Attending Roy Hawkesford (RH) and Maz Woolley (MW)

The main purpose of the meeting was to review detailed comments received from Vanessa Thomas , one of our reviewers outside the Neighbourhood Plan Committee.

The comments were reviewed and reconciled to the latest version of the plan. RH to respond. There are a number of items:

• outside the scope of a Neighbourhood Plan
• which would require the Highways Authority to action them which would require the Parish Council working with NCC
• In other cases RH will explain how existing policies are as ‘strong’as would be permissible.
• In some cases RH will request that Michael, our consultant amends the plan
• Finally there are items which we will investigate further like additional views and missing bridleways.

Attendees: Roy Hawkesford (RH), Carol Lloyd (CL)  and Maz Woolley (MCW)

Key topics /Action points.

The key topic for this meeting was:

• To decide on the actions required to carry out the Regulation 14 Formal Consultation Phase

Consultation Actions

• The consultation period and dates suggested by our Consultant Michael Wellock were accepted: 6^th March 2020 to 24^th April 2020. This is longer than the statutory Six weeks to allow for the Easter holiday falling during this period.
• It was agreed that as this is a formal consultation that all comments should be passed by the following three routes:
  • Comment page on the website
  • Email to the Parish Clerk
  • Written letter to the parish clerk
• All comments will be reviewed
• It was agreed that the Formal consultation will be publicised via the following:
  • NN Pulse article (CL to arrange)
  • Parish Magazine Article (RH to arrange)
  • Parish Website (CL to liaise with Clerk)
  • HPNP Website (MCW  to manage)
  • Posters in the Parish Noticeboards (MW to create/print as soon as dates fro drop in sessions known, CL to discuss getting them posted with Clerk) plus Pubs/Stores/Preston Deanery Church/Chapel/Cricket Club/Village Hall etc. MCW to print 20.
• 12 copies of the Reg 14 version of the plan to be printed by Almac after its return by Michael. (MCW to sort)
• Hard Copy Plan to deposited at Wootton Fields and Towcester libraries
• Plan to be made available online at HPNP.org.uk (MCW to sort)
• RH to obtain a list of who to contact from:
  • Alison – list of businesses contacted previously
  • Michael –identifying bodies to consult
  • SNC to also suggest bodies to consult
• RH to ensure that letters make clear formal comments by email or letter to clerk, date to be sent by, and link to the plan on the website
• Three drop in sessions to be arranged to give an opportunity for people to read plan and discuss. Carol to get Alison to arrange bookings of Village Hall for the three sessions spread across 8 weeks. One daytime on week day 11-2, One Evening Wed evening at 7-9, and one weekend Saturday 11-2. All in the Annexe.
• A change list saying what has been done since informal discussion to be produced to be printed at A3 for drop in sessions. (MW to produce and Almac to print)

Meeting ended at 2.45

Attendees: Maureen Williams (MW) Roy Hawkesworth (RH) and Maz Woolley (MCW)

Key topics /Action points.

The key topics for this meeting were:

1. To review the non-designated heritage asset list and to obtain assistance from Maureen who has researched the area in considerable detail for her books.
2. To review the comments on views and bridle ways passed to us by Vanessa Thomas who is part of our consultation group.

Non-Designated Heritage Assets

The list produced for the plan was reviewed item by item.

• Maureen provided additional information to assist us for most of the items on the list
• Some items were removed from the list as we did not have the level of detail needed to justify their inclusion:
  • The Hah Ha wall behind Hackleton House.this is not visible to the community and no details of age or value to history are known
  • The wall and buildings in Preston Deanery – we have no age or construction details are known. Nor do they contribute to interpreting to the history of the area or have special connections
• One item is added: Preston Deanery Hall. This is not listed but is historically significant

Roy expressed the thanks of the Neighbourhod Plan team for Maureen helping us with this task and Maureen left the meeting

Maz to create the revised non-designated heritage assets table and pass to Michael. (Action)

Bridleways etc.

