Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement
CONSULTATION STATEMENT
This document was produced by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group on behalf of Maidwell with Draughton Parish Council MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 Introduction 2 2 Commencement of the Neighbourhood Plan and its consultation 2 3 Aims of the consultation 2 4 Consultation methods 2 5 Stages of the consultation and project milestones 3 6 Setting the extent of the Neighbourhood Plan area 4 7 Developing the community’s vision and priorities 4 8 Pre-submission considerations 5 9 List of consultees 5 10 Main issues and concerns raised during the consultation process 5
Appendix A A list of the bodies, local groups and organisations, and other 7 individuals with whom this process of consultation has been engaged B Blank copy of the questionnaire and survey form used to engage with 8 the local community C A summary of the comments received through the questionnaires 13 provided in Appendix B and the responses made within the Plan process D Blank copy of the Regulation 14 consultation questionnaire used for 18 responses to the draft Neighbourhood Plan E A summary of comments received from the questionnaire in Appendix 20 D and of how these points have been addressed in the submitted Plan F Minutes from Maidwell with Draughton Parish Council meetings at 68 which the Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Plan consultation process and the responses received were discussed and amendments agreed upon
1 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 1 Introduction 1.1 This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012, Section 15(2). 1.2 It has been understood from the start of this process that Part 5 of the Regulations requires a Consultation Statement to: a) include details of the persons and bodies who have been consulted about the proposed neighbourhood plan; b) explain how they have been consulted; c) summarise the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; d) describe how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood plan. 2 The commencement of the Neighbourhood Plan and its consultation 2.1 Consultations with the village community were undertaken during the early part of 2016 to consider what might be appropriate ‘confines’ that confirm the areas for built development within each of the two main settlements in the parish. The District Council acknowledged that this work could be incorporated into the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. 2.2 A public meeting for residents was held on 27th April 2017, addressed by officers from Daventry District Council and a planning consultant. It was agreed to recommend the formation of a steering group to pursue a Neighbourhood Plan and this was approved by the Parish Council in May 2017 along with approval to interview three planning consultants. A Steering Group of 12 residents was formed in May. OneA Ltd, of Kislingbury, was selected in June 2017 and it assisted with a grant application to Locality/My Community. The grant to the Parish Council was awarded in July 2017. The first key task undertaken by the Steering Group was to draw up a survey questionnaire to gather the views of all Parish residents and local businesses. 3 The aims of the consultation 3.1 The aims of the Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Plan consultation process have been to: a) involve as much of the local community as possible throughout all stages of the Plan’s development so that the content of the Plan has been informed by the views of local people and other stakeholders throughout the entire process; b) ensure that sufficient consultation events took place at points in the process where critical decisions have needed to be informed by local views; c) engage with as wide a range of people as possible, using a variety of approaches and communication techniques; and d) ensure that results of consultation were relayed back to local people as soon as possible after the consultation events. 4 The consultation methods 4.1 Consultation was undertaken by and through Maidwell with Draughton Parish Council, subsequently supported by its consultant, OneA Ltd, and looked to engage with local people
2 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT and other stakeholders through a variety of engagements and methods of contact. In order to build confidence in how the process has embraced local concerns, it was acknowledged that the process must regularly update the local community on its development. All of the following methods for sharing ideas and feedback with local people were put into use: a) Open discussion at meetings of the Parish Council; b) Presentations at interactive public meetings on progress with the Plan; c) Surveying household priorities; d) Focused meetings with key landowners, agents and employers; e) Updates via the parish newsletter and Parish website; f) Information on Parish website. 5 The stages of the consultation and project milestones 5.1 It was envisaged at the start of the process that it could well take up to two years to have a suitable Plan ready for submission to the local planning authority. The consultation work undertaken from Spring 2016 to Summer 2018 has followed the following course: a) Confines 2016: Jan First meeting of sub-group to consider options for the two villages Mar Recommendation to the Parish Council approved to start will looking at the village confines 6 meeting of the group to consider proposals Dec Process designed for consultation with residents 2017: Jan Consultation process agreed by Parish Council Feb Newsletter to all residents and local businesses Mar Open exhibition of confines proposals April Public meeting to consider feedback and next steps b) Neighbourhood planning 2017: May Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee formed June Designated Area approved July Gather views questionnaire prepared Sept Gathering views survey underway Oct Gathering views survey closed. Initial responses considered Nov Collation of all survey responses and priorities determined Newsletter to all residents summarising responses Dec Plan vision and objectives drafted 2018: Jan Data gathering and plan drafting Feb DDC assist with Strategic Environment Assessment Mar Assessment against basic conditions starts Parish Council sign-off pre-submission consultation draft Apr Feedback to Locality on use of grant. Second grant application
3 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Pre-submission consultation with residents, local businesses, landowners and statutory consultees starts (10th) May Pre-submission consultation ends (22nd) June Response collation Meeting with DDC July Response collation Aug Modifications to draft plan Sept Parish Council response to Local Plan Part 2 consultation agreed Oct Further modifications to draft plan Nov Parish Council agrees draft plan for submission to DDC Dec Draft plan and supporting documents submitted to DDC 6 Setting the extent of the Neighbourhood Plan area 6.1 The formal designation of the “Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Plan” area is co- terminus with the parish boundaries and was made by Daventry District Council on 5 June 2017. 7 Developing the community’s vision and priorities 7.1 The intention of this phase was to bring out initial statements of the local community’s key concerns about the parish, and establish people’s priorities. 7.2 The key priority from the confines’ consultation was for modest and appropriate growth of housing within the proposed confines. A number of other points were raised especially about highways which were communicated to the Parish Council. 7.3 The “gathering views” questionnaire sought to gain the views of residents and local businesses on a range of matters affecting the growth and development of the villages and surrounding area. A number of open questions were posed and a list of items that arose from the confines’ consultation was set out for each respondent to prioritise. 7.4 The results of the “gathering reviews” survey guided the Steering Committee’s drafting of a Vison statement and formed the objectives that were to be met by the plan. The headings for these objectives were: To protect the landscape and heritage of the two parishes To protect and enhance the green and open spaces of value to the community To maintain and develop housing opportunities for people from a range of life stages and socio-economic circumstances that are designed to be in keeping with the existing built form and are of high-quality construction To encourage improvements in road safety, traffic management and public transport To protect and enhance existing recreation, education and community facilities 7.5 From these objectives the following headings were created to which draft policies would be applied: Village Confines Housing Type Mix Design and Energy Efficiency Local Green Space Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Local Landscape Character
4 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Local Economy and Employment Protecting Community Facilities Traffic Management Footpaths/Cycleways/Connectivity 8 Pre-submission considerations 8.1 The intention of this phase was to circulate a readable presentation of the draft plan to all households and stakeholders so that the concerns and priorities identified to date could be read within the context of a proposed set of formal planning policies. 8.2 A copy of the draft Neighbourhood Plan document was distributed to all households and businesses in the parish in the week beginning 9th April 2018 to commence the statutory six- week consultation stage in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Plan Regulations. A questionnaire was attached to the draft document to encourage comment and feedback on its shape and content (see Appendix D). 8.3 The draft Neighbourhood Plan document was also distributed to each of the required statutory consultees during this period and the responses received worked into final amendments for the Plan document to be completed for intended submission. 8.4 All responses received during the Regulation 14 six-week consultation period have been recorded (Appendix E), along with references to what responses and amendments have been prompted to the final Plan document. 9 List of consultees 9.1 The people and bodies* consulted throughout the process of compiling the submitted Neighbourhood Plan have included: a) all households in the parish of Maidwell with Draughton; b) local businesses based in the parish; c) other bodies with local commercial and land-owning interests; d) statutory consultation bodies. *See the list attached in Appendix A. 10 The main issues and concerns raised during the consultation process 10.1 Information set out in Appendix C, and Appendix E below provides detailed summaries of the main issues and concerns raised during the overall consultation process. 10.2 The three most important priorities cited by local residents were: i) Upholding the character of the villages; ii) Ensuring that any development is appropriate in setting and character; iii) Ensuring that growth in housing numbers is modest and in keeping with past trends 10.3 When asked what local residents liked most about their village: 57% cited the rural nature, character, situation & location combined with proximity and ease of access to open countryside; 45% cited the people and the community at large; and
5 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 35% cited the small size of the village(s) and the peace & quiet 10.4 When asked what three things local residents would most like to see happen in their village: 34% wanted some form of traffic calming and/or speed control measures or volume reduction; 32% wanted no change or limited development of housing only within the existing village confines; and 29% would like some form of park or play area/sports facility 10.5 When asked what else is important in terms of the growth and development of their village: 25% wish it to be modest and restricted to within the existing confines; 13% would like to see a focus on affordable and family housing; and 13% want any new housing provision to be in keeping with the character of the villages and feel that good design is important to ensure attractive houses 10.6 When asked how local residents want Maidwell or Draughton to evolve from now until 2030: 49% want it to be modest, slow, gradual and organic; 24% want to ensure that the character of the villages is upheld; and 23% want no or very little change
6 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Appendix A A list of the bodies, local groups and organisations, and other individuals with whom the Neighbourhood Plan consultation process has been engaged A1 Local Community: All resident households and businesses with addresses or offices in Maidwell with Draughton parish A2 Statutory Organisations: Northamptonshire County Council Daventry District Council Anglian Water Environment Agency National Grid Historic England Highways England A3 Others: Merton College Oxford
7 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Appendix B Blank copy of the questionnaire and survey form used to engage with the local community Maidwell with Draughton Parish Council Neighbourhood Planning
Summer 2017 Questionnaire to Residents and Businesses
8 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT August 2017 Dear Resident Your Parish Council has agreed to the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan. We believe that in this way we can have some control over how our villages grow and look after the countryside around us. Your responses to this questionnaire will form the basis of the plan. Many of the questions reflect the key issues we collected during the exhibitions on village confines held at Loder Hall in March. We now need to consult more widely and provide everyone the opportunity to identify what is important to them. Your input will help the Steering Committee to draft a plan that considers responses from all sections of the community. The draft plan will be subject to consultation with you later in the year, and then, after Daventry DC has had a chance to comment and after a Planning Inspector has reviewed it, there will be a formal Referendum in 2018. So, you will have plenty of opportunities to shape the draft later but we need your steer now. Please feel free to tell us about any wishes or concerns you have about the villages. Those that relate to Planning will inform our Neighbourhood Plan; those that relate to other matters, for example Highways, we will pass on to our relevant councillors. Daventry DC will be undertaking a Housing Needs Survey later in the year. Please look out for this as that can also inform our draft Neighbourhood Plan. Everyone who has a primary home in the Parish, and representatives of businesses, may respond to our Summer 2017 Questionnaire. We welcome individual responses from everyone in your household, including your children. If we haven’t given you enough questionnaires please email Pete Redman, Secretary to the Steering Committee, on [email protected], or download one from the Parish Council website. Please return your completed questionnaire to: The Old Rectory, Draughton Road, Maidwell NN6 9JF; Maple Lodge, Harborough Road, Maidwell NN6 9JA; or Bosworth Farmhouse, Draughton NN6 9JQ The closing date is Saturday 30th September 2017. Thanking you in advance
Sebastian Calnan Paul Turland Chair of the Parish Council Chair of the NP Steering Committee
9 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT General questions: Please identify your village Draughton/Maidwell Had you heard about the intention to create a Maidwell with Yes/No Draughton Neighbourhood Plan before today? Thinking about your village please tell us what you like most?
