Mobberley Parish Plan

Minutes for meeting No.

16

Held on

Arrow left: previous minutes

01/07/08

Arrow up: Inaugural meeting and meeting and agenda lists Arrow right: Next minutes

Agenda

 

MOBBERLEY PARISH PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT THE RAJAR BUILDING ON

1 JULY 2008, 7.30pm

 

    • Present: Stuart Nixon (Chairman), Ken Chantler (Vice Chairman), Gary Baron (Treasurer), Roger Gittins, Penny Braham (Secretary), Eileen Toon, & Matthew Martin-Bird
  • APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
  • Apologies had been received from Alistair McLeod, Sarah Bale, Janet Cookson and Sue Roberts.
  • 2.  MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 27 MAY 2008 AND MATTERS ARISING
  • The Minutes were agreed as a correct record. Any matters arising would be covered in the discussions to follow.
  • SURVEY RESULTS AND SPREAD SHEET COMPLETION
  • 380 General Surveys had been received, about a 12 1/2% return (20% return would have been considered ‘good’). 18 (plus 1 still to come) Business Surveys had been received, and 4 Youth Surveys.
  • Concern was expressed over the lack of response for the Youth Surveys, but this response had been similar to that of the St Wilfrid’s Church survey a few years ago. No feedback had been received from the School since 22 June, although the Committee had emailed the School again on 25 and 30 June. It was important to receive a response from the School before the children broke up for the Summer – the School would be contacted again.
  • Further Youth input was vital. PB reported on the Youth Training evening on aviation which was being organised by a lecturer from South Trafford College, in conjunction with the Parish Council, at the Rajar building on 8 July at 7.30pm. It was agreed that PB would represent the Parish Plan Committee at that meeting.
  • It was also suggested that last year’s Rose Queen (Sue Roberts’ daughter) Sophie, might be willing to organise a disco for the teenagers – SN would ask Sue for her opinion.
  • Spread Sheet completion – RG reported that 167 results had been inputted, mostly courtesy of Alistair McLeod who was now unfortunately occupied on other matters. RG had the remaining Surveys at the meeting and each Committee member present was now given 25 to input. RG distributed 2 sheets which he had prepared out of the Business Survey results. By the next Steering meeting questions that needed interrogating would have to have been identified eg. How many Parishioners over the age of 60 needed extra seats around the village?
  • ANALYSING THE RESULTS AND SENDING OUT DETAILS
  • Analysis details needed to be out by the end of August for inclusion in the September Newsletter, therefore the Committee needed to concentrate on this right away. SN asked RG to keep the Committee up to date with the input progress. RG reported that Committee members would be able to see that for themselves and the Survey results were easy to input – by opening the email RG had sent out, clicking on ‘Form’, typing in the information and finally pressing ‘Submit’. RG had given each Survey return a reference number.
  • OPEN MEETINGS, HOW WE CONSTRUCT THESE AND WHO WE INVITE
  • AMcL had confirmed to SN that, of the 7 headings already thought relevant for the Open Meetings, the only topic on the returned Surveys which had not demonstrated much interest was ‘Environment’.
  • SN hoped that a different Committee member would chair each Open Meeting and be responsible for contacting relevant speakers eg from the Borough Council, County Council and new Cheshire East. SN hoped that each Open Meeting would consist of:-
    •  A short presentation on results of the Surveys, with illustrations
    •  A request for ideas from the floor
    •  A break for refreshments
    •  Crystallisation of objectives 
  • It was thought that the ‘Planning & Conservation’ Open Meeting would be the most difficult – that topic being the only one that could be made statutory.
  • It was decided on the Open Meetings as follows:-
  • Thursday 4 SeptemberTransport
  • (Movement, safety, speeding and maintenance of roads, footways, footpaths and bridleways)
  • To be attended by SN, KC and RG
  • Friday 12 SeptemberYouth
  • (embracing all aspects of youth interest)
  • To be attended by SR, SB, AMcL & GB
  • Tuesday 16 September – Planning and Conservation
  • (Securing and building on our heritage and responding to development proposals)
  • To be attended by SN, PB, GB and Susan Alboutany (MVS)
  • Tuesday 23 September – Our Community and Communication
  • (Shops and services, community spirit, helping one another, communication, health, education and crime etc.)
  • To be attended by RG, KC, PB, SR and JC
  • Thursday 2 October – Our Environment
  • (Pollution, waste, the natural environment and climate change)
  • To be attended by ? (to be further discussed)
  • Thursday 9 October – Leisure
  • (Community events, using our community assets, entertainment and skills’ training)
  • To be attended by PB & ET
  • Thursday 16 October - Business
  • (All aspects and interests of the business community)
  • To be attended by MMB & KC

