Item 3

Agenda Item No:

North Joint Planning Committee Meeting [NNJPC]

Notes: 24 November 2011

Council Chamber, Borough Council

(Meeting held in public)

Present for all or part of the meeting:-

Councillor Terry Freer, Kettering Borough Council Councillor Graham Lawman, Borough Council of Wellingborough Councillor Mark Pengelly, Corby Borough Council Councillor Bob Seery, Northamptonshire County Council Councillor Andrew Scarborough, Borough Council of Wellingborough Councillor Chris Stanbra, Northamptonshire County Council Councillor Michael Tebbutt, Kettering Borough Council Councillor Jonathan West, Kettering Borough Council.

Also present:

Terry Begley Corby Borough Council Karen Gadomski Principal Planner, Joint Planning Unit Paul Hanson Northamptonshire County Council (minutes) Andrew Longley Planning Manager, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Norman Stronach Corby Borough Council Trevor Watson Council Simon Richardson Kettering Borough Council Simon James North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Andra Bowyer North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit

Members of the Public – David O’Neil, Will Antill, Jane Gardner

At the start of the meeting the Chairman informed the members present that a quorum had not been achieved. He proposed that the members present discuss the items on the agenda on the understanding that no decisions could be taken. The members present indicated their consent.

Apologies and non-attendance

Apologies for absence were received from and Councillors Tom Beattie (Corby Borough Council), David Brackenbury (East Northamptonshire Council, Vice Chairman) Lucy Goult (Corby Borough Council), Steven North (East Northamptonshire Council), Geoff Timms (East Northamptonshire Council) and Malcolm Waters (Northamptonshire County Council).

Declarations of interest by Councillors

None.

Minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2011

Councillor Seery referred to resolution 19/11 relating to the response to consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework and stated that the draft response referred to had not reflected the tone of his comments. He had responded to this by email but did not know if the response had subsequently been amended.

The Planning Manager explained that some amendments had been made to the covering letter and one of the consultation responses but that generally the submitted response had reflected the views of the committee. The Chairman supported this. Councillor Seery asked that his concern that the comments of all members should be taken into account be recorded in the notes.

Joint Core Strategy Emerging Approach

The Planning Manager presented the report and made the following points: . Since the committee last met, work had been undertaken on employment targets. These were discussed in the report; . The Localism act had received royal assent on 15 November. Some elements were effective immediately but others would be brought into effect at a later date; . The Joint Planning Unit’s aim was to produce a draft strategy for consideration by the committee in April. This was however a very ambitious target; and . Section 4 of the report detailed how the JPU had formulated their approach to the document.

The Principal Planner made the following points in respect of section 5: . The settlement strategy was a key part of the core strategy and was originally set out in the Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy; . The district councils had done a lot of work developing a more detailed settlement strategy within individual plans and those had been incorporated into the core strategy’s evidence base; . One issue that would have to be resolved was the role of Rushden. A decision would have to be taken as to whether to separate it out from the smaller towns in North Northamptonshire and include as a secondary growth town; . Feedback received so far had led to two options for discussion, set out in appendix 5 to the report; . The terminology used could be adjusted but the concept of having principal growth towns, secondary/supporting growth towns and small/market towns would remain; and . There was currently not enough evidence to include Deenethorpe Airfield as an allocation for a new village, but it could referred to in the strategy as an option to deliver future aspirational growth in the Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston area.

The Planning Manager made the following points in respect of housing targets: . Housing requirements and targets were subject to review and the minimum requirement had been based on what had been achieved in the last 5 years.

Further work would be undertaken including an update of the SHMA to develop this approach; . The housing figures had been designed to provide a degree of protection for councils against smaller schemes contrary to the spatial strategy being won on appeal; and . The town centre network was a sensitive issue. The committee had discussed it before and were broadly happy with it, but additional feedback was welcomed.

The members present considered the report and raised the following points:

Settlement Strategy . It was felt by some people in Rushden that it should play a more significant role in North Northamptonshire and the strategy should reflect local interests as far as possible; . Option 2 reflected Wellingborough’s request for a slower growth rate, although it was unclear whether this reflected a formal council position;

Deenethorpe Airfield . Corby were happy with the proposed approach to Deenethorpe Airfield, but Kettering opposed the concept as they had concerns about sustainability; . Lessons should be learned from the experience at Mawsley;

Housing Requirements . Wellingborough did not recognise the figures set out in fig. A at paragraph 5.22 of the report; . Using minimum and aspirational figures would be a sensible approach . The figures would need revising if Rushden is to have more development

Employment . In terms of employment requirements, training as well as jobs are needed; . A range of jobs from entry level to high quality are needed for a sustainable job market . B8 development can be used to provide a range of jobs and should not be universally perceived as being negative; . Scaling down the job targets for Corby sends out the wrong message and further consideration should be given to an aspirational jobs target; . Wellingborough are seeking 1 job per new house

Town Centre Network . With regard to the town centre network issue, Kettering were firmly opposed to twin sub-regional centres and Corby would resist any approach that would not meet its ambitions ;

Other issues . The Youth Conference had been an excellent event and the comments raised at the event should be reflected in the strategy; . With respect to Appendix 3, reference to the River Ise, Carbon Sink Forest, Chester Farm and Wicksteed Park were missing; and . In Appendix 4, reference should be made to the electrification of the Midland Main Line.

The Planning Manager made the following points: . The numbers set out in the emerging approach were subject to change, but Wellingborough had previously indicated that they favoured a lower level of growth whereas there was appetite to further consider an enhanced role for Rushden; . Jobs targets should be aspirational and there were still some sites in the area with significant potential for employment that would be reflected in the core strategy; . If Corby achieved its housing targets it would grow at a faster rate than Kettering; and . The SUE to the west of Corby could be larger than currently planned in order to meet housing targets.

There being no further business the meeting concluded at 8.45pm

Paul Hanson Leadership Support & Democracy Northamptonshire County Council