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.

 

Meeting: HPNP Working Group

Date: 22^nd March 2019

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

Apologies: Carol Lloyd

Brief Notes:

1. Roy informed us that the Parish Council had considered the summaries of recommendations from the Planning Consultants and discussed the way that the working party wished to proceed and approved our continuing to work on the current lines.
2. Roy commented on the circulated feedback from Michael on our approach and a discussion was held on how best we proceed given the outstanding planning inquiry on Larkfleet’s planning application. This primarily revolved around:
   • What the impact this would have on our current thinking should the Inspector allow the appeal by Larkfleet at the inquiry which would effectively reduce the need for further housing over the plan period
   • At what point should we aim at to submit the plan to the approval by interested bodies as we would not wish to have to withdraw and modify it if the Larkfleet inquiry approved housing development and we have to change our site allocation policy
3. It was agreed that we should proceed with our current approach and Roy agreed to contact Michael to discuss when we should aim to be ready for regulation 14 reviews by public bodies. ACTION: Roy
4. Jo and Maz reported on the small trial they made of the forms for ‘walking the villages’ It was agreed that they were fundamentally sound and had plenty of space for additional notes. Jo and Maz to arrange a date to continue with Piddington next week. After that Horton can be scheduled. ACTION: Jo and Maz
5. The function of the village walks was discussed and it was agreed that the walks should address all the elements of character in the area. Buildings, trees, green /open spaces, water features, environmental features, historic assets. These can all be entered on templates Maz has created although water does not have a specific template for example. The presentation of this information would largely be in the form of maps showing key features and keyed to explain their importance and character maps showing building type groups which would expand on the notes in the conservation area assessments done by SNC.
6. The fact that we currently have no representatives from Hackleton or Preston Deanery on the steering group was discussed again.  It was decided that before the plan is taken to any public consultation we will ask Hackleton representatives on the Parish Council if they would do a deep read and comment on the plan. We will also contact people in Preston Deanery who have offered help in the past.  ACTION: Roy
7. Maz has yet to have any formal feedback from Michael on the first pass of Traffic and Employment policies so does not know if that is now finished for the moment or if further work is needed. ACTION: Roy to discuss with Michael.
8. A discussion was held on the correct way to approach the environmental elements of the plan. Jo indicated that we had a lot of backing material but questioned how we use it in the plan. It was agreed that we refer to key sections of the material and extract what is needed to back up our policies only. It was agreed that a lot of the information could be recorded as writing on maps which would then be turned into proper maps by Michael. ACTION: Jo
9. Roy has obtained large scale maps with footpaths and bridleways marked on them. Discussions were held about whether there were additional views and protected settings that needed to be taken into account. Two additional views were recommended for photographing. ACTION: Maz

Meeting: HPNP Working Group

Date: 1st February 2019

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

Brief Notes:

1. Roy informed us that the HNA document had gone back for further revision and that this was being worked on at the moment. It is hoped that next version contains spelling corrections, refers to area as Hackleton Parish except where it refers specifically to Hackleton village, and incorporates Ellie’s final comments. ACTION RH to chase AECOM
2. Roy informed us that the contacts with site owners/agents arising from Site work continues and he is awaiting responses for one site. ACTION RH
3. MW has completed first pass of Traffic and Employment policies. Carol asked for the Employment document to be resent.
4. It was noted that if Larkfleet homes did get planning permission for their proposed development then the number of houses built would count against HNA recommended number
5. Infill was discussed and it was concluded that as the development of infill cannot be guaranteed these potential units cannot be counted initially against the HNA total. However, if sites are released in phases over 10 years the number of dwellings needed in future phases may be reduced if significant numbers of infill dwellings have been completed prior to that phase of new building.
6. Carol fed back on Heritage where she has gathered what we have and will continue to put the resources together, correcting some inconsistencies, and will try to compete a table of policies by the next NPSG meeting ACTION CL
7. Jo passed Horton info to Carol, Maz offered to contact Phil at the Spread Eagle to get further information about the pub for the listed local assets justification. ACTION MW
8. Carol asked about where we can get maps to annotate and how to do it. Maz said SNC and NCC maps can be generated online and downloaded. If people want PDFs turned into JPG files so they can add layers and details in paint applications and similar if they send it him he can do this unless the PDF is ‘locked’ ACTION MW if required
9. Carol said that the Wing Neighbourhood Plan Ellie recommended that we look at was interesting and worth looking at.
10. Discussion of publicity took place with the following conclusions:
    • HNA and Site Choices need to be summarised in a form that can be used in Parish Newsletter, passed to the Parish Council for review/comment, and which can be used at any consultation.
    • Consultation with public should be driven by summary information not simply by placing the full reports in the public domain to limit misunderstandings
    • The HNA sheet produced by MW needs updating: to make recommended number of  dwellings more prominent, drop all the detailed alternatives, and to make the Affordable and building type breakdown easier to read by using charts. ACTION MW
11. Housing design was discussed and the outstanding need to walk and photograph the villages to record building types and views in and out. MW offered to take photographs and help annotate maps as long as someone who lives in each village accompanies him with local knowledge. The buildings/features of special community interest could be done at the same time. To Be arranged
12. Jo presented her environment sheets and discussion followed. Blue and Grey environment issues will need to be addressed at some point To be allocated
13. An environmental impact analysis was discussed. MW thought this would only ne needed where we recommend sites and that there is no need for a whole parish one. If one is needed Locality could issue grant etc. Action RH to consult Locality as to to what is needed
14. MW explained why he had added issues/comment columns to Ellie’s suggested table as this gives policies context and allows Michael to use the information in his structure with the sheet leading through the sections in his draft plan structure.
15. JW pointed out that we need a way of converting all the documentation that we have on species in the local area into a policy for maintaining green corridors and habitat as roosting sites are not the limit to consideration of Birds or Bats their feeding territory and retention of safe corridors is essential
16. Short discussion on whether water capture and other environmentally desirable items could be included in building requirements. Advice needed but at the least a community aspiration could be expressed
17. Green Spaces and Play areas were discussed. No further work has been done on this yet. Should any development of 10+ dwellings include some green space? Community projects should be considered here. Does this apply to Georges Fields play space in the longer term? Should that be PC managed? It is necessary to get photographic evidence of the green spaces. Maybe this could be incorporated into walking the villages?
18. MW said he would check that the coalescence map had been completed. Action MW
19. Allotments were discussed with no firm conclusion about whether NP needed to detail them other than as local assets

Meeting Closed.

Hackleton Parish Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Working Party Meeting

Tuesday 8^th January 2019

Apologies: Carol Lloyd and Tina Chartress

Attendees: Ellie Gingell (SNC), Cllr Roy Hawesford, Cllr Jo Willmer, Maz Woolley

Informal Meeting with Ellie Gingell Principal Planning Officer South Northants Council

Notes on Discussions:

CURRENT POSITION – Roy has now had the site suitability report but still awaits the Housing Needs Analysis though a revised draft had been promised by the end of the 8^th.

SNC SUPPORT FOR OUR NP – Ellie confirmed that she is leaving SNC as we had been previously informed and that a Planning Officer will be allocated to support us. Ellie will make sure we are informed of the name and contact details as soon as who will be responsible for our plan is confirmed.

LARKFLEET HOMES – Ellie made clear that spru/Larkfleet Homes survey sent to residents in the Parish was not sponsored by SNC, though spru/Larkfleet had contacted SNC Housing prior to carrying it out.  Ellie has asked the housing team to provide formal clarification on the survey to the Parish Council.

REMOVAL OF BUS SERVICE – Ellie informed us that SNC have reviewed their settlement hierarchy following NCC removal of subsidies and the closure of many rural bus services round the County. This has not altered the level in the hierarchy of any of the settlements within our parish. A discussion was had about the longer term suitability of parts of the Parish as a location for those who have no access to a car such as the visually impaired or those on benefits or incomes which make running a car impossible. Although a local car share scheme and a shoppers bus service are currently starting up neither address the need for students to get to locations like Northampton College or of those who use the bus for journeys to/from work in Northampton. JW pointed out that this makes a pedestrian/cycle route spine through the parish of even more potential benefit.

HOW TO ALLOCATE SITES – Ellie reminded us that we are looking at the plan period up to 2029 and that the HNA will identify the numbers suggested to be built by that date. The build level for the whole period does not have to be allocated immediately so a sensible proportion to be built in early years of plan can be allocated and other sites identified as ‘contingency sites’ or future sites to be brought forward when criteria that you put in plan are met (but within the plan period). This would be part of Neighbourhood plan review process. So if a Developer or the Community could prove flexibility so they couldn’t just develop anywhere the community could release one of the next suitable sites identified in their plan as the next phase.

HOW TO STRUCTURE OUR WORK – Ellie suggested that we do not attempt to write policies in planning language but to:

• Work through a table which lists focus policy areas from the WNJCS and then looks at what we want in each area and what evidence we have. Ellie agreed to supply a sample table for our use
• List everything that we want the local plan to address on sticky notes to make sure the table captures everything
• She also advised looking at the Planning Aid Document on writing policies

AMBITIONS WHICH ARE NOT LAND USE POLICIES – Ellie pointed out that the plan can record aspirations for the use of Community Infrastructure money going forward. This covers items discussed like spine, parish office/drop in, etc. It would be separate section in the document to avoid confusion.