SN would email the leaders/members attending with ideas the following week. There was no    reason why everyone on the Steering Committee could not attend all the Open Meetings, but it was important that the work load be shared.

Having examined some other Parish Plans already completed, SN reported that some had picked out 10 key points, depending on the size of the population. (He considered that, because of the size of Mobberley’s population, our Parish Plan would pick out approx. 5 key points.) As a result, some policies/objectives had been created from these key points and other key points had meant that an action group, eg Parish Council, had been mandated to drive these forward.

PB suggested that the Open Meetings could be highlighted at the Mobberley Civic Service, to be held on 13 July, to encourage people to attend – she would ask Jim Shepherd, MPC Chairman.

 

  • TIMETABLE
  • If the Open Meetings finished on 16 October, it was hoped to produce a Draft Plan by the end of 2008. A period of a month’s consultation would follow for the Parish Council, business groups and larger village organisations to comment on the Draft. In February/March 2009 it was hoped that the final Plan would be prepared and printed, and agreed by the Parish Council. (According to Bron Kerrigan, however, the Plan should be final by end January 2009 – one year after receipt of the grant).
  • The proposed grant application to Manchester Airport Community Trust Fund was discussed. GB and RG had already looked at the application form some time ago. PB would contact Head of Community Relations at MA – Wendy Sinfield – the following morning to ascertain when in September the application would have to be received for consideration at the next Trustees’ meeting in October, and also to ask for her advice and guidance in completing the application form. It was intended to ask for a grant for the printing of the Final Plan (say 200 copies), or ask whether the Airport had any in house printing facilities. RG was of the opinion that the maximum grant available from the Airport was 1000.
  • GB presented the balance sheet as of 1.7.08, copies of which were distributed. 126 had been taken at the Rose Queen event for the Treasure Hunt, from which a 50 first prize had been awarded. Total grants and donations received was 4250, with total costs claimed to date 788-25. This meant that the balance held by the Parish Council was 3461-75. Further costs still outstanding amounted to 202-15.
  • It was thought that extra funding could be raised at the School’s Bonfire Night event.
  • With regard to the Parish Plan format, SN had examined some 20 other Parish Plans to see how they had been structured and what they had published. To date he did not see much reason to move away from the headings already thought relevant. Decisions would have to be made on retention of the front photograph, whether to have the emblem on every page, whether to use 2 columns per page to save space, what internal photos to insert and where, whether to publish full Survey results etc. In terms of objectives/recommendations, in some Parish Plans these had been very short and without explanations. SN was of the opinion that it was preferable to eg for verges - explain why the situation had been recommended and how it would be implemented. In the Final Plan, we could make as many recommendations as necessary, but Planning and Conservations issues would become ‘legal’. All other recommendations would be taken through to an Action Plan to be driven forward. The Action Plan should be a free-standing list so it would be easy to see, with full details on each section elsewhere.
  • WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL
  • See agenda item 3 above.
  • ANY OTHER BUSINESS – None.
  • DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
  • The next full Steering Committee meeting would be held on TUESDAY 5 AUGUST 2008 (as the Secretary would be away the week before), 7.30pm at the Rajar Building.
  • The meeting finished at 21.30 hours.

[Home] [Introduction] [Meetings] [General Meeting Minutes] [Open Meetings] [Transport and Environment] [Untitled17] [Untitled18] [Untitled19] [Untitled20] [Untitled21] [Committee] [Constitution] [Links] [Feedback] [10x10 Survey]