PEASEDOWN ST.JOHN -- VILLAGE PLAN

NOTES OF SIXTH PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday 15^th June 2006 -- at PSJ, Red Post, upstairs Function Room

R.W.G.Butt, Chair, ( + a Topic ) Peasedown St.John Village Plan Ctte (RWGB)

N.W.McInnes, Treasurer, ( + a Topic ) Peasedown St.John Village Plan Ctte (NWMcI)

P.R.Provest, Secretary, ( + a Topic ) Peasedown St.John Village Plan Ctte (PRP)

C.Rich joint Topic Leader ‘Education’ Village Plan Committee (C_R)

Kathy Thomas Topic Leader ‘Open Spaces, Footpaths, Flora & Fauna’ (KMT)

J.S.Bolwell Councillor, representing Peasedown St.John Parish Council (JSB)

J.C.L.Lyddieth a resident of PSJ

In attendance for a special mini pre-meeting only :

Richard Snelling Community Action (R_S)

J.P.Rich Topic Leader ‘Policing, etc’ Village Plan Committee (JPR)

Bridie Marshall Topic Leader ‘Youth’ Village Plan Committee (BFM)

Terry Nicholls, Peasedown Opportunities Project (T_N)

M.J.Gregory Leader ‘Sport’ topic, also representing Community Safety Action Gp (MJG)

Ross Thompson Topic Leader ‘Questionnaires format and Data’ (pan-Topic) (RRT)

Celia M.Jones Topic Leader ‘Consumer (retail) interests’ (CMCJ)

Gail Coleshill B&NES Councillor for Peasedown St.John (GMC)

D.J.T.Kennedy Co.Secretary Beacon Hall / PSJ Community Association (DJTK)

Ruth Rich Councillor, representing Peasedown St.John Parish Council (RMR)

Sara Holley Chair, Redlands Residents Committee (SJH)

Andrew Henon representing "nesa" ( see ‘Youth’ item in meeting notes )

Cathy Poole representing "nesa" ( see ‘Youth’ item in meeting notes )

( Josephine Stockley, Vice-Chair + Topic Leader ‘Education facilities’ --tonight is a Thursday )

( Ruth Grant permanent in respect of PSJ evening meetings, but supplying advice )

Other absences not formally covered as above are noted under relevant Topic headings.

In the period since last meeting Dunkerton had re-established contact as they were embarking on a Village Plan. A cordial invitation had been extended to them for a representative to attend PSJ Steering Group meetings. It was noted that in fact no-one from Dunkerton had arrived.

As agreed at last meeting, tonight’s meeting had been held at Red Post as an experiment in trialling of other PSJ venues. Although we had only requested and paid for ‘biscuits’ to accompany the welcoming tea and coffee, the landlady of the Red Post had most generously upgraded the ‘biscuits’ to a magnificent full-blown sandwich buffet without any extra charge.

It was therefore a matter of reproach to those concerned, and embarrassment to Secretary PRP who had negotiated the arrangements, that there were so many absentees.

Profuse thanks would be extended to landlady Brenda X for her generosity, but we would need to ensure that such an embarrassing situation was never, ever, repeated.

Attendees agreed that the meeting room accommodation afforded by the Red Post Function Room site was spacious, light, bright and airy, with excellent ambience and atmosphere.

The room booking for Village Plan Committee meeting tonight had been given to us free of charge, with only the tea/coffee and ‘biscuits’ charged at a nominal fee.

 2. PSJ APPLICATION FOR ‘VILLAGE PLAN’ FINANCIAL GRANT

There is a scheme whereby some financial Grant aid can be given to bodies who have embarked on preparation of a Village Plan.

Administration of the scheme for those Village Plans arising within B&NES, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire area has been vested in "Quartet Community Foundation", and it is to this body that applications have to be submitted.

The application process is fairly ‘fragile’ and it is important that the "one shot" allowed is skilfully tailored, and sequenced with other Village Plan preparation activity, intentions and structured consultation in such a way that the likelihood of favourable Grant being approved is maximised.

