Bray Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Meeting

22 06 2011

Present

Sandy Gwynn, Tracey Franklin, Ken Partington, John Hurley (DCLG), Philip Mortimer, Louvaine Kneen, William Emmett, David Frohnsdorff, Ian Pankhurst, Rod Ball, Duncan Johnston, Steve Adams, Richard Abbott, David Coppinger, Derek Mellor, Louise Shenston, David Berk, Justin Kent, Sarah Ball, Chris Graham, Philip Hylton.

Apologies

Peter Janikoun,Leo Walters, Derek Wilson, Andrew Close.

Agree Minutes of last meeting

- No issues raised, minutes agreed.

1. Update on Constitution for the Steering Group

-Chris highlighted that at the last meeting work was delegated to Sarah and Chris to run the draft constitution through the council’s legal department.

-Sarah highlighted that it had been through the legal department but that amendments were not yet completed, she offered her apologies. Some highlights of the changes were given, including adding sections on exclusion from the Steering Group, Freedom of Information and Data Protection. It was agreed that once completed the Constitution would be circulated to the group prior to the next meeting, with any changes made at the next meeting and subsequently adopting the constitution.

-Action: Circulate draft changes with minutes for the group’s information and comment, and circulate the amended version once complete for final changes and adoption at the next meeting.

2. Update on alogo / branding for the Steering Group

-Louise offered apologies as due to other commitments Rod L has been unable to look at this. He will look at it shortly and it can then be distributed for comment.

-Louise offered further notes, that Rod L did not like the use of the boundary and liked the oak leaf and house (Chris pointed out that these views may be at odds with the group’s opinion at the last meeting).

-Action: Louise to circulate Rod L’s designs when amended for further comments prior to the next meeting, with a decision to be made at the next meeting.

3. Website and collaborative workspace

Website

-Chris asked for comments on the Ascot and the Sunnings website:

-Louvaine liked the website structure, appearance and content, but felt that some pages had too much information on them.

-Steve agreed – and he particularly liked the 4 points on how people can take part under the “get involved” page.

-Derek M thought it was very easy to read.

-Chris suggested that if the group are happy with this format of website that Phil builds it and the contents can be input by the group, or a few members of the group.

-Volunteers to liaise with Phil were Louvaine, Steve and Ian.

-Chris highlighted that he was keen that it did not look too much like Ascot’s site

-Action: Phil, Louvaine, Steve and Ian to liaise and get the website together prior to the next meeting.

Collaborative Workspace

-Chris highlighted that it was agreed at previous meetings that an online workspace for the group would be necessary to reduce the need for meeting up and to allow those who cannot make the meeting to get actively involved.

-Steve highlighted that he had met with Phil and that the ideas that had been looked at had good points, however he is concerned that with these sites, the users are not the client, advertisers are – potential issues with being bombarded with advertising.

-Steve mentioned that some “must haves” had been identified, including document recovery, easy to use, and good help service.

-Steve highlighted that we are going to look into some sites that need to be paid for to come out of the budget as this service will be essential, and would like to bring back some options for testing with the group at the next meeting

-Action: Steve and Phil to arrange showcase of options for tools to be discussed at next meeting for a decision to be made.

4. Update on consultation

Consultation strategy

-David C highlighted that he has started work on a consultation strategy and has some draft ideas.However he wanted to test a few thoughts with the group before he moved forward with this. He highlighted that there will be a substantial amount of consultation so there will be ample opportunity for all to contribute, but it will important to engage those “hard to reach”. David thought that the groups that fall within this category are:

  • Children and youths (particularly with there being no senior school in the parish);
  • Elderly people;
  • People with no internet access.

-Rod asked for clarification on what David meant by children, David clarified those using youth clubs, parks etc.

-Chris stated that his wife is / was a teacher and felt that primary school aged children would be capable of understanding many of the higher brow concepts involved in a plan, without them being ‘dumbed down’.

-Louvaine suggested going to visit a classroom to obtain their views, continued that it could be a trial at one class that could be refined and taken to further classes.

-Richard stated that the scouts and young people at youth clubs could be useful.

-Sandy from Phoenix Gym stated that they have 500 young people per month coming through the doors and that they would be happy to send out leaflet, but noted that those over 14 years old do not attend.

-Chris suggested making a game to be used in consultations, produced by local people with knowledge of working with young people – creativeway to engage.

-Duncan suggested approaching schools to get the information of pupils who live in Bray – there were some concerns over data protection on this. Chris highlighted that he has connections with Desborough School and that we could see if they could help us connect with pupils from the local area.

-Louise stated that they were successful in getting young people’s opinion in their survey, obtaining information about how many children lived in households and getting the views of older children.

-Justin suggested that the primary children were important to engage too as they will be the ones using any facilities brought forward in the plan.

-Sarah suggested having teachers at the local schools to create a project for the older children in the schools to ask their younger groups.

-The group agreed that these were good ideas and should be investigated further.

-David C then moved onto the elderly people, highlighting that there were three elderly homes, sheltered accommodation and other facilities in the Parish – how are we best to connect with them.

-Louvaine suggested that a personal approach would be needed with the elderly.

