects of new development on efficient energy consumption will not be determined by the location of the development, instead it will be determined though the detailed proposals for each site. Therefore the effect of all of the SUE site options on this SA objective would be negligible.

SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

Table 7.8 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

NJO-06

NJO-11

SA04 & NJO-12

 

 

DDC070, 143 & 794

NBC175

SNC079

NJO_20 & NJO _21a

NJO_22 & NJO _21b

 

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.29 Nine of the Northampton site options could have significant positive effects on SA objective 7 as they are also within reasonable waking distance (800m) of three or more existing health-related assets including at least one of either a doctor’s surgery or a hospital and at least one of either an area of open space, allotments or footpaths and cycles routes.  Three of the sites are allocated in the JCS as submitted, one was proposed by a stakeholder and the remaining five sites were added as reasonable alternatives as part of the SA process.  In addition, six sites (SA60, NJO-09, NJ-10b, NJO-18, NJO-18 & SA45, NJO-18 & SA45 and DDC 62, 71, 111 & 793) are within 800m of existing health and recreation facilities.  However, there are known topography issues for some of these sites which could mean that the facilities may not be an easy walk for all ages and abilities, and therefore it is not considered that there will be a significant positive effect in terms of accessibility for the sites affected.

7.30 With respect to existing healthcare facilities it may be easier and more resource/cost efficient to expand existing facilities to accommodate new residents as required, rather than providing new ones within the area.  However, there is currently a lack of information about capacity and the potential to expand those services and facilities; therefore in all cases the potential significant positive effect on this objective is uncertain.  All of the site options are likely to have at least a minor positive effect on this SA objective, as it is assumed that all of the SUEs would include the provision of new healthcare facilities to support the growing population, or the expansion of existing facilities.  It is also assumed that new green infrastructure including walking and cycle routes would be provided within all sites, which should have a positive effect in relation to encouraging more active lifestyles. 

7.31 Eleven sites have been appraised as having mixed effects for the objective due to their close proximity to the M1 Corridor AQMA, which could have a minor negative impact on health in relation to poor air quality.  All of the sites affected are located to the south west of Northampton.

SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

Table 7.9 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.32 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Northampton in relation to the labour market and the economy.  All of the sites are likely to have a minor positive effect on SA objective 8, as it is assumed that all of the sites would involve employment provision.  As all of the sites are assumed to provide a mix of housing and employment, all will have further positive effects in relation to minimising travel distances and enabling easier access to employment opportunities.

SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

Table 7.10 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

SA03

NJO-09

SA04 & NJO-12

SA63

SA03 & SA53

SA31

SA44 & SA52

SA60

SA61

SA12 & SA62

 

DDC070, 143 & 794

DDC062, 071, 111 &793

SNC012

SHLAA 579 & 788

NJO-03

NJO-04

NJO-05

NJO-07

NJO-13

NJO-14

NJO-15

NJO-16

NJO_20 & NJO _21a

NJO_22 & NJO _21b

NJO-23

NJO-24 & SA20

NJO-42

NJO-43

 

 

7.33 Twenty seven of the Northampton site options are in medium to high or high landscape sensitivity areas and therefore could have a significant negative effect on this objective – four are allocated in the JCS as submitted, six have been proposed by stakeholders and eighteen are reasonable alternatives to the allocated and proposed sites.  Most of the sites that are likely to have significant negative effects in relation to the landscape are to the north, east and west of Northampton although there are a few to the south. 

7.34 Twenty three sites are in areas of medium sensitivity and so a minor negative effect is likely.  In all cases, the potential negative effects are uncertain as the exact impacts on the landscape will depend on factors relating to the specific design and layout of new development.

7.35 Two sites (NBC 208 209, 804 & 805 and NJO-19) are in areas of low landscape sensitivity.  All three sites are located to the south west of Northampton along the M1 Corridor.

SA Objective 10: Material assets

Table 7.11 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 10: Material assets

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.36 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Northampton in relation to material assets.  All of the sites are assumed to provide a mix of housing, therefore all site options are expected to have positive effects on SA objective 10.  It is assumed that all new development would be built to high standards and would be in accordance with Policy H2: Affordable Housing of the JCS as submitted.  It is also assumed that all of the sites would incorporate sustainable transport links.

SA Objective 11: Population

Table 7.12 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 11: Population

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.37 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Northampton in relation to population.  It is assumed that an appropriate range of services and facilities to support the growing population including older people will be provided as part of the development of the sites, or that existing services and facilities would be expanded.  Therefore, minor positive effects are likely in relation to all of the sites for SA objective 11.

SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

Table 7.13 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.38 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Northampton in relation to social deprivation.  It is assumed that walking and cycle routes would be incorporated into all of the sites, to provide sustainable access to services and facilities. Therefore, the location of sites is not expected to have an effect on SA objective 12 and therefore all sites would have negligible effects.

SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

Table 7.14 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

SA63

NJO_10b

 

NJO-37

NJO-38

NJO-39

 

7.39 Five sites were deemed to have a significant negative effect against this objective.  One site is allocated in the JCS as submitted to the west of Northampton, one was proposed by a stakeholder to the north of Northampton and the other three, all of which are located to the east, were defined as reasonable alternatives.

7.40 The alternative site that was proposed by a stakeholder was deemed to have the potential for significant negative effects due to the fact that the site contains a pocket of Category D land, classified as such for the reasonable probability of land instability problems.  The other sites were deemed to have the potential for a significant negative effect due to over 50% of the land within the sites being designated as Grade 2 Agricultural Land.

7.41 All of the other SUE site options are likely to have a minor negative effect on this objective as although they are not on high quality agricultural land or areas with potential land instability issues, they are all on greenfield land which would be lost under new development.

SA Objective 14: Waste

Table 7.15 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 14: Waste

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.42 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Northampton in relation to waste.  All of the Northampton SUE site options are likely to have negligible effects on SA objective 14 as the sites are on greenfield land; therefore there are not likely to offer the same opportunities that may exist on a brownfield site to re-use existing building materials (which could have led to a potential minor positive effect).  Potential effects will be influenced by the design and use of the development and the incorporation of sustainable waste management measures, rather than by the location of the development.

SA Objective 15: Water

Table 7.16 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 15: Water

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

NJO-07

NJO-13

 

7.43 Two sites were appraised as having a significant negative effect in relation to water.  Both of the sites were introduced as reasonable alternatives to those allocated in the JCS as submitted and those proposed by stakeholders. 

7.44 Only nine sites were deemed to have the potential for a minor negative effect against this objective due to the presence of Flood Zones 2 and 3 within the borders of the sites, suggesting that the SUE options are generally located in low flood risk areas with most of the sites having a negligible effect on this SA objective.

