WESTWELL PARISH APPRAISAL AND WISH LIST GROUP
Record of a Public Meeting Held on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
At the Parish Hall, Westwell
- Present
Mr R Butcher (chairman), Mrs M Butcher, Dr C Muir, Mrs T Wyatt, Mrs J Horne, Mrs E Jamieson, Mrs S Wood (secretary) and 21 others.
- Apologies
Rev Canon L Hammond, Mr T Lawrence (chairman, Westwell Parish Council), Mr and Mrs J Drury, Mr and Mrs A Hollis, Mr M Jamieson and Mr M Keeys.
- Welcome
The chairman welcomed all who attended the meeting, and explained that this was a community meeting for the whole parish, not a parish council meeting.
The Group had carried out a Parish Appraisal (completed in 2002) but this was superseded 6 months later by Parish Plans.
After a period in abeyance the Group had recently been active obtaining funds(from sources that would not make grants to parish councils) for parish improvements such as the new access. Approx £12000 had been raised in this way for the project.
This meeting was to explain what Parish Plans were, and to decide whether or not such a Plan should be produced for Westwell.
- Parish Plan – what is it?
The chairman explained that a Parish Plan is a comprehensive consultation of all in the parish, identifying the community’s wishes for its future. The government had put forward the concept of community participation but believed that “big is good but bigger is better”. This would result in a loss of individuality. One way to avoid this would be a Parish Plan, which would be recognized by the borough council and the government and would give the parish a greater say in, for example, planning.
It was noted that parish councils are rarely mentioned in government consultations. A Parish Plan would be evidence of community thinking and spirit, influence those in authority, and open doors to funding. The parish council could not obtain all the funds needed as funding bodies such as the Colyer-Fergusson Trust would not fund local government. The Appraisal was paid for by funding, not public money.
- What is involved
1)A public meeting.
2)Involve all in the parish
3)Identify as many ways of gathering information as possible, eg questionnaires as used in the Appraisal.
4)Appoint a Steering Group.
5)Identify likes/dislikes/demographics.
6)These are used to produce an accessible plan.
Methods used would include posters, newsletters, website, Westwell Eye (particularly useful to reach those without internet access). The chairman took this opportunity to thank Mrs Carolyn Thorneloe, editor of the Westwell Eye, for the development of the magazine.
Use would be made of skills such as IT and photography in producing the Plan.
The Appraisal was held up by the borough as an example.
- Formation of Steering Group
Mr K Saunby asked if a Parish Plan were obligatory. The chairman replied that it was not, but was useful.
Mrs Jamieson noted that there had been a very good response to the Appraisal questionnaire, with over 66% of residents replying.
Mrs Booty asked who had used the Appraisal. Mrs Wyatt replied that it had been taken into consideration by the parish council when considering planning applications. The chairman said that it was supplementary planning guidance. Mrs Booty stated that the Plan was not, therefore, to do with housing, rather it gave a feeling of what the parish wanted.
Mrs Horne gave the example of the blue box recycling scheme.
The chairman reminded the meeting that the Steering Group would not be run by the parish council but was rather an adjunct, and councillors would not be in the majority.
The Plan would aim to answer three questions:
1)Where do we come from?
2)Where are we now?
3)Where do we want to go?
Asked for a show of hands, all present were in favour of producing a Plan.
Mr J Baldwin asked if the Plan would be a continuation of the Appraisal, beginning with unfinished business. The chairman replied that it would, and noted that problems such as noise and traffic remained. The Plan, however, differed from the Appraisal in that it produced an Action Plan which would list priorities, eg M20 noise would be high priority.
A Steering Group of 10-14 members would be needed to produce the Plan. Rev Hammond was willing to stand. The chairman asked that those interested put their names forward.
- Sources of funding
The various funding bodies were introduced, together with examples of those that were already providing funding for similar projects.Examples were produced of the type of relatively complex application form that was required to be completed when applying for funding.
- Ways of collecting information
Covered in (5) above.
The floor was opened for questions.
Dr Muir asked about time commitment. The chairman answered that most of the time would be spent disseminating the questionnaire. Mrs Wyatt said that she was unsure what new software was available (possibly from the University of Gloucestershire) to help produce the questionnaire, but existing could be used, possibly using questions not used in composing that for the Appraisal. An interactive questionnaire on the website, or emailed questions were possibilities, but she felt that these lacked the personal touch. The chairman agreed, stating that experience showed that handing over the questionnaires and then returning to collect them gave a higher response rate than simply putting them through the letter box.
Mrs Wyatt said that Parish Plans produced in other areas showed the necessity for asking relevant questions, and suggested that the Steering Group draw up its own. She gave an example of a positive outcome: Brookland is bisected by a busy road, with only 1 postbox. Difficulties re using this box by residents on the ‘wrong’ side of the road were identified in the Plan, and an additional box was installed.
The chairman noted that there was a danger that Westwell be swallowed by its larger neighbour, Charing. Recent boundary changes had squeezed and reduced the size of the parish, eg the removal of the eastern side of Sandyhurst Lane to another ward.
Mrs Wyatt emphasised that the Plan should also highlight what was not wanted, and mentioned the threat to Beechbrook.
Dr Muir informed the meeting that Kier Properties had called Beechbrook ‘brownfield’, but the Inspector (during examination of Ashford’s Core Strategy) confirmed that it was greenfield. However, he had also insisted that it be included as a possible extension site, even though Ashford Borough Council wanted it retained as a green corridor. A review must be completed by 2014, and the Beechbook team will continue to monitor the situation. A Parish Plan could add weight to the argument. In reply to a question from Mr Saunby, Dr Muir said that the ‘fighting fund’ stood at about £22000.
The chairman added that the site was still owned by Union Rail/Ministry of Transport. Its status as greenfield should make it difficult to develop the site for housing, as this would be contrary to the KCC Plan. A Parish Plan could include the aim to develop it as a wildlife/educational amenity.
Mrs Wyatt added that not everyone saw development as a threat, some saw it as an opportunity. She said that Union Rail was also looking at other sites in the parish, eg Watery Lane and Tutt Hill.
The chairman concluded by saying that the parish had 10 active societies – a large number for its size – and these had contributed to the Appraisal. This demonstrated a core requirement for a Plan, that of community involvement.
- Likes/Dislikes exercise
The meeting was asked to write down ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ in the parish, together with a single ‘wish’ each. These were given to the chairman for subsequent evaluation and tabulation as a possible part of the ‘Action Plan’ that would eventually be produced.
The meeting closed with refreshments.