What three things would you most like to see happen in your village?
Please indicate how important the following are to you or your business 1 2 3 4 5 On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being Very Important and 1 being Of No Importance Upholding the character of the villages
Increasing the amount of accessible green and open spaces
Introduce A508 road calming and safe pedestrian crossing
Calming our village lanes
Parking for Maidwell Primary School
Having improved facilities for younger people
Encouraging younger households with families to live in the villages Suitable housing for older persons to downsize
Ensuring that any development is appropriate in setting and character Ensuring that growth in housing numbers is modest and in keeping with past trends Development for rural business within the confines of the villages Is there anything else which is important to you in terms of the growth and development of the villages?
How would you want Maidwell or Draughton to evolve from now until 2030?
10 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Development What kind of new housing do you think would be appropriate?
History, Heritage, and Character What aspects of the villages and the Parish Area do you think most important?
Roads and Transport What would you like to see changed about our roads and/or public transport?
Environment and Landscape What changes would you like to see?
Community Facilities What provision do you think we need?
Businesses or Services What would you like to see in the Neighbourhood Plan to help your business or service to be successful?
Any other comments?
11 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT About you
Your name:
Your email:
Your address:
Your age: <18 18-34 35-65 >65
Please circle appropriate box
Please confirm, by ticking this box that the Parish Council and its Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee may process your personal data, as provided by you above, in the course of performing the Council’s lawful activities and in accordance with the Data Protection Act
12 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Appendix C Summary of Responses from Questionnaire to Residents and Businesses
C1 Responses to Importance of Key Issues Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Respondents 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 '1' Scores 1 6 7 12 13 7 11 14 2 4 7 '2' Scores 0 9 8 11 8 13 9 14 2 3 17 '3' Scores 4 27 22 26 30 25 20 27 5 12 24 '4' Scores 27 24 25 20 20 29 36 22 14 17 26 '5' Scores 76 41 44 37 32 33 31 30 85 71 29 '0' Scores 1 2 3 3 6 2 2 2 1 2 6 Aggregate 501 406 409 377 359 389 388 361 502 469 362
13 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT C2 Relative Importance of Key Issues
No Importance/Nil Response Fairly Unimportant
Upholding the character of the villages 20 4 25 70
Increasing the amount of accessible green and 7 8 25 22 38 open spaces Introduce A508 road calming and safe pedestrian 9 7 20 23 40 crossing
Calming our village lanes 14 10 24 18 34
Parking for Maidwell Primary School 17 7 28 18 29
Having improved facilities for younger people 8 12 23 27 30
Encouraging younger households with families to 12 8 18 33 28 live in the villages
Suitable housing for older persons to downsize 15 13 25 20 28
Ensuring that any development is appropriate in setting and character 3 2 5 13 78 Ensuring that growth in housing numbers is 6 3 11 16 65 modest and in keeping with past trends Development for rural business within the 12 16 22 24 27 confines of the villages
C3 Analysis of Verbatim Comments Section 1 Thinking about your village please tell us what you like most? Responses 104 (95%) 57% cited the rural nature, character, situation & location combined with proximity and ease of access to open countryside 45% cited the people and the community at large 35% cited the small size of the village(s) and the peace & quiet 16% cited accessibility and transport links What three things would you most like to see happen in your village? Responses 96 (88%) – which generated 224 discrete “things” 34% wanted some form of traffic calming and/or speed control measures or volume reduction 32% wanted no change or limited development of housing only within the existing village confines 29% would like some form of park or play area/sports facility 25% would like a shop 17% would like to see modest development of housing for both young and old
14 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 13% would like to see improvements to the pub 10% would like to see better control of parking, particularly in respect of Maidwell Primary School Is there anything else which is important to you in terms of the growth and development of the villages? Responses 69 (63%) 25% wish it to be modest and restricted to within the existing confines 13% would like to see a focus on affordable and family housing 13% want any new housing provision to be in keeping with the character of the villages and feel that good design is important to ensure attractive houses 7% want to ensure that existing infrastructure, particularly access, is taken into account before any further development takes place How would you want Maidwell or Draughton to evolve from now until 2030? Responses 84 (77%) 49% want it to be modest, slow, gradual and organic 24% want to ensure that the character of the villages is upheld 23% want no or very little change 12% would like to see an increase in younger households Section 2 Development What kind of new housing do you think would be appropriate? Responses 95 (87%) 33% want affordable/low cost housing 24% want homes for younger families 14% want smaller homes for younger people and older residents to downsize 12% want no new housing 11% want 3-4 bedroom homes 8% want 2-3 bedroom houses History, Heritage, and Character What aspects of the villages and the Parish Area do you think most important? Responses 83 (76%) 46% cited the small size and rural nature of the villages along with access to open countryside 40% cited the church 13% cited the community 13% cited the village hall 12% cited the primary school
15 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 8% cited the pub Roads and Transport What would you like to see changed about our roads and/or public transport? Responses 91 (83%) 33% want to see some form of traffic calming and/or speed control on the A508 20% want no change 15% want to see speed and/or weight restrictions on Draughton Road and through Draughton 13% want to see improved public transport, mainly bus, services 10% want improved maintenance of existing roads and some widening/passing places on the smaller village lanes along with better trimming of hedgerows and trees 7% would like a pedestrian crossing on the A508 Environment and Landscape What changes would you like to see? Responses 70 (64%) 36% want no change 20% want better maintenance of existing footpaths and hedgerows 16% would like to see more effort put into tidying the villages and improving the existing community facilities 10% would like to see some form of park or play area/sports facility Community Facilities What provision do you think we need? Responses 85 (78%) 38% would like a shop 35% want some form of park or play area/sports facility 24% want none as adequate provision exists and better use should be made of it Businesses or Services What would you like to see in the Neighbourhood Plan to help your business or service to be successful? Responses 16 (15%) responses 38% want to see better high-speed broadband at lower cost with a greater choice of providers 25% would like greater support from the community Any other comments? Responses 30 (28%) responses Two indicate the respondents have little faith in the process and feel that the whole thing is a waste of time.
16 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Two thank the Steering Committee for its work on the NP and for undertaking the consultation. Two express the benefits of extending the footpath beside the A508 towards Kelmarsh to make cycling and walking safer. There are a couple of references to both Maidwell Hall School and Maidwell Primary School making some of their respective facilities accessible to the wider village community. Apart from the above none of these “other” comments introduce anything not already covered by the previous questions and there are no material common themes.
17 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Appendix D Blank copy of the Regulation 14 consultation questionnaire used for responses to the draft Neighbourhood Plan SECTION 1: Consultation on the draft Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Plan Please return your comments, using this form, by 15th May 2018 to: The Old Rectory, Draughton Road, Maidwell NN6 9JF; Maple Lodge, Harborough Road, Maidwell NN6 9JA; or Bosworth Farmhouse, Draughton NN6 9JQ The process to produce a Neighbourhood Plan for the Parish of Maidwell with Draughton, requires the Parish Council to conduct a six-week consultation on the draft document, prior to its formal submission to Daventry District Council, the Planning Inspector and the work leading up to the formal Parish Referendum on the Plan, likely to be held towards the end of the year. We welcome your comments on the draft Plan, please feel free to tell us what you think of the document, good or bad, even if you have no specific comments on the draft. If you agree with the draft Plan please do say so, rather than remain silent. Responses received by the above date may be used to amend the Draft Neighbourhood Plan and a “Consultation Statement” will note how these comments have been considered within the final submitted document. Contact details are required for all responses, but will not be included within the submitted documentation. Thanking you in advance
Sebastian Calnan Paul Turland Chair of the Parish Council Chair of the NP Steering Committee
Please provide the information below to give some background detail on your response. Title First name Last name Organisation (if applicable) Representing (if applicable) Address Post Code Telephone Email Connection with Maidwell Parish resident Yes / No with Draughton Parish Business within the Parish Yes / No (please answer one or Landowner within the Parish Yes / No more) Other Yes / No
18 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT SECTION 2: Comments to submit Where possible, please indicate to which part of the draft Neighbourhood Plan each comment relates. Please provide your comments below and use an extra sheet if necessary. Paragraph number & General comments: page number in Plan:
Specific comments on the proposed maps and policies Policy Reference Number: (section 5):
Any other comments about the draft Neighbourhood Plan document or process:
19 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Appendix E Table of responses to Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation Regulation 14 responses made to comments received on Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Plan 1. Responses to comments from Maidwell with Draughton Parish residents and other local interests 1.1 Specific Comments on the proposed maps and policies
No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 1 1.3 Section 1.3 (Page 5): We are Ray Barnes Census data There was an error in very surprised at the breakdown includes the initial data. The by age as per the 2011 census, borders at text and chart have particularly 38% aged 16 to 17. Maidwell Hall been revised. 2 5 We would like to see 2 points Ray Barnes Noted The response is given further emphasis in noted, no further section 5 (see below): action required. 3 6/ Section 6 (page 30)/MD9 (page Ray Barnes Not possible No update necessary MD9 29): In either section 6 (page 30 for existing or perhaps MD9 (page 29), we houses. would like to see a proposed Is a move to off road parking for requirement existing as well as new houses. for new Current arrangements hinder us housing. getting in and out of our drive and large vehicles passing our property on Draughton Road. 4 6/ Section 6 (page 30)/MD3a Ray Barnes Inappropriate No update necessary MD3a (page 25): Perhaps in section 6 for a planning or MD3a we would like to see policy “respecting the tranquillity” of the villages by the inclusion of the phrase that all reasonable steps should be taken, and residents encouraged, to minimize all forms of noise pollution. 5 1.3 1.3 Page 5: Are there really 164 Ivan Barrett Census data There was an error in residents age 16-17? includes the initial data. The borders at text and chart have Maidwell Hall been revised. 6 MD9 Traffic management idea Peter Noted No update necessary excellent. Coulson 7 MD5 Yes excellent. A few bungalows Peter Noted No update necessary would help some retired people. Coulson 8 6 Pedestrian crossing would slow Peter Noted No update necessary traffic down. Excellent idea. Coulson Parish action 9 1.3 There are errors on page 5 (pie John Crook Census data There was an error in chart – ages) includes the initial data. The borders at text and chart have Maidwell Hall been revised. 10 Maps There are errors on page 31 John Crook Agree and These errors have (maps key for local green amend the been corrected spaces) text
20 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 11 3.1 However, we would like to John Crook Noted No update necessary emphasise our thoughts on the See response Maidwell village confines. There to comments was some discussion at the 12 & 13 recent Loder Hall exhibition on Sat 21 April regarding revising the confines of Maidwell, specifically: a) to the west to include Manor Farm and Sylvia Stanier’s housing land; and b) to the south to bring the confines nearer to the centre of the village.