Following research done by Maz we identified the fact that the SNC maps are only illustrative as far as footpaths and brideways are concerned and that the only definitive map for such rights of way is maintained by Northamptonshire County Council. A copy is held by the Parish Clerk for the Parish and it was examined.

All three bridleways Vanessa identified as missing from the SNC maps are properly designated on NCC’s map. As that is the map used for planning matters any policies in our plan applying to bridleways will apply to them regardless of what the SNC maps have on them. Given our desire to get the plan into full consultation in the near future it was not felt that correcting faults in SNC maps was essential.

Maz to write to Vanessa toexplain the situation.

On views Maz (Action) has identified some inconsistencies in the plan and will review it and let Michael know. We think that many of the views mentioned by Vanessa may overlap in part the views already in there. 

Progress Check

It was noted that SNC have still not yet provided Michael with requested mapping despite payment being resolved. Roy to chase this up (Action)

Attendees: Roy Hawkesford (RH) and Maz Woolley (MW)

Key topics /Action points.

The key topic for this meeting was to review the comments on the latest version of the plan received from Vanessa Thomas who is part of our consultation group.

Each point made by Vanessa was considered and items categorised as:

• Outside the scope of a local plan
• Items that the Parish Council or Highways authorities would deal with and not a local plan
• Imposing a level of restriction that we have been advised would be objected to by SNC etc and rejected by Inspector
• Are outside the new funding structure created by the operation of the Community Levy
• Something that can be incorporated in the next version of the plan
• Something that needs further investigation

Action Points

• RH to respond with summary of our considerations
• RH to send changes we can readily incorporate to Michael for inclusion in next version of the plan.
• MW to look at suggested views and to see if they may be incorporated
• MW to look at missing bridleways and see if they can be incorporated into maps.
• RH to arrange a meeting with Maureen to look at non-designated heritage assets

---

Working Party Meeting Friday January17th 2020

Attendees: Roy Hawkesford Chair (RH), Cllr Carol LLoyd (CL), Cllr Jo Willmer (JW), Maz Woolley (MW)

Key topics /Action points.

• RH reported that
  • Michael now in touch with SNC to resolve mapping issue.
  • Michael has updated plan and this needs reading
  • Meeting now arranged with SNC to discuss their comments on plan
• MW offered to straighten photographs in plan if he got a list of what needs doing
• MW agreed to liaise with Almac to get four copies of the latest version of the plan printed
• JW to work on the wildlife corridor evidence to remove any issues and to add locations identified by locals at meeting
• RH agreed to hold a meeting on historic non-designated assets and invite Maureen and others in an attempt to get the evidence satisfactory for SNC speciailists
• MUGA references need removing from plan as no longer relevant
• Should the café/drop in concept go back in as a community ambition? To be discussed further
• RH, MW and CL if she can to attend meeting with SNC

Purpose of meeting: to discuss Conservation Officer comments on the Hackleton Parish Neighbourhood plan.  

Present       Dr Gary Campion SNC Conservation Officer (DC)

                   Roy Hawkesford Chair NP Committee (RH)    

                 Maz Woolley NP team (MW)    