Table 7.17 Summary of SA findings for potential SUE locations around Northampton

SA Objectives SA03 SA03 & SA53 SA04 & NJO_12 SA31 SA44 & SA52 SA60 SA61 SA12 & SA62 SA63 DDC 070,
143 & 794
DDC 062,
071, 111 &
793
NBC 175 SNC079 SHLAA 579
& 788
NJO_01 NJO_02 NJO_03 NJO_04 NJO_05 NJO_06
1.     Air Quality and Noise +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/
-
+/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-
-
+/- Unreasonable Alternative Unreasonable Alternative +/0 +/0 +/0 +/-
2.     Archaeology and cultural heritage --? --? --? -? --? --? --? -? -? --? --? --? -? --? -? -? --? --?
3.     Biodiversity, flora and fauna +/--
?
+/--
?
+/--
?
+/--
?
+/--? +/
--?
+/--
?
+/--? +/--
?
+/--
?
+/--? +/-
-?
--
?/+
+/--
?
+/-
-?
+/-
-?
+/-
-?
+/-
-?
4.     Crime and community safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.     Education and training + + ++? + ++? + ++? ++? ++? ++? + ++
?
++
?
++? + + + ++
?
6.     Energy and climatic factors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.     Health and wellbeing + + ++? + + + + + + ++? + ++
?
++
?/-?
+ + + + ++
?
8.     Labour market and economy + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
9.     Landscape and townscape --? --? --? --? --? --? --? --? -? --? --? -? -? --? --? --? --? -?
10.   Material assets + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
11.   Population + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
12.   Social deprivation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13.   Soil, geology and land use -/0 -/0 -/0 -/0 -/0 - -/0 -/0 --/0 -/0 - -/0 - -/0 -/0 - -/0 -/0
14.   Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.   Water 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -? 0
SA Objectives NJO_07 NJO_08 NJO_09 NJO_10a NJO_10b NJO_10c NJO_10d NJO_10e NJO_11 NJO_13 NJO_14 NJO_15 NJO_16 NJO_18 NJO_18 & SA45 NJO_17 NJO19 NJO_20 & NJO _21a NJO_22 & NJO _21b NJO_23 NJO_24 & SA20
1.   Air Quality and Noise +/- Unreasonable Alternative +/0 +/-? +/-
?
+/0 +/0 +/-
?
+/-? +/0 +/-- +/-- +/- +/-- +/-- +/-- +/-- +/-- +/-- +/
-
+/-
2. Archaeology and cultural heritage -? -? -? -? --? -? -? -? --? -? --? --? -? -? -? -? --? -? -? --?
3.     Biodiversity,
flora and fauna
+/--? +/--
?
+/-? +/-
?
+/-
?
+/-
?
+/--
?
+/--
?
+--? +/0? +/-? +/--
?
+/-- +/-- +/-- +/-? +/-? +/- +/
-
+/-?
4.     Crime and community safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.     Education and training ++? + ++? + + + + + ++? + ++? ++? + + + ++? + ++? + +
6.     Energy and climatic factors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.     Health and wellbeing + + + + + + + ++? + +/- +/- + +/- +/- +/- +/- ++?/- ++? + +
8.     Labour market and economy + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
9.     Landscape and townscape --? --? -? -? -? -? -? -? --? --? --? --? -/0 -/0 -/0 0 --? --? --
?
--?
10.   Material
assets
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
11.   Population + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
12.   Social deprivation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13.   Soil, geology
and land use
-/0 -/0 - -- - -/0 - -/0 -/0 -/0 -/0 -/0 - - - -/0 -/0 -/0 - -
14.   Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.   Water --? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --? -? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA Objectives NJO_25 NJO_26 NJO_27 NJO_28 NJO_29 NJO_30 NJO_31 NJO_32 NJO_33 NJO_34 NJO_37 NJO_38 NJO_39 NJO_40 NJO_41 NJO_42 NJO_43
1.   Air Quality and Noise Unreasonable Alternative Unreasonable Alternative Unreasonable Alternative Unreasonable Alternative Unreasonable Alternative +/0 Unreasonable Alternative +/0 +/0 +/0 +/0 +/0 +/0 +/0 +/0 +/0 +/-
2.     Archaeology and cultural heritage -? -? -? -? -? -? 0 -? -? -? -?
3.     Biodiversity, flora and fauna +/--? +/-? +/-? +/-? +/-? +/-? +/-? +/-? +/--? +/--? +/-?
4.     Crime and community safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.     Education and training ++? + ++? + + + + + + ++? ++?
6.     Energy and climatic factors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.     Health and wellbeing + + + + + + + + + + +
8.     Labour market and economy + + + + + + + + + + +
9.     Landscape and townscape -? -? -? -? -? -? -? -? -? --? --?
10.   Material assets + + + + + + + + + + +
11.   Population + + + + + + + + + + +
12.   Social deprivation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13.   Soil, geology and land use -/0 -/0 -/0 -/0 --/0 --/0 --/0 -/0 -/0 -/0 -/0
14.   Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.   Water -? 0 0 -? 0 -? 0 0 0 0 0

Daventry

7.45 This section summarises the appraisal findings of the sites around Daventry.  A map of all the sites considered is shown in Figure 7.6 in Appendix 15.  The tables summarising the likely significant effects for each SA objective include significant effects (both positive and negative) that have been identified as part of overall mixed effects (e.g. ++/--, ++/-. --/+).  Potential but uncertain significant effects (++? or --?) are also included.

SA Objective 1: Air quality and noise

Table 7.18 Summary of significant effects for SA objective 1: Air quality and noise

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.46 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to air quality and noise.  Approximately half of the site options could have a minor negative effect in relation to noise as they are directly adjacent to either ‘A’ roads such as the A361 or to industrial areas (this is particularly the case for the sites around the west of the town where there is a high concentration of industrial activity).  The other sites are likely to have negligible effects on noise. 

7.47 All of the site options are likely to have mixed effects on this objective overall as all will have a minor positive effect in relation to sustainable transport due to the assumption that sustainable transport links such as walking, cycle and bus routes would be incorporated into new SUE development. 

SA Objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

Table 7.19 Summary of significant effects for SA objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites  identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified (uncertainty shown by symbol (?)

SA08A

SA08C

SA08D

SA39

SA59A

SA59B

 

DDC068

DJO-02

DJO-03

DJO-04

DJO-05

DJO-06

 

7.48 Twelve of the site options around Daventry could have a significant negative effect on this SA objective as they are within or adjacent to areas classified as high sensitivity for cultural heritage in the Daventry Landscape Sensitivity and Green Infrastructure study, including most of the sites that are allocated as an SUE in the JCS as submitted, and some of the alternative proposed sites put forward by stakeholders.

7.49 However, six of the sites (SA57, DDC148, DJO_01, DJO_07, DJO_08 and DJO_10) could have a minor negative effect as they are within areas that are defined as being of medium or low sensitivity in terms of cultural heritage.  Two of the sites (SA08B and DJO_09) are likely to have a negligible effect as they are both within an area defined as having no known assets/issues.

7.50 The presence of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area across the north of the town affects the sensitivity of a number of sites in that area, as do the Borough Hill Scheduled Monument to the east of the town and Burnt Walls Earthworks Scheduled Monument to the south east.

SA Objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna         

Table 7.20 Summary of significant effects for SA objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

SA08a

SA08b

SA08c

SA08d

SA39

SA57

SA59a

SA59b

DDC068

DDC148

DJO-01

DJO-02

DJO-03

DJO-04

DJO-05

DJO-06

DJO-07

DJO-08

DJO-09

DJO-10

 

7.51 All of the Daventry site options have designated biodiversity sites within 250m of the boundaries of the development site options, so all could potentially have a significant negative effect on this objective.  Some of the site options have Local Wildlife Sites or Potential Local Wildlife Sites within the site boundaries.  However, in all cases there is uncertainty attached (resulting in mixed effects overall) because it is recognised that the potential for effects will depend on the exact nature and design of the SUE development, which is not currently known.