21 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 12 3.1 The current confines to the west John Crook Confines will Revised confines for is the stream (we think) and not be Maidwell proposed in excludes the area from the extended. section 4.1 stream west to the Special Landscape Area. After looking Revised at the map in the village hall our confines for view is that the village confines Maidwell should remain as presented. proposed for This is to safeguard the areas of discussion woodland directly behind us with Steering (Gail & John), Ann & Colin, the Committee on Loder Hall and The Stag public 26th June– house. This area is highlighted see map to on the map extract [attached to be circulated these comments]. separately. The land and buildings owned by Sylvia Stanier will almost Suitability of certainly be sold in the not too access roads distant future and the will be subject ‘brownfield’ element developed, to planning we want the ‘green’ area to the applications. east protected from any development. As a villager affected by whatever development may occur we feel this should be on a very small scale. The only current access to the area is the paved single vehicle track which runs down the side of our property and back garden and therefore, the noise, inconvenience and safety aspect (our side gate opens onto the track) caused by increased vehicle traffic would be detrimental to our peace, quiet and life style in retirement. We also feel that the character of this rural environment should be maintained as it is (after all we live in a village not a town). For others in the village, their houses will not be affected by this village plan; life goes on as normal. We hope the committee and the Parish Council will take the above into consideration when adopting any policy for development and that affected residents are consulted on any ongoing plans for this area. If you haven’t already done so, we would recommend an inspection of the track and area.
22 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 13 3.1 The current boundary on the John Crook Revised Revised confines for south of Maidwell is bounded by confines for Maidwell proposed in the ‘old police house’ and east Maidwell section 4.1 across Maidwell Hall school proposed for land. There has been some talk discussion of bringing this boundary closer with Steering to the centre of Maidwell. We Committee on believe that this boundary 26th June– should remain as is, as there see map to could be possible development be circulated of land here on both sides of the separately A508. This would go some way towards the 10-year plan of dwellings in Maidwell. Also, there is likely to be less aggravation from villagers for development here. 14 1.3 Page 5; Pie chart giving 164 Robert Census data There was an error in people between age 16-17 Dorey includes the initial data. The seems wrong. borders at text and chart have Maidwell Hall been revised. 15 4.5 13-14 dwellings within the Robert Disagree – is No update necessary village confines of Maidwell Dorey possible seems high for the available within land. proposed revised confines 16 1.3 Page 5, second pie chart: Are Howard Fay Census data There was an error in 38% of residents aged 16 or 17? includes the initial data. The borders at text and chart have Maidwell Hall been revised. 17 Maps Page 31: this page is not Howard Fay Noted and All pages numbered numbered number all pages 18 Maps Page 31, at bottom: Draughton Howard Fay Noted to Policies Maps verges should be ei to ev. ev is amend the amended missing and the others are text labelled di, dii, diii, div. 19 Maps Page 32: ci, cii are not labelled Howard Fay Noted to Policies Maps on the map. cviii is labelled amend the amended twice (once in the wrong place). text 20 Maps Possible extras: should the Howard Fay No one No update necessary other church (remains) be knows where mentioned somewhere? it is. 21 Maps Possible extras: also, is the Howard Fay Not No update necessary bridge over the brook (boundary considered of Maidwell/Draughton) an old worthy of one? special mention. 22 Maps Possible extras: should the Howard Fay No. No update necessary Dale Wood special area be Not extended to include the newly landscape, built waterfall? rather domestic. 23 Maps Possible confusions, page 32: Howard Fay Noted to Policies Maps on the west side of the A508, amend the amended verges are shaded. However, map. the shading includes private gardens (one is planted) as well as the council grass verge (which the council do not seem to mow).
23 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 24 MD2 Recreation ground: Should this Howard Fay No. No update necessary not be a major priority? In Already Maidwell, there may be link mentioned in between this and the difficulty of the policy crossing the A508. 25 MD2 Recreation ground: In Howard Fay Not a village No update necessary Draughton, you do not mention field. Part of what I have always understood Rice Farms. to be the village field. 26 MD8 Recreation ground: Possibly if Howard Fay Use of No update necessary a builder builds new houses they Community should contribute to a recreation Infrastructure ground (not mentioned in Levy (CIL) to Section 7). be decided by PC. 27 6 Traffic on A508: Should Howard Fay Not a No update necessary consideration be given to a planning pedestrian crossing? policy matter. Possible PC action. 28 6 Traffic on A508: Tied in with Howard Fay Not No update necessary this is the lack of pavement on appropriate the west side of the A508. One for NP. section, near The Stag, is particularly uneven for walkers. 29 Maps Proposal Map 2: The proposed Martin No. No confines defined village boundary splits the Hedges Confines will for Draughton, curtilage of The Hedges so that not be paragraph 3.2.3 refers the existing barn building is extended. located outside of the proposed Revised village boundary. However, the confines more sensible and reasonable proposed for boundary would extend along Maidwell the line in the plan, which joins likely to with the north end of the barn, concede consistent with the curtilage Draughton. established with the Planning Office. This would not be inconsistent with e.g. the Maidwell map, which shows the boundary jutting out by a large degree at the north end of Draughton Road. 30 MD1 MD1 Village Confines: I don’t Gaye It is an outlier, No update necessary understand why Manor Farm Highton not within the and the surrounding yard are SLA and the within the Special Landscape confines will Area but outside the village not be confines. Surely these extended. properties have a Maidwell address and are in the village? 31 6 The only thing I would have liked Fiona Noted. No update necessary to see included would be traffic Howes Not a calming measures for Draughton planning Road (e.g. 20 mph speed limit). matter. 32 4.8 4.8 Traffic Mng/Transport: Brian Not for the No update necessary must agree with key points. Lawrence NP. A508 needs traffic warning both ends of village. As it is a Red Route costs should be met by Highways or Government department.
24 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 33 MD2 MD 2: Brampton Valley Way Brian Noted. No update necessary needs more care and Lawrence maintenance. 34 MD9 MD 9: looks good but calming is Brian Not a No update necessary so important. Draughton Road Lawrence planning has dangerous bends and the matter. school traffic has much larger cars. 35 MD2 Also, our verges are under Brian Noted No update necessary threat. Lawrence 36 6 20 mph speed limit required Brian Not a No update necessary urgently. Lawrence planning matter 37 6 The school plans for Brian Not for the No update necessary construction traffic are not Lawrence NP. acceptable. I have large file on survey. 38 4.5 4.5 (Pages 18-20): contains Richard These are No update necessary references to “emerging policy Manning available from frameworks” and “emerging DDC local plan” but it is not clear to me what they are and how they may influence Housing Policy. 39 4.5 4.5 (Page 19): references Richard Noted to Text amended at within Housing Needs Survey Manning amend the paragraph 4.5.2.1 2017 to “Borough Council” – text. Should which Borough Council? be DDC 40 MD5 ‘New Housing’ Proposals: Richard Feedback No update necessary where does the wording in black Manning from the bold print derive from? In gathering particular, what evidence in the views survey document supports the general of residents. statement of a provision of “smaller and more affordable dwellings…..for younger families, etc.…. and older residents who wish to downsize?” 41 MD5 Policy MD 5 (Page 20): subject Richard Noted No update necessary to above comments (which are Manning not reconcilable with MD5 Policy), I agree with the principles of MD5. 42 4.5 4.5 (page 18) Housing: a Sally Manz Covered in No update necessary question is whether or not there MD5 is sufficient focus on affordable housing in the parish for those with school-age children. The future of the school needs to be considered as signs in the village suggest there are currently places available for September 2018. 43 4.7 4.7 (page 20): disappointed to Sally Manz Covered in No update necessary see that there is limited MD8 emphasis on widening community facilities for younger residents. Again, it’s about looking to the future.
25 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 44 4.7 Is there any chance that there Sally Manz Not a No update necessary could be a more ‘formal’ planning agreement with Maidwell Hall matter School to allow their playing fields to be used by local children in holiday time? 45 4.8 4.8 (page 20): I think it’s Sally Manz Agreed and Amended text at unrealistic to suggest further amend the paragraph 4.8.1 traffic calming measure on the text A508. It’s a main ‘A’ road. Residents are aware of this when they buy a home in the parish. To try and reduce speed further would be unrealistic and disruptive. It’s a question of taking sensible precautions. 46 4.8 4.8 (page 20): we agree Roger & Not a No update necessary generally with traffic Dorothy planning management and transport for Martin matter the A508. However, Draughton also has traffic problems, for example, speeding and from traffic. Traffic calming measures are needed particularly along High Street where children often use their bikes. 47 5 5: we agree with the proposed Roger & Noted No update necessary maps and policies. Dorothy Martin 48 MD1 Policy MD1: I would question Ann It is an outlier. No update necessary why the area of Manor Farm is Paybody – not included in the ‘village representing confine’ area. It is one of the R J oldest properties in the village Paybody and should definitely be included in my view. 49 6 As regards traffic calming and Ann Noted No update necessary speed. Ever since the 30 mph Paybody – was introduced the speed of representing traffic has improved apart from R J the odd idiot! Paybody 50 6 The police speed camera had Ann Noted No update necessary had a good effect and needs Paybody – encouraging at busy times representing R J Paybody 51 3.2 It is disappointing so see such a Colin & Ann Response No update necessary low response to the Rabjohn was a questionnaires etc. You claim representativ over 30% of households e sample. responded, which we assume mean less than 40%. It is not easy to draw conclusions with the low level of interest. 52 Contents Error on P2: presumably the Colin & Ann Noted to Plan Period amended plan is 2018 to 2029 as it says Rabjohn amend the throughout on the cover. text
26 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 53 4.8 Reference 4.8 (pages 20 & 21): Colin & Ann Agreed and Amended text at we consider that the comment Rabjohn amend the paragraph 4.8.1 about the walking route across text the A508 to the Loder Hall and the Stag being “hazardous” is both emotive and reckless. There is no evidence to support such a claim. Apart from the poor soul who lost his life by laying down in the middle of the road, we are not aware of any pedestrian accidents in the last 12 years that we have lived in Maidwell. As a consequence, we think that the conclusion that because a bit of care is needed to cross the road then it is probably not worth developing the recreation area at the Loder Hall is ridiculous. Given that 25% of the properties are on the west side of the road, then you would need to draw the same conclusions wherever such an area was sited. We are bisected by the A508; accept it and live with it!
27 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 54 MD1 Policy MD1/Proposal Map 1: Colin & Ann It is an outlier. No update necessary we are surprised to see that Rabjohn Manor Farm and the Manor Any farmhouse are not included development within the confines of Maidwell. proposal will We are unsure about the pros be subject to and cons of this. Does this scrutiny under mean that this area is not the planning subject to scrutiny against the process. Development Plan? Whilst it is necessary to respect the privacy of the current occupant, it is likely that Manor Farm will become available for development purposes during the lifetime of the plan and given the existing buildings (2 bungalows and approx. 3 barns), then this area could support at least a third of the 15 new houses suggested on page 10. Given that this site already has residential property and DDC is minded to grant permission to allow conversion of redundant farm buildings, it is difficult to see why this area would not be developed. It is believed that planning consent for a barn conversion was granted some years ago but has since lapsed. We are naturally concerned as any development in this area would have a direct impact on Burrowdale, Church House and Berrylands. 55 MD9 Policy MD9 – Page 29 Traffic Colin & Ann Agree it is not No update necessary Calming: it is our understanding Rabjohn a planning that traffic management matter. (including calming) is not a planning issue and is therefore outside the scope of the Development Plan. Therefore, the comment about reducing traffic speeds should not be included in the document, lest you give false hope to those who are concerned by such matters. 56 3.2 3.2 Community Survey: over Andrew Noted. No update necessary 90% wish to uphold the Shackleton character of the villages. The character of Maidwell is already being badly eroded by the substantial increase in traffic flow since the A14 was opened and the speed of vehicles way over 30 mph when speed camera not there.
