Statement of Consultation Addendum July 2015

1.1 The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) review has incorporated a

number stages of consultation. The Town and County Planning (Local Planning)

(England) Regulations 2012 (“the Local Plan Regulations”) require at Regulation 22 (c)

the Local Planning Authority to include amongst the documents it submits a statement

setting out:

i. which bodies and persons were invited to make representations under Regulation 18;

ii. how those bodies and persons were invited to make such representations; iii. a summary of the main issues raised by those representations; and iv. how those main issues have been addressed in the Development Plan

Document (DPD) (the JCS). v. if representations were made pursuant to regulation 20, the number of

representations made and a summary of the main issues raised in those representations, and

vi. if no representations were made in regulation 20, that no such representations were made.

1.2 This addendum has been produced following the consultation on Focused Changes to

the Pre-Submission Plan. It should be read alongside the January 2015 Statement of

Consultation1 (which accompanied the Pre-Submission (Publication JCS) and set out

in detail the consultation that had been undertaken in the development of the JCS, and

how the issues identified informed the development of the Pre-Submission JCS), and

June 2015 Update2, (which provided an overview of representations made to the Pre-

Submission JCS (at Regulation 20)).

1.3 This document provides an update on the main issues arising from the Focused

Changes consultation. It only provides an overview of main issues and consequently

does not refer to all of the representations made to the Focused Changes. These can

be viewed on the JPU web site. It also corrects an error to Appendix 1 (list of

respondents to the Pre-Submission JCS) of the June 2015 Update, which omitted

respondents 104-106.

2. Focused Changes

2.1 The Focused Changes were consulted on for six weeks between Monday 15th June

and Monday 27th July 2015. Consultation was undertaken consistent with consultation

on the Pre-Submission JCS and in accordance with the adopted Statement of

Community Involvement. All documents were available on the JPU website and for

inspection at libraries and main council offices. Statutory consultees and other

consultees, on the JPU database were notified by email and all respondents to the

1 http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/docs/Final%20Statement%20of%20Consultation.pdf 2 http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/docs/Statement%20of%20Consultation%20Update%20June%202015.pdf

Pre-Submission consultation were notified. The JPU also issued a press release on

the consultation.

2.2 In relation to the inclusion of a new Policy 38 and supporting text relating to Rothwell

North (FC 161), consultation was undertaken consistent with that previously

undertaken in relation to other strategic sites. This included placing site notices in

prominent locations close to the site, and notifying immediately adjacent properties.

The JPU also notified Rothwell Town Council and provided them with 12 hard copies

of the relevant extract of the JCS.

2.3 Responses were received from 39 organisations and individuals to the Focused

Changes. All representations can be viewed on the JPU web site and a list of

respondents is set out at Appendix 2.

3. Main Issues raised in representations to the Focused Changes

3.1 A number of respondents have supported the Focused Changes including NCC

Highways, Highways England, the Environment Agency and Anglian Water. The main

issues previously raised in the Pre-Submission consultation (set out in Section 4 of the

June 2015 Statement of Consultation update and reported to the 4th June Joint

Committee)3 remain the main concerns in representations. Where no Focused

Changes were proposed in relation to previous representations, a number of

respondents have re-stated previous objections, particularly in relation to Objectively

Assessed Need and the distribution of development. However, a number of issues

have been progressed and, in the opinion of the JPU, largely resolved through the

Focused Changes consultation. These are set out below, alongside a summary of

other main issues. For ease of reference, this summary is structured using the main

issues previously identified.

ISSUES RELATING TO DUTY TO COOPERATE

i. Does the JCS satisfy the duty to cooperate in relation to planning for the longer term growth of Northampton?

3.2 In its consultation response to the Focused Changes, Northampton Borough Council (respondent No 028) advised that FC 4 would resolve their previous representation and has withdrawn it. Miller Homes (076) also support FC 4 as this will ensure that the JPU and adjoining authorities will work together collaboratively with West Northants, in order to consider needs and reasonable alternatives as any part of any future review of local plans. 3.3 The Home Builders Federation (056) considers that if Northampton is unable to meet

its OAHN post 2029, and this unmet need may be required to be met in North Northants, it is necessary that any such arrangements arising under the Duty to Co-operate are addressed in formal agreements such as Memorandums of understanding and in local plan policies. The proposed text in FC 4 should be set out as a policy in the JCS.

ii. Does the JCS satisfy the duty to cooperate in relation to the balance between jobs and labour force within the plan area and the implications of this for adjoining areas including Northampton and Bedford?

