In Attendance: Roy Hawkesford (Chair), Cllr Carol Lloyd, Maz Woolley

This meeting was to review whether the R16 submission documents were ready for forwarding the the Clerk for formally sending to SNC.

RH infomed meeting that SNC are ready to receive the R16 draft PLan and associated paperwork.

All present agreed that the document pack was now ready to pass to SNC and RH was actioned to pass these to the Parish Clerk to send to SNC in line with the recent approval to send from the Parish Council.

The meeting closed.

---

In Attendance: Roy Hawesford [RH] (Chair), Cllr Carol Lloyd [CL], Cllr Jo Willmer [JW], Maz Woolley [MW]  

• RH to contact Alan Munn at SNC to identify what format our R16 submission to SNC needs to be in, number of copies if physical copies required etc.
• Discussions held on ‘water’ element of Environment Appendix and as water course management is not part of land use planning but covered by other initiatives we can reduce the emphasis in this area and keep focus upon discouraging developments on flood plains and management of grey infrastructure  on new developments to ensure that local flooding is not made worse, importance of semi permeable and permeable surfaces, and swales and other water retention and use schemes.
• The next steps on the appendix are:
  • MW to revise plan to take the comments made and the point above into account, link into main body planning policies and to pass to JW – hopefully by Friday 24th. JW to review and pass back any further corrections to MW to resolve.
  • MW to investigate mixed paper sizes in Word/PDF and discuss printing these with Alan McDonagh.
  • Once corrections made MW to print a copy and JW to pass to Guy Ward for review [within next two weeks estimate]
  • Any further corrections made as suggested by Guy or group discussion on response if required
  • Passed to Michael, our consultant, for incorporation into plan

Attendees: Cllr Jo Willmer, Maz Woolley

1. We reviewed the documentation returned by Michael and identified Michael’s handwritten notes which did not need to be incorporated in the appendix.
2. We agreed that the structure should follow the lines of:
   • Introductory Section and importance of connectivity between wildlife sites (Gov’t Report)
   • Our Parish
     • Wildlife (Flora and Fauna)
       • Maps from Magic Map on species and habitats plus quotes of bats etc studies
       • Local Wildlife sites lists, map, SSSIs
       • Historical influences Ridge and Furrow and habitats
       • Wildlife corridors provide internal connections
       • Importance of woodland
       • Stewardship schemes maps
     • Water
       • Try to get a map of the blue infrastructure
       • Importance of grey infrastructure management to prevent flooding etc.
       • How water courses provide wildlife corridors in many cases
   • Our Surroundings
     • Lists of areas/corridors/Ramsar/cross boundary SSSIs etc
       • Sub regional corridors – relationship with corridors in our plan
       • List of key cross boundary wildlife areas like Upper Nene (Ramsar)
       • SSSI’s split across boundaries
     • Water catchment areas for Nene, flood to hold back runoff – link to swales etc in plan
   • Lists of Documents consulted to include Magic Map from Defra as info source
3. Maz has taken away some of the background information and will research water and available maps and create a first draft appendix
4. Jo to review the first draft and comment so that it may be revised before the second draft is released to Steering Group for comment, if needed another environment sub-group meeting will be held to discuss first draft

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