28 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 57 4.5 4.5 Housing: if the area housing Andrew Each No update necessary development of 2,360 dwellings Shackleton application has been exceeded by 520, how will be are any further houses to gain considered on planning permission in the its merits period up to 2029? 58 6 Please help to maintain our Andrew Not a No update necessary quiet village by reduced speed Shackleton planning on A508, bring back fixed speed matter cameras 24 hours per day! 59 Cover & Title on Front Cover and Paul Noted to Plan Period amended contents Contents Page: these two Turland amend the to be consistent pages show difference dates. text throughout the Front cover states “2018-2029”. document Contents page state “2018- 2028”. 60 1.3 1.3 Page 5: age and gender Paul Noted to There was an error in profiles are incorrect as they Turland amend the the initial data. The include students at Maidwell Hall charts and text and chart have School. text been revised. 61 3.3 3.3 (c) (page 13): I can find no Paul Noted and Reference removed record of planning permission Turland amend the from paragraph 3.5.3 being approved for 6 additional text to bedrooms at The Stag public remove this house. reference 62 4.8 4.8 (page 20): there is no Paul Noted to Amended text at empirical evidence to support Turland amend the paragraph 4.8.1 the suggestion that it is text. “hazardous” to cross the A508 and it is not sound to conclude that it is unwise to encourage improvement to the recreation area at Loder Hall without pedestrian improvements.
29 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 63 5.3 5.3 Proposals Map 1 (page Paul Revised Revised confines for 32): the proposed confines for Turland confines for Maidwell proposed in Maidwell conflict with statements Maidwell section 4.1 elsewhere in the document. proposed for Paragraph 4.1 on page 14 discussion contains the principles for with Steering exclusion from confines, which Committee on include “A Gardens which are 26th June– visually open and relate to the see map to open countryside”. Given that be circulated Maidwell is a small linear village separately along the A508, also extending along Draughton Road” (paragraph 4.3 page 17) and the majority of gardens to the east of the A508 and along Draughton Road are open and relate to the open countryside, I recommend that the gardens of the houses forming this linear village to the east of the A508 and along Draughton Road should be excluded from the confines. I also believe that the majority of the land surrounding Maidwell Hall School should be excluded from the confines. Amended confines Proposals Map 1 attached. 64 5.3 5.3 Proposals Map 2 (page Paul To be No confines defined 33): It would seem logical to Turland discussed for Draughton, include a strip of land to the with DDC – paragraph 3.2.3 refers west of Lamport Road extending likely to from the farm entrance to concede directly opposite the last house Draughton to on the east side of the road gain within the confines to allow the agreement for potential for linear housing on Maidwell both sides of Lamport Road. 65 1.3 P5; pie chart in error? Maidwell David Census data There was an error in Hall included? Census gives 16- Unwin includes the initial data. The 45 age group? borders at text and chart have Maidwell Hall been revised. 66 3.1 P10: Confines: the large central David Not required No update required field is obviously a prime site for Unwin to achieve development, whatever the local ten-year plan. politics. Sense should prevail over politics. 67 4.3 P16: the BVW is totally David Not a Reference to undervalued as a heritage asset, Unwin planning protection of BVW for recreation and as a wildlife matter. added to paragraph “corridor”. Keeping the tunnels To be 4.2.6 and included in open is a pre-requisite here. discussed Policy MD2A in with DDC section 7.2 68 4.4 P18: Thor Site Listing: from David Agree and Policies Maps and memory the listed area includes Unwin amend the section 4.4 (Heritage) the munitions shed and maps and the updated ramparts (?). See also Map 3. text
30 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 69 4.4 P18: the village walls are a David Noted and Reference included in feature/asset. Potentially also Unwin amend the paragraph 1.2 and the “pave” along parts of text to add to section 4.4 (Heritage) Draughton Road. local heritage assets 70 5.1 5.1: concur with overall vision David Noted No update necessary and objectives Unwin 71 MD1 MD1-2: concur David Noted No update necessary Unwin 72 MD3 MD3 (c): BVW value to wildlife? David Noted and Text amended Unwin amend the text to add BVW to MD3 73 MD9 MD 9 (?) & (c): BVW here – David Do not No action keep access to north? Unwin understand clarification required 74 MD6 MD6: concur David Noted No update necessary Unwin 75 MD7 MD7: concur David Noted No update necessary Unwin 76 MD8 MD 8: concur David Noted No update necessary Unwin 77 1.3 1.3 page 5 – Breakdown by Tim Wright Noted and There was an error in Age: no mention of age groups amend the the initial data. The 18-44 years. charts text and chart have been revised. 78 4.8 As a Draughton resident often Catherine Noted No update necessary passing through Maidwell the Calnan parking at the Primary School is a hazard – especially for the children. Use of land behind seems an attractive option – ’though possibly not achievable. 79 Maps See Proposal Maps Key: Mr J Bratton Should be Policies Maps Draughton verges – div – is it & Mrs J Church Farm. updated Church Farm you are referring Bratton Amend the to and not Manor Farm? text 80 6 Reduction in speed between the Mr J Bratton Not a No update necessary villages – “access roads to & Mrs J planning village” – (lorry access managed Bratton matter to allow the lorries to come in one way and out another). 81 MD5 More social housing – we don’t Mr J Bratton Noted. No update necessary want our village to become a & Mrs J Covered in weekend only village. Bratton MD5 82 MD5 Further comments on housing Mrs Gabriel Noted. No update necessary provision. Cornwell Covered in Also, sufficient local authority / MD5 housing association / cooperative housing available for a “mixed” community to emerge 83 6 Traffic Management etc. Mrs Gabriel Not a No update necessary Reduction of speeds within Cornwell planning villages to be considered a matter priority.
31 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 84 MD5 Emphasise affordable housing Mrs Gabriel Noted. No update necessary for young families so we don’t Cornwell Covered in become a village for MD5 weekenders. 85 3.1 Old settlement area around W D Tustin It is an outlier No update necessary Manor Farm is excluded – WHY? 86 1.1 Distinctive elements in Maidwell Penny Noted and Reference included in should include: Evans amend the paragraph 1.2 In Maidwell the parish church text and its setting of historic buildings and mature trees provide a particularly attractive form for the village, enhanced by the geography of rising ground and a meander in the road. The mud-bonded stone boundary walls are as distinctive as the grass verges 87 MD6 g. Design Making a contribution Penny Noted and Reference to suitable to local identity by good, Evans amend the materials added to thoughtful design. Examples in text MD6 Maidwell are, in my opinion, Araminta Cottage, The Dower House & The Croft j. I would challenge the use of “suitable artificial alternatives” to local vernacular materials. If unavailable or unaffordable, new materials that are honest (not pretending to be something else) are preferable.
32 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 88 MD1 The College is supportive of the Savills Noted Section 4.1 sets out designation of village confines to representing explanation for provide clarity as to where the Merton revised confines for presumption in favour of College Maidwell and no sustainable development will confines defined for apply, as defined on the Draughton adjoining Proposals Map. It is accepted that the application of village confines will ensure the management of growth in the open countryside, in line with relevant Local Pan and national planning policies. The College suggests that the identified village confines should not be too tightly drawn around the settlements and should allow sufficient room for growth over the plan period to support the Plan’s own aspirations of providing circa 13 dwellings in Maidwell and circa 2 in Draughton. Notwithstanding, the rationale behind the designation of the village confines is less clear. Some further explanation about the justification of the boundaries chosen is advisable to support the robustness of the NP. 89 MD4 As referenced above, having Savills Noted Policies Maps and regard to Listed buildings and representing Heritage Maps Conservation Areas is a basic Merton amended condition necessary to support College the soundness of the NP. The thrust of Policy MD4 adheres to this condition and is broadly supported in accordance with relevant national policies. The 13 heritage assets identified by the Plan as worthy of protection by Policy MD4 are not identified on the Proposals Map. The College would recommend that they are included to avoid the relationship between the Policy and the heritage assets identified in Appendix A being overlooked. Furthermore, the numbering system for heritage assets in Appendix A does not identify which buildings and structures they relate to. This would be useful for clarity.
33 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 90 MD5 The College supports the thrust Savills Noted No action of Policy MD5 and reiterates the representing point made under Basic Merton Condition (a) of this College correspondence. The currently proposed growth of 1-2 dwellings in Draughton and 13- 14 in Maidwell should, however, be viewed as a minimum delivery target for the plan period, rather than as a cap on development. This would ensure the necessary flexibility in the Plan’s ability to respond to changing housing requirements during the plan period, as appropriate. 91 MD2; Detailed comments on these Savills Noted No further action MD3a; polices is not provided at this representing required at this stage MD3b; stage, although the College Merton MD3c; respectfully requests opportunity College MD6 to comment should these policies be revised in later iterations of the Plan.
34 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 92 Land off Maidwell Road Savills Noted No confines defined Draughton / Land at Lamport representing for Draughton, Road Draughton Merton paragraph 3.2.3 refers Attached is a map presented to College the NP steering group demonstrating two sites under the College’s ownership within Draughton. The College supports both sites being included within the settlement boundary and suitable for development. Site A in Maidwell Road is an area of land within which sits a redundant vernacular building. The building is included as a heritage asset within Appendix A of the NP. It is considered that the site relates well to the village, as evidenced by the settlement boundary map, and that its conversion and modest extension to residential use would contribute to aspirations within the plan. Site B in Lamport Road provides the opportunity to contribute small scale residential development to Draughton within the proposed village confines. This is supported in principle. However, the village confine as it currently stands would encourage a layout of frontages along the unnamed road leading to agricultural buildings at Home Farm. The College suggests that any frontages would better relate to Draughton if they faced along Lamport Road. As such the College requests that the steering group considers a revision to the village confine which better reflects this suggestion. A plan to illustrate this amendment is enclosed.
35 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 93 Land north of Draughton Savills Noted Revised confines for Road Maidwell representing Maidwell proposed in In respect of land at Maidwell, Merton section 4.1 the College controls land north College of Draughton Road to the rear of existing residential properties in proximity to Maidwell Primary School. A site plan is attached for reference. The College is aware of ongoing parking concerns associated with the school. It is considered that the provision of modest residential development north of Draughton Road could enable delivery of an appropriately sized car park and safe walking route to ease local congestion. The site at land north of Draughton Road is well-related to existing built form and offers potential to provide for limited residential development. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Parishes in the ongoing preparation of the Plan.