7.52 It is assumed that all of the SUEs would incorporate an element of green infrastructure provision, which may help to create new areas of BAP habitats and contribute to habitat connectivity; therefore all sites could also have a minor positive effect on this element of the objective resulting in mixed effects overall for all of the site options. 

SA Objective 4: Crime and community safety

Table 7.21 Summary of significant effects for SA objective 4: Crime and community safety

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.53 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to crime and community safety.  The effects of new development on safety, crime and fear of crime will depend on design proposals and factors such as the inclusion of open spaces that are overlooked by buildings to improve safety and security and sufficient lighting.  These issues are not influenced by the location of development and would instead be determined though detailed proposals for each site.  Therefore, the effects of all development site options on SA objective 4 are negligible. 

SA Objective 5: Education and training

Table 7.22 Summary of significant effects for SA objective 5: Education and training

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

SA08a

SA39

SA57

DJO-04

DJO-05

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.54 Five of the site options are within walking distance of at least one school or college so SUE development would have an overall significant positive effect on this objective.  One of those sites (SA08A) is the southern-most part of the SUE that was allocated in the JCS as submitted; however the other three sites that make up the allocation in the  JCS as submitted, which comprise the central and northern areas, are not within walking distance of an existing school or college so would have a minor rather than a significant positive effect.

7.55 While one other site (SA59A) is within 800m of two existing schools, there are known topography issues at that site which could mean that those existing education facilities may not be an easy walk for all ages and abilities.  Therefore, it is not considered that there will be a significant positive effect in terms of accessibility.

7.56 Fifteen of the site options are not within walking distance of an existing school or college, but it is assumed that all new SUE development would include provision for new school places to serve the growing population.  Therefore, most of the site options will have a minor positive effect on this objective. 

SA Objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

Table 7.23 Summary of significant effects for SA objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.57 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to energy and climatic factors.  While all new development is likely to involve an increase in energy consumption over current consumption in West Northamptonshire, new development may offer good opportunities for incorporating renewable energy generation and it is assumed that new development will be built to high standards of energy efficiency.  However, the effects of new development on efficient energy consumption would not be determined by the location of the development, instead it will be determined though the detailed proposals for each site. Therefore the effect of all of the SUE site options on this SA objective would be negligible.

SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

Table 7.24 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

SA08a

SA08b

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.58 Only two of the Daventry site options could have significant positive effects on SA objective 7 as they are within reasonable waking distance (800m) of three or more existing health-related assets including at least one of either a doctor’s surgery and a hospital and at least one of either, an area of open space, allotments or footpaths and cycles routes.  With respect to existing healthcare facilities it may be easier and more resource/cost efficient to expand those existing facilities to accommodate new residents as required, rather than providing new ones within the area.  However, there is currently a lack of information about capacity and the potential to expand those services and facilities if required; therefore in all cases the potential significant positive effect on this objective is uncertain.

7.59 All of the site options are likely to have at least a minor positive effect on this SA objective, as it is assumed that all of the SUEs site options would include the provision of new healthcare facilities to support the growing population, or the expansion of existing facilities.  It is also assumed that new green infrastructure including walking and cycle routes would be provided within all sites, which should have a positive effect in relation to encouraging more active lifestyles. 

SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

Table 7.25 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None


7.60 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to the labour market and the economy.  All of the sites are likely to have a minor positive effect on SA objective 8, as it is assumed that all of the sites would include employment provision.  As all of the sites are also assumed to provide a mix of housing and employment, all would have further positive effects in relation to minimising travel distances and enabling easier access to employment opportunities.

SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

Table 7.26 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

SA08b

SA08c

SA08d

SA57

SA59A

SA59B

DDC068

DDC148

DJO-01

DJO-02

DJO-03

DJO-04

DJO-05

DJO-07

DJO-08

DJO-09

DJO-10

 

7.61 Seventeen of the Daventry site options are in medium to high or high landscape sensitivity areas and therefore could have a significant negative effect on this objective.  However, three sites (SA08A, which is part of the SUE that was allocated in the  JCS as submitted, SA39 and DJO_06) are in areas of medium sensitivity and so a minor negative effect is likely.  In all cases, the potential negative effects are uncertain as the exact impacts on the landscape will depend on factors relating to the specific design and layout of new development.

SA Objective 10: Material assets

Table 7.27 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 10: Material assets

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.62 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to material assets.  All of the sites are assumed to provide a mix of housing, therefore all site options are expected to have minor positive effects on SA objective 10.  It is assumed that all new development would be built to high standards and would be in accordance with Policy H2: Affordable Housing in the JCS as submitted.  It is also assumed that all of the sites would incorporate sustainable transport links.

SA Objective 11: Population

Table 7.28 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 11: Population

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.63 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to population.  It is assumed that an appropriate range of services and facilities to support the growing population including older people will be provided as part of the development of the sites, or that existing services and facilities would be expanded.  Therefore, minor positive effects are likely in relation to all of the sites for SA objective 11.

SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

Table 7.29 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.64 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to social deprivation.  It is assumed that walking and cycle routes would be incorporated into all of the sites, to provide sustainable access to services and facilities. Therefore, the location of sites is not expected to have a negligible effect on SA objective 12.

SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

Table 7.30 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

SA08a

SA08b

SA08c

SA59A

SA59B

DJO-01

DJO-02

DJO-08

DJO-10

 

7.65 Three parts of the SUE that was allocated in the  JCS as submitted are on higher quality agricultural land (Grade 2) so are likely to have a significant negative effect on this objective on that basis.  Six other sites could also have a significant negative effect on this objective as there are potential ground instability issues in those locations.

7.66 All of the other SUE site options are likely to have a minor negative effect on this objective as although they are not on high quality agricultural land or areas with potential land instability issues, they are all on greenfield land which would be lost under new development.

SA Objective 14: Waste

Table 7.31 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 14: Waste

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.67 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to waste.  All of the Daventry SUE site options are likely to have negligible effects on SA objective 14 as the sites are on greenfield land; therefore there are not likely to offer the same opportunities that may exist on a brownfield site to re-use existing building materials (which could have led to a potential minor positive effect).  Potential effects will be influenced by the design and use of the development and the incorporation of sustainable waste management measures, rather than by the location of the development.

SA Objective 15: Water

Table 7.32 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 15: Water

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.68 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Daventry in relation to water.  The area around Daventry where these SUE options are located is generally a lower flood risk area; therefore almost all of the sites have a negligible effect on this SA objective.  Only one of the site options (DJO_04 to the north east of the town) includes an area of flood zone 2 and 3 in the centre of the site and so could have a minor negative effect in relation to flood risk.

Table 7.33 Summary of SA findings for Daventry

 

SA Objectives

SA08A

SA08B

SA08C

SA08D

SA39: Micklewell Park

SA57: Malabar Farm

SA59A: Daventry SE

SA59B: Daventry SE

DDC068: Brookfields Farm

DDC148: Brookfield Farm, London Road

DJO-01

DJO-02

DJO-03

DJO-04

DJO-05

DJO-06

DJO-07

DJO-08

DJO-09

DJO-010

DJO-011

1.       Air Quality and Noise

+/0

+/0

+/0

+/0

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/0

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/0

+/0

+/0

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-?