1. Ridge and Furrow was discussed. GC stated that whilst this is important it cannot be defined as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) in its own right. It could be designated as part of an area if there were evidence of medieval village adjacent for example but not on its own. GC recommends that we talk to Jennie as to whether the areas in Horton can be designated as a green space rather than as a NDHA. Action: NP Team
2. GC suggested that we may wish to consult the NCC County Archaeologists on what mapping and information they have for the area and whether they have already officially marked any areas of interest.  
3. GC informed us that the Inspector approving the plan depends on SNC reviewing our non-designated historical asset (NDHA) information and if SNC or public do not flag up issues then the Inspector will probably assume OK. SNC need to be comfortable with our designations before they approve the NP as they will face any developer fight back at a later date.  
4. GC suggested that our NDHA table be modified to have four columns headed one for each of the Historic England Criteria for a NDHA. We should then review each proposed asset against these criteria and compete the columns appropriately. This will allow SNC and Inspector to see that we have followed an appropriate methodology in defining assets. Actions:GC to send us the four Historic England criteria to use as headings, NP Team to review all the entries and add evidence required.  
5. GC agreed to review our amended information to make sure that it would be acceptable to SNC before we submit the formal plan. Action:NP Team to update plan and forward to GC with a copy to Jennie as she is overall coordinator of SNC response.  
6. RH thanked GC for visiting us, clarifying what we need to do, and helping us with our Plan.

Meeting Notes

Neigbourhood Planning Committee Working Party

Date: Friday 9^th August 2019

Attending: Cllr Roy Hawkesford, Cllr Jo Wilmer, Cllr Carol Lloyd, Maz Woolley

Meeting Purpose: To review the draft plan issued by Michael Wellock July 2019.

It was noted that the draft of the plan seemed to be a good start and covers well many areas we have discussed. However it was felt that there were some areas where it has either not included policies and evidence we feel important, or has not fully developed policies in line with our discussions. It was agreed that the document was not yet ready to be put forward for informal consultation.

The following topics need to be communicated to our Consultant  for inclusion or expansion within the plan so that a new and updated draft can be issued and checked before we enter informal consultation.

Parish Spine

This is a crucial ambition especially if more strategic development takes place that might fund it. This needs a diagram showing a possible route linking with existing quieter roads and the national cycleway. This needs to cater for cycling, walking, jogging and mobility scooters. It is a community aspiration. Agreed that we may not have communicated this clearly enough and need to do some more work.

Road Safety

We need to make it very clear that the B526 is unsuitable for use by any but experienced cyclists and even then has a higher than average risk level due to blind corners, extensive double white lines and volume of traffic. (Part of this road is an official cycle route, hence the number of cyclists on it, especially at the weekend.)

Wildlife Corridor/Environment.

The plan needs further development in this regard. Further meeting needed.

Bus Travel

We need to make sure that all statements about the buses make clear there is no scheduled public bus service, just a limited volunteer based service catering for a limited number of people and of no use for work or recreation journeys.  This is important in terms of the viability of the villages and access to employment, especially for the young.

Rural Industry

We need to add in an aspiration that agricultural land management is done to high standards with field boundary set-aside, maintaining public footpaths, hedge and tree management all encouraged as a part of the working use of rural land.

Principle of improvement/betterment

The team want the Plan to incorporate the principle that all change must improve the environment and character of the area – a principle of ‘net-gain’.

Off Street Parking Guidelines

These need to be added.

Electric Charging points

Guidance on this this needs to be included

Vision

The Vision statement needs to be updated to include the principle of ‘net-gain’ and other points discussed.

Green Spaces

This section needs further work with the consultant to understand what we include can include under National Planning Policy Framework guidance

Other Green Spaces

Here the community aspirations for management and development need to be made clearer.

 Village Separation

It is imperative that the principle of keeping distinct settlements is stated and that the small wedges are defined in the plan as key areas of village separation essential to maintain the character of the three main communities.

Housing

This does not yet properly reflect advice that we were given and policy agreed and is lacking some key design principles. Further work is needed to make sure this is correct in next draft.

Housing Tenure

This was discussed. Imposing  conditions on developers so that affordable housing does not get sold into the general market place would be desirable, but it seems to be something which is not suitable for inclusion in a neighbourhood  plan.

Archaelogy

Need changes to clearly credit Upper Nene Archaeological Society, and Maureen Williams.

Need a policy to enforce proper archaeological pre-check before development takes place.

Longland Meadow

Even though this seems to be the only green space the consultant agrees is one by NPPF definition the evidence for its importance is not included in the document.