To this end the services of a specialist advisor is recommended, and Richard Snelling (R_S)
of "Community Action" attended tonight in this role, for a mini-meeting with Chairman, Treasurer, and Secretary, of PSJ Village Plan.

( Due to late arrival of Richard Snelling this session started late and thus over-ran somewhat
until other members of Steering Group had arrived in the room to sit quietly ( ?? ! ) awaiting main meeting, but these other members were not directly involved in the special discussions )

R_S said the likely contact that PSJ would have with ‘Quartet’ would be with "Ronnie Brown".

Our application would be dealt with by a ‘panel’ who represented relevant organisations and would give a balanced view on the merits of our application.

Above all else we would need to be able to clearly demonstrate that we were connecting with all corners of the community over preparation of the Plan. R_S was himself aware that PSJ included well-known groups such as ‘POP’ and ‘FAST’, but we needed to include -all- other groupings such as residents associations, also not only the main-stream school but any
pre-schools, adult education, lunch clubs, sports associations, etc, etc. Having done that there were other "hard to reach" groups which must be sought out and consulted. These would include the elderly and housebound, and others who were not particularly literate in a ‘clerical’ context, these being not necessarily just the elderly but also many of today’s youths.

If people were insufficiently literate to properly complete a questionnaire then it may be necessary to sit with them and interview them, this applied especially to the elderly.

It would be easy to overlook ‘commuters’, these were people who were resident in the village but spent all their working lives out of it elsewhere. Their opinions also counted and must go in.

The need to demonstrate that this consultation had fully taken place was paramount.

R_S said despite the prevalence of "Consultation Fatigue" where the public was ’switched-off’ by too frequent or too complicated or off-putting questionnaires or other surveys, full consultation had to be done to fully support our Grant application. Calling public meetings was one way of attracting interest, perhaps ‘attached’ to an existing event such as a football match.

It was necessary to think innovatively. For example younger children could be fired off on a "photo safari" charged with photographing specific features in the village --OR-- giving them free rein to photograph subjects that interest -THEM- around about the village. In practice the Plan might need to purchase, say, six very cheap cameras for this ( and not become overly worried if three or so "went missing" ). In similar vein, the popular television technique of using "video diaries" ( one-to-one with the camera ) had become unconsciously accepted in people’s minds, even if they did not recognise the technique by that name. This had been tried in other villages where video equipment was available, e.g. at a Youth Club.

The vast majority of the resulting footage was "visual rubbish" to be immediately discarded,
but careful editing could usually find a few "real gems" hidden among the trash.

In similar style consideration could be given to establishing a ‘graffiti wall’ where people are given free rein to add contributions. This could also be structured towards a ‘village map’ format.

The ‘Village’ -must- include fringe ‘hamlets’ that lie technically within its boundaries.

Above all, the structure of the consultation by questionnaire and/or survey, was paramount.

The golden rule to remember was that in a survey : "you only get answers to what you ask".

Bob Butt said that much of what was being recommended by R_S had already been taken on board by our Village Plan Steering Group, though we were grateful for some fresh angles.

RWGB said the one area on which we seemed undecided was selection of the basic underlying process for the Consultation exercise. There were two basic schools of thought, one was that there should be a comprehensive questionnaire type survey covering all subjects and universally distributed. This raised the twin problems of ‘questionnaire fatigue’ and the logistical one of getting completed(?) forms returned from the 100 per cent distribution.

The other approach seemed to be to set up a series of small ‘specific-subject-related’

Focus Groups, who could directly elicit opinions from a small closeted group on each occasion.

RWGB asked R_S to state what response rate would be deemed to be an acceptable level of achieved consultation by the panel persons assessing the bid for Grant ?

R_S said results around 60 per cent completed would be considered to have "done well", and 40 per cent would be "acceptable". Certainly on some sensitive subjects such as "housing needs", a completed survey rate of around 50 per cent would be looked for.

RWGB said he felt such a level of results was likely to be statistically unattainable, but agreed the major next task for the Steering Group was to agree the detailed consultation format that was most likely to produce results that would meet such requirements.

R_S said there were a number of ‘tricks’ that could be employed to improve the completed response rate, e.g. definitely conduct your survey outside the school holiday period.