+/-?

Unreasonable Alternative

2.       Archaeology and cultural heritage

--?

0

--?

--?

--?

-?

--?

--?

--?

-?

-?

--?

--?

--?

--?

--?

-?

-?

0

-?

3.       Biodiversity, flora and fauna

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

4.       Crime and community safety

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.       Education and training

++?

+

+

+

++?

++?

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++?

++?

+

+

+

+

+

6.       Energy and climatic factors

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7.       Health and wellbeing

++?

++?

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+?

8.       Labour market and economy

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

9.       Landscape and townscape

-?

--?

--?

--?

-?

--?

--?

--?

--?

--?

--?

--?

--?

--?

--?

-?

--?

--?

--?

--?

10.    Material assets

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

11.    Population

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

12.    Social deprivation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13.    Soil, geology & land use

--?

--?

--?

-/0

-?

-?

--?

--?

-?

-?

--?

--?

-?

-/0

-?

-/0

-/0

--?

-?

--?

14.    Waste

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

15.    Water

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-?

0

0

0

0

0

0

Towcester

7.69 This section summarises the appraisal findings of the sites around Towcester.  A map of all the sites considered is shown in Figure 7.7 in Appendix 15.  The tables summarising the likely significant effects for each SA objective include significant effects (both positive and negative) that have been identified as part of overall mixed effects (e.g. ++/--, ++/-. --/+).  Potential but uncertain significant effects (++? or --?) are also included.

SA Objective 1: Air quality and noise

Table 7.34 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 1: Air quality and noise

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.70 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to air quality and noise.  Most of the sites, apart from TJO-09b and SHLAA SNC 591, are adjacent to A-roads and could therefore have a minor negative effect on this objective due to noise effects (as part of an overall mixed effect).  However, none of the sites are within close proximity to an AQMA.

SA Objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

Table 7.35 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.71 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage.  Four sites (TJO-01, TJO-02, TJO-09b and TJO-09c) located to the north and the south east of Towcester are likely to have minor negative effects on cultural heritage as they are in areas that are classed as being of medium and low sensitivity in terms of cultural heritage.  Additionally, sites in the south (e.g. TJO-09a and TJO-09b) and north (e.g. TJO-01 and TJO-04)) are within 250m of designated heritage assets, particularly listed buildings.  However, in all cases the potential negative effects are uncertain and will require more detailed investigation.

7.72 Eleven of the sites are likely to have negligible effects on cultural heritage as they are in areas that have been classed as lowest sensitivity in terms of cultural heritage.

SA Objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna

Table 7.36 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

TJ09a

TJ09b

SA58

TJ01

TJ02

TJ03

TJ04

TJ05

SNC591

SNC045

 

7.73 Ten of the sites are within 250m of a designated biodiversity site so could have a significant negative effect on SA objective 3.  However, sites to the south of Towcester (e.g. TJO-06, TJO-07, TJO-08 and TJO-09c) are more than 250m from any such designations and a potential minor negative effect is identified for those sites.  In all cases these potential negative effects are uncertain as the potential for effects will depend on the exact nature and design of the sites.

7.74 It is also recognised that opportunities may exist to enhance biodiversity through appropriate design and the incorporation of biodiversity enhancement measures; therefore a potential minor positive effect in relation to this is also identified for all sites, resulting in mixed effects overall in every case. 

SA Objective 4: Crime and community safety

Table 7.37 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 4: Crime and community safety

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.75 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to crime and community safety.  The effects of new development on safety, crime and fear of crime will depend on design proposals and factors such as the inclusion of open spaces that are overlooked by buildings to improve safety and security and sufficient lighting.  These issues are not influenced by the location of development but would be determined though detailed development proposals.  Therefore, the effects of all development site options on SA objective 4 would be negligible. 

SA Objective 5: Education and training

 Table 7.38 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 5: Education and training

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

TJ09a

TJ09b

TJ09c

None

TJ01

TJ03

TJ04

TJ05

TJ06

TJ07

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.76 Nine sites are within walking distance (800m) of existing education facilities and could therefore have a significant positive effect on SA objective 5 as it could be easier and more resource/cost efficient to expand these existing facilities to accommodate new residents as required, rather than building new schools within the area.  However, there is uncertainty attached to these significant positive effects due to a lack of information about existing capacity and the potential to expand those schools/colleges if required.  Another site (SNC045) is within walking distance of an existing school; however it is not likely to have a significant positive effect as the steep topography of the site presents the possibility of accessibility issues for some residents.

7.77 The sites which are furthest from the existing urban edge of Towcester (e.g. TJO-02, TJO-08, SHLAA SNC 591 and SA58) are generally more isolated from existing education facilities in the town and would therefore have a minor positive effect on this objective. 

SA Objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

Table 7.39 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.78 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to energy and climatic factors.  While all new development is likely to involve an increase in energy consumption over current consumption in West Northamptonshire, new development may offer good opportunities for incorporating renewable energy generation and it is assumed that new development will be built to high standards of energy efficiency.  The effects of new development on efficient energy consumption would not be determined by the location of the development, but though detailed proposals for each site. Therefore the effect of all of the site options on SA Objective 6 would be negligible.

SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

Table 7.40 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

TJ09a

TJ09b

TJ09c

None

TJ04

TJ05

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.79 Five sites located to the west and south of Towcester could have significant positive effects on SA objective 7 as they are within reasonable waking distance (800m) of three or more existing health-related assets including at least one of either a doctor’s surgery and a hospital and at least one of either, an area of open space, allotments or footpaths and cycles routes.  It may also be easier and more resource/cost efficient to expand those existing facilities to accommodate new residents as required, rather than providing new ones within the area.  However, this effect is uncertain due to a lack of information about capacity and the potential to expand those services and facilities if required.

7.80 Another site (SNC045) is within 800m of existing healthcare facilities; however the steep topography of the site presents the possibility of accessibility issues for some residents, such as children and the elderly.  Therefore, that site is not considered likely to have a significant positive effect on this objective.

7.81 All of the site options are likely to have at least a minor positive effect on this SA objective, as it is assumed that all of the sites would include the provision of new healthcare facilities to support the growing population, or the expansion of existing facilities.  It is also assumed that new green infrastructure including walking and cycle routes would be provided within the sites, which should have a positive effect in relation to encouraging more active lifestyles.  Furthermore, all of the sites would have potential positive effects on health and wellbeing as they are near to footpaths/bridleways and green amenity space. 

SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

Table 7.41 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.82 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to the labour market and the economy.  All of the sites are likely to have a minor positive effect on SA objective 8, as it is assumed that all of the sites would involve employment provision.  All of the sites are also assumed to provide a mix of housing and employment, therefore all would have further positive effects in relation to minimising travel distances and enabling easier access to employment opportunities.

SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

Table 7.42 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

TJ09a

TJ09b

TJ09c

None

TJ02

TJ08

SNC591

 

7.83 Ten of the sites are located within areas of high or medium-low landscape sensitivity and could therefore have significant or minor negative effects on SA objective 9.  However, all potential negative effects are uncertain as the exact impacts on the landscape will depend on factors relating to the specific design and layout of the new development.  Five of the sites (TJO-05, TJO-06, TJO-07, SHLAA SNC 576 and SHLAA SNC 045) located to the south west of Towcester are located within an area of low landscape sensitivity and are therefore likely to have negligible effects on landscape character and features.

