MOBBERLEY PARISH PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT THE RAJAR BUILDING ON
28 AUGUST 2007, 7.30pm
Present: Stuart Nixon (Chairman) Ken Chantler (Vice Chairman)
Gary Baron (Treasurer), Penny Braham (Secretary), Roger Gittins, and Alistair MacLeod
- APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
- Apologies had been received from Janet Cookson and Eileen Toon.
- 2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND MATTERS ARISING
- The Minutes were agreed as a correct record. PB apologised to Alistair MacLeod for the incorrect spelling of his name.
- Committee membership – Due to house moving and family commitments, PB had not yet asked Peter and Mathew Martin-Bird if they would be willing to join the Steering Committee.
- Mr David Swann had shown interest but could not attend Tuesday meetings. PB would send him meeting Minutes in future.
- The Committee had learned with great sadness of the death of Mr Simon Pretty.
- Printing – AM advised of another printer whom he considered worth contacting – Mr Mike Ellis, Newton Hall Lane, tel. 873277.
- SN, KC, GB, RG, ET and PB had met on 9 August to go through the Draft Questionnaire in detail. As a result of this meeting, RG had reprinted an amended version on 16 August. Copies of this had been circulated with the agenda of the current meeting (25 in total) so that Committee members could hand them out to ‘guinea pig’ Parishioners for return by 7 September. It was hoped that a wide age group could be reached.
- A further meeting would be held on 13 September, 10am at the Rajar Building, to go through the 25 responses.
- SN circulated copies of 2 critical responses sent by email to him from Ms Bron Kerrigan. The Committee found her comments on the draft questionnaire strange, as no comments had been received back from either her or Cedric Knipe to the first draft, when both their views had been sought as to whether the draft questions asked were relevant.
- The second email from Bron Kerrigan was relating to the funding of the Parish Plan. The Committee found these comments confusing and considered they were not in alignment with her advice at previous meetings. It was agreed that PB would ask Cedric Knipe to attend the next meeting on 13 September to clarify matters.
- SN proposed that these emails be put on hold for the current meeting, until all members had had time to read through and digest the comments. PB would circulate them to absent Committee members before that meeting.
- In relation to the criticisms, SN reported that the Mobberley questionnaire seemed no different to others he had seen, but the Committee would need to take on board the feedback from Bron Kerrigan along with the 25 sets of other comments received. The Committee needed to find out whether they were way “off beam” , and then decide whether to come back “to beam” or argue and justify their progressing as presently.
- UPDATE ON BUDGETING & FINANCE GENERALLY
- Airport grant – It would be necessary to have actual receipts for the printing work before applying for the grant from Community Relations, so this grant would have to be applied for at a later date.
- Discussion took place as to whether Manchester Airport would need a Parish Plan Business Questionnaire. The Committee would ascertain whether the Airport boundary was now in Manchester, or whether it was still in the Parish of Mobberley.
- At present there was insufficient money in the kitty to publish a Questionnaire, and if funding was available from direct sources this should be followed through.
- There was a need to “bottom out” the £250 starter grant and also find out what the time lag would be between receipt of this £250 and receipt of the further bulk funding.
- 5. REVISED PROGRAMME
- It was not possible to progress this at present.
RG had contacted Royal Mail. It would be possible to go ‘on line’ and print our own stamp. It was possible to create a business account and pay a monthly fee. As a ‘one off’ transaction there would be a licence fee of £70 with a £40 deposit, which would need to be topped up back to £40 when it fell to £15. The Committee would use 2nd class postage and only pay for items returned. GB needed to include these charges in his budget costings.
The Rajar building still had no postage box as the Clerk was not yet working there on a regular basis. The Rajar building’s postcode needed to be confirmed.
There were 1300 properties in Mobberley and one questionnaire per house would be delivered. However it was imperative to capture all the different age groups. If a household needed a second or subsequent questionnaire this could be collected from the pubs, via the website etc.
Discussion took place as to the need to award prizes for completed, returned questionnaires. The general consensus of the meeting was ‘no’, but it was agreed to leave this subject for further discussion.
8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
- RG was of the opinion that item 9 on the 2nd questionnaire was not relevant.
The interpretation of the word ‘frequently’ was discussed.
AM was of the opinion that Ms Kerrigan’s comments and feedback should be seriously considered.
It was noted that two thirds of the population of Mobberley fell into the ‘older’ age bracket.
It was not known how successful the intended Focus Groups would be, but it was thought that the questionnaire answers would provide ‘back up’ information.
RG showed the meeting a narrow plastic length such as used by supermarkets for hanging light display items.
9. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
It was agreed to hold a subcommittee meeting for those who could attend on Thursday
13 September, 10am at the Rajar building to examine the contents of the 25 questionnaires. PB would ask Mr Cedric Knipe if he could attend this.
The 25 questionnaires should be deposited at ET’s house on Hall Bank by Friday 7 September.
The next full Steering Group meeting would be held on Tuesday 25 September, 7.30pm at the Rajar Building.