Working Group Meeting – November 1st 2019

HACKLETON PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

WORKING PARTY MEETING RECORD

1ST NOVEMBER 2019

The main purpose of the meeting is to analyse the feedback on the Draft Plan received from the Parish and South Northants Council. We also reviewed the impact of SNC approving a village extension of 21 homes at the top of Lyme Walk.

The community feedback received was generally very encouraging with supportive statements being in the majority.

South Northants response was generally fairly encouraging but leaves some further work to be done in a number of areas to address their concerns.

Housing –

  1. SNC are concerned about the evidence of demand for affordable dwellings.
  2. There is a chance that following the Larkfleet Development’s approval  by SNC (31/10/2019) that any needs survey may prove that there is not enough demand for a development of Oak Way to SNC methodology.
  3. Even if demand was acceptable then Francis Jackson would look to do around 50% affordable only, as suggested by their response to plan.
  4. Larkfleet development is 11 Social housing units and 10 in other affordable categories providing more affordable dwellings than a 50% Market value property extension to Oak Way would.
  5. The meeting was unimpressed by the fact that SNC were demanding that we proved the need for Oak Way extension by their methodology when they gave Larkfleet planning permission with no valid HNA.
  6. The meeting unanimously decided that incurring further costs for a HNA acceptable to SNC which may not be returned by enough people to be significant, and which may merely prove that the demand is not there by SNC standards, was not an acceptable way to proceed.
  7. The meeting unanimously agreed that the allocation of land to the west of Oak Way in the draft Neighbourhood Plan was to be withdrawn and would not be included in the formal plan submission
  8. The meeting noted that Francis Jackson’s response indicated that they felt that they could go ahead with Oak Way using the same NPPF exception that Larkfleet used whether we allocated land or not.
  9. The meeting agreed that the publicising of the withdrawal of the allocation needs to be explained to the public and the fact that under the existing rules a 100% affordable exception development would probably be passed by SNC. So this lack of allocation  does not mean that there will be no development just that it would have to be all affordable to be treated as an exception.
  10. ACTION – RH to write to Parish Council explaining the reasons we have identified for the withdrawal of the land allocation in the next version of the Plan and seeking their support for this important change.

Other Changes needed following consultation –

  1. The plan needs reviewing by Michael and points raised by SNC in housing section addressed by re-writing it to remove allocation of site – ACTION MW to pass need onto Michael with amended plan.
  2. It is Horton House Cricket Club and not Horton Cricket Club this needs changing – ACTION MW to update plan where possible and alert Michael in case maps need changing
  3. Sansome Close corner Great Lane #7 is 1950s map mod needed ACTION MW to supply to Michael. Also need to sort out the top of Brafield Road in Horton some wrong periods allocated. ACTION Carol to provide update and MW to provide information to Michael for him to do the changes.
  4. CNDP2/8/7  is on a key on green spaces map and is not in the document is this HNPDP2? ACTION MW to add to list of updates for Michael
  5. ACTION MW to supply revised outlines of the main green space allocated in Piddington
  6. ACTION RH – mail to Michael Clark to pass on public comment on Secondary Schools as outside planning  matters
  7. ACTION CL – To draw attention of Parish Council to the community aspirations that are Parish Council matters
  8. ACTION MW – to inform Michael that there are two figure 3’s. The second SNC have complained about readability of legend – can this be prepared to be printed at A3 as a fold out? Or are there any other options??
  9. ACTION MW – to draw Michaels attention to SNC comments on 5.4,5.12, 5.14 and 5.18. As the whole section will need re-writing anyway due to removal of site allocation can any SNC comments remaining valid be addressed.
  10. ACTION MW – Ask Michael to address SNC confusion over green area allocation by making clearer in document
  11. ACTION RH – To contact SNC and request clarification about what they are referring to when referring to corridors as wedges.
  12. If it is our green corridors then SNC need to meet with us to be shown rationale behind the corridors and to understand that these are not ‘wedges’ where no development is permitted, except in so far as they contain areas of scientific interest or areas identified by the Wildlife Trust as of importance. They are areas of sensitivity where any development will need to ensure that a natural corridor is maintained even if that means some diversions or other schemes to ensure maintenance of a corridor. ACTION: RH to arrange SNC discussion if they are referring to our green corridors
  13. SNC Conservation Officer seems to take a not invented here approach… ACTION RH arrange for SNC to clarify exactly what is meant by response. A discussion of each of the non-designated assets and evidence required is needed or a category description SNC are happy to accept.
  14. SNC Conservation comments on ridge and furrow. ACTION MW To ask Michael to consider if we need to identify areas of ridge and furrow as non-designated heritage assets rather than green space?
  15. ACTION MW to ask Michael to address inconsistencies between HNDP9 and HNDP4
  16. ACTION MW to ask Michael to add  a list of listed buildings in the Parish in the appendices as the lack causes confusion to the public

COMMUNITY ASPIRATIONS

The community made several comments on the lack of recreational areas for small children and a lack of facilities for adults too. A key point in discussion is the recreation field’s usefulness being compromised by restricted access during school hours and when it is use for Football matches. When we started this process the MUGA was seen to be the major PC initiative in this area but since then it has become bogged down with legal issues and it will not be going ahead in the earlier part of the plan’s life. Indeed even if it went ahead it might still be affected by the School constraints

Recreation areas It is clear from discussions that the community has an aspiration for an area with play equipment for children accessible during the daytime even in school term. ACTION MW to ask Michael how best we incorporate this. We would also wish to have an ambition for some Adults recreation equipment again accessible even when school is in session.

Parish Spine Action MW Correct Wootton Typo. Make dual use clearer. Caroline Chisholm SCHOOL to be made clearer etc and bridal ways maybe considered added

Parish Hub Action MW   Ask MIchael how we add that as an aspiration

Verge Management Again a keen interest  in discussions and needs an aspiration for management for bio-diversity and low maintenance  

OTHER NOTES

Jo would like us to create a list of items which Michael could incorporate as examples of environmental betterment even if we are not able to make them a compulsory requirement. Action JW to write list to pass to Michael.