SA Objective 10: Material assets

Table 7.43 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 10: Material assets

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.84 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to material assets.  All of the sites are assumed to provide a mix of housing, therefore all site options are expected to have positive effects on SA objective 10.  It is assumed that all new development would be built to high standards and would be in accordance with  Policy H2: Affordable Housing of the JCS as submitted.  It is also assumed that all of the sites would incorporate sustainable transport links. 

SA Objective 11: Population

Table 7.44 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 11: Population

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.85 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to population.  It is assumed that an appropriate range of services and facilities to support the growing population including older people would be provided as part of the development of the sites, or that existing services and facilities would be expanded.  Therefore, minor positive effects are likely in relation to all of the sites for SA objective 11.

SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

Table 7.45 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.86 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to social deprivation.  It is assumed that walking and cycle routes would be incorporated into all of the sites, to provide sustainable access to services and facilities.  Therefore, the location of sites is not expected to have an effect on SA objective 12 and therefore all sites would have negligible effects.

SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

Table 7.46 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.87 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to soil, geology and land use.  All sites would have a mixed effect (minor negative and negligible) on SA objective 13, as all the sites are mostly greenfield land, and are on Grade 3 agricultural land, thereby accounting for minor negative effects on soil preservation.  Furthermore, all sites are predominantly classed as Category B for ground instability and therefore likely to have a negligible effect on ground instability.

SA Objective 14: Waste

Table 7.47 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 14: Waste

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.88 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to waste.  All sites are likely to have negligible effects on SA objective 14 as the sites are entirely on greenfield land; therefore there are not likely to be the same opportunities that may exist on a partially brownfield site to re-use existing building materials.  Potential effects would be influenced by the design and use of the development and the incorporation of sustainable waste management measures, rather than by the location of the development.

SA Objective 15: Water

Table 7.48 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 15: Water

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.89 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Towcester in relation to water.  The sites surrounding Towcester are generally within low flood risk areas, outside of flood zones 2 and 3, and would therefore have negligible effects on flood risk.  However, five of the 14 sites (TJO-03, TJO-04, TJO-07, TJO-9a and SHLAA SNC 576), all located to the west of Towcester, contain flood zones 2 and 3 within them.  The site area covered by these flood zones ranges from small areas up to 40% of the sites in some cases.  Therefore there could be minor negative effects on SA objective 15. 

Table 7.49 Summary of SA findings for Towcester

 

SA Objectives

TJ_01

TJ_02

TJ_03

TJ_04

TJ_05

TJ_06

TJ_07

TJ_08

TJ_09a

TJ_09b

TJ_09c

TJ_10

TJ_11

TJ_12

TJ_13

SNC576

SNC591

SA58

SNC045

1.       Air Quality and Noise

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/0

+/-

Unreasonable Alternative

Unreasonable Alternative

Unreasonable Alternative

Unreasonable Alternative

+/-

+/0

+/-

+/-

2.       Archaeology and cultural heritage

-?

-?

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-?

-?

0

0

0

0

3.       Biodiversity, flora and fauna

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/-?

+/-?

+/-?

+/--?

+/--?

+/-?

+/-?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

4.       Crime and community safety

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.       Education and training

++?

+

++?

++?

++?

++?

++?

+

++?

++?

++?

+

+

+

+

6.       Energy and climatic factors

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7.       Health and wellbeing

+?

+?

+?

++?

++?

+?

+?

+?

++?

++?

++?

+?

+?

+?

+

8.       Labour market and economy

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

9.       Landscape and townscape

-?

--?

-?

-?

0

0

0

--?

--?

--?

--?

0

--?

-?

0

10.    Material assets

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

11.    Population

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

12.    Social deprivation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13.    Soil, geology and land use

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

14.    Waste

 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

15.    Water

 

0

0

-?

-?

0

0

-?

0

-?

0

0

-?

0

0

0

Brackley

7.90 This section summarises the appraisal findings of the sites around Brackley.  A map of all the sites considered is shown in Figure 7.8 in Appendix 15.  The tables summarising the likely significant effects for each SA objective include significant effects (both positive and negative) that have been identified as part of overall mixed effects (e.g. ++/--, ++/-. --/+).  Potential but uncertain significant effects (++? or --?) are also included.

SA Objective 1: Air quality and noise

Table 7.50 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 1: Air quality and noise

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.91 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to air quality and noise.  Most of the sites are adjacent to A-roads, and a couple (e.g. BJO-04 and BJO-05) are adjacent to industrial estates and so could therefore have a minor negative effect on this objective due to noise affects.  None of the sites are within close proximity to an AQMA.

SA Objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

Table 7.51 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 2: Archaeology and cultural heritage

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None


7.92 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage.  The sites are split in terms of their effects on cultural heritage, as six of eleven sites, most of which are located to the north of Brackley, are likely to have negligible effects on cultural heritage as they are in areas that have been classed as lowest sensitivity in terms of cultural heritage.  The remaining five are likely to have minor negative effects on cultural heritage as they are in areas that are defined as being of medium and low sensitivity in terms of cultural heritage.  However, in all cases the potential negative effects are uncertain and would require more detailed investigation.

7.93 Additionally, most of the sites towards the south of Brackley (e.g. BJO-02, BJO-06 and BJO-07) are within 250m of designated heritage assets, including listed buildings, Brackley and Evenley Conservation Areas, and Brackley Motte and Bailey Castle Scheduled Monument.

SA Objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna

Table 7.52 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 3: Biodiversity, flora and fauna

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

BJO-04

BJO-05

SA41

SNC052

BJO-01

BJO-02

BJO-06

BJO-07


7.94 Eight of the sites are within 250m of a designated biodiversity site so could have a significant negative effect on SA objective 3.  However, three of the sites (SA10, SA24 and SNC634) are more than 250m from any such designations resulting in a potential minor negative for those three sites.  In all cases these potential negative effects are uncertain as the potential for effects will depend on the exact nature and design of development.

7.95 It is also recognised that opportunities may exist to enhance biodiversity through appropriate design and the incorporation of biodiversity enhancement measures; therefore a potential minor positive effect in relation to this is also identified for all sites, resulting in mixed effects overall in every case. 

SA Objective 4: Crime and community safety

Table 7.53 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 4: Crime and community safety

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.96 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to crime and community safety.  The effects of new development on safety, crime and fear of crime will depend on design proposals for the SUEs and factors such as the inclusion of open spaces that are overlooked by buildings to improve safety and security and sufficient lighting.  However, these issues will not be influenced by the location of development and will instead be determined though the detailed proposals for each site.  Therefore, the effects of all development site options on SA objective 4 would be negligible. 

SA Objective 5: Education and training

Table 7.54 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 5: Education and training

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

BJO-05

SA10

 

BJO-01

BJO-02

BJO-06

BJO-07

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.97 Six of the eleven reasonable alternatives are within 800m of existing education facilities and could therefore have a significant positive effect on SA objective 5 as it could be easier and more resource/cost efficient to expand these existing facilities to accommodate new residents as required, rather than building new schools within the area.  However, there is uncertainty attached to these significant positive effects due to a lack of information about existing capacity and the potential to expand those schools/colleges if required.  

