Agenda item

Interim Head of the Joint Planning Unit to report.

The Interim Head of the Joint Planning Unit commented that the term “charette” historically had been applied to architects’ work and was used to describe an intensive period of considering a design solution within a tight timescale for a particular project.  In the modern context the technique was used to brainstorm a problem on the basis that no single individual could know all the answers.  It brought a wide range of people together.  In this case attendees had come from each Council and the WNDC in the form of senior officers or specialist officers.  The process had commenced on 20 January 2009 and was scheduled to end in the next two weeks.  The results of the charette would be sent to members and thereafter used for engagement with all groups including landowners and developers. 

The objective of the charette had been to gain a collective understanding of the process and to identify gaps in the knowledge or evidence base.  Maps, discussion guides and feedback had been used and the results would contribute to the plan-making process in defining the planning role; the relationship with the region and sub-region; issues in respect of towns and villages; and infrastructure and transport.  All the information gained would be written up and provided some answers but also raised further questions.  Some discussion had taken place around strategic choices and givens, national policies in respect of key settlements, key directions of growth and rural areas. 

In answer to a question from Councillor Chris Miller, the Interim Head of the Joint Planning Unit commented that the work of the charette fitted in to the planning timetable and the current timing was right with the document process.  The current economic situation needed to be taken into account and flexibility needed to be built into the plan, which would have a life of twenty to thirty years.  It was clear that new build was not proceeding at the rate originally anticipated. 

The Director of Planning and Regeneration noted that the charette would help convince any planning inspector that a robust process had been gone through.  He also noted that whilst targets would not change, over time, the trajectory of delivery would alter to take account of the economic situation.  During March or April work on the Vision, Objectives and Spatial Portrait would be brought to the Joint Committee and following in April and May would be the start of a debate for the growth around Northampton, Daventry, Towcester and Brackley.  Agreed options would then be included in the preferred submission, probably in November 2009.  Any delays would be reflected in the risk register, reported separately to the Joint Committee.  In answer to a question the Director noted that a briefing note would be produced for Councillors for discussion within their authorities in respect of preferred options to allow advance warning of what was being discussed.

Councillor Richard Church noted that the process should not deliver merely a package of preferred options to Councillors but should lead members towards those options, ie members needed involvement in the criteria for urban extensions rather than just receiving a list of where they could be.  It was noted that this was inherently part of the process.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.