Carbon Neutrality

We need to encourage this as an aspiration for all development and re-development. If houses have a forty year design life then what is built now will still be there after 2050 when we are supposed to have become carbon neutral. The more neutral it is from start the less carbon will be used in updating, when gas boilers are banned for example.

Next Steps

Need step is to feedback to Michael and ask for a new draft.

Next Meeting

Committee meeting on the 12^th August

Attendees: Cllr Roy Hawkesford (Chair), Carol Lloyd, Maz Woolley (Notetaker)

Apologies: Cllr Jo Willmer

#	DISCUSSION POINT	ACTIONS
1	CL will finish the Archaelogical work by 15th subject to finally getting an electronic copy of the report created by the Friendship-Taylors.	CL to obtain the electronic report
2	Following Michael’s questions from this point: Boundary treatments, Frontages. Needs description and photographs to illustrate and use of stats from village walks to illustrate.	CL to look at Horton, MW to look at Piddington. Once complete we can then look at doing Hackleton.
3	Windows, doors and materials. SNC design guide provides information on local characteristics. Overlaps Architectural details question. Needs SNC guide info plus, photos, plus stats on use of materials in spreadsheet.	MW to provide charts from spreadsheet, analyse information in SNC guide and extract for use.
4	Open Spaces	Information provided
5	Trees, some information gathered and some on the Village Design guide maps. Quick Village walks needed to identify any trees not included and photos taken.	Not allocated at this time.
6	Landscaping. Not believed to be relevant.	RH to seek Clarification from Michael on what Landscaping means.
7	Pie charts needed to support Housing related assertions.	MW to produce some charts and to discuss with Roy when going through housing photos
8	Poor features. 1.       Previous expansions took little regard of local styles, materials and character. Overuse of London Brick. 2.       Extensions and other modifications often out of sympathy with the base building or other buildings in the area. 3.       Regimented lines rather than organic curves.	MW and RH to identify examples from photos.
9	Views. MW has completed Piddington MW will complete Horton as few views from village identified by SNC MW will do 8 views from Hackleton and complete document	MW to complete Horton asap and pass Horton and Piddington to Michael. MW will do Hackleton  later but may not be by 15th
10	Views to Settings across Parish. MW has done most of Piddington Views, and has several others ready but needs to take a couple more pictures. The overview map also needs to be totally redone.	MW to complete. Will aim for 15th if possible.
11	Preston Deanery. Needs some photos to illustrate nature of hamlet	MW to take some photographs but this will be after other tasks are completed.
12	Next steps. Decided that we shall aim to get as much complete by the 15th and passed to Michael for him to produce a first draft which should: 1.       Allow us to identify where we don’t feel plan goes far enough 2.       Allows Michael to identify where we need to provide further information.	All to review where we are on 15th and pass our brief on to Michael.
13	Meetings: MW and CL 7:30PM 8th July to go over Historical photos and identify any missing RH and MW to go over photos to illustrate Housing and related items Wed 10th July at 10:00.	MW/CL RH/MW
14	MW to review spreadsheets and look at information they provide to illustrate points	MW

Attendees: Cllr Roy Hawkesford (Chair), Carol Lloyd, Cllr Jo Willmer, Maz Woolley (Notetaker)