3http://cmis.northamptonshire.gov.uk/cmis5live/MeetingsCalendar/tabid/73/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/410/Meeting/2505/Committee/414/Default.aspx (Item 6)

3.4 In its consultation response to the Focused Changes, Bedford Borough Council (111)

confirmed that Focused Changes 63 & 64 satisfy the Councils previous objection and

the Council withdraws its previous objection.

OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO LEGAL COMPLIANCE

iii. Does the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) adequately consider reasonable alternatives?

iv. Does the JCS adequately reflect the findings of the Habitat Regulations Assessment in relation to potential impacts on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area?

3.5 In its response to the Focused Changes consultation Natural England (NE) (045) is

supportive of the Focused Changes and, subject to the inclusion of their changes recommended (refinements to FC 20, FC 21 and FC 26), consider the plan to be sound and legally compliant. NE set out that it is satisfied that the Addendum to the Habitats Regulations Assessment has responded to its previous feedback and that the HRA recommendations have been adequately addressed by the focused changes. It notes that several changes have been made to the HRA since the pre-submission version including aligning advice on issues such as construction noise and lighting with the content of the draft Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA Supplementary Planning Document. NE considers that all of the recommendations from the HRA have now been responded to by the Joint Core Strategy including the need for project level HRA to be specified within polices 19, 33 and 35.

MAIN ISSUES RELATING TO SOUNDNESS

v. Does the JCS meet the full objectively assessed need for housing in the Housing Market Area?

3.6 A number of developers and the HBF have re-stated their previous objections to the JCS that Policies 28 and 29 do not meet the full objectively assessed need (OAN) for housing in North Northamptonshire and that the Focused Changes have not addressed their previous concerns. Housing trajectory 3.7 In relation to FC 105 respondents including the HBF (056), Tata Steel (070) and Hallam Land Management (081) consider that the annualised housing trajectory requires deliverable sites in addition to the SUEs to be identified in the early years of the plan period so that a five year housing supply can be maintained. Jardin Smith (116) consider that the wording of paragraph 9.8 as amended lacks clarity. They question how planning for housing can be both “aspirational” and “realistic” at the same time. They consider that the wording suggests that housing delivery will be dependent on the number of completions across the plan period. Whilst this is true in practical terms, they consider that no reference is made as to how housing will be delivered in the event of under delivery.

vi. Will the identified SUEs deliver the required amount of housing to ensure that North Northamptonshire delivers the full objectively assessed need for housing and is there sufficient contingency within the JCS?

3.8 Responses from the development industry re-state previous concerns that the

JCS is over-reliant on SUEs. Catesby Estates (064) are of the view that the JCS

approach could jeopardise housing supply across the JCS Plan period given

approximately 7,200 of the 35,000 dwelling requirement is being proposed at SUEs

which are yet to be committed, and in the case of Rushden East, not yet fully

tested and therefore potentially unviable. This overall strategy also presents a risk to

enabling employment growth and meeting affordable housing needs outside of the

SUEs and Market Towns. Hallam Land (081) consider that there is a clear over reliance

on the SUEs in the JCS with unrealistic assumptions about housing delivery at the

SUEs, a view echoed by Jardin Smith (116). Gladman (090) question the JPU’s

decision to rely on a development strategy that it considers has already proven to be

ineffective at meeting North Northamptonshire’s housing needs.

vii. Is the distribution of development the most appropriate when all reasonable alternatives are considered?

viii. Does the JCS provide sufficient development in the rural area?

3.9 Linked to comments to the housing trajectory and the delivery of the SUEs, a number

of respondents from the development industry re-state their previous objections that

more housing development should be directed to the market towns and rural areas

in order to meet needs where they arise and ensure that a 5 year housing

supply is maintained. Respondents such as Tata Steel (070) also consider that this

need is increased by changes to the housing trajectory referred to above and that the

JCS does not provide sufficient mechanisms to achieve a 5 year housing supply.

3.10 The Society of Merchant Venturers (036) state that there has been considerable

concern expressed by other parties and published as part of the plan process,

with which it would agree, that the Urban focused strategy of the plan is ill-conceived

and that there should be greater emphasis on the contribution that the Market Towns

can make to the needs of the Plan area. It considers that whilst this issue is

responded to in the Committee reports, it considers that its specific concern at a lack

of contingency planning has not been responded to adequately.

ix. Are the policy requirements in the JCS too onerous, placing an unacceptable burden on development and affecting development viability?