36 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 1.2 Other general comments (Parish residents and other local interests) No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 1 General Very well constructed document. Charles Noted The response is No specific comments on the Abolins noted, no further content. Many thanks to the action required. Steering Committee for keeping us well informed throughout the process. 2 General All makes sense to me. Thank Eileen Noted The response is you for all your time and work. Arnold noted, no further action required. 3 General You seem to have everything John Noted The response is well covered. Groocock noted, no further action required. 4 General Huge thanks to all have Sarah Noted The response is produced an excellent plan! Paybody noted, no further action required. 5 General We feel that the opportunity has Philip & Noted The response is been missed that could have Angela noted, no further allowed the village to expand Jackson action required. and become more vibrant in its own right. 6 General Well done on producing such a Sarah Noted The response is lengthy document. Paybody noted, no further representing action required. R J Paybody & Sons & Paybody Farm (Maidwell) Ltd 7 General Not much mention of Sarah Noted The response is agriculture? I think when land is Paybody noted, no further farmed well it goes unnoticed but representing action required. if left without care, everyone R J complains! Paybody & Sons & Paybody Farm (Maidwell) Ltd 8 General It’s an excellent document and I Mary Noted The response is have no comments, except to Sanders- noted, no further say that the Parish Council Hewett action required. cannot promise improvements to highway problems. Highways are bound by regulations and lack of funds and parking problems will not easily be alleviated around MP8. Much work has already been done to little effect. Various solutions for speeding on A508 have been put forward but Highways have refused to adopt any and I cannot see that changing. 9 General Sounds like a good plan, we David & Ann Noted The response is agree with it. Sharman noted, no further action required. 10 General A well thought out Daphne Noted The response is Neighbourhood Plan. Thank Simmons noted, no further you. action required.
37 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 11 General Very thorough job – impressive. I Sebastian Noted The response is agree the contents. Calnan noted, no further action required. 12 General Sheila and I are generally Ray Barnes Noted The response is supportive of the draft plan and noted, no further would only comments as follows: action required. 13 General We support and appreciate the Ray Barnes Noted The response is process adopted to engage the noted, no further public in the production of the action required. Neighbourhood Plan and the work done so far by the committee and the Parish Council. 14 General We support the draft vision and Ray Barnes Noted The response is objectives and the proposed noted, no further village confines. action required. 15 General Seems eminently sensible to Ivan Barrett Noted The response is me. noted, no further action required. 16 General You have done an impressive in- Peter Noted The response is depth job. Well done. Coulson noted, no further action required. 17 General An excellent professional and John Crook Noted The response is comprehensive document with a noted, no further clear vision and objectives for action required. the two villages. 18 General The challenge for villagers and John Crook Noted The response is authorities will be the noted, no further acceptance and delivery, within action required. the stated period, of the objectives: - protect/enhance landscape, heritage, green spaces, recreation, education and community facilities. - maintain and develop housing opportunities with the quoted growth - improvements in road safety, traffic management and public transport. 19 General Apart from errors above, the John Crook Noted The response is document as presented is noted, no further acceptable without change. action required. 20 General A well-structured, reasoned Robert Noted The response is document, apparently linked to Dorey noted, no further appropriate policies and action required. framework. 21 General Thanks to all those involved for Howard Fay Noted The response is an impressive and professional noted, no further document. action required. 22 General I agree with the plan – it is well Fiona Noted The response is drafted and comprehensive. Howes noted, no further action required. 23 General Congratulations on a first-class Brian Noted The response is draft plan. Lawrence noted, no further action required. 24 General We need to review next steps in Brian Noted The response is view of the current mess Lawrence noted, no further councils are in with two action required. “Madonna’s” around.
38 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 25 General The draft document covers a Richard Noted Document redrafted great deal of matters. It contains Manning details which are not easy to follow and there are areas of presentation which are difficult to understand. 26 General I appreciate the drafting of such Richard Noted. No action a document is arduous and a Manning further public meeting to explain There will be the findings may now be further appropriate to ensure better engagement public engagement with the with residents parish community. Despite the above comments, I am generally supportive of the plan. 27 General Thank you for the time taken to Sally Manz Noted The response is produce the plan. A noted, no further comprehensive document. action required. 28 General Thank you for the excellent job Roger & Noted The response is you have done to produce our Dorothy noted, no further Maidwell and Draughton Martin action required. Neighbourhood Plan. 29 General Plan was clear and logical. Felt Jonathan Noted The response is like thorough job in laying out Munro noted, no further issues. action required. 30 General I was expecting firmer proposals Jonathan Decision The response is in light of community wide Munro taken not to noted, no further building targets – perhaps with allocate sites action required. some housing development recommendations. 31 General Pleased that detailed work done Jonathan Noted The response is on green spaces and important Munro noted, no further facilities such as schools and action required. public house. 32 General The document is not what we Colin & Ann Noted The response is were expecting. We expected a Rabjohn noted, no further document that basically said that action required. Maidwell could accommodate a further x properties (you do mention 15 properties on p10, but not in the Vision) and here are some locations that you think could be developed. Instead it is more of a set of guidelines that you might expect any planning application to be subject to presently. 33 General Impressed by this Andrew Noted The response is comprehensive plan and agree Shackleton noted, no further with content. action required. 34 General A job well done. Many thanks. David Unwin Noted The response is noted, no further action required. 35 General An excellent professional Tim Wright Noted The response is production – well done to all noted, no further involved. Thank you. action required. 36 General This is an exceptionally well Catherine Noted The response is thought out and presented piece Calnan noted, no further of work – laying bare action required. uncomfortable truths but also suggesting positive options.
39 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 37 General It is a pity that important Penny Noted and The Local List of information about heritage Evans amend the heritage assets now assets was placed in the document forms part of the main Appendix and only available document. online. I think this may have been missed/ignored by some. There are many historic buildings and structures which contribute to the local scene and which are not covered by any “protection/listing”. The stone walls in the villages are particularly undervalued & this is reflected in the way they are casually repaired (with cement) or not – i.e. allowed to be destroyed by ivy. The coke store & churchyard walls in Maidwell should be highlighted as significant elements of the landscape. 38 General Other than that – well done to Penny Noted The response is all! Evans noted, no further action required. 39 Tim Simmons representing Loder Hall 40 Lynne Barnett 41 General The College congratulates the Savills Noted The response is Neighbourhood Plan Steering representing noted, no further Committee on the preparation of Merton action required. the Plan and welcomes the College opportunity to assist with the preparation of the Plan which will help shape the future development in the area.
40 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 42 General We have reviewed the process Savills Noted The response is undertaken by the Steering representing noted, no further Committee in preparing the NP Merton action required. as set out by The College Neighbourhood Plan (General) Regulations 2012. The Parish Council is the “qualifying body” and the Neighbourhood Plan area is defined by the Parish boundary and administrative are of Maidwell with Draughton Parish Council. Paragraph 14 of Part 5 of the Regulations sets out the requirements for pre-submission consultation. The College considers that the Steering Committee has met these requirements. It has: Publicised the plan in a manner that is likely to bring the plan to the attention of people who live, work or carry out business in the neighbourhood area; Provided details of the proposals for the plan, and details of where, when and how to make representations to the plan; Consulted appropriate consultation bodies that might be affected by the proposal; and Sent a copy of the Draft NP document to DDC. For the above reasons, the Steering Committee has clearly followed due process in preparing the NP. 43 General When the NP is submitted to Savills Noted The response is DDC and following a further representing noted, no further period of consultation, an Merton action required. Examiner will be appointed to College ensure that the plan meets the Basic Conditions as set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and County Planning Act 1990, and which are listed in paragraph 065 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). We set out below an initial view on the plan’s consistency with the Basic Conditions.
41 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 44 General Basic Condition (a): Having Savills Noted No action Regard to National Planning representing Policies Merton As listed in paragraph 070 of the College NPPG, paragraph 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that Neighbourhood Plans support the strategic development needs of Local Plans, including policies for housing and economic development. Paragraph 184 of the NPPF states that Neighbourhood Plans should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan. The WNJCS sets the growth strategy for the district, including housing growth in the rural areas of the district of circa 2,360 dwellings. In the emerging Settlements and Countryside Plan Part 2, it is noted in the WNJCS that the target of 2,360 dwellings in the rural areas has been exceeded, and that no rural residential allocations are proposed. This is reflected in the approach of the NP. The College appreciates that whilst there is no requirement to identify or allocate sites for new housing development, it welcomes the Plan’s “keenness to provide guidance for any “windfall” development that could come forward during the NP period” (paragraph 4.5). The currently proposed growth of 1-2 dwellings in Draughton and 13- 14 in Maidwell should, however, be viewed as a minimum delivery target for the plan period, rather than as a cap on development. This would ensure the necessary flexibility in the Plan’s ability to respond to changing housing requirements during the plan period, as appropriate.
42 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 45 General Basic Condition (b) and (c): Savills Noted The response is Having Regard to the Listed representing noted, no further Building and Conservation Area. Merton action required. These basic conditions require College that policies in the NP do not weaken the statutory protections for listed buildings and conservation areas. Section 4 identifies heritage as a key priority for the Plan’s policies. Section 5 outlines one of the Plan’s draft objectives as “to prot4ect the landscape and heritage of the two parishes”, whilst Policy MD4 specifically addresses the protection of heritage assets (listed and non- designated). Appendix A provides a list of all identified heritage assets in the plan area, alongside a map of heritage assets in both parishes. At this stage, it is clear that the Plan has due regard to listed buildings and conservation areas.
43 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 46 General Basic Condition (d): Contributing Savills Noted No action to Sustainable Development representing Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets Merton out a powerful presumption in College favour of sustainable development. NPs must therefore demonstrate that they contribute to improvements in environmental, economic and social conditions. Paragraph 16 of the NPPF sets out the implications of this presumption on the production of NPs and how they can address these. Although Policy R1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 identifies a rural settlement hierarchy to guide development in rural areas, it leaves the allocation of each settlement to Part 2 of the Daventry Local Plan. The draft Local Plan Part 2 sets out Maidwell in the “Other Villages” category and Draughton within the “Small Settlements”, identifying their place in the settlement hierarchy and reflective of their respective sustainability credentials. The NP is not accompanied by a sustainability appraisal, and as stated in the NPPG this is not a legal requirement. Nevertheless, the Parish Councils may find the preparation of a sustainability appraisal a useful approach in demonstrating how the Plan meets the basic condition. 47 General Basic Condition (e): Conformity Savills Noted The response is with Strategic Policies of the representing noted, no further Development Plan Merton action required. The NP must be in conformity College with the WNJCS and has also been prepared in accordance with the emerging Settlements and Countryside Plan Part 2. Section 2 of the Plan outlines the relevant strategic policies. At this stage, it is considered that the policies of the NP generally uphold the principles of relevant strategic policies. 48 General Basic Condition (f): Conformity Savills Noted with EU Obligations representing As required by paragraph 078 of Merton the NPPG, the Pre-Submission College NP needs to consider the effects on the environment of allocated sites and proposed policies. On submission to DDC a separate Basic Conditions Statement will be required to be submitted.