In response to specific enquiries : R_S confirmed the Authority would expect completion of a Plan, for which Grant had been approved, to be attained within a timescale of two years.

The maximum Grant was a sum of £ 3000. There was no intrinsic advantage in bidding for a sum less than that, particularly in respect of a village as large as PSJ.

It was very necessary to demonstrate that funding had also been sought and granted from other sources. RWGB said PSJ P.C. had already granted £ 1000, and was unlikely to give more.

R_S said £ 1000 was exactly the right sort of sum for a village like PSJ to get from its P.C.

He added that the reference ( page 5 of Application ) to source funding from a "Local Authority" ( which in our case would be B&NES ) --must-- be left blank in the case of PSJ.

R_S also stressed several other funding routes that should be explored. Suitable local charities might be found that would be willing to give, say, £ 500.

In particular, Co-operative Societies, where they existed, were notably philanthropic in their constitutions and more likely to favourably view a funding contribution for something like this.

In other parts of the Application it was essential that "payments in kind" were properly evaluated so they could be taken into consideration. It was notoriously difficult to do this as volunteers tended to expend their own efforts and use personal resources without seeking reimbursement.

R_S said although this was a ‘difficult area’, the Application needed to demonstrate a value somewhere around 20 per cent was being made available ‘in kind’ above the £ 3000 level.

R_S said that as a rule of thumb as to what was acceptable, typical resource effort "in kind" by a volunteer ( even though no actual cash was involved ) should be evaluated at around £ 50 for a full working day, and for the type of "professional expert" we were likely to use this should be increased to around £ 150 per working day.

R_S then proceeded to issue practical help towards the formal completion of the Application Forms, including details of a "Model Action Plan", and references to available precedents such as "Bathford Parish Plan" ( i.e. within B&NES area ) "Abbots Leigh", and a particularly commendable Initial Leaflet that had been produced by "Churchill" ( i.e. the village thereof ).

RWGB directed that all these be placed with Treasurer Ian McInnes for future reference.

RWGB warmly thanked R_S for his attendance and valuable advice, the latter then departed.

The main part of the Village Plan Steering Group meeting then commenced :

Bob Butt welcomed those members who were present. It was disappointing that there were again some significant gaps in ‘Topic’ representation at this Steering Group, which was leading to an overall trend that we were : "not moving fast enough" to achieve our target timescales.

Richard Snelling’s advice in the first part of the meeting had pointed up clearly that the whole question of consultation / questionnaire / surveys was the priority factor on the critical path of achieving the Grant application and getting the Plan underway accompanied by a credible background that the required significant level of public consultation had been achieved.

We would deal with this as the primary priority ‘pan-Topic’ subject, relevant to all ‘Topics’.

Secretary Peter Provest said he had received no bids for amendment to the Minutes of the
26^th April meeting as distributed to all Steering Group members.

PRP said there were now quite a few "First Report ( existing situation)" Topic reports available.

He had had a small back-log in dealing with these, as members had kept giving him ‘paper’ copies, which defeated his ageing scanner !. He now had a new scanner which processed typescript via O.C.R. to an almost unbelievable standard of accuracy. This had in turn crowded input onto Kathy Thomas who was attaching the papers to the PSJ Village Plan segment of the PSJ website. KMT confirmed she would soon be able to deal with this back-log.

As soon as this had been completed we would have the excellent situation that -all- the

Village Plan build-up papers would be freely and directly available to -any- interested member.

Ian McInnes said that the Grant application, for which Richard Snelling had attended at the start of tonight’s meeting, was the main current activity in respect of Finance.

PRP expressed concern there was no internal system yet implemented within the Group for financial reimbursements, even though the Grant funds were not yet here, a series of claims could be put in a queue for future payment. He was particularly concerned at the cost KMT must have incurred over production of posters for her ‘Footpath’ walks. Most likely KMT herself would have felt she would absorb the cost personally, but PRP felt this would be unfair and she should be reimbursed and not left out of pocket financially.

RWGB agreed. He said it was not true the Group had -no- funds, as £ 1000 had been granted from Parish Council funds and had presumably already been used for funding room hires, etc for the previous five Steering Committee meetings.

