Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Ended on the 20th January 2014
If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.

(6) 6. Preferred Options and Village Boundaries


6.1 Having considered the advantages and disadvantages of each housing option, which went through the detailed appraisal process, a number of preferred housing options have been selected for the main growth villages of Baginton, Barford, Bishop’s Tachbrook, Burton Green, Cubbington, Hampton Magna, Hatton Park, Kingswood, Leek Wootton and Radford Semele.

6.2 In addition to these settlements, preferred housing options are also being considered for the smaller rural villages of Hatton Station, Hill Wootton and Shrewley Common. This limited focus on a selection of less ‘sustainable’ smaller villages follows discussions with the relevant Parish Councils which recognises that development in one village may support services in a village nearby. As indicated previously two additional potential housing options are also being considered for edge of urban locations which have been identified through the site collection and evaluation work.

6.3 This document does not go into detail about the exact design, layout and phasing of individual sites. However, there are some key principles which will need careful consideration, much of which was set out in the Revised Development Strategy:

  • There is a need for an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes, including affordable housing.

  • Housing proposals should ensure acceptable design, layout and scale has been established through a collaborative approach to design and development, involving Parish Councils, Neighbourhood Plan teams and local residents.

  • Proposals should be of a high quality and consider its relationship to local housing styles and position or setting within the wider landscape.

6.4 The preferred housing options, include a wide portfolio of sites. Some of these will appeal to national volume house builders, but there are also opportunities for regional and smaller scale developers. Some sites might also appeal to self-builders. With the selection of the various housing options there is also a focus upon helping regenerate some village environments.

6.5 This publication is not only concerned about gathering comments on the preferred village housing options but also early feedback about indicative village boundaries or envelopes. This work takes into consideration some of the village envelopes established in the currently adopted, but expiring Local Plan.

(9) Green Belt Villages and Insetting

6.6 The villages which are currently in the Green Belt are technically ‘washed over’ with Green Belt which substantially limits development or growth options. In order to accommodate limited growth through the preferred housing options, the proposal is to remove the identified villages from the Green Belt and establish village boundaries or inset plans. By insetting a village in the Green Belt, this provides a slightly less restrictive planning policy environment and will support opportunities to develop the identified preferred option sites.

6.7 However, careful attention needs to be paid to ensure that the village boundary is snapped to the right edges or points to avoid potentially facilitating over-development or excessive ‘infilling’ and an unequal approach to treating private boundaries and public areas. For some villages it might make sense to draw very ‘tight’ village boundaries to protect the broad character of an area or historic form, while in others a more ‘loose’ boundary might be appropriate to take advantage of potential small infill or modest development options to enhance the built form.

6.8 The inset boundaries are only suggestions at this stage and comments are welcomed with regard to the area covered in the plans and also any specific issues which may arise through insetting the individual villages.

(7) Village Boundaries and Non-Green Belt Villages

6.9 In the NPPF, there is no mention of the phrase ‘village envelopes’ anywhere in the document, although it is implied through the concept of insetting. However, it is still considered that the concept of envelopes or boundaries is an important one and may help channel development in non-Green Belt villages to the most appropriate areas, helping maximise the use of previously used land within the village and restrict development in more sensitive areas outside the agreed village boundary. For these reasons indicative village boundaries have also been identified for non-Green Belt villages.

Using the Consultation Feedback

6.10 Feedback from this consultation on village sites will be used to establish a finalised list of options for the villages to be potentially integrated into the Submission Draft Local Plan or a supporting Development Plan Document on the Villages, subject to timetabling.

6.11 It is anticipated that the consultation feedback on village boundaries will link into further detailed work on a set of possible boundary principles or drafting concepts, which will then establish a finalised list of village boundaries. In non-Green Beltvillageswhich are covered by neighbourhood planning,thistype ofworkcould be taken forward through the relevant neighbourhood planning working groups.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.
back to top back to top