7.98 Two sites (SA41 and BJO-04) are within 800m of education facilities and therefore, as stated above, it could be easier and more resource/cost efficient to expand the existing facilities to accommodate new residents as required, rather than building new schools within the area.  However, while the sites are within walking distance (800m) of existing education facilities, due to the steep topography of the sites it may not be an easy walking distance for all ages and abilities, therefore the sites would only have a minor positive effect on this SA objective in terms of accessibility rather than a significant positive effect.

7.99 The northern sites (e.g. SA41, SA24, SNC634 and SNC052) are generally more isolated from existing education facilities in the town and would therefore have a minor positive effect on this objective. 

SA Objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

Table 7.55 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 6: Energy and climatic factors

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None


7.100 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to energy and climatic factors.  While all new development is likely to involve an increase in energy consumption over current consumption in West Northamptonshire, new development may offer good opportunities for incorporating renewable energy generation and it is assumed that new development will be built to high standards of energy efficiency.  However, the effects of new development on efficient energy consumption would not be determined by the location of the development, but though detailed proposals for each site. Therefore the effect of all of the site options on SA objective 6 would be negligible.

SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

Table 7.56 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 7: Health and wellbeing

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

BJO-05

SA10

 

SNC052

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.101 Three sites could have significant positive effects on SA objective 7 as they are within reasonable waking distance (800m) of three or more existing health-related assets including as least one of either a doctor’s surgery and a hospital and at least one of either, an area of open space, allotments or footpaths and cycles routes.  It may also be easier and more resource/cost efficient to expand those existing facilities to accommodate new residents as required, rather than providing new ones within the site.  However, this effect is uncertain due to a lack of information about capacity and the potential to expand those services and facilities.

7.102 All of the site options are likely to have at least a minor positive effect on this SA objective, as it is assumed that all of the sites would include the provision of new healthcare facilities to support the growing population, or the expansion of existing facilities.  It is also assumed that new green infrastructure including walking and cycle routes would be provided within the sites, which should have a positive effect in relation to encouraging more active lifestyles.  Furthermore, all of the sites will have potential positive effects on health and wellbeing as they are near to footpaths/bridleways and green amenity space. 

SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

Table 7.57 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 8: Labour market and economy

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.103 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to the labour market and the economy.  All of the sites are likely to have a minor positive effect on SA objective 8, as it is assumed that all of the sites would include employment provision.  All of the sites are also assumed to provide a mix of housing and employment, therefore all would have further positive effects in relation to minimising travel distances and enabling easier access to employment opportunities.

SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

Table 7.58 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 9: Landscape and townscape

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

BJO-04

BJO-05

SA10

 

SNC052

 

1.1         Three of the sites surrounding the north of Brackley are located within areas of high or high-medium landscape sensitivity and could therefore have a significant negative effect on SA objective 9.  Site SNC052 to the north west is also within an area of high to medium landscape sensitivity.  The remaining seven sites surrounding Brackley are classed as being in areas of low or low-medium landscape sensitivity and could therefore have a minor negative or negligible effect on this objective.  However, all potential negative effects are uncertain as the exact impacts on the landscape will depend on factors relating to the specific design and layout of new development.

SA Objective 10: Material assets

Table 7.59 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 10: Material assets

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.105 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to material assets.  All of the sites are assumed to provide a mix of housing, therefore all site options are expected to have positive effects on SA objective 10.  It is assumed that all new development would be built to high standards and would be in accordance Policy H2: Affordable Housing of the JCS as submitted.  It is also assumed that all of the sites would incorporate sustainable transport links.

SA Objective 11: Population

Table 7.60 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 11: Population

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.106 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to population.  It is assumed that an appropriate range of services and facilities to support the growing population including older people would be provided as part of the development of the sites, or that existing services and facilities would be expanded.  Therefore, minor positive effects are likely in relation to all of the sites for SA objective 11.

SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

Table 7.61 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 12: Social deprivation

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.107 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to social deprivation.  It is assumed that walking and cycle routes would be incorporated into all of the sites, to provide sustainable access to services and facilities. Therefore, the location of sites is not expected to have an effect on SA objective 12 and therefore all sites would have negligible effects.

SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

Table 7.62 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 13: Soil, geology and land use

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.108 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to soil, geology and land use.  All sites would have a mixed effect (minor negative and negligible) on SA objective 13, as all the sites are mostly or entirely greenfield land, and are on Grade 3 agricultural land.  Furthermore, all sites are predominantly classed as Category B for ground instability and therefore likely to have a negligible effect on ground instability.

SA Objective 14: Waste

Table 7.63 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 14: Waste

 

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.109 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to waste.  All sites, apart from BJO-05, are likely to have negligible effects on SA objective 14 as the sites are entirely on greenfield land; therefore there are not likely to offer the same opportunities that may exist on a partially brownfield site to re-use existing building materials.  Potential effects would be influenced by the design and use of the development and the incorporation of sustainable waste management measures, rather than by the location of the development.

7.110 Site BJO-05 is predominantly greenfield land but does include an area of previously developed land, therefore there may be opportunities to re-use existing building materials during construction which could have a minor positive effect on this objective.  However, there is uncertainty attached as specific opportunities will not be known until detailed development proposals are put forward.

SA Objective 15: Water

Table 7.64 Summary of significant effects for SA Objective 15: Water

Allocated SUE sites

Alternative SUE sites proposed by stakeholders

Alternative SUE sites identified by JPU

Significant positive effects identified

None

None

None

Significant negative effects identified

None

None

None

 

7.111 No significant effects were identified for the site options around Brackley in relation to water.  The sites surrounding Brackley are generally within low flood risk areas, outside of flood zones 2 and 3, and would therefore have negligible effects on flood risk.  However, approximately 20% of the north of site BJO-07 is within flood zones 2 and 3; while this area could be avoided by development there could be a minor negative effect on SA objective 15.

Table 7.65 Summary of SA findings for potential SUE locations around Brackley

SA Objectives

SA10

SA24

SA41

SNC052

SNC634

BJO-01

BJO-02

BJO-03

BJO-04

BJO-05

BJO-06

BJO-07

1.      Air Quality and Noise

 

+/-

+/0

+/-

+/-

+/0

+/-

+/-

Unreasonable Alternative

+/-

+/0

+/-

+/-

2.       Archaeology and cultural heritage

 

0

0

0

-?

0

0

0

-?

-?

-?

-?

3.       Biodiversity, flora and fauna

 

+/-?

+/-?

+/--?

+/--?

+/-?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

+/--?

4.       Crime and community safety

 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.       Education and training

 

++?

+

+?

+

+

++?

++?

+?

++?

++?

++?

6.       Energy and climatic factors

 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7.       Health and wellbeing

 

++?

+?

+?

++?

+?

+?

+?

+?

++?

+?

+?

8.       Labour market and economy

 

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

9.       Landscape and townscape

 

--?

-?

-?

--?

0

-?

-?

--?

--?

-?

-?

10.    Material assets

 

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

11.    Population

 

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

12.    Social deprivation

 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13.    Soil, geology and land use

 

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

-/0

14.    Waste

 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+?

0

0

15.    Water

 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

Reasons for selecting the preferred alternatives

7.112 Alongside the SA of the reasonable alternative SUE locations around each of the four main towns, the JPU undertook a wider planning assessment of whether each SUE location should be included in the JCS or not.  This involved considering whether the SUE location complies with the JCS Vision, Objectives and overarching policy S1, taking the SA findings into account, as well as other deliverability issues such as whether the site is available and any infrastructure requirements.  The JPU Planning Assessment is set out in a separate document: “Site Selection Report” (December 2013). 