KMT agreed she had been reluctant to re-charge for the poster printing ( which had needed to be done at Fosseway Press ) without having any relevant prior specific authority to do so.

RWGB gave a ruling that any member having a future legitimate claim for reimbursement should pass details to Treasurer NWMcI for approval, then payment from the P.C. "£ 1000".

RWGB said the advice tonight from Richard Snelling had pointed up how important it was that this aspect needed to be "got right" and complete, as a bed-rock for the Grant application and the whole credibility of the Village Plan and backing for what it was intended to achieve.

At an earlier meeting we had appointed Ross Thompson to the primary role on the pan-Topic aspect of recommending suitable questionnaire methodology, surveys and data collection
for the whole exercise. It was known that he was liaising usefully with Ruth Grant who had similar expertise and could advise on the updating of her own earlier academic exercise.

It was known that RRT could not be here tonight, ( Apology for Absence ) but his involvment

was now becoming critical to the timescale, and we needed to see which way he was thinking, and his studies leading, on the vexed question of whether a ‘total’ questionnaire method was to be used, or targetted smaller focussed attention onto relevant subject groups.

Kathy Thomas said she wished to reiterate her earlier expressed firm conviction, that the only proper way to claim complete consultation coverage was if the ‘complete’ questionnaire or survey has been made available to the total population. If this is not done, there is always the risk that a minority who had a relevant opinion could later claim they had not been given the opportunity to express it.

RWGB said he had sympathy towards KMT’s viewpoint, but the downside was the sheer logistics of achieving it. It would be easy enough to arrange ‘total’ distribution of a ‘complete’ questionnaire ( e.g. with P.C. Newsletter ) but extremely difficult to retrieve completed copies.

At the ‘customer recipient’ end, receipt of a ten or twelve page comprehensive questionnaire would be a daunting prospect, even to persons who did not have a literacy problem, and there would be many instances where such a document would be discarded without filling any of it in.

As stated, we needed to know fairly soon what proposals were emerging in regard to all this.

RWGB said due to the necessarily relative infrequency of these Steering Group meetings, he did not want a consultation proposal put in front of us for ‘instant’ decision at the same meeting.

John Bolwell said he favoured at least part of the consultation process taking place at large open public meetings, similar to the ones recently held at the Methodist Church.

RWGB, in agreeing, said it was necessary to stage such meetings at a wide spread of the PSJ geographical area, not only Methodist Church and Beacon Hall and Youth Centre, but at other relevant premises in the surrounding area.

Ian McInnes reported there had not been any significant development in his Topic area since his First Report was tabled at last meeting.

This situation was likely to remain until the expected ‘Development Plan’ for the area was published. We were currently in a "wait and see" situation over this subject.

‘Open Spaces’, ‘Footpaths’ and ‘Flora & Fauna’

Kathy Thomas reported that some of the ‘walks’ she had initiated as part of a Focus Group exercise within this Topic area had now taken place. Attendance levels had been low numerically but those who had come had expressed a useful level of interest.

One of the highlights had been showing attendees the existence of "Bath Asparagus".

KMT had also been encouraged by the level of interest raised by the poster campaign itself.

By-products of the exercise would include assessing the inconsistent treatment now apparent regarding such things as maintaining ancient hedgerows, verge maintenance and general litter.

RWGB asked KMT to try and extend participation in her Groups to Cubs, Guides, and similar.

‘Education facilities’ formal for children and adults, also for recreational purposes

Colin Rich apologised for his necessary absence from the last two Steering Group meetings .

He had not heard anything from Jo Stockley who was the other joint Leader for this Topic, so he had now commenced assembly of First Report materials himself.

C_R passed the first contributions towards his report to Secretary PRP for assembly and distribution. C_R was hoping to improve presentation of some of the material after consultation with Jonathan Rich. C_R enquired whether it was relevant to include all
’pre-school’ education ? RWGB ruled that it was, also all facilities for Adults.

