Steering Group Meeting 19/3/2018

This meeting was held to focus on the forthcoming public consultation exercise. It was a wide ranging meeting and attempted to identify our approach and the actions needed.

Two further working groups were created at the meeting: One to look at creating the content of the earlier part of the communication process, and a second to look at creating a plan for the consultation campaign.

Click on Action Points below to see the full documentation of the meeting.

Action Points

Review and Mapping of Green Spaces 12/3/2018

The working group was tasked with looking at:

  1. Green areas of local importance due to their communal use and value such as the recreational area in Hackleton
  2. Areas which play a key role in preserving the separation between the villages, a concept supported by the draft Local Plan
  3. Open areas which combine historical value with village separation

The hand drawn overlay illustrates what the working group thought would meet those aims. This will now be used for discussion within the steering group and for discussion with the community.

To see the map at full screen size please double click on the map and it should open to fit your screen.


Meeting 5/3/2018

Hackleton Parish Council Neighbourhood Development Plan

Meeting: 5th March 2018
Present: Roy Hawkesford and Maz Woolley

Maz contacted me to arrange a meeting in which we could explore issues arising from the Steering Group meeting with Michael Wellock last week. We were in agreement that we needed greater clarity and focus. Subsequently, he sent me a (very helpful!) document to form the basis of our discussion. We agreed that we would circulate the fruits of our deliberation to the group and hope to come up with concrete ideas for the meeting on the 19th.

There were several items on the list, all of which we discussed, but the overriding concern was what will we present to the community and how will we do it. Unless we have at least considered all aspects of what the NP can (and can’t) achieve, we would feel inadequately prepared.

Maz’s list consisted of the following headings:

What is the end plan to look like?  (Will it reflect our local view? How do our tasks fit into it?)

Traffic  (How it will impact on planning applications, parking, etc.)

Wildlife corridor  (We need someone with appropriate knowledge to do this on a map)

Preservation  (How do the non-listed buildings fit in? Why are they relevant to us?)

Views and groupings  (What photographic evidence do we need – and who will do this?)

Village separation and green wedges  (On-going, important work, but we need to agree wedges and green spaces and put them on a map.)

Additional housing units  (What kind of housing? Within village confines? If so, where? Need for a survey?)

Agriculture and associated use development  (As we are a very rural parish, should we make more of this in the plan?)

Tightening Up  (We have a need to define what is to be delivered, who will do it, and by when. To be clear and recorded in notes from the meetings.)

Explaining what a plan can do to the public and getting Feedback (See below)

Communication with the community

We have to take a step back from where we, the steering group, are  in order to seek the views, opinions and needs of people in the parish before firming up our thoughts. We don’t want it to appear like a done deal; at the same time we don’t want to come across as having no ideas!

So, what do we need to do? Clearly this is the purpose of the meeting on the 19th,  but it will help if we have something to develop.

  1. We will communicate in three ways: through a leaflet, at public gatherings and through the website (social media).
  2. We have to agree the content of the leaflet such that it will get people to come to the meeting, provide information and invite responses.
  3. This will include What is a Neighbourhood Plan and why do we need one? It will contain a summary of the public responses to the questionnaire sent out in 2011 as part of the Local Plan. It will ask if those findings are still ok or if they need updating. We will mention areas that the NP will cover – housing needs, the environment, etc. (We can base this on the policy areas of the NP itself). It will state when and where the public will be able to attend the presentations and have their say.
  4. This will require professional lay-out and printing
  5. Distribution
  6. We also have to consider the public presentations – what we will present and how we will do it? We presume there will be maps showing the parish boundary, village confines, possible wedges and green/open spaces, a wildlife corridor. What we won’t put on a map are sites for new housing – the reason being that, at this stage, we do not know what the demand is. Photographs of views and styles of building, etc. A computer linked to a screen for slide presentation, etc.
  7. At the meetings we should capture responses in an orderly way and ask for help in areas where we do not currently have sufficient expertise, such as wildlife and conservation. (We have had the experience of having had a small-scale presentation at the Horton Cricket Club, which will help.)
  8. Tasks to achieve all of the above will be set, at the meeting on the 19th
  9. Dates and locations for the public meetings will have to be arranged before we can complete the leaflet.

Please get back to me ( if I’ve missed anything out.