3.11 The HBF note that the proposed changes in FC 42 and FC 45 introduce referencing to Secure by Design into Policy 8. They consider it is questionable if this referencing is appropriate because, as acknowledged by the JPU, security measures for dwellings will be covered in the Building regulations from October 2015. If the JPU wishes to refer to Secure by Design guidance this should be done in the supporting text rather than in Policy 8 itself. The JPU should reconsider this proposed change. The HBF also re-states its previous concerns regarding Policy 9.

x. Is the Policy 14 approach to Deenethorpe Airfield Area of Opportunity appropriate? 3.12 Whilst additions to the supporting text are welcomed, Historic England (009) consider

that the revised text falls short of providing clarity in relation to heritage assets. They

consider that greater detail is necessary to strengthen the text and to ensure

soundness. Historic England note the findings of the landscape review commissioned

by the JPU from Opun. This report recommends a number of specific matters to be

addressed, for example it recommends the undertaking of a landscape visual

impact assessment, a dark skies policy and consideration in terms of layout, size

and design of any future development in order to avoid impacts upon the grade I

listed Lyveden New Bield. They consider that this additional report further supports

its position that specific policy reference is required in order for this policy to be found

sound in respect of the protection of the historic environment. The National Trust (074)

make similar representations regarding Policy 14.

xi. Is the employment strategy within the JCS appropriate and deliverable? Is it appropriate to rely on ‘clawing back’ out commuters?

3.13 Previous concerns are re-stated, with some developers including Catesby

Estates (064) and Gladman developments (090) and the HBF continuing to question the relationship between jobs and homes within the JCS. Gladman developments considers the approach in the JCS suggests a clear and apparent mismatch between the future supply of housing and employment across the JPU area. Without any firm justification for clawing back commuters or duty to cooperate arrangements with surrounding authorities, it submits that further housing must be provided to support the JPU’s employment targets.

3.14 Similarly, Tata Steel (070) note that the new sentence proposed through FC 63 states

that the balance between new jobs and the additional labour force arising from new homes will be monitored to ensure that future reviews of the JCS and part 2 local plans will be able to respond if the economy is not delivering the required jobs, or if job growth outstrips growth in the labour force. Changes are then proposed to paragraph 8.8 (Focused Change 64) in relation to what will happen when an oversupply of committed employment land exists. However, Tata Steel consider the trigger is extremely vague and the measures proposed to address the issues are also vague and lack commitment. Further to the above, Tata consider that no precise triggers and no measures have been included in the Core Strategy in order to deal with the position whereby job growth has outstripped the labour force. In such a scenario clearly more houses will need to be delivered on the ground in order to readdress this imbalance and it is considered that appropriate triggers and measures to facilitate this should be included in the Core Strategy.

3.15 Roxhill Developments (057) support the general approach to the provision of

employment land set out in the JCS. Focused Changes FC65 and FC66 to paragraph 8.19 and Policy 24 respectively are supported and would directly address concerns and objections raised in its representations submitted in March 2015. However, it considers that care is required as to how the requirement for proposals to be accompanied by market demand information is treated to prevent it representing a ‘burden’ which risks investment and job creation. Notwithstanding this support, it remains of the view that the employment land strategy should recognise the potential for existing, successful employment sites to be extended to help achieve the Council’s growth ambitions in a sustainable way. Roxhill consider it is not sound, nor justified to propose to meet employment needs on new sites without first considering fully utilising existing infrastructure. Further changes should be considered (to Policy 22) in this regard.

xii. Is the Policy 26 approach to renewable energy justified and consistent with national policy?

3.16 The CPRE (035) wishes to support the majority of changes that have been made in response to its comments and feel that Policy 26 in particular has been greatly improved, although suggests some further refinements and updates. Bozeat Parish Council (102) also support the changes to Policy 26.