7.113 Drawing on these conclusions and the work undertaken to determine the objectively assessed housing and employment requirements over the new plan period, the JPU has identified its Preferred Choice for which SUEs to allocate, including the amount of housing to be delivered at each one, as shown in Table 7.66 at the end of this section. 

7.114 A summary of the reasons for selecting the preferred alternatives at each town is provided below.  There are a wide range of reasons why the other options have been discounted, and the JPU’s full conclusions regarding whether to select or reject each SUE site alternative from further consideration can be found in Appendix 10.

Northampton

7.115 For Northampton, additional housing has been proposed at three of the SUEs that are currently allocated in the JCS as submitted (Northampton North, West and South of Brackmills), within the Northampton urban area, and a new SUE has been allocated at Northampton Upton Lodge/ Norwood Farm.  The other SUEs in the JCS as submitted remain unchanged.  The reasons are summarised below:

  • Northampton North (SA63) – the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education and health and existing assessments (which form part of the JCS evidence base) indicate that environmental constraints identified in the SA are capable of mitigation and outweighed by other social and economic benefits.  The SHLAA indicates that the site is suitable, available and achievable and in combination with improvements to the A43, the network to the north-east of the town is capable of sustaining further growth.  Infrastructure requirements have been identified for the site and there are no known restrictions to development.  The site is located on land which is relatively flat which ensures that, whilst located immediately east of the village of Moulton, development at this location would have a limited visual impact.  There are excellent opportunities for successful cohesion with the existing urban area and there are no known constraints to development which cannot be mitigated.
  • Northampton West (NJO 10 & NJO 11) – NJO 11 would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver employment growth as part of a mixed use scheme and could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education and health.  The assessment indicates that environmental constraints identified in the SA are capable of mitigation and outweighed by other social and economic benefits and the SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable.  The development would not have an impact on views from Harpole to the south or Harlestone to the north and connections into the existing residential area would be possible.  Infrastructure requirements have been identified for the site and there are no known restrictions to development.  The site has willing landowners and is being promoted. There are no known barriers to this site coming forward within the plan period.  The additional housing would be provided by site NJO 10 parts A-E which are taken forward for a range of different reasons.  Part A is not considered to be deliverable as a sustainable extension to Northampton within the plan period and the development of the site could lead to the coalescence of Northampton and the village of Harpole.  However, allocation of the site together with adjoining land provides an opportunity to deliver green infrastructure between the site of Norwood Farm/ Upton Lodge (SHLAA NBC 175) and the village of Harpole.  Part B is included because part of the site could be delivered alongside adjoining sites.  However, the development of the entire site could compromise the physical separation between Northampton and the village of Harpole and development would only be acceptable on the northern part of the site.  Part C is included because although the development of the entire site could compromise the physical separation between Northampton and the village of Harpole, meaning that development would only be acceptable on the north-eastern part of the site, development of part of the site could provide successful connections to the urban area via adjoining sites.  Part D is included because part of the site could be delivered alongside adjoining sites, although the development of the site is dependent on the delivery of other sites in order to provide connectivity to the urban area and development would be favoured towards the south only.  Part E is included because while the developable area of the site is likely to be limited due to the presence of road infrastructure / active quarry, woodland, existing commercial uses and a small area of flood risk, part of the site could be delivered alongside adjoining sites.  The site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.
  • Northampton South (NJO 18) - the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver some employment growth through the provision of a local centre and could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education.  The SA has identified potential significant negative effects in respect of air quality and noise and biodiversity, flora and fauna but it is considered that these effects can be mitigated through technical assessment and sensitive design.  The SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable and the necessary infrastructure can be provided to enable the development of the site within the plan period.  The Stage Two Assessment has not identified any absolute or significant delivery constraints.
  • Northampton South of Brackmills (SA03 and SA53) – SA03 would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver employment growth as part of a mixed use scheme and could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education and health.  The assessment shows potential significant negative effects can be mitigated through appropriate technical assessment and sensitive design and the SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable.  The necessary infrastructure can be provided to enable the development of the site within the plan period.  The Stage Two Assessment has not identified any absolute or significant delivery constraints. The additional housing would be provided at site SA53 which is included because, if developed in combination with site SA03, the site could deliver the benefits described above and although the SA has identified potential significant negative effects in respect of archaeology and cultural heritage, biodiversity, flora and fauna and landscape and townscape, it is considered that these effects can be mitigated through appropriate technical assessment and sensitive design.  The SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable and the necessary infrastructure can be provided to enable the development of the site within the plan period.  The Stage Two Assessment has not identified any absolute or significant delivery constraints.
  • Northampton Kings Heath (NJO 09) – the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver employment growth as part of a mixed use scheme and could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education and health.  The assessment indicates that environmental constraints identified in the SA are capable of mitigation and outweighed by other social and economic benefits and the SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable.  No infrastructure issues or restrictions have been identified and it is not considered that the site will have a negative visual impact.  The location provides excellent opportunities to connect into the existing residential area.  The site is not located near to any villages and there are no constraints to delivery which cannot be mitigated. 
  • Northampton North of Whitehills (NJO 06) – the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver employment growth as part of a mixed use scheme and could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education facilities and a local centre.  The assessment indicates that identified environmental constraints are capable of mitigation and outweighed by other social and economic benefits and the SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable.  No infrastructure issues or restrictions have been identified which could not be mitigated.  Outline planning application has been submitted for the whole site and approved, subject to Section 106 agreement, and also an outline for Phase 1.
  • Northampton Upton Park (SA04 and NJO 12) – the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver employment growth as part of a mixed use scheme and could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education and health.  The assessments have identified that potentially significant negative effects can be mitigated through appropriate technical assessment and sensitive design and the SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable.  The necessary infrastructure can be provided to enable the development of the site within the plan period and the Stage Two Assessment has not identified any absolute or significant delivery constraints.
  • Northampton Upton Lodge/Norwood Farm (SHLAA NBC 175) – the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Northampton helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  Further development could be accommodated within the existing site to help meet the objectively assessed housing need for the Northampton Related Development Area.  Additional development capacity would be facilitated through the provision of a Country Park to the west of Sandy Lane which would still retain the physical separation between the urban area and the village of Harpole.  The site could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education and health and although the SA has identified significant potential negative effects in respect of biodiversity, flora and fauna, and archaeology and cultural heritage, it is considered that these impacts can be mitigated through technical assessment and sensitive design.  Infrastructure, including highway capacity improvements, can be provided to enable delivery of the site within the plan period and the location provides excellent opportunities to connect into the existing residential area.  The Stage Two Assessment has not identified any absolute or significant delivery constraints.