‘Housing needs’ establish a profile aimed to cater for a future planned population

RWGB said it had originally been envisaged "Fast Community Group" were well-placed to
co-ordinate this Topic on behalf of Village Plan, but their original officers were no longer functioning. RWGB said this situation was now rectified with the appointment of Liam Holvey to their committee. RWGB asked Secretary PRP to contact Liam Holvey, (via P.C. Secretary).

‘Traffic’ Highways, layouts, speed management, parking, etc

Paul Holley was not with us tonight though had been expected. On Tuesday Sara Holley had indicated that Paul Holley had now been through the "A.D.Porter" August 2004 ‘Traffic’ Report" and was considering how the Topic could be progressed.

‘Transport’ i.e. Public Transport

Peter Provest reported actions within this Topic which were encouragingly progressive.

Any future public consultation to take the form of a ‘satisfaction survey’ and seek "dark corners".

In regard to demand-responsive Dial-a-Ride

[ soon to be officially relaunched as "Ring & Ride"

---always with the ampersand--- for when did anyone last "dial" -any- telephone call ? ]

the second "Ring & Ride" minibus ( for PSJ and associated hamlets ) was now selected, incorporating a user consultation exercise in Radstock, and technical specification reviewed.

RWGB enquired whether it was now certain that funding existed for this second minibus ?

PRP replied this was definitely assured ( from B&NES ). In fact B&NES were particularly impressed with the way the Norton Radstock "Ring & Ride" scheme was being operated and expansion developments implemented, and this put MN-R ( to include PSJ ) in a very favourable light to receive any other future "Ring & Ride" benefits from B&NES.

‘Health services’ not only Health Centre but pharmacy, dentist, etc, also chiropody, optometry, other special clinics not currently provided within village.

RWGB reported he was not yet due to receive a further update from Sally-Anne Parry.

However the Topic was well in hand with her, the timescale partly influenced by local reorganisations that were taking place.

‘Safety, Security and Policing’, including study of providing additional Lighting as security aid.

Jonathan Rich had now tabled his impressive First Report, and as it was submitted in electronic form a copy had already been passed to Kathy Thomas for inclusion in the website series.

KMT said that JPR had made an attractive stylish presentation for his paper, unfortunately this did not readily translate from ‘Word’ to the format necessary for the website, however she would apply some simplifying cosmetic adjustments to enable it to be uploaded.

‘Youth facilities’ all aspects, including re-establishment of a ‘Youth Parish Council’

Bridie Marshall was not able to attend tonight but had submitted via PRP an updating paper to be added to the First Report she had submitted earlier. PRP would pass copy of this to KMT.

Members were absolutely delighted at the news that Bridie Marshall had now been given some long overdue recognition of all she was doing at the Youth Centre by means of a well-deserved promotion within B&NES.

PRP reported on a courteous e-mail received from Cathy Poole of "nesa", who had sadly not received funds for their intended project. We would delete Cathy Poole and Andrew Henon from the Group list for the time being, but would welcome them back if their fortunes changed.

‘Sporting facilities’ all mainstream organised sports, as well as indoor adult activities, pubs, etc.

In the absence of Mike Gregory it was not known how this Topic currently stood.

‘Social’ facilities’ as already being developed by ‘P.O.P’ and others.

In the absence of Terry Nicholls it was not known how this Topic currently stood.

Special sub-set : ‘Census of available facilities’ i.e. physical premises

In the absence of Derek Kennedy it was not known how this Topic currently stood.

‘Consumer (retail) interests’ Retail shopping, food ( cook-at-home and hot-takeaway ) drink,

domestic services, e.g. hairdressing, veterinary, the host of ‘hidden’ needed service providers

There had been a significant development since last meeting in that RWGB had at last been successful in recruiting a Leader for this Topic. This is Celia M.Jones, and Secretary PRP is currently charged with advising her of the remit for this project, which is a relatively small and self-contained one.

‘Commercial services’ champion for business and employment throughout the village.

Bob Butt said as this was the last Topic to remain ‘leaderless’, he was prepared, if other members of the Group had no objection, to take on the role of Topic Leader himself.

( no member raised any objection ! ).