3.17 Both the National Trust and Historic England note the amendments made, however, they do not consider these address the concerns raised in previous responses. Historic England consider that in only considering ‘substantial harm’ to be avoided, this criterion of the policy is not justified or compliant with the NPPF. Where there is any harm arising from a development proposal, this will need to be weighed against the public benefits, in accordance with the tests as prescribed by the NPPF. Further information on this is also set out in the NPPG. In addition, Historic England considers the phrase 'In a manner commensurate with its significance' does not make sense in the context of the preceding part of the sentence and is superfluous to requirements. 3.18 The National Trust notes that while FC79 attempts to meet its original objection, the wording of the policy has become increasingly confused and it still gives the impression that less than substantial harm is not something that should be avoided as a matter of policy. It considers that the introduction of the wording “in a manner commensurate with its significance” further reduces the clarity of the policy and brings it into conflict with national policy and legislation. 3.19 Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd (095) continue to object to the JPU’s stance regarding the status of Chelveston Renewable Energy Park. As stated in its previous representations, they consider that there is no justifiable reason as to why this site should be treated any differently from Kettering Energy Park, and the JPU should be consistent in their approach.

xiii. Is the focus on high performance technologies/research and development/motor sport/automotive related activity in Policy 27 too restrictive and not underpinned by commercial evidence of demand?

3.20 Whilst Rockingham Land ltd (RLL) (049) welcomes amendments to Policy 27, to

increase flexibility, notably changes at FC100 and FC101 it is concerned that FC99 implies that early development could be resisted where it does not “support the delivery of high performance technologies and research and development alongside other high quality employment in accordance with an agreed masterplan”. RLL’s fundamental concern with Policy 27 is that the proposed priority for high performance technologies and research and development is not underpinned by any up to date commercial evidence of demand.

3.21 At present, RLL consider the wording of Policy 27 and its supporting text (notably FC94, FC95) are underpinned by an aspirational framework study finalised in January 2011, rather than up to date market tested evidence of need and demand. Accordingly the policy requirement proposed by FC99 is not soundly based or justified by an up to date evidence base. In being highly aspirational about specific uses the plan is not positively prepared to support early delivery of employment development and appears inflexible from a market perspective.

xiv. Is there sufficient evidence to underpin the requirements of Policy 30? 3.22 The HBF note that proposed changes in FC107 and FC109 confirm that the nationally described space standard will be applied in North Northamptonshire under Policy 30. They set out that the Written Ministerial statement dated 25th March 2015, states that "the optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the NPPG. The HBF considers that the JPU has not evidenced any assessment of the impact and effect of

Policy 30 in the local area as set out by the NPPG and the JPU should provide such evidence before submission of the JCS to the secretary of state for examination. 3.23 The HBF also re-states its previous objection and considers that under FC 108 the proposed tenure mix for affordable housing is too prescriptive which is likely to become out of date quickly and therefore it is considered insufficiently flexible to deal with changes over time.

xv. Are the identified strategic sites the most appropriate and should the JCS identify additional strategic sites?

3.24 Promoters of West Corby (077) and Rushden East (093) have supported a number of the Focused Changes to the respective site specific policies, although still seek further refinements. Promoters of Nene Valley Farm (French House Ltd) (029) and (parcel A) of Kettering South (Northamptonshire County Council and db symmetry ltd) (065) re-state objections seeking the inclusion of B8 uses on these sites. 3.25 In relation to Policy 38, Rothwell North, Kettering Borough Council (053) supports the content of Policy 38, the supporting text that accompanies it, and the plan at Figure 28. Rothwell Town Council (115) consider the development should now be called the “Rothwell North and West” because of amendments made to the site area. The Town Council seek amendment to the last sentence in Para 10.87 which should read "The creation of the new A6 junction will take place before the development is commenced and all construction traffic will use the A6 and the route of the strategic link road into the sites." Highways England (106) welcome the pre-amble to Policy 38 which recognises the potential impact on A14 junction 3 as a result of increased traffic from the development and states that the developer of the site should contribute to highways improvements required. This is welcomed by Highways England as a means of safeguarding the operation of the strategic road network. They suggest that that Policy 38 (e) should be amended as follows to better reflect this position: "Roads and other infrastructure including a new roundabout junction off the A6 and a strategic link road within the Rothwell North SUE to a new appropriate junction off the B576 as well as a contribution to an improvement to A14 J3 if required." 3.26 Whilst Persimmon Homes Midlands (042) supports the inclusion of Rothwell North as

a strategic allocation and accepts the need for the inclusion of various criteria to steer the development they consider that there are a number of criteria which render the plan unsound either because they are not justified, effective or compliant with national policy. Persimmon consider that Policy 38 and its accompanying text should be amended and suggest amendments to criterion a), d) and l) and the deletion of criterion m).