I will try to put material together for the leaflet and circulate it before the meeting. This will not be the definitive job, but literally a collection of documents already produced – for instance, my initial presentation last Easter. I will also try to summarise what was produced for the Local Plan in 2011.

Finally, Maz and I are aware that we probably have more time to devote to this than most of you, but that should not in any way exclude you. On the contrary, if you feel you have the time to meet up with me and/or Maz before the 19th, just let me know.

Roy Hawkesford
5th March 2018

Staying in touch

6/3/2018 Web Master

You may wish to stay in touch or to comment on anything you read on this web site. Did you know that you can subscribe so that anything posted to this website arrives in your mailbox to do this simply find the subscribe area on the bottom left of the page and enter your email address and press the subscribe button. If you get bored of receiving the emails you can unsubscribe from a link on the emails themselves:

We also intend on configuring the site to send items to the Parish Council Facebook page so if you prefer to keep in touch with us that way just follow the Parish Council Facebook page at


NPSG Meeting 26/2/2018

Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Meeting (NPSG)

26th February 2018


Present: Chairman Cllr T Peterkin (Chair), M Wellock (Consultant), M Woolley, C Lloyd, F Billingham, G Youens, R Evans and A Palmberg (Clerk)

Apologies were received from R Hawkesford, T Charteress and V Thomas.

1. To receive the Minutes of the last meeting

The minutes from the NPSG meeting with M Wellock (22/01/2017) had already been circulated and tasks had been actioned.

2.  To receive the 3rd draft application

The 3rd draft of the Neighbourhood Plan had been circulated by M Wellock.

  • The document on Open Spaces which F Billingham produced needs incorporating

3. Housing Needs Survey

A sample housing needs survey from SNC has been circulated and it was generally felt that this was a little too detailed and excessive. M Wellock suggested that we did not do a needs survey but required any applicants to do one to justify any development outside confines and backed this up with policies on what types of development we may consider as rural exceptions. He mentioned that it may be a worthwhile exercise to incorporate a housing needs survey into the actual plan. This would allow development but would give the NPSG control over setting parameters. R Evans mentioned that this may make the parish more vulnerable however. He mentioned that it may be a worthwhile exercise to incorporate a housing needs survey into the actual plan. It is important to note that if the NP is to cater for specific housing needs and requirements, then a survey must be conducted.

  • It was agreed that the Clerk would request a sample housing needs survey from Kislingbury as one has recently been done
  • It was agreed that the Clerk would contact E Gingell at SNC and enquire as to the length of time it takes to conduct a survey and what the “bare essentials” of such a survey are
  • It was agreed that future meeting dates to discuss housing needs will be arranged

4. Consultation and engagement (and time line/grid)

It was generally felt that communication with the parish is now becoming essential and the NPSG will need to agree a date in April/May to present their progress with the NP to the public. M Woolley suggested contacting all parish organisations as well as perhaps speaking to the school children about their future vision of the parish.

  • It was agreed that the next meeting to discuss the timeline for a housing needs survey and public presentation would be held on Monday 19th March.
  • It was agreed that all avenues of communication would be exhausted including advertising in NN Pulse

5. Green Wedges and Open Spaces

Following a recent meeting with E Gingell (SNC), a document from her has been circulated setting out the definitions and differences between green wedges and open spaces. M Woolley felt that it is essential that land such as farmed land should be actively encouraged and protected by the NP as it is a livelihood and serves the community.

  • It was agreed that maps should be made available through the Ordnance Survey Maps Association and Green Wedges and Open Spaces should be clearly marked. F Billingham, M Woolley and C Lloyd will undertake this task
  • M Wellock agreed that he would request these maps and forward to the NPSG

6. To receive an update on the website (using base maps and confines maps)

M Woolley updated the NPSG and said that the website has yet to be publicised. He also requires a link through the PC website and a FB feed facility and urged the members to visit the site.

  • It was agreed that the Clerk would add the NP website link onto the Parish Council website.
  • It was agreed that M Woolley and the Clerk would liaise to facilitate a Facebook link for the NP website

7. Decision on which of the current “papers” are to be posted on the website

M Woolley advised the meeting that he requires a few additional documents.

  • The NPSG approved the posting of green spaces, views and grouping work
  • It was agreed that the Clerk would forward any relevant documents

8. Date(s) and time(s) of next meeting(s)

It was agreed that the next NPSG meeting will be held on Monday 19th March at 7pm in the Village Hall, Hackleton.