RWGB said a number of things he had been doing recently, albeit in a ‘non-Village Plan’ role,

nonetheless had aspects that -were- relevant to Village Plan’s ‘Commercial Services’ Topic. He instanced meetings he had had with senior officers of Mercedes, and recently with Cubex.

Members proceeded to discuss a number of aspects that needed to be followed up :

On the one hand we needed the view of current Commercial organisations as to whether their aspirations were being served in PSJ, or how they would wish to see the village develop ?

On the other hand the Village Plan itself definitely needed to set the scene for the future Commercial profile of the village. At an earlier meeting there had already been extensive discussions regarding remodelling the epicentre of the village, the major possibility would be to relocate Arleens and take in the B&NES field behind.

However there were a number of smaller issues which ought to be able to be more quickly resolved. Examples were the derelict flimsy structure of the Video Shop, Shelf Talk, the Ashgrove Motors site, etc, etc, etc.

Members were also critical that although there had been some isolated ‘tidying-up’ of smaller commercial premises, especially along the Bath Road, there were others, even though these were thriving and popular local businesses, which would present an improved view of their part of the streetscape if there were to be some ‘face-lifting’ of their premises.

‘Religious bodies’ PSJ, including Carlingcott, has at least five church-based groups.

Gail Coleshill had nominated Nathan Hartley to be Topic Leader, and this had been referred to the PSJ "Churches Together" grouping as a courtesy to confirm their corporate agreement.

At the 26^th April Steering Group, as there had been no response from "Churches Together", despite a follow-up reminder, Bob Butt had said that Gail Coleshill should now tell

Nathan Hartley that he had been appointed Topic Leader for this subject.

Secretary PRP said he had assumed from this that GMC, rather than himself, would be initiating Nathan Hartley into this, but absence of Nathan Hartley tonight made it seem possible or likely that he (PRP) may have unfortunately made an incorrect assumption ?.

However In any case he needed some feed-in from GMC as he did not know Nathan Hartley’s e-mail address, nor mailing address, and this data was not to be found in local directories.

Secretary PRP reported latest news on arrangements for ‘Fun Day’,
as announced by Sara Holley at Tuesday’s C.S.A.G. meeting :

--from 08.00 hrs Setting-up by exhibitors could commence

--12.00 hrs Start of proceedings

Exhibitors would be expected to staff their stalls, etc, throughout

the core time of 12.00 hrs to 16.00 hrs.

after 16. 00 hrs there was no obligation to continue, though certain facilities

( e.g. drinks tent ) may keep going on a voluntary basis for a further hour or so if the event is

still in full swing, perfect weather, etc.

Sara Holley had indicated there would be provision of -separate- stalls for ‘Village Plan’ and ‘PSJ P.C.’ RWGB confirmed there was only to be the one stall, that for ‘Village Plan’, and he would advise Sara Holley to correct the allocation of two stalls to just one only.

Discussion ensued on what ‘content’ there should be on ‘Village Plan’ stall ?.

We were now not sufficiently advanced or prepared to use it as one of the official sources for public consultation, as had been originally envisaged.

The opportunity could still be taken to advise Fun Day attendees of the existence and purpose of ‘Village Plan’ and try and whip up some additional support from useful passing locals.

It was agreed a ‘simple’ leaflet should be prepared as a ‘giveaway’ to support this.

Most likely in a format of a single sheet of A4, folded to A5.

It was left that PRP would consider suitable simple text for the leaflet and pass this suggested text to KMT for final design and execution of the leaflet.

It was agreed not to have an elaborate display on the stall, this to remove worries about vandalism or theft of exhibits if the stall should inadvertently become unattended for short periods. KMT would however consider a possible simple display of photographs or similar.

RWGB therefore decreed meetings should revert to the original "always Thursdays" format.

Those members present agreed 19.00 hrs Thursday 31^st August 2006 was a suitable date,
this also gave ample forward notice for diarising by members who were not present tonight.

The actual venue for the meeting would be advised with Agenda details later, and was dependent on availability of a suitable PSJ location.

( it was unlikely that the nicety of accompanying refreshment would be attempted again !! )

[ Note : updated Village Plan Steering Group Distribution List is available on request to Secy PRP ]