Category Archives: Uncategorised

Regulation 14 Consultation Online ONly

Following the Government’s instructions issued yesterday, 23rd March 2020, we have decided to make the consultation online only for the remainder of the time it has to run.

We did investigate loaning plans to people at home but that would have broken the instructions issued by the Government, and would have risked passing on infection as we would have no adequate way of disinfecting the plan after each use. So we have had to abandon that initiative.

We have taken advice and the consultation based upon our web site is regarded as satisfying the requirements of Regulation 14. But if you should have any concern please email our Parish Clerk at clerk@hackletonparishcouncil.gov.uk or complete a contact form on our website www.hpnp.org.uk

Stay Safe

Neighbourhood Plan Team

Plan Inspection Locations

Unfortunately the Government’s instructions issued on 20th March 2020 in an attempt to reduce the rate of spread of the Coronavirus will shut many businesses and public facilities. This in turn means that most of the locations where hard copies of the Neighbourhood Plan documents were lodged are now shut.

The locations that are currently open where you may inspect the plan are:

  • Towcester Library – Moat Lane, Towcester, Northamptonshire, NN12 6AD (confirmed open 21/3/2020)
  • Hackleton Stores, Hackleton

For those who have internet access we urge you to review the plan and make any representations on our web site at www.hpnp.org.uk. This has the full copy of the plan and supporting evidence in pdf form as well as an online form to make representations.

If you know of anyone who wishes to review the plan and is unable to see it at one of the locations listed above, or read it online. They may contact the Clerk to the Parish Council, contact details may be found here. We will then try to make a plan available to them to review in some way.

Drop-in Sessions Cancelled

Having reviewed the Government’s latest advice we have decided that we have to cancel the drop-in sessions planned during the Regulation 14 consultation period.

If there is anyone who cannot review and comment online, or by visiting one of the locations that the plan is on display, then they should contact the Parish Clerk, contact details here, and we will try to make an arrangement for them to see the plan.

We apologise for any inconvenience but the circumstances are exceptional.

Working Group Meeting November 29th 2019

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

Apologies: Cllr Jo Willmer

It was confirmed that the Parish Council had supported the recommendation that we withdraw the allocation of land adjacent to Oak Way in the Neighbourhood Plan following SNC granting planning permission for 21 affordable houses to be built by Larkfleet Homes at Lyne Walk. RH has informed our Consultant to amend plan on that basis.

Following the meeting with Dr Garry Campion an amended table format for non-heritage assets was presented by MW along with backing information from Historic England. It was accepted by the meeting.

Each team member present was allocated two items in the table to update to the new format to see what sort of information we may be missing. It was agreed that we may need some help on some of the items where the panel is not familiar with them. The updated entries are to be completed before the next working party meeting.

The Mapping issue raised by SNC will be managed by our Consultant once SNC provide the latest version of their documents.

MW suggested that the SNC issues over the Green Corridors may be best dealt with by meeting with them to clarify the issues and understand their concerns rather than by guessing what they need us to do. RH to contact SNC to see if that can be arranged.

The next working party meeting is to be arranged.

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.

Consultation ends soon!

Don’t forget you have until midnight on the 28th October to make your comments about the draft Hackleton Parish Neighbourhood Plan.

The plan may be found here http://www.hackletonparishneighbourhoodplan.org.uk/draft-plan-for-consultation-9-2019/

And the comments page is here http://www.hackletonparishneighbourhoodplan.org.uk/test/

You may of course contact us in other ways too:

  • post the comment to Clerk to the Parish Council, 3 Quinton Green, Quinton,Northants, NN7 2EF
  • Mark it “Chair, Hackleton Parish NDP Committee”  and pop it in the letterbox at 1 Brook Court, Horton, NN7 2BL

We want to hear, and to be influenced by, comments from as many parishioners as possible to make sure the plan is supported by our community.

Consultation Starts 30th September 2019

The informal consultation on the draft Hackleton Parish Neighbourhood Plan starts on Monday 30th September. We will post the plan and supporting policy maps on this website then. You may read the plan and make comments to us in the ways shown on the poster below.

The informal consultation will end at midnight on October 28th so make sure you make any comments that you have by then.

Steering Group informal meeting 30th July 2018

Hackleton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Informal Meeting: 30th July, 2018, 7.00, at The Spread Eagle.

Present: Roy Hawkesford (Chairman), Maz Woolley, Carol Lloyd, Tina Charteress, Tom Peterkin, Gary Youens, Jo Willmer.

The chairman explained that, as the steering group is a working group, the parish clerk would not normally be expected to attend. However, her attendance at future meetings with our consultant might be a good idea. She should be kept up-to-date with developments.

It was agreed that we should ask Michael for an updated Draft Plan.

Roy to ask Ellie (SNC) if she could send the most up-to-date list of potential sites.

It was agreed that the new version of the National Planning Framework strongly encourages the provision of additional housing and encourages Neighbourhood Planning groups to do a housing needs assessment. The Steering group agreed that some development is needed to help keep the parish sustainable and to offer the opportunity to extend recreational space.

Using the maps from the June 2nd Open Day, there followed a detailed discussion about the known potential sites and the following conclusions were reached:

  1. Horton has had a lot of infill development and scope for any further infill within village boundary is limited. No sites exist for small groups of additional houses within the confines.
  2. Some of the sites in Piddington are unsuitable due to the potential impact on existing buildings, the fact that they would be out of scale, impact on potential Roman Fort site, or that they would threaten important local views. It is considered that the traffic restriction near Chapel end where two small vehicles struggle to pass means any substantial developments would be unsuitable for the village. There are some sites, mainly smaller ones, which may be worth further consideration if Housing Need is shown.
  3. Again Hackleton has sites which are unsuitable due to environmental factors, impact on views/green space etc. In some other cases sites may be worth consideration for development provided that factors like additional recreation space for the village are taken into account
  4. Housing development in the rural areas outside village confines is not expected to form part of the Neighbourhood plan.

It was agreed that the next step is to wait for the Housing Needs Assessment to be completed by Locality and  the scale of housing required identified. Once that is known sites can be evaluated by a outside experts and they can then be considered in detail.

Maz Woolley agreed to do more work on the design statements, starting with Piddington – as a template for the other villages.

Jo Willmer agreed to contact wildlife organisations about that aspect of the Plan in general.

Tina Charteress agreed to revisit the list of buildings.

Carol Lloyd agreed to do more research into aspects of Horton relevant to the Plan.

There was some discussion afterwards about the purpose and content of the next formal meeting on August 13th.

The meeting finished at 9.30.

Roy Hawkesford
31st July 2018

Archaeology – Map of Sites

This map is based on one drawn by Roy Friendship-Taylor one of the Directors of the local museum for the Steering Group.

Key to the areas marked on the map

A – Alcot – Deserted Medieval Village (DMV)
B – Preston Deanery  – (DMV) or Shrunken Village
C – Quinton l/A – Roman
D- Quinton – Medieval Moated Manor
E – Hackleton – Roman (find of c.2,000 coins)
F – Piddington Roman Site
G – Horton – Early Manor House Site
H – Piddington – Site of Salcey Forest Railway Station
I – Preston Deanery – Deer Park Boundary
J – Piddington – The Roman Villa
K – The Roman Villa Museum (Former Wesleyan Chapel)
L – Roman Fortress of approx 50 acres (of national significance)
M – 1914-18 Rifle Butt Practice Range

Please double click map to see at a larger size.