3.27 Hampton Brook (071) have re-stated their previous representation that Prospect Park

should be included within the JCS. They consider that the changes to the JCS are

substantial in terms of the increased reliance the JPU is now placing on the Mitigation

Strategy. There appears to be no evidence that the selected locations for growth have

been suitability tested in terms of their ability to conform to a Mitigation Strategy. To

meet any test of soundness the inspector at the examination will need to be convinced

that the selected locations would reduce pressure on the SPA. They have submitted

extensive additional material in support of their site.

4. Conclusion

4.1 This document sets out the main issues that arose from the Focused Changes consultation. It is clear that many of the main issues identified from the Pre-Submission consultation remain contentious. However, it is important to note that the Focused Changes consultation has addressed a number of important issues including the only two cross-boundary Duty to Cooperate issues raised to the Pre-Submission JCS with Bedford Borough Council and Northampton Borough Council and Habitat Regulation issues raised by Natural England.

Appendix 1: List of respondents to Pre-Submission JCS

Respondent No.

Respondent Organisation

098 Matthew Williams Aberdeen Asset Management

100 Stewart Patience Anglian Water

093 David Bainbridge Barratt & David Wilson Homes (East Region) and Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land (Eastern)

055 Wayland Pope Barwood Land & Estates Limited

021 Tim Coleby Barwood Strategic Land

111 Paul Rowland Bedford Borough Council

011 Sue Bateman Borough Council of Wellingborough

096 Paul Boatman Bovis Homes

025 Martin Bagshaw Bowbridge Land Limited

102 Brian Skittrall Bozeat Parish Council

112 George Sneddon Burton Latimer Town Council

109 Gary Duthie Broughton Parish Council

064 Mat Jones Catesby Estates Ltd

095 Claire Davies Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd

012 Fiona Cowan Collyweston Parish Council

006 Terry Begley Corby Borough Council

048 Peter Taylor Cottingham Parish Council

035 David Charlton-Jones

CPRE

110 Peter Quincey Cranford Parish Council

084 Richard Henderson Davidsons Developments Ltd

050 Barry Davies Davies & Co

051 Barry Davies Davies & Co

078 Sarah Rodger Deene & Deenethorpe Parish Council

091 Neil Hall Duchy of Lancaster

038 Karen Britton East Northamptonshire Council

039 Matthew Williams Ellandi LLP

009 Ann Plackett English Heritage

101 Daniel Oladejo Environment Agency

016 Anita Curtis Geddington, Newton and Little Oakley Parish Council

090 Peter Dutton Gladman Developments

077 NJ Surtees Great Oakley Farms, Rockingham Castle Estate, Taylor Wimpey & Barratt Developments

092 Paul McLaughlin Gretton Brook Estates

052 Gary Stephens Hallam Land Management

081 Brian Flynn Hallam Land Management

072 Roland Bolton Hallam Land Management Ltd

071 Roland Bolton Hampton Brook

034 Betty West Harrington Parish Council

010 Sandra Mitcham Higham Ferrers Town Council

106 Matt Read Highways Agency

056 Sue Green Home Builders Federation

005 Nikki Daft Irchester Parish Council

024 Nikki Daft Irchester, Knuston & Little Irchester Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

107 Angie Daly Irthlingborough Town Council

053 Mark Coleman Kettering Borough Council

069 Bernard Greep Kiff and Troke Partnership

033 John Kellett KR Eativ Architects Ltd

063 Ben Borthwick Legal & General Northampton Shopping Centre Limited Partnership (L&G

066 Katherine Miles Living Land Ltd

060 Joanna Moore Loddington Parish Council

059 Jon McCarthy LXB RP (Rushden) Limited

013 Sarah Brant Middleton Parish Council

076 Andy Noton Miller Homes

088 Mark Wilkinson Mulberry Developments

002 Paul Tame National Farmers Union

037 Roger Yarwood National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups

003 Julian Austin National Grid

074 Chris Lambert National Trust

045 Roslyn Deeming Natural England

062 Anna McComb NHS Property Services Ltd

028 Paul Lewin Northampton Borough Council

085 Tim Coleby Northamptonshire County Council

040 Ben Hunter Northamptonshire County Council