44 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 2. Responses to comments from Statutory Consultees 2.1 Specific comments received on the proposed maps and policies No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 1 1.1 list of distinctive elements: the Daventry Agree and Paragraph 1.2 green spaces and verges could District amend the amended be combined into a single point. Council text (DDC) - Officer Response 2 1.2 typo on map copyright, should be DDC - Noted to Reference amended ‘Ordnance Survey 100023737’. Officer amend the Response text 3 1.3 the charts show gender and age DDC - Noted and Amended breakdown/profile. Officer amend the Response charts 4 2.1 the West Northamptonshire DDC - Noted to Paragraph 2.1 Joint Core Strategy (Part 1 Officer amend the amended Plan) Response text Daventry District Local Plan 1997 saved policies and the Daventry District Settlements and Countryside Local Plan (Part 2 Plan) 5 2.3 amend to refer to the basic DDC - Noted and Paragraph 2.3 conditions that require Officer amend the amended neighbourhood plans to have Response text regard to national policy and be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan for the authority. Second part of this paragraph should add that the local planning authority and steering committee will work together to produce complementary neighbourhood and local plans and to minimise any conflicts. 6 2.4 other relevant strategic policies DDC - Noted and Paragraph 2.4 are S10 Sustainable Officer amend the amended Development Principles, H2 Response text Affordable Housing, BN2 Biodiversity, BN3 Woodland enhancement and creation, BN5 The Historic Environment and Landscape and R2 Rural Economy. 7 2.4 Under R1, reference to the Part 2 DDC - Noted to Reference changed to Local Plan should be in the Officer amend the singular in paragraph singular as the Council is only Response text 2.4 producing one Part 2 Local Plan, which combines Settlements and Countryside with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople.
45 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 8 2.5 Policy EN1, you may be aware DDC - Noted. Referenced in that the emerging draft Local Officer To be paragraph 2.5.3 Plan proposes that the extent of Response discussed the SLA is amended. In the with DDC but vicinity of Maidwell and NP is not the Draughton the area between the vehicle to dismantled railway and Home challenge Farm in Draughton, is proposed DDC on SLA to be removed. The text should boundary acknowledge this. 9 2.6 the consultation on the Emerging DDC - Noted and Referenced in Draft has already taken place; Officer amend the paragraph 2.6.4 update to reflect this and explain Response text that for this reason, policies and proposals can currently only be given limited weight. 10 3.1 & 4.1 In the emerging Part 2 Local DDC - To be Section 3.2 updated Plan, Maidwell is proposed to be Officer discussed an ‘Other Village’ and Draughton Response with DDC a ‘Small Settlement/Hamlet’. It would be appropriate to define Revised confines for Maidwell and Table confines for 3 on page 37 of the emerging Maidwell draft defines criteria for doing so. proposed for Draughton on the other hand discussion would be located within the open with Steering countryside and it is not Committee on appropriate to define confines. 26th June– The Council’s Guidance Note for see map to be Defining Village Confines will be circulated superseded by the criteria listed separately in Table 3, the fact that this plan relies on the guidelines in the first version of the guidance note is fine. 11 4.1 typo on WJNCS (WNJCS). DDC - Noted to Corrected in paragraph Housing figures should be Officer amend the 4.1.1.3 updated to 2018. Response text
46 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 12 4.2 It is important to make it clear DDC - Although the Paragraph 4.2.2 that all potential LGS must satisfy Officer NPPF gives updated all three of the NPPF criteria. It Response no lower size could be interpreted that the limit on a seven criteria referred to here LGS, it is true have been devised for this that most of neighbourhood plan, however, the sites they appear to relate to NPPF shown are criterion 2, which should be attractive made clear in the proceeding small spaces, text. It is recommended that the without term ‘invasive development’ is special changed, the term ‘lost to features. DDC development’ is suggested as an suggestion to alternative. It is not considered show these on appropriate for the Brampton the Policies Valley Way to be designated as Map with a LGS, it is a significant local different recreation route which is already notation viz. recognised and safeguarded. ‘Important Open spaces’ should be followed. It has been agreed to retain Loder Hall recreation ground as an LGS. It has also been agreed to retain the picnic areas and car park on Draughton Lane and adjacent Brampton Valley Way as LGS but not the whole route through the parishes. 13 4.2 Special Landscape Area and DDC - Agree with Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Local Green Space are Officer DDC on amended designated for different reasons. Response narrative SLA is designated on the basis of changes to a high quality landscape whereas section 4.3. Local Green Space applies to Steering green areas of particular local Group to value. It would be more consider appropriate for the three removal of paragraphs relating to SLA in this SLA zoning in section to be moved to section the vicinity of 4.3 on landscape and Draughton in biodiversity. Please also see line with the previous comments regarding the emerging proposed changes to the SLA DDC Local boundary in the vicinity of Plan. Draughton.
47 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 14 4.3 Be consistent in document DDC - Noted and Section 4.3 amended referencing, the overall project is Officer amend the accordingly the Daventry Landscape Study, Response text the first part of which is the Daventry Landscape Character Assessment which reviewed the Northamptonshire CLCA and provided more specific Daventry District detail for the landscape character types and landscape character areas. The first and third paragraphs could be combined to avoid repetition. The beginning of the fourth paragraph refers to the ‘Landscape Study’, it should say ‘Daventry Landscape Character Assessment’. 15 4.3 Special Landscape Area: see DDC - To be No confines defined for previous comments for sections Officer discussed Draughton, paragraph 3.1 and 4.1 regarding the Response with DDC 3.2 refers. definition of confines for Draughton. It is appropriate for Revised Revised confines the neighbourhood plan to show confines proposed for Maidwell the existing SLA boundary until proposed for at section 4.1 the Part 2 Plan is adopted, Maidwell - however, as stated, it is not likely to appropriate to define confines for concede Draughton because it is in the Draughton open countryside, in which case, the SLA would ‘wash’ over the NP not vehicle settlement. to challenge SLA
It may prove onerous to provide our own evidence to challenge, without expert consultancy advice. 16 4.3 the Daventry specific Biodiversity DDC - Noted and Section 4.3.9 amended Supplementary Planning Officer amend the Document is called ‘Biodiversity Response text Supplementary Planning Document for Daventry District’ and should be referred to as such. You may wish to add a footnote containing a hyperlink to the webpage: https://www.daventrydc.gov.uk/liv ing/planning- policy/supplementary-planning- documents-and-guidance/
48 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 17 4.4 this section is quite brief, it could DDC - Noted. Text added to 4.4 be used to explain the Officer development of the settlements Response which would help to highlight why particular elements are special i.e. landmarks or groups of buildings. The term ‘character buildings, sites and structures’ needs to be defined (explain that they are non-designated local heritage assets) and their inclusion supported by a criteria based assessment that is published as part of the evidence base for the neighbourhood plan. Historic England have published an advice note ‘Local Heritage Listing: Historic England Advice Note 7’ https://historicengland.org.uk/ima ges-books/publications/local- heritage-listing-advice-note-7/ and the District Council would be happy to advise. 18 4.5 Update the figure to 2018. DDC - Noted and Section 4.5 amended First paragraph should refer to Officer amend the the ‘emerging Part 2 Plan’ Response text rather than ‘emerging policy frameworks’. Final bullet No need for ‘’ around Daventry point to be Local Plan Part 2. discussed You are aware that the with DDC emerging Part 2 Plan classifies Maidwell and Draughton It would be differently in the settlement appropriate to hierarchy, therefore different accept that policies will apply (RA3 for Draughton Maidwell and RA4 and RA5 for cannot Draughton) and confines realistically should not be defined for have its own Draughton. village Housing Needs Survey - confines as change ‘Borough’ to ‘District’ the approved Final paragraph – remove word development ‘gradually’, as windfalls cannot plan and the be controlled. Local Plan Because Draughton cannot would view have defined confines, any development proposal there will be proposals as considered as within open within open countryside and would be countryside highly restricted
49 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 19 4.7 loss of community facilities DDC - It would be Paragraph 4.7.1 refers should also be supported by a Officer useful to know viability assessment and over- Response if village riding community benefits confines for (already referred to in policy). ‘small settlements/h amlets’ are always inappropriate. Most people would be surprised that Draughton is classed as ‘open countryside’. More work or a second opinion would be interesting. 20 4.8 this should make it clear that the DDC - Noted to Paragraph 4.8.3 refers neighbourhood plan cannot deal Officer amend the with nonland use issues and that Response text they are picked up in section 6. 21 Page 22 Table needs a figure reference. DDC - Noted and Amended and all now Write out the policy names in Officer amend the forms part of new full e.g. BN5 Historic Response text Section 5 Environment and Landscape Third column: what does ‘other Northants’ mean in the header? Fourth column: it is not always clear whether the policies listed are from the 1997 Local Plan or Part 2 Local Plan. MD1: fourth column should include policy HS22 Restricted Infill Villages MD2: final column should include the LGS assessment in the appendix. MD3: third column delete Biodiversity SPD for Northamptonshire 2015 and replace with Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document for Daventry District 2017. Final column should include the Daventry Landscape Study. MD4 should include the evidence base for the identification of character buildings, sites and structures (when produced). MD5: third column should also include H1, H2 and H3. MD6: third column should also include S10 and S11. MD9: fourth column should also include ST1
50 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 22 5.1 Vision and objectives would DDC - Agree – and Section 6 amended stand out better if placed in Officer amend the boxes. Response format 23 5.2 section 4 sets out the evidence DDC - Don’t agree Section 6 amended for the policies, therefore there is Officer with this. very little supporting text in Response Redraft section 5.2, it would read better if Policies the policies had supporting section with text/evidence for the sake of supporting context. text related to development plan and evidence 24 5.2 & please refer to earlier comments DDC - To be Section 3.2 amended MD1 about the definition of confines Officer discussed and Policy MD1 for Draughton and amend text Response with DDC redrafted accordingly. Revised confines proposed for Maidwell likely to concede Draughton 25 MD1 Remove reference to DDC - Noted and Policy MD1 redrafted Draughton confines. Officer amend the No need to refer to sustainable Response text and add development. photographs. Change Daventry Development Plan’ to ‘the First & final West Northamptonshire Joint bullet points to Core Strategy and the Part 2 be discussed Local Plan’. with DDC The policy refers to important views but they have not been Agreed defined on the policies map; they should also be described and illustrated with photos in the plan, either within the text or an appendix. The final bullet point about development outside the confines would be better as a separate part of the policy. Basically such development would only be allowed outside the confines of ‘Other Villages’ in exceptional circumstances i.e. where it can be demonstrated that it is to meet a particular local need and because ‘Smaller Settlements/Hamlets’ are effectively within the open countryside, it would have to be for a rural worker’s dwelling or a NPPF paragraph 55 dwelling.
51 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 26 MD1 It is suggested that the policy DDC - Agree and Policy MD1 redrafted could be amended as follows: Officer amend the Response text and the Policy MD1: Village confines format and development principles
1. The boundaryies of the Maidwell and Draughton village confines are defined and shown on the Proposals Policies Map. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable d Development within the village confines boundary will be supported where the development it complies with the provisions of the Neighbourhood Plan, the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the Local Plan Part 2 Daventry Development Plan.
