Return to Homepage


Northamptonshire Expansion:      


SHLAA  Feedback


After you have viewed the information and maps, you may enter feedback if you can provide specific evidence as to why each site is, or is not, suitable for housing development.

In an article in the Chronicle & Echo on 12 January 2010

. . . The new manager of the JPU, David Atkinson, insisted the documents should only be seen as a starting point, not a list of finished development plans.

He said: "We want people to know this is not the final plan for development and we're not trying to do anything through the back door.

"At the moment this is purely a research exercise."

He also encouraged people to look at the plans on the group's websites and give reasons for or against certain development sites.

He said: "Our aim is to be purely objective, to look at these sites and address the technical evidence that either supports or does not support development."

While the group has said it will not consider simple objections to development at this stage, it has asked residents to raise concerns about such things as sites which could have archaeological or environmental importance.

To read all of the above summarised article on the Chronicle & Echo website, use the following link. The article comprises two linked pages. The extract above is taken from the second page.

To view more Press articles, click on this link.

Providing Specific Evidence

If you wish to provide feedback on one or more sites, whether it is to say why a site is suitable, or unsuitable, you should provide specific evidence to support your comments.  The JPU documentation states that generalised comments will be ignored. On page 5 of the   Frequently Asked Questions  document, it states:

It is important to note that the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment is an evidenced based document and cannot consider subjective or anecdotal evidence. Its initial publication in a draft form is to gather information about the sites that have been identified to ensure that the evidence base is as robust as it can be.

Therefore, you should not add just general comments, but also provide supporting reasons, references or incidents that the JPU can research with the aim of including them in their final analysis.

It is quite difficult to identify what are considered to be valid reasons to include in the feedback.  If in doubt, contact the WNJPU offices for advice.  Eventually, you may feel that you need to enter feedback where you are unsure. The WNJPU will then at least be aware of the issue, and make a decision as to whether the feedback is appropriate or not.

The following tables list a number of topics that may be appropriate, providing that additional information is provided to support them as evidence. The first table lists topics where you consider the use of land for housing as being suitable, the second table for topics where you consider land unsuitable.

Note that you must supply the supporting reasons, references or incidents as evidence.

You also need to make the reason more specific.  Therefore enter statements such as:

'The proposed site is unsuitable because   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx  as documented in aaaaaaaaaa on dd/mm/yy'


'There are problems with this site because  xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx which occured on dd/mm/yy, dd/mm/yy and . . . .'


'The site is unsuitable as   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx  xxxxx   which is common local knowledge'

In addition, you may like to consider reasons and comments included in the SHLAA documention listed on the SHLAA Introductory Page (link to the WNJPU SHLAA site).

In particular, pages 14 to 21 of the Consultation Draft Methodology Paper - June 2008  provides a number of topics to consider or lead you onto other issues.

There are a number of reference documents on the main WNJPU website that could also provide evidence, and these could be supplemented by searching the whole internet for linked material.

The documentation in the Draft SHLAA site is vague as to what may be considered as valid reasons for feedback.  There are scattered indications, for instance in the methodology, but there is no specific list, so any significant issue may be important if it affects the land's suitability.  Perhaps this a reason for being vague.

The following lists are not provided by the JPU, and may or may not be valid. They are listed as a starting point for provoking ideas or questions to ask.  Their validity will depend on the reason, circumstances and type of evidence.


Land Suitable for Housing Development

Feedback why site is particularly  suitable  for development

 The land is a brown-field site that is no longer in use You provide
 Local people require housing . . .  
 The current housing on the land needs to be redeveloped  
 A high majority of local people agree with the land being developed  
 New employment in the area requires additional housing  
 Development on the land would improve the area  
 The housing design is of special interest  
 There is need for land for self-build housing  
 Development on this land will improve the community balance  
 Development is in keeping with local needs  
 Current business usage of the land is ending  
 Housing would bring specific employment to the area  
 The land is in a current development area  


Land Unsuitable for Housing Development

   Feedback why site is particularly  unsuitable  for development
 This is prime agricultural land . . within a generally greenfield area
You provide
 It is close to / in a conservation area  
 There is significant archaeology on the site  
 The site is of special interest . . .  
 There are no local roads suitable to support the development  
 There are no local roads suitable to support the development  
 The land is outside the village confines  
 The land is an important local landmark  
 The land is an important open space used by the local community  
 The land is the only wooded area in the surrounding area  
 The land has a number of mature trees of special or local interest   
 The hedgerows on the land are a special feature  
 The site contains a considerable amount of wildlife . . .  
 Development on the site would be visible over a wide area  
 The land is subject to flooding . .  
 Development on this site would lead to flooding elsewhere  
 The water supply is inadequate for the development  
 The sewerage system is inadequate for the development  
 Overall drainage is insufficient for such development  
 The land is unsuitable for housing development due to . . .  
 High majority of local people are against the development  
 The land is actively used for allotments  
 The land is required for allotments  
 The site is not near any employment  
 There is no viable form of transport . . .  
 The land is required for long term planning for . . .  
 The housing is not a mixed community development  
 The land is needed for recreation  
 The land is not near any necessary shops  
 Developer has not taken into account specific local needs  
 Development will not improve the area  
 Development will have a detrimental affect on the community  
 Development will have a detrimental affect on local businesses  
 The housing is inappropriate for the area  
 There is strong local objection to the development  
 There is strong administrative objection to the development  
 Development would cause considerable road congestion  
 There is or there is a risk of significant chemical pollution  
 There is or there is a risk of significant noise pollution  
 The development is inappropriate for the area because . . .  
 Such development will lead to destruction of character of the area  
 The site is crossed by significant footpaths and rights of way  


The WNJPU site states that the Draft SHLAA will only be available for you to view the information and maps, and for anyone to provide feedback until 11th Feb 2010.

Link to Additional SHLAA Feedback information

Link back to main SHLAA page on the village website


Date last updated:  20 Jan 2010                                                                                         Valid until:  31 Dec 2010