Location: Cllr Hawkesford’s house

1. Meeting started at c.13:30
2. Discussion of a scheme in Cambridgeshire where occupation of affordable housing was limited to 5 years and 20% of rent paid is saved for tenant to assist them finding a new residence at end of lease. (BBC You and Yours Friday 31^st May). Generally agreed that working with developers to put in creative and permanent affordable schemes would be desirable, though we need advice from our consultant on what can be done at a policy level.
3. Discussion of implications of recent Rotherthorpe planning appeal discussed: The 12 year land supply of SNC was challenged by developer and under new National Planning rules inspector ruled that much of the 12 years supply does not meet the Government’s latest criteria as some big schemes are a considerable way of having committed development in place. This could affect us as the extensions to Northampton are way behind being built so developers may seek to suggest that land in our area should be developed quickly to meet that need. However, the Inspector ruled that a lack of public transport and roads to Northampton unsuited to walking or cycling meant it was not appropriate development – a situation which applies to our parish to and which we hope we could use to ward of developments.
4. RH fed back that he had not had any more contact with our Consultant or Jennie Johnson at SNC.
5. It was confirmed that CL had sent work on historic buildings etc to our Consultant
6. RH showed his maps marking green spaces. These will be passed to our Consultant. It was agreed that small areas identified by the Parish Council green spaces working party may be incorporated as ‘community ambitions’ but would not qualify under definition of green spaces in planning terms. Again, an area where our consultant can advise. Village Separation areas will be marked up on maps again and the views work updated and sent to our Consultant. These will probably need to be treated slightly differently in plan to public open spaces but if we provide information our consultant can incorporate the material appropriately in the draft plan.
7. MW showed the maps he had done showing buildings around the three villages marked in period bandings. It was agreed that the maps supported the view that the villages grew hugely at specific periods and that the historic cores, even allowing for some demolition, were small until after the Second World War.
8. MW informed meeting that to extract further information to support the housing characteristics work he had first to type all the survey forms into spreadsheets for each village. He is aiming to get this input by June 10^th though analysis will continue beyond that date and others may wish to take part in that.
9. The SNC Building guidelines were discussed and it was agreed that key features on building materials, window types, building height etc. needs to be built into our plan as policies to make it mandatory and not advisory. This was not allocated at this point and Consultant advice may be needed.
10. A discussion on environmentally important features for new dwellings took place. The following were identified as key: Swales for water management, permeable surfaces not just for drives but for footpaths and other surfaces. The low level of solar panels on our street walks was noted and we need to discuss with consultant how policies encouraging environmentally friendly and low carbon use can be incorporated into the plan.
11. A timetable for our work was discussed and we are aiming to get outstanding evidence etc to our Consultant by June 10^th , next full meeting, which will hopefully allow him to get a revised and reworked draft plan to us by the following full meeting which needs to incorporate our work to date and clearly identify any supporting evidence that needs to be further developed before draft can start regulation consultation. Once we have this we can review document, and comment on any issues or questions we have, as well as putting the work in hand to address any missing evidence.

Meeting ended at 16:00

Hackleton Parish Steering Group – Working Party

 Meeting: 26^th April 2019

Present: Roy Hawkesford, Carol Lloyd, Maz Woolley, Jo Willmer

The purpose of the meeting was to evaluate our progress towards the time frame proposed by our consultant, Michael Wellock. While a lot of work had been done on housing, design features and gathering of evidence, this was deemed to big a job to complete by the end of April. The villages had been walked and each building style documented and photographed. The findings will be plotted on maps, with references to photographs in an Annexe.

Other areas were at a stage where they could be forwarded to Michael for comment, either now or shortly. A survey of Environmental Aspects had already been sent to Michael. The draft on Non-Heritage Assets was discussed and more work was required to explain why each item was deemed to be of special interest. This will be sent to Michael on completion.

We were unsure how to provide supporting evidence with regard to the environmental aspects; the source documents were quite large and detailed. It was agreed that the main points should be summarised as bullet points on a single sheet, if possible.

We felt the need to obtain maps and to mark on them the non-heritage assets, archaeological sites, wildlife areas and ridge and furrow fields.

Further work is needed on Green/Open Spaces, wedges and separation. While we have a list of identified sites, we are unsure what kind of detail is required to as supporting evidence. RH to contact Michael for advice.

It was recommended that an external hard drive be purchased on which to collect all the data, preferably with a USB3 port.

It was recommended that some kind of account be set up, possibly with Almac Studios, so that we could get the work on maps done as efficiently as possible.