-Rod B suggested that neighbours are a good option for this, David added Neighbourhood Watch as an option

-David highlighted that it was important to consult the elderly to find out what they look for in services, facilities and housing now, so that we can plan for future generations.

-Chris suggested using the clubs that operate in and around the area and Duncan suggested using social services to connect.

-David suggested that paper copies will be needed to connect with all people, but William raised concern over the cost of this and suggested it should be targeted.

-Ian asked about rules governing existing local plan production and consultation, Sarah highlighted that there are rules governing the local plan production and that nothing had come through the localism bill yet. Phil added that the council has a Statement of Community Involvement and there are other rules in place for local plans, but these are limited and not helpful in finding the best ways to consult.

-Duncan suggested using small halls, like the scout hut and others to engage.

-Phil suggested piggy backing on events that already occur in the area.

-Sarah highlighted that the period for the plan is likely to be 10 years.

-Action: David to continue on strategy and circulate by or at the next meeting.

Update on mini-consultation

-Chris highlighted how he had found it difficult to achieve ten people to fill in the form circulated, and felt that this would be a major barrier for the group.

-Louvaine added that the perception that has been built by planning over the past few years has led to people being disinterested as they do not see results.

-Chris added that it is important that people perceive the process as worthwhile.

-Phil suggested that once the website is up and running that this will be a fantastic way of advertising results quickly, so that people can see their results and can find out how the findings are being used and taken forward.

-Richard asked when the deadline is, Chris responded that there is not end date, but that we need to find our way forward quite quickly.

-Tracey offered to post a paper version of the questionnaire at the Phoenix Gym and ask people stopping by to fill it in. Phil will create usable hard copy for use. Thanks offered to the gym representatives for this.

-Action: All to continue to fill in the forms and get to Phil ASAP. Phil to liaise with Phoenix Gym to get paper copies to them.

5. Establish Topic Groups

-Chris highlighted that he is trying to establish guidelines for how these will operate and asked for anyone to volunteer to lead on any of the topic groups, stating that we would work with those in the group to establish appropriate ways forward.

-David F was worried about ignoring those categories outside of the top few from the mini-consultation.

-Chris highlighted that there were still decisions to be made about having these groups broken down or left as large groups and that many would be covered as a result of findings and cross group issues later. Phil added that those outside of the top few may well get

-Ian stated that he feels that it is unclear how Neighbourhood Plans will work and Steve added that we need clarity over governance and what they can and cannot do.

-Sarah highlighted that we can feed comments and questions back to DCLG to find out more information at a meeting with them on 6th July. Agreed to take questions to meeting and feedback at next meeting.

-Phil highlighted that DCLG are making it clear that Minerals and Waste cannot be tackled in a major way in Neighbourhood Plans.

-William said that waste is important in rural areas, particularly with dumping. Agreed that certain aspects may need to be covered as the current policies are inadequate.

-Chris asked about the national planning policy framework and if that offers clarity. Sarah clarified what the NPPF is and said that it provides some, limited guidance.

-David C highlighted that as a front runner, we are bound to work with fewer rules and that we would test the boundaries, Chris added that we will also need to be wary of what the constraints will be at the end of the process to avoid wasted effort.

-Action:Pass questions and comments to Sarah by 5th July on the process so that these can be fed up to DCLG.

-Action: All to consider whether they want to lead on topics and tell Chris.

6. Communications

-Chris highlighted that there is a need to create a group or have an individual look at opportunities to promote the groups work and publicise it. He highlighted that an article was going into Around the Royal Borough and that this was a start, but we would need to continue this throughout the process.

-Louvaine made suggestions like the parish newsletter. Chris welcomed suggestions but was keen to have a volunteer to take on this role.

-Justin raised a point that this individual would effectively be a figure head of the group. Phil and Chris clarified that this role would only be to manage communications with the press and the public and that incoming communications would be dealt with by different people.

-Duncan suggested that some of the budget be used for this specialised post. Chris welcomed this suggestion, but added that a volunteer would be preferred if possible, due to funds.

-Sarah suggested getting more businesses to get involved to help fund the process.

-Derek raised concerns about business involvement and the potential for the plan being compromised. Phil clarified that business involvement is being welcomed by government and that their views should be balanced by other members. Phil suggested having a space on the website or at events where company logos appear as partners/sponsors/supporters of the plan to generate revenue.

-Action: All to consider whether they want to be involved in the communications, or lead on it.

7. AOB & Date of Next Meeting

-Timeframes were discussed -Sarah highlighted that DCLG will require demonstration of progress. Draft timeline to be recirculated.

-Chris noted that we would welcome Andrew Close from DCLG at the next meeting.

-David C highlighted a meeting that he attended with the President of the Royal Town Planning Institute – itwas discussed to use Bray as an example of good practice.

-Duncan suggested contacting the Princes Trust and others with Government funding to see if we can use them. Phil highlighted that Planning Advisory Service have been in touch and that we should be meeting them soon.

-William suggested circulating key docs to new attendees so they are up to date.

-Next meeting – Wednesday 20thJuly at Desborough Room 4 in the Town Hall, Maidenhead.

-Action: Distribute timeline with minutes

-Action: Contact others with funding to test willingness to assist

-Action: Phil to distribute key docs to new attendees