Neighbourhood Plan Progress Summary 27/2/2018

By Cllr Roy Hawkesford

Neighbourhood Plan Update
27th February 2018

As you would expect, there has been a lot of activity over the past month and, according to our consultant, we are almost ahead of schedule… How can that be? We have been working hard to provide information for the development of the Plan – which is good – but we are at the point where we should engage fully with everyone about what we are working towards and seeking their thoughts on this and what they would like to see included.

Going Public!

As a result of this, the steering group will meet again on March 19th to decide how we will engage with the community. We will utilise material we have put together for the Draft Plan to make a 4/5 page more user-friendly presentation that can be circulated to every household in the parish. We will have to use professional assistance with layout and printing. We will then distribute the leaflets by hand. The leaflet will state that there will be times that the community can visit Hackleton Village Hall and/or Horton House CC to meet with us, see plans of the parish and the villages, ask questions and provide feedback. We will make it clear that their opinions are important to us. (We do not want to convey the impression that everything has already been decided… which it hasn’t!) Finally, we hope to have these meetings in April.

Since our last PC meeting, the grant has been confirmed. As this tranche of money has to be used by the end of March, we will be seeking to pay consultant’s fees and other expenditure associated with the Plan. Because we have to be rigorous in showing the awarding body how we are spending the money, we would ask the PC that we carry out our work without having to wait until the next PC meeting for approval. After all, we have only one month now in which to use the grant! I am hopeful that invoices for work being undertaken will be in place to meet the requirement of the awarding body. This will engage all concerned over the next few weeks.

Housing Needs

The assessment of housing needs is proving to be contentious. SNC has a preferred questionnaire which could be sent to every household, which would provide feedback from which housing needs (what kind of housing, etc) could be assessed. There are arguments for and against doing this, given that SNC already has a 10 year land stock. I will try to explain this at the meeting, but it’s not as straightforward as it might appear.

Such a survey would have a shelf life of only three years and would have to be undertaken again. It might also provide a hostage to fortune for developers.

One thing we are agreed on, together with SNC, is that the preferred option for any additional building should take place within village confines. We might choose to identify areas for housing outside those confines, but only where there is a perceived need.

I have to say that this is the part of the Plan, which was always going to be most contentious and woolly. SNC prefer the idea of the LOAN (locally objectively assessed needs) saying that it is more robust because they can defend it against developers. The alternative view is, as I said earlier, that it is unnecessary as SNC has ample provision in the pipeline.

Green/Open spaces and Wedges

Identifying these is, again, not a simple task. They are described in SNC documents, but interpretation of them on the ground is fraught with difficulty. It’s easy, say, to identify Longlands Meadow as a green space; it’s not s easy to identify green wedges. Ellie says they should be defensible, so we should keep them focussed. I think it’s not too difficult to identify wedges between Horton and Hackleton, Hackleton and Piddington, and between the latter two and Preston Deanery. We might need to be more creative to identify one on the far side of Preston Deanery – to clearly separate Preston Deanery from Wootton Fields.

Also, there is the issue of Wootton (St George’s) Fields. Because this is part of the expansion for the Borough, our responsibility and influence in that area is unclear. It is, however within our Neighbourhood Area, and I will argue that we should continue to consider that part of our parish formally within our Plan.


Maz Woolley has spent a lot of time to produce and populate a discrete website for the NP, which will come into its own once we go public.


Ellie Gingell attended an informal meeting with Anna, Bob Atkinson and myself to talk through everything described above. She is very helpful and has considerable relevant experience. Also she is an employee of SNC, so she will have a set of views which represent their thinking. I have no problem with this; ultimately it’s up to us, under Michael’s guidance, how we present our draft Plan. On the other hand, there is little point in presenting something that we know will be rejected. Working together and seeking convergence seems to me the best policy.

The Steering Group met with Michael on February 26th; Anna will circulate minutes in due course.

Finally, I hope I have conveyed the following:

  • We have a committed, thoughtful and hard-working steering group.
  • There are many complex issues to deal with.
  • A lot has been achieved already.
  • We have excellent professional support.
  • We are committed to the task, to engaging the community, and to achieving the goal of making a successful Neighbourhood Plan.