WestNorthamptonshire Local Plan — Regulation 19
What’s in the new draft, what happens next, and what it means for our villages
What’s happening
West Northamptonshire Council has published the next draft of the Local Plan — Regulation 19, to use the jargon. It goes to the Planning Policy Committee on Monday 14 September 2026.
The Committee has twooptions open to it:
Option 1 — endorse the draft for consultation
- Recommend to Full Council that the Regulation 19 draft (Appendix D) be published under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, in line with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement;
- After the publication period closes, approve submission of the Plan to the Secretary of State for examination — with the Policies Map, supporting evidence and all representations received — under Regulation 22;
- Delegate authority to the Service Director for Planning to make minor editorial and presentational changes before publication.
Option 2 — reject the draft
Reject the Regulation 19 draft and start a new local plan from scratch, under the 2026 NPPF and the 2026 Local Planning Regulations.
I haven’t read the draft in full yet, but the early headlines look like a small step in the right direction.
Housing numbers
The Council’s overall housing requirement has fallen from 45,054 homes (Regulation 18) to 42,704 homes (Regulation 19) — a reduction of 2,350. This is a technical change, not a policy choice: the plan period has shortened by a year (2025–2043 to 2026–2043) as time has passed since the last consultation, and the annual rate has barely moved.
The result also means village allocations fall slightly:
| Village | Tier | Reg 18 → Reg 19 | Change |
| Deanshanger | Primary Service Village | 168 → 147 | −21 (−12.5%) |
| Old Stratford | Secondary Service Village | 106 → 93 | −13 (−12.3%) |
| Potterspury | Secondary Service Village | 73 → 64 | −9 (−12.3%) |
| Paulerspury | Secondary Service Village | 49 → 44 | −5 (−10.2%) |
| Yardley Gobion | Secondary Service Village | 55 → 49 | −6 (−10.9%) |
Wicken, Cosgrove, Alderton and Passenham: confirmed unchanged. Wicken and Cosgrove remain “Other Villages” (small-scale infill only); Alderton and Passenham remain Small Settlements/Hamlets (open countryside policy applies). None carry a housing figure in either draft.
The base date of 1 April 2025 remains, so anything granted since then reduces these figuresfurther — e.g. the 23 homes already approved at Potterspury shouldcome straight off the 64.
The backstop is also unchanged: if a parish hasn’t made demonstrable progress on a Neighbourhood Plan within two years of adoption of the new Local Plan, WNC will allocate sites itself.
Furtho Pit — proposed removal from the Plan
“6.17 Land at Former Furtho Pit (Policy EC8 of the Regulation 18 Plan) – the proposed allocation of 16ha of mixed employment generating development has not been carried forward into the Regulation 19 draft of the local plan. The site was originally allocated in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan at Policy AL5 and has been subject to some change since that original allocation. This includes revisions to flood mapping and the designation of an additional Local Wildlife Site across part of the allocation in February 2026. With these technical changes the site is now not considered to be deliverable.”
- This is a genuine step in the right direction. It reflects the case residents and I have made for a long time now that this site was being stretched well beyond what it can sustainably support and shows officer thinking has shifted through our collective efforts.
- It is not yet final. The site’s promoter is likely to lobby during the six-week consultation to have it reinstated, and could pursue it again at Examination in Public if the Plan proceeds without it. This fight isn’t over we will need continued engagement from residents.
- The existing AL5 allocation remains in place, and the applicant has until 2 January 2027 to lodge an appeal against the refusal of permission by WNC in June.
Next steps
- Wait to see the outcome of the meeting on 14 September.
- If the draft is approved, it goes to Full Council on 23 September and out for consultation. We can then build support for the Furtho Pit removal and make representations on housing targets and other issues.
- If the Committee rejects the draft and starts again, we keep lobbying for removal of the Furtho Pit site. Either way, the lack of a five-year land supply remains an ever-present risk of unwanted development — that danger exists regardless of which option is chosen, and is the biggest threat to current and proposed applications across WNC.
- In August, Government published an updated NPPF, which has made it considerably easier to bring forward development and has undercut many of the arguments previously used to refuse applications. The recent Oak Manor Homes application for 57 houses in Deanshanger has an officer report comparing the old and new NPPF, concluding there is little basis left to refuse it.
-
Overall conclusions and implications on planning case The general presumption described by the Planning Statement is unchanged. There is a deficit in housing provision at the village and a historic undersupply of affordable homes. In addition, there is now no 5-year supply of housing land across the district. The application site is demonstrably well-related to the village and Policy S5 applies, lending the new strengthened presumption. The demonstrable benefits of the proposal are now also enhanced including the undisputed “substantial” weight to be attributed to both the supply of new homes and indeed the open space and allotments. The planning balance concluded in the Planning Statement is therefore tilted significantly in favour of the proposal.