019 Mark Chant Northamptonshire County Council (Minerals & Waste Planning Authority)

065 Peter Keenan Northamptonshire County Council and db symmetry Ltd.

043 Esme Cushing Northamptonshire County Council Highways

105 Lauren Humber NCC Business Intelligence & Performance Improvement

018 Richard Wilson Northamptonshire Police

029 David O'Neil French House Ltd

031 Julie Tanner Opun AEM Ltd

068 Trish Baker Oundle Town Council

099 Claire Davies Owners obsolescent Industrial Property Higham Ferrers

097 Claire Davies Owners of former Irchester Railway Station

089 Roger Smith Oxford University Endowment Management Ltd (OUEM)

046 Barry Davies Pastoral Cymru

042 Alice Kirkham Persimmon Homes Midlands

032 Emily Scott Pilton, Stoke Doyle & Wadenhose Parish Council

047 Ben Fox Planware

080 Peter Moore principal landowners within the proposed Rushden East Sustainable Urban Extension Area

001 Tony Skipper Private

004 John Goodfellow Private

007 Steve Copeland Private

022 Mr & Mrs Robinson Private

023 Craig Ramsey Private

058 Mr James Hakewill Private

075 Mr and Mrs Christopher Shaw

Private

083 Cllr Gill Mercer Private

103 Barry and Rachel Essig

Private

104 Keith Nutter Private

061 Michael Kent Promoting additional land at West Corby SUE

073 Matthew Stock/Jonathan Wood

Redrow Homes (South Midlands)

094 R West Rockingham Castle Estate

049 Andrew Elliott Rockingham Land Ltd

086 Suzanne Phillipson Roundhill Northampton Limited

057 David Shaw Roxhill Developments Ltd

087 Vivienne Prodger Rushden Town Council

020 Andrew Astin Sainsburys

036 Lachlan Robertson Society of Merchant Venturers

026 Steven Beard Sport England

030 Andrew Wintersgill Stepnell Ltd

070 Sam Silcocks Tata Steel (UK) Ltd

079 Matt Smith The Boughton Estate

017 Anthony Smith The Churches Consortium (The Diocese of Peterborough, The Rushden and Higham Council of Churches and the East Northants Faith Group)

054 Will Antill The Deene Estate

044 Ross Anthony The Theatres Trust

014 Barry Rogers Tollers Solicitors

082 Damien Holdstock Trustees of the F G Saxby No. 4 Settlement

108 David Atkinson West Northants Joint Planning Unit

008 Patrick McDonagh Westport Car Parks

015 Stephen Borret Wilby Parish Council

067 John Coleman William Davis Ltd

027 Angela Young Wollaston Parish Council

041 Nick Sandord Woodland Trust

Appendix 2: List of respondents to the Focused Changes

Respondent No.

Respondent Organisation

98 Mr Matthew Williams Aberdeen Asset Management

100 Mr Stewart Patience Anglian Water

93 Mr Robert Love Barratt Developments and Taylor Wimpey

111 Mr Paul Rowland Bedford Borough Council

102 Mr Brian Skittrall Bozeat Parish Council

64 Mr Tom Armfield Catesby Estates

95 Ms Claire Davis Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd

35 Mr Brian Skittrall CPRE

39 Mr Matthew Williams Ellandi

101 Mr Daniel Oladejo Environment Agency

29 Mr David O’Neil French House Ltd

90 Mr Peter Dutton Gladman Developments

77 Mr NJ Surtees Great Oakley Farms, Rockingham Castle Estate, Taylor Wimpey and Barratt Developments

81 Mr Brian Flynn Hallam Land Management

71 Mr Roland Bolton Hampton Brook

106 Mr Steve Pearce Highways England

9 Mrs Emilie Carr Historic England

56 Ms Susan Green Home Builders Federation

116 Mr Richard Sheridan Jardin Smith

53 Mr Simon Richardson Kettering Borough Council

69 Mr Bernard Greep Kiff and Troke Partnership

76 Mr Andy Noton Miller Homes

113 Mr Robert Wilson Milton Keynes Council

74 Mr Chris Lambart National Trust

45 Ms Sarah Fraser Natural England

28 Claire Berry Northampton Borough Council

65 Mr Peter Keenan Northamptonshire County Council and db Symmetry Ltd

43 Ms Esme Cushing Northamptonshire County Council Highways

68 Ms Trish Baker Oundle Town Council

97 Ms Claire Davis Owners of Irchester Station

42 Mr Oliver Thompson Persimmon Homes Midlands

114 Ms Harj Kumar Peterborough City Council

117 Mrs Susan Suttle Redhill Grange Community Association

49 Mr Andrew Elliott Rockingham Land Ltd

115 Ms Carolyn Mackay Rothwell Town Council

57 Mr David Shaw Roxhill Developments

36 Mr Lachlan Robertson Society of Merchant Venturers

70 Mr Sam SIlcocks Tata Steel

44 Mr Ross Anthony The Theatre’s Trust