Meeting Notes Ascot and the Sunnings Planning 7 Apr 11

Bray Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Meeting

26 05 2011

Present Chris Graham, Sarah Ball, Ian Bellinger, William Emmett, Ian Pankhurst, David Coppinger, Louvaine Kneen, Derek Mellor, Steve Adams, Richard Abbott, Louise Shenston, Philip Hylton.

Apologies Peter Janikoun, Rod Ball, Leo Walters, Derek Wilson, Duncan Johnston, Andrew Close and John Hurley (DCLG)

Agree Minutes of last meeting - No issues raised, minutes agreed.

1. Agree Structure for the Steering Group - Chris Graham suggested some names for some roles: David Coppinger to fulfil one of the consultation Management roles, Steve Adams to lead on Internal Organisation and himself to play a duel function as Chairperson and one of the Task Group Co- ordinators. No objections raised in the room.

- Chris then asked if anyone had strong feelings to be placed in any of the other roles in the Steering Group, no firm decisions were taken at this time. He highlighted that it is important that the Steering Group be viewed as the Project Steering Group whose role would be to make sure the plan moves forward, but that the work and decisions would be made in the task groups.

- One suggestion made of using a matrix organisation approach with the topics across the top and the different roles down the side.

- Chris highlighted to the group that the Neighbourhood Plan will have some limitations and will need to be compliant to national policy and the adopted Local Plan as well as consider the emerging Borough Plan.

- Sarah Ball explained what is happening with the Borough Plan in that it is being brought forward quickly to provide a framework for the Neighbourhood Plans and how the work in Bray will help to shape the policies in the Borough Plan. [It should also be noted that the Borough Plan and the policies emerging within it will also influence the Neighbourhood Plan]

- Chris made a suggestion where each group member ranks the subjects that can be considered in the Neighbourhood Plan. These can then be compiled to create a list of a top 6 [example number only] that would be the first subjects tackled. It would be necessary for members to add any new subjects to the list also.

- Phil H raised a concern that if too few people decided upon the main issues, this may leave others’ views left out. David C stated that the big targets should be dealt with first.

- Louise Shenston highlighted that this type of work had already been completed in the OGAFCAP survey. Discussions ensued about whether this could be applied to the other more populated areas. Louise agreed to share copies of the document, which is also available on the web at www.ogafcap.co.uk.

- Steve A highlighted the need for all to be able to have their say, suggestions made of using the parish newsletter to circulate questions.

- David C highlighted the consultation for the NAG currently underway – this has had a limited response to date.

- Discussions suggested each group member getting 10 people to rank the subjects, and also getting all of those who attended the initial workshop to rank them. When speaking to others also highlighted the possibility of them getting involved in the group in some way. Action: All group members to review list of subjects and send additional topics within one week of receipt to Phil H.

- Discussions suggested that more numbers needed. Sarah B suggested that each group member invites one extra person to attend the next steering group meeting. Action: All group members to invite one other from the parish area to attend the next meeting.

- Some concerns raised about people and organisations outside of the parish area not being involved. Sarah B clarified that external bodies may wish to attend some meetings or events for their input. Sarah B also clarified that it will be part of the Borough Council’s role to smooth over any cross boundary issues both inside and outside of the Borough.

2. Agree Constitution for the Steering Group - Legal advice had just been received by the Council.

- Suggestion made to amend the wording in two places: a) to remove the reference to the secretary as this will not be a part of the group structure b) to amend the wording in item 7 where it says “live or work”, to include others with an interest in the Parish for example a distant landowner or business or their appointed representative.

- Action: Chris G asked the group for delegated authority to liaise with Sarah B and the Council’s legal department, make the necessary amendments and then circulate to the group prior to the next meeting with the aim of signing it at the next meeting. Agreed.

3. Agree on branding - Rod Lord has provided, through Louise S, some draft logos for the plan based on the initial list circulated at the previous meeting and required feedback to make them more suitable for the plan.

- Some support for logo number 1 as people like the “our plan” being in a different colour, although concern raised that all other groups may use this. Some concern that the colour change on the letters that pass over the parish boundary may cause difficulties for some reading. - Suggestions made to insert the leaf or acorn logo as used by the parish currently and also for the parish shape to be hollow. Action: Louise S will take comments back to Rod for amendment to the logo for agreement at the next meeting.

- Thanks offered to Rod for his work on this.

- Steve A suggested that a tagline could be used given the foodie nature of the area – “Food for thought”. The group liked this, suggested that it could be used as a slogan, but perhaps not for the logo.

4. Website - Phil H provided details of the quotes that he has received from different companies. The first quote was for £12,000+ and this was felt to be too much.

- The second company that provided a quote was InDzine who have worked on a number of other websites for a range of organisations. They have provided three quotes for producing a website:

1. a basic website with an easy to use content management system, forum space for the public, image gallery etc. for £3,800 2. a website as above but with event management, private members sections for discussion, etc. for £5,700 3. a website with all of the bells and whistles with search engine optimisation and more, for £8,800.

- It was highlighted that replication of each of these options would cost far less, and therefore costs could be recuperated, but there were no guarantees because other areas do not have funding. - Steve A highlighted the desirability of looking at tools for collaboration, suggesting that we should trial some tools and sample them at a future meeting. Suggested “huddle” as one option to sample. Steve highlighted that ease of use and support is important.

- Action: Agreement to contact Peter Janikoun as he may know someone who could assist with a website.

- Action: Agreed to look into possible free collaborative tools and to go away to investigate local options for website production – Phil H and Steve A to lead

- Comments noted that cost should be at a minimum for the website as the funds will likely be needed further down the line.

5/6. Next Steps - Sarah B circulated a draft timeframe for the plan asking for comments.

- Action: David C to go away and formulate a consultation strategy for discussion at the next meeting

- Agreement that September would be a good time to hold a wider consultation - Chris G highlighted a discussion that he has had with Christine Lalley from CCB about how they can assist. Phil H told the group how CCB had visited with the Ascot group and how they had provided a quote for assisting in a consultation event.

Action: Phil H and Chris G will liaise with CCB to further investigate what they can offer.

7. AOB & Date of Next Meeting - Next meeting Wednesday 22nd June at the Scout Hut in Holyport, behind the memorial hall and parish office.