2. Development proposals should fulfil the aims and objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan by:
a. Preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the villages and the setting of listed buildings;
b. Ensuring the rural character of the villages is maintained and its important green spaces are protected not eroded;
c. Positioning development in order to maintain important views within the villages as shown on the Policies Maps and respect the wider landscape settings across the parish;
d. Development proposals outside of the Maidwell village confines will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. be required to demonstrate how they comply with the provisions of the Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Plan and the Daventry Development Plan to control development in the open countryside
52 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 27 MD2 As previously stated it is not DDC - Point 1 - A Policies MD2a and considered that the Brampton Officer revised MD2b redrafted Valley Way (a) would be Response proposal for appropriate for designation as an LGS to a LGs. cover the area Although the green verges in of the former both settlements (ci-ix and ei to railway v) are characteristic and embankment contribute to their character it from the is not considered that they are meeting with individually demonstrably the footpath special. For instance, they do from Maidwell not appear to contain any to Draughton features of interest such as in the south to mature/memorial trees, war and the end of memorials, parish notice the car park in boards, post or telephone the north. This boxes nor are they used by the LGS will public for local events. Such include an green spaces can be identified area of picnic in neighbourhood plans as table and ‘important open spaces’ or benches and similar rather than LGS, either a car park but in the same or a separate will not extend policy. for more than Although the land in Draughton about 300m (d) is described as an area of north and unfarmed land its appearance south of is that of an agricultural field Draughton containing a stone barn and it Lane is not considered that it is demonstrably special. Point 2 – Loder Hall recreation area and a section of Brampton Valley Way will be proposed as LGS. The remainder of green spaces will be termed “Important Open Spaces” Point 3 – disagree, we are referring to the wooded bank adjacent to the field with the barn. This piece of land will be designated as an “Important Open Space” and not LGS. 28 MD3 a-c no need to split into three parts, DDC - Largely a Policy MD3a redrafted a) and b) could be combined and Officer matter of c) could be a separate policy. Response taste.
53 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 29 MD3a section 4.3 sets out the DDC - Noted Policy MD3a redrafted relevant parts of the Daventry Officer Landscape Character Response Assessment which highlights the character of the area, however, the reference in the policy to ‘landscape character of the neighbourhood area’ does not clearly relate to this (see comment on the disconnect of the evidence from the policies under section 5.2 above). It is important to set out what is distinctive about the local area, landscape, buildings, open spaces etc. ideally alongside the policy. Point b, remove ‘townscape’, these are rural settlements, ‘character’ would be more appropriate Point d is more about local than landscape character, would it be better placed in Policy MD6? 30 MD3b previous comments explain that DDC - To be the area of SLA to the west of Officer discussed Draughton is proposed to be Response with DDC removed. If the neighbourhood plan wants to retain a local NP not vehicle designation of high quality or to challenge sensitive landscape (not to be SLA called SLA) following adoption of SLA in the Part 2 Plan, this will need to Draughton be evidenced. Please note that area forms the Brixworth Neighbourhood part of the Plan identifies an area of high Local Plan sensitivity around a large part of 1997 Saved the settlement, this was Policies, evidenced through their own which is the landscape sensitivity appraisal. approved Development Plan. The removal of the allocation in the new Dev Plan (Part 2) is not yet approved, which may not happen before MwD NP. 31 MD3c policy title refers to both Local DDC - Noted to Policy MD3c amended Wildlife Sites and biodiversity in Officer amend the general, however, policy only Response text refers to not the latter.
54 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 32 MD4 Repetition of word “sites” in DDC - Noted and Repetition reduced supporting text Officer amend the The reference to the schedule Response text Reference added to and policies map should be in Policy MD4 the policy not supporting text Policy appears to reword The policy MD4 has national and local policy rather been kept brief. than say anything specific Further text has been about the village’s character, added to Appendix D for example, section 4.4 refers to local stone but the policies do not mention specific building materials at all (policy MD3a d says ‘locally distinctive materials’ and MD6j refers to ‘local and traditional materials’). If the neighbourhood plan does not want to stipulate building materials, perhaps a fuller explanation of the historic character of the settlements would clarify priorities and the policies could be more specific. There is no need to reference listed buildings unless there The inclusion of listed are particular issues, solutions buildings helps to or projects because they are distinguish these from protected by legislation. The the Local List. Conservation Officer has highlighted an issue with the Thor Missile Site (referred to on page 18) as being in a state of disrepair, poorly managed and vandalised. This policy could identify the site as an important one within the neighbourhood area where opportunities for positive management would be supported. As referred to earlier, a criteria Further evidence has based assessment needs to be been added as have undertaken to define the photographs. character, distinctive and positive elements of the locally important assets. The size of assets is irrelevant (fourth bullet point). Text has been Unsure of the term ‘substantial’ amended alteration; it is suggested that the policy is re-worded as Text has been follows: amended
“Proposals which would affect
non-designated heritage
assets as identified on X map
and schedule in Appendix A,
should demonstrate…….’
55 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 33 MD5 the supporting text refers to DDC - Agree and Policy MD5 redrafted meeting local housing needs and Officer amend the should form part of the policy. Response text Suggest that the term ‘form’ would be more appropriate than ‘layout’ and ‘access’ better than ‘egress’. 34 MD6 ensure that the key attributes DDC - This is largely Policy MD6 redrafted relating to local distinctiveness Officer a matter of and design features referred to Response taste but are defined in the evidence or prepared to supporting text. accept the a: not needed and should be changes deleted proposed. b: does not relate to design/energy efficiency and should be deleted c: not a planning matter, this would be determined by the statutory undertakers, should be deleted g: delete reference to design and access statement as it would not be required for every application l: national standards apply, a neighbourhood plan cannot require this (only a local plan can), should be deleted m: the District Council has not adopted the County Council’s parking standards and will be producing its own, in the interim, delete reference to NCC and leave it at ‘adopted standards’. 35 MD7 suggest that the contents of DDC - Noted and Policy MD7 redrafted the points are re-ordered so Officer amend the that the start-up/incubator Response text businesses point appears first as a standalone; then the other two are linked by the word ‘and’ after the semi colon because they will apply to all proposals Delete ‘Proposals’ at the start of point c 36 MD9 the very brief supporting text DDC - Noted – Supporting text refers to traffic calming and Officer supporting amended pedestrian priority schemes but Response text to be this is not reflected in the policy. moved somewhere else 37 5.3 The list of policies maps and the DDC - Noted Policies Maps now in maps themselves could be Officer Appendix A moved to the appendices. Response 38 7 New Homes Bonus is not made DDC - Noted to Paragraph 9.1 available to parish councils in this Officer amend the amended District, the reference should Response text – should therefore be deleted. refer to CIL
56 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 39 Maps Proposals Maps should be titled DDC - Noted and Titles changed Policies Maps. Change policy Officer amend the and supporting text references Response text and accordingly. It would be useful to format have the neighbourhood area- wide map first to show the wider context, followed by the two insets (neighbourhood area map could show boxes for the inset areas). 40 Maps The confines for Draughton DDC - To be Draughton confines should be removed, in line with Officer discussed removed earlier comments. Response with DDC
57 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 41 Maps It is recommended that the DDC - The village Section 4.1 amended confines for Maidwell are Officer confines have to propose revised amended at the following Response now been the confines for Maidwell locations, please refer to the subject of attached copy of the policies map public with corresponding points of consultation difference marked 1-7: on two 1) Land to the west of Wisteria separate Cottage, Harborough Road – occasions. the garden to the property is There is a extensive and does not have widespread the character of a domestic view that garden, it relates more to the Maidwell open countryside and should particularly be excluded from the confines would benefit for this reason. from more 2) Land to the rear of The Banks diversity. and Yew Tree House – the Residents gardens to these properties have clearly are extensive and do not have indicated a the character of domestic desire for gardens, they relate more to limited growth the open countryside and over the Plan should be excluded from the period, confines for this reason. particularly in 3) Land between the rear of respect of Ashdown and The Hawthorns, modest Draughton Road - the gardens housing for to these properties are young families extensive and do not have the and older character of domestic people. The gardens, they relate more to confines the open countryside and should allow should be excluded from the sufficient confines for this reason. room for 4) Land at Maidwell Hall School growth to – the school is set within support these extensive grounds, much of aspirations. which is wooded. It is This is a considered that it lies beyond laudable aim the main built up part of the consistent settlement and should be with excluded from the confines. government. 5) The Old Police House, policy to agricultural fields and Hall provide more Farm – The Old Police House sustainable is separated from the development. settlement by a number of DDC Plan agricultural fields, all of which sees Maidwell are beyond the main being very settlement. It is considered restricted in that Hall Farm also lies terms of new beyond the main settlement, development. which should finish at The boundary Blueberry Close. has been 6) Two properties to the west of amended and Blueberry Close – these two scaled back to dwellings are considered to be take account outside the main settlement, of some DDC they extend into the open points, whilst countryside beyond the retaining the confines line that has been aspirations of drawn to the rear of properties residents not on Harborough Road. to draft the VC boundary too tightly.
58 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 42 Appendic Ideally these should be DDC - Agree and Appendices redrafted es incorporated with the plan as a Officer amend the and restructured single document so that they Response text are read together. accordingly Appendix A – use the same terminology as in the supporting text and policy. Section 4.4 and policy MD4 refers to ‘character buildings, sites and structures’, the appendix refers to ‘heritage assets that are identified for inclusion in this neighbourhood plan’. It would be helpful if the numbering in the schedule was transferred to the maps. Maps should contain the Ordnance Survey licence information and a key i.e. red = listed buildings, pink = local heritage assets (or whatever term is agreed) Appendix B: LGS assessment should reproduce the NPPF criteria in full in A)-C) 43 MD6 Policy MD6: Design and Anglian Steering Policy MD6 redrafted energy efficiency Water Group have Reference is made to decided to development being supported follow DDC where it can be demonstrated planning that there is infrastructure authority capacity is currently available. advice However, this does not allow for (comment 34 a situation where capacity isn’t above) in currently available but there is a respect of this feasible solution to make the policy. necessary improvements to the water supply and/or foul sewerage networks in time to serve the development. Anglian Water provides a pre- planning service to assist developers to identify feasible water and drainage solutions. Further details of which are available to view at the following address: http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/de velopers/pre-planning-service- .aspx It is therefore proposed that Policy MD6 is amended as follows: ‘c. Is capable of being connected to essential infrastructure services with capacity or capacity can be made available in time to serve the development;’
59 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 44 MD6 We note that Policy MD6 Anglian Steering Policy MD6 redrafted includes reference to new Water Group have development being designed to decided to be as water efficiency as follow DDC possible. The emerging Daventry planning Part 2 Local Plan includes a authority specific water efficiency standard advice (110 litres/per person/per day) for (comment 34 residential developments within above) in the plan area which is supported respect of this by Anglian Water. policy. It is also suggested that consideration should be given to the implications of the Ministerial Statement which sets out the Government’s approach to building standards following the abolition of the Code for Sustainable Homes in 2015. The Ministerial Statement published in March 2015 is available to view at the following address: https://www.gov.uk/government/s peeches/planning-update-march- 2015 45 MD6 Policy MD6 of the Maidwell and Northampt Steering Policy MD6 redrafted Draughton Neighbourhood Plan onshire Group have should require all new County decided to development to incorporate Council as follow DDC sustainable drainage systems for Lead Local planning flood risk management. Flood authority Sustainable drainage systems Authority advice should also be considered for (comment 34 retrofitting to existing areas that above) in flood. Reference should be made respect of this to the Upper Nene Design policy. Standard (development must be designed for a flood with a 0.5% probability of occurring in any one year, including an appropriate allowance for climate change).
2.2 Other general comments (Statutory Consultees) No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 1 General Although the title page states DDC - Agree and Plan Period amended that the plan period is 2018-2029 Officer amend the it is important that this is stated Response document somewhere in the plan itself. 2 General The contents page would benefit DDC - Agree and Contents page from the addition of page Officer amend the redrafted numbers. It also refers to the Response format plan end date as being 2028 (it should be 2029).