7.116 A number of the alternatives to the preferred SUEs were put forward by stakeholders with specific proposals for the sites.  These were discounted for the reasons summarised below (more detail is provided in the JPU’s Site Selection Report (December 2013)):

  • Northampton North Extension (beyond extended area proposed in Preferred Choice) – discounted because of its landscape impacts, and the fact that the site would be undeliverable in the Plan period.
  • Moulton Heights – discounted because it does not accord with the spatial strategy and would have an unacceptable impact on Moulton village.  There is also a lack of certainty regarding the delivery of development in the plan period and the provision of infrastructure.
  • Infilling between Northampton and Moulton village/Boughton village – discounted because it would contribute to coalescence with villages to the north of Northampton, and would have unacceptable landscape impacts in areas of high landscape sensitivity.  Further unacceptable impacts in relation to traffic would also occur and there are constraints relating to biodiversity and cultural heritage.  The areas of land which may be suitable for development would be too small to create sustainable urban extensions.
  • Northampton West Extension (beyond extended area proposed in Preferred Choice) – discounted because it would contribute to coalescence with and visual impacts on the village of Harpole and would have unacceptable landscape impacts.  There is a lack of certainty regarding the delivery of development in the plan period.
  • East of Wootton – discounted because of the unacceptable impact of traffic on the highway network which cannot be mitigated in the plan period.
  • South of the Motorway – discounted because of physical separation from the principal urban area of Northampton and the fact that the physical barrier of the M1 would reduce the ability to link new and existing communities.  There would be unacceptable traffic impacts on the motorway and its junctions, and the site would be separate from the urban area and proximity to the M1 would not encourage sustainable travel.

Daventry, Towcester and Brackley

7.117 Increases in the provision of housing in Daventry or Towcester or Brackley were discounted by the JPU because this option would not accord with the spatial strategy to concentrate development in and adjoin the principal urban area of Northampton, and would conflict with the principle of meeting Northampton’s housing needs in sustainable locations in and adjoining the town.

Daventry

7.118 The preferred SUE at Daventry remains as Daventry North East, as in the submitted JCS.  The reasons for this are summarised below:

  • Daventry North East (SA08A, SA08B, SA08C and SA08DC) – by focusing development close to the existing urban area and in particular close to Daventry town centre, this site will invigorate the town centre, fostering regeneration and new development.  The site provides opportunities for effective public transport and sustainable networks of walking and cycling routes due to its proximity to the existing urban area and the town centre and development at this location provides an opportunity to improve connections to Long Buckby rail station.  Infrastructure improvements have been identified to deliver the site within the plan period and it provides a critical mass to support the infrastructure required as a result of growth across Daventry.  The combined site (SA08A to SA08D) at this location enables the effective masterplanning of the area north-east of Daventry town.  Identified environmental constraints are capable of mitigation and outweighed by other social and economic benefits and the SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable.

Towcester

7.119 The preferred SUE at Towcester remains as Towcester South, as in the submitted JCS.  The reasons for this are summarised below:

  • Towcester South (TJO-09A, TJO-09B and TJO-09C) – the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Towcester helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities, supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver employment growth as part of a mixed use scheme and could support existing communities through the provision of a range of facilities including education and health.  The delivery of the relief road will reduce congestion and improve air quality, particularly in Towcester town centre and the relief road will also support the regeneration of the town centre by enabling through traffic to be removed and present opportunities for the reallocation of space between pedestrians and other road users.  Identified environmental constraints are capable of mitigation and outweighed by other social and economic benefits.  The SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable and the majority of the site has the benefit of a resolution to grant planning permission.  The necessary infrastructure can be provided to enable the development of the site within the plan period and the Stage Two Assessment has not identified any absolute or significant delivery constraints.

Brackley

7.120 The preferred SUEs at Brackley remain as Brackley East and Brackley North, as in the submitted JCS.  The reasons for this are summarised below:

  • Brackley East (BJO-04) – the site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Brackley, helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could deliver employment growth as part of a mixed use scheme to help diversify the local economy and reduce out-commuting and the assessment indicates that environmental constraints identified in the SA may be able to be mitigated and are outweighed by other social and economic benefits.  The SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable.
  • Brackley North (BJO-05) - The site would focus growth on and joined to the urban area of Brackley, helping to foster a successful economy and expanding diverse and sustainable communities supported by good social and integrated transport facilities and infrastructure.  It could support existing and new communities through the provision of a range of community facilities and provides the potential to sustainable transport measures and on site facilities which would reduce the need to travel.  The development has the potential to support the regeneration of Brackley town centre and the assessment indicates that environmental constraints identified in the SA may be able to be mitigated and are outweighed by other social and economic benefits.  The SHLAA concludes that the site is suitable, available and achievable and the majority of the site has planning permission, with the remainder having the benefit of a resolution to grant planning permission.

Other alternatives discounted

7.121 In addition to the SUEs, the following alternative was discounted by the JPU as not being a reasonable alternative:

·         Increase provision in the villages – discounted because this option does not accord with the spatial strategy to concentrate development in and adjoin the principal urban area of Northampton, and would conflict with the principle of meeting Northampton’s housing needs in sustainable locations in and adjoining the town.

7.122 Further work undertaken by the JPU identified additional capacity for housing within the urban area of Northampton, which was subject to appraisal and reflected in the Preferred Choice.  Two alternatives were discounted:

  • Further increase urban capacity – discounted because the Preferred Choice already maximises urban capacity and further increase could not be justified or evidenced.
  • Reduce urban capacity – discounted because the additional development could not be accommodated in suitable, sustainable locations.

Summary

7.123 Table 7.66 below summarises the JPU’s Preferred Choice for the distribution of development among the SUEs for each town, as well as in the urban area of Northampton.  The second column notes where corresponding changes have been made in the Proposed Main Modifications to the JCS, to reflect the revisions to the relevant SUE policies in the 2012 Joint Core Strategy (note that changes have not been made in relation to four of the SUEs: Northampton South, Kings Heath, North of Whitehills and Upton Park). 

Table 7.66 JPU’s Preferred Choice for the distribution of housing development

Town

Development locations to be allocated

Daventry

 

Preferred Choice

Daventry North East SUE (SA08)

-     No change

(As Policy D3 in Submitted JCS)

Alternatives

No alternatives

Brackley

 

Preferred Choice

Brackley East SUE (BJO_04)

-     Changed

(See Proposed Main Modifications – Policy B2)

Brackley North SUE (BJO_05)

-     No change

(As Policy B3 in Submitted JCS)

Alternatives

No alternatives

Towcester

 

Preferred Choice

Towcester South SUE (TJO_09)

-     No change

(As Policy T3 in Submitted JCS)

Alternatives

No alternatives

Northampton

 

Preferred Choice

Northampton North SUE

-     Increased by 1,500 dwellings

(See Proposed Modifications – Policy N3)

Northampton West SUE

-     Increased by 1,050 dwellings

(See Proposed Modifications – Policy N4)

Northampton South SUE

-     No change

(As Policy N5 in Submitted JCS)

Northampton South of Brackmills SUE

-     Increased by 300 dwellings

(See Proposed Modifications – Policy N6)

Northampton Kings Heath SUE

-     No change

(As Policy N7 in Submitted JCS)

Northampton North of Whitehills SUE

-     No change

(As Policy N8 in Submitted JCS)

Northampton Upton Park SUE

-     No change

(As Policy N9 in Submitted JCS)

Northampton Upton Lodge/ Norwood Farm SUE

-     Previously a committed site now to be allocated in the JCS and increased in size from the existing commitment by 1,000 dwellings

(See Proposed Modifications – Policy N9A)

Northampton

-     Increased Urban Capacity 1,750 dwellings

(No policy changes)