POLICY STRUCTURE – Ellie encouraged us to create Policies that apply across the Parish, and then create policies for the settlement areas and then for the rural areas outside boundaries as a policy suited to one village may not apply to all.

ENVIRONMENT – Ellie suggested consulting the statutory parties as soon as you have a draft plan since change is easier at draft stage than following comments they might make under Regulation 14 consultations. Ellie advised that the Magic Map from DEFRA is a useful environmental aid. Some discussion was held on Bats, Newts and how to recognise the area that such creature roam over. Ellie pointed out restrictions from the SSI etc exist. Ellie to provide a map of the gravel pits special area for birds.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES – A made Neighbourhood Plan joins the Local Plan, WNJCS, and NPPF document as the Development Plan for the area. SNC has a number of supplementary policies like Design guides and Parking which can be found on their website. These carry less ‘weight’ than development plan documents, including the Neighbourhood Plan and some are guidance. So if we want to make this guidance mandatory e.g. the off street parking calculation in their parking advice for off street parking,  in part or parts of the parish they need to be re-stated as policies in the NP.

PARKING – Ellie pointed out that offstreet parking is not the only factor. Visitor parking and street parking is important too. Street design can create marked parking places and obvious car channels which can slow traffic flows to an appropriate speed for a minor road. Ellie pointed out the need to have rules for infill sites as well as for new development sites if required.

INFRASTRUCTURE – It is possible to specify that developers of new sites will ensure that services are provided to a certain standard. So for Broadband unless the Developer can show that they will provide the  infrastructure to allow all properties on the site to connect to what the Government defines as fast broadband building would not be permitted. The emerging Part 2 Local Plan contains some advice.

EXAMPLES OF LIMITATIONS TO POLICIES –  Deemed planning permission (permitted development) allows people to build substantial extensions to the rear of their property including roof conversions and dormer windows so a policy to stop people converting bungalows to two storey dwellings will not achieve its aims/ cannot be enforced. However careful use of design guides may limit how the front of a property is altered.

PLANS TO LOOK AT – Ellie suggested that Broughton Astley in Leicestershire and Wing in Aylesbury Vale might be worth reading.

NEXT STEPS – To review Ellie’s table and allocate work on topics and arrange a brainstorm with post-it notes.

THANKS – Roy thanked Ellie for help and encouragement and wished her luck on our behalf for her next role.

Meeting Notes: Maz Woolley

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

Meeting Held: 13:00 21st December Chairman’s House

1. HNA and Site Survey. RH reported that he still awaits final site survey and amended HNA draft. Both now expected after Christmas/New Year Holidays.
2. Presentation to public discussed.
   • Presentation should focus on telling people suggested sites and Housing Need and eliciting their response – strapline could be “What the Professionals tell us, Now tell us what you think” or similar
   • Would like a week with information display up for reading and a card available for people to write comments and drop in a box for later review
   • February Half Term identified as a possible week as play group believed not to be using hall
   • Fold out banners condensing the advice, sites, and where display is could be used and perhaps Church, Hall and others could display them at points leading up to display
3. Meeting recording was discussed. There needs to be a monthly meeting to record ratification of work undertaken and to allocate new tasks as well as to give people an option to make opinion known. It is not thought that these necessarily needed the Clerk to attend. However the Clerk still needs to check minutes are clear and to record/store them as part of the Parish Records and to advise as required. The Clerk would also remain as the first public point of contact.
4. Meeting pattern was confirmed as a monthly meeting to formally record progress and allocate work etc. With meetings and work dome in between to develop the plan
5. Plan structure was discussed an the existing draft looked at. People were keen not to overthink the work, but at the same time a consistent structure is needed to allow further work. It was concluded that there were a number of questions that needed answering by Michael before work continued and MW agreed to email Michael with the questions.
6. RH to pass questions and draft to Ellie for her input at a future meeting
7. At next meeting we hope that we will have feedback on structure and we can then allocate a policy area to each member able to spend some time on detailed work. The aim will be to try to develop the policy area from context through aims, objectives, to lists of specific policies. Along the way questions and need for evidence could be gathered.
8. Once we have driven down several policy areas the work could be passed to Michael to create a new version of the draft plan and work could then be completed on evidence and policy areas as yet untackled.

Meeting ended at 15:00