60 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 3 General The plan should start with a DDC - Probably put Covered in preamble about the Officer something in Consultation neighbourhood plan, why it is Response the Statement being prepared, who is preparing Consultation it and the area it covers. This Statement could include the information about area designation that appears in paragraph 1.2. 4 General Every paragraph should be DDC - Agree and Format changed numbered for ease of reference Officer amend the and all maps, tables and figures Response format within the text should be referenced and sources provided if relevant, for example, page 4, “Figure 1: Maidwell with Draughton Neighbourhood Area” and page 5, “Figure 2: Age and Gender Breakdown, Source xxxxx”. 5 General There is some confusion with DDC - Agree and Reference format section and paragraph Officer amend the consistent throughout numbering, e.g. section 2 has a Response format heading and the first paragraph is 2.1; section 3 has a heading and the first paragraph is 3.0. There are two section 3.3’s. 6 General Ensure that all headings are DDC - Agree and Format amended clear and underlined or bold as Officer amend the appropriate, e.g. page 14 Response format ‘Consultation on Maidwell with Draughton ‘village confines’; page 18 ‘Assessment of land requirements’; page 19 ‘Housing Needs Survey 2018’. 7 General The plan should include a DDC - Noted and will Obligation on PC in commitment to monitoring and Officer place an paragraph 8.3 review to determine whether the Response obligation on policies are achieving what they the PC to set out to achieve and to ensure undertake that the plan is up to date. this. 8 General The plan is text heavy, it would DDC - Noted and will Format updated and be more user-friendly if it was Officer include photographs added illustrated with photos, including Response pertinent those that illustrate and describe photographs local distinctiveness. in final document
61 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 9 Policies It would help in decision making DDC - Agree and Policy presentation if the policy text was further Officer amend the format changed distinguished by placing in a box Response format and for the different parts of policies to be numbered, see example below for MD1:
Policy MD1: Village confines and development principles
1. The boundaries of the……
2. Development proposals…..
a. Preserving and enhancing….
b. Ensuring the rural character…
10 General The area covered by your Historic Noted No update necessary Neighbourhood Plan includes a England number of important designated heritage assets including GII* Churches of Catherine and of St Mary the virgin, also 12 GII listed buildings. In line with national planning policy, it will be important that the strategy for this area safeguards those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets so that they can be enjoyed by future generations of the area. 11 General If you have not already done so, Historic Noted. 4.4 Heritage amended we would recommend that you England speak to the planning and conservation team at Daventry together with the staff at Northamptonshire County Council archaeological advisory service who look after the Historic Environment Record. They should be able to provide details of the designated heritage assets in the area together with locally-important buildings, archaeological remains and landscapes. Some Historic Environment Records may also be available on-line via the Heritage Gateway (www.heritagegateway.org.uk
62 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 12 General Historic England has produced Historic Noted No update necessary advice which your community England might find helpful in helping to identify what it is about your area which makes it distinctive and how you might go about ensuring that the character of the area is retained. These can be found at:-
63 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 17 The plan makes no referral to the Northampt The view is No update necessary historic flood risk. However, our onshire taken that the records indicate several historic County flood risk flood events in Maidwell and Council as issue is best Draughton associated with Lead Local dealt with by a surface water flooding due to Flood District-wide drainage capacity issues Authority policy. including the flooding of property. Policy ENV11 Our information indicates risk of the Local from surface water flooding for Plan Part 2 the 1 in 30 year and 1 in 100 deals with year storm event in the vicinity of ‘Local Flood all watercourses within the Risk village confines. As such Management’. development which would The policy increase the risk of flooding in includes the vicinity of these watercourses reference to should not be permitted. the The risk of flooding from Northamptons groundwater is present in both hire Local Maidwell and Draughton. A very Flood Risk high risk of flooding from ground Management water due to spring flow and Strategy; the bedrock aquifer is present to the Local west of Harbour Road in Standards Maidwell, with areas to the east and Guidance at very low risk of ground water for Surface flooding. A moderate and very Water low risk of ground water flooding Drainage in is identified north of Maidwell Northamptons Road in Draughton. No referral hire; and to the NCC Flood Toolkit is made Anglian Water within the plan or to the Surface Water requirement of the Upper Nene Drainage design standard to which Policy. development within Maidwell and “As Draughton should conform too. necessary, development in the District will also need to incorporate the principles set out in the Northamptons hire Flood Guide 23: New Developments and Emergency Flood Plans.
64 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 18 It is advised that policies are Northampt See response No update necessary established to ensure that onshire to comment development proposals County 17 above adequately account for the risk of Council as surface water and groundwater Lead Local flooding, incorporating mitigation Flood measures wherever possible to Authority include maintenance of drainage systems. Our ‘Groundwater Flood Guide’ contains further information on the measures which can be taken to mitigate the risks of groundwater flooding, and is available here: https://www.floodtoolkit.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/10.Gro undwater.pdf 19 The Maidwell and Draughton Northampt We are not No update necessary Neighbourhood Plan to require onshire allocating all sites within the parish to be County sites individually assessed against Council as flood risk from all sources Lead Local (Surface Water, Groundwater Flood and fluvial Flood Risk). Authority 20 Reference is made to the NCC Northampt See response No update necessary Local Standards and Guidance onshire to comment Document for surface water County 17 above drainage available at: Council as https://www.floodtoolkit.com/plan Lead Local ning/surface-water-drainage/ Flood and the NCC Flood Toolkit Authority available at https://www.floodtoolkit.com/. 21 Reference is made to Policy BN7 Northampt See response No update necessary of the West Northamptonshire onshire to comment Strategic Flood Risk Assessment County 17 above (November 2017). Council as Lead Local Flood Authority
65 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 22 We acknowledge that the Northampt See response No update necessary Maidwell and Draughton plan onshire to comment does not indicate a need for County 17 above major development however the Council as identified future development Lead Local within the plan period for Flood Maidwell is for 13-14 dwellings. Authority As such the inclusion of the following wording would be encouraged: ‘All residential developments of 10 or more dwellings (or 0.3ha or more site area) should contribute to the provision or enhancement of open space based upon the local quality, quantity and accessibility standards to meet the needs generated by the increase in population from the development. New developments should incorporate SuDS within such open spaces to create or enhance multifunctional areas. Advice and standards for the incorporation of SuDS in the local area is available at www.floodtoolkit.com’.
66 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT No. Plan Comment From Response Action taken / section/ amendment to policy documentation made number 23 In relation to the Maidwell with Highways Noted No update necessary Draughton Neighbourhood Plan, England our principal interest is safeguarding the operation of the A14; particularly junction 2 which routes directly to the north of the Plan area. We understand that a Neighbourhood Plan is required to be in conformity with relevant national and Borough-wide planning policies. Accordingly, the Neighbourhood Plan for Maidwell with Draughton is required to be in conformity with Local Plan Part 1: West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), the saved policies from the Daventry Local Plan (1997) and the emerging Daventry Local Plan Part 2. We note that the Daventry Housing Land Availability Study (2017) has demonstrated that there is in excess of a five year supply of deliverable land in the District for housing development. However Maidwell and Draughton are set in rural locations and it is noted that the rural allocation for 2,360 dwellings has already been exceeded by 520 dwellings. In light of this, we note that the Neighbourhood Plan only identifies small scale infill housing developments to meet local housing needs. Given the limited scale of growth planned in the Plan area, we do not consider that there will be any impacts on the operation of the A14. We have no further comments to provide and trust that the above is useful in the progression of the Maidwell with Draughton Neighborhood Development Plan.
67 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT Appendix F Minutes of MWD Parish Council (extracts)
13 January 2016
267. Village Design Statement (VDS/Parish Plan) – Cllr. Wright stated that Tom James, Daventry DC, had attended the meeting in the village in December to explain the benefits of the different plans. Although the information had left residents confused, Pete Redman had offered to chair a group of residents and report back on their findings. The group were meeting next week and would report back to the Council. Councillors were grateful to the community-led group for their work. Item to be included on March agenda.
9 March 2016
283.Open Forum - Three people in attendance. Items raised included: i) Village Design Statement/Parish Plan – Pete Redman reported on the working group’s findings which were that the VDS could not be relied upon to prevent redevelopment and that Neighbourhood Plans carried more weight although would be time-consuming and costly but should not be ruled out. He recommended working together to define boundaries of the “village confine” for Maidwell and Draughton and offered to assist with the PC’s response to Daventry DC regarding rural settlements which was due by Friday, 11th March. It was desirable that everyone in the village had the opportunity to contribute.
285. Village Design Statement – The Parish Council agreed to adopt the recommendations of the working group and expressed their thanks for the hard work that had been done. Proposed: Cllr Calnan Seconded: Cllr Wright Unanimous
13 July 2016
11 January 2017
68 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT
10 May 2017
12 July 2017
16 August 2017
69 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 8 November 2017
10 January 2018
7 February 2018
14 March 2018
70 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 9 May 2018
12 September 2018
26 September 2018
14th November 2018 (draft minutes)
681. Open Forum – Four people were in attendance. The first item raised was the Planning Application DA/2018/0845 Nursery Cottage. The applicant provided Parish Councillors with a copy of the amended plan which he stated that he had submitted to Daventry DC Planning. The second item raised was Neighbourhood Planning. Pete Redman introduced the draft document that would require consideration by the Parish Council and also updated the PC on the next steps. Once the PC were happy with the content then it would be sent to Daventry DC (early December) who would carry out a six-week consultation, following which the document would be examined by an independent examiner to consider whether it was fit for a referendum. PR thanked Andy Clarke, Paul Turland and Cllr Munro for their terrific work on the document. 682. Neighbourhood Planning Update and Proposal for consideration by PC – Councillors received, and thanked Pete Redman and Andy Clarke for the documents and for their hard work. Extraordinary meeting to be called to discuss/provide feedback and comments.
71 MAIDWELL WITH DRAUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT
21 November 2018 (draft minutes)
700. Open Forum – One person in attendance. Pete Redman, Secretary to the Neighbourhood Planning Steering Committee, distributed a sheet of very minor amendments to the document and explained that the steering group were making final, minor alterations to the draft document including background text, checking ordinance survey license numbers and listing decisions of the Parish Council over the last 18 months, including this evening’s meeting, to forward to DDC. A separate statement of Consultees (along with contact details) would also be submitted to DDC so that they could make contact (if desired) to check authentication. A short discussion took place regarding potential future development, village confines, designation and open spaces. PR reminded members of the next stages, adding that, if DDC were to organise a referendum, this would be carried out in May/June 2019. Cllr Calnan thanked the Steering Group, Pete Redman, Paul Turland and Cllr Munro, guided by Andy Clarke, for their high quality work and dedication of the group.
701. To consider the following documents for the Neighbourhood Plan: i) Map of the Designated Area ii) Regulation 16 Submission Draft iii) Regulation 16 Consultation Statement iv) Basic Conditions Statement v) Screening Report for Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment Councillors to comment on documents and make a decision on whether they are to be submitted to Daventry DC for the next stage of the process. It was proposed that the Parish Council approve the documents, subject to the minor amendments/alterations outlined, and that they are presented to DDC for the next stage. Prop: Cllr Sanders-Hewett, Sec: Cllr Wright. Unanimous.
72