The Annual Parish Meeting provided a valuable opportunity for Bridge Parish Council to report to the community on the good work it had done over the previous year. There were also reports on the Scout group, the Horticultural Society, the Women’s Institute, the recreation ground and the Mill Centre. There were generous rounds of applause for presentations on the CHEK campaign against the downgrading of Kent and Canterbury Hospital (thank you Martin Vye and Peggy Pryer) and the Kent Environment and Community Network’s campaign for a judicial review of the Mountfield development (thank you Emily Shirley). 

Two motions were presented. Parish Clerk, Philip Wicker, explained that if the motions were passed they would be advisory only to the Parish Council, not binding.

Motion 1: That no further work should proceed on the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan until the Canterbury District Local Plan has been adopted (proposed: David Humphreys; seconded: Kevin Jenner)

The debate on this motion reflected two main lines of argument. First, that the excellent work of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee should not be lost. Second, that the community is very fortunate in that the Housing Inspector has struck out further development on the Brickfields and confirmed the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. With the Neighbourhood Plan proposing new housing both on the Brickfields and in the Green Gap the mood of the meeting was that at the present time a pause made sense. It was also noted that Canterbury City Council is not looking to the village for new housing. The motion was carried by an absolute majority of those present:  26 for, 15 against (with 9 abstentions).

Motion 2: That the Chair of Bridge Parish Council write to the Inspector withdrawing his letter of 24 March (amended version of a motion proposed by Councillor Paul Ferguson; seconded Fiona Ferguson)

As ConserveBridge reported earlier, the Chair of the Parish Council wrote to the government-appointed Housing Inspector on 24 March stating “I would be grateful therefore, if you would consider a slight amendment” to the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury (click here for the letter). Councillor Alan Atkinson opposed the motion by explaining conversations within the Neighbourhood Plan committee, and between this committee and the planning policy manager at the city council, that preceded him sending his letter.

It was noted in debate that an officer of Canterbury City Council had suggested that the neighbourhood plan committee could “highlight as part of their representations” that a site under allocation lies within the Green Gap, but that the Parish Chairman had gone further than this by requesting an amendment to the Green Gap without Parish Council authorisation.

The debate that followed included the need to demonstrate due process and integrity in decision making. It was suggested that the meeting was wasting its time debating the motion, as the Inspector was not prepared to accept further representations. In response it was noted that the motion under debate was not for a new representation, but to withdraw one already made so that it did not lie uncorrected on the record.

No vote was taken on the second motion after the Chairman agreed to write to the Inspector withdrawing his letter of 24 March.

The annual meeting is the main occasion when members of the public can question the Parish Council and, where necessary, hold councillors to account. It is an example of a mature democracy in action. The first motion will be debated by the next meeting of Bridge Parish Council. Once again it should be emphasised that councillors and others who serve the village do so voluntarily and in their spare time; they deserve the thanks and appreciation of the community.

Some good work has gone into the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan in recent years. The idea of a Neighbourhood Plan for Bridge is based on sound reasoning: it gives the village a strong voice in its own future and prevents us from being entirely at the mercy of Canterbury City Council.

The decision of Canterbury City Council to proceed with the Mountfield development to the south of Canterbury will bring the city to the edge of Bridge village. It is a “game changer” for the village – and if the development goes ahead it will be essential that the Green Gap between Mountfield and Bridge is preserved. Not surprisingly, this has been reflected in discussions within the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee.

For reasons that are not clear, five members of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee have resigned since mid-March.  They include the long standing chair of the committee, Professor Joe Connor. Members of that committee have given up their free time to work for the good of the village, and they deserve the thanks of all villagers for doing so.

It is important that the excellent work of the committee in recent years is not lost. But clearly the committee is in no position to continue with its deliberations at the present time. There are four reasons why now is a good moment for the committee to pause in its deliberations.

First, under UK planning law a neighbourhood plan must conform to the district local plan. So the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan must conform to the Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP), which is due to be finalised later this year. At present the draft CDLP presents two features that we should welcome: the district is not looking to Bridge to build new houses; and the Green Gap between Canterbury and Bridge is likely to be confirmed. Once the CDLP has been adopted, the village will have a better idea of what we can, and cannot, include in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Second, movements are afoot to raise money for a judicial review to challenge the Mountfield Development. If the judicial review goes ahead it will focus on air quality. Hopefully it will succeed, and the Mountfield development can be halted. Either way, it makes sense to await the outcome of this review before finalising the Neighbourhood Plan.

Third, the resignation of five experienced members from the Neighbourhood Plan Committee deprives that body of some vital expertise and experience at a crucial time in its deliberations. Some of those who have stood down have given lengthy service, and their resignations represent a loss of institutional memory that will not easily be replaced. A pause will give the village time to recruit people of the calibre the committee needs.

Finally, it is no secret that feelings are running high in the village at the present time on housing issues. A reading of some recent postings on the Bridge Village Facebook page reveals an unusually high number of postings expressing dissatisfaction with recent developments on housing. A pause in the Neighbourhood Plan process will give an opportunity for the situation to calm down.

For all these reasons, it makes sense that no further work be carried out on the Neighbourhood Plan process until the Canterbury Local District Plan has been adopted.

The following motion (proposed: David Humphreys; seconded: Kevin Jenner) will be discussed at the Annual Parish Meeting in the Bridge Village Hall, Thursday, 27 April at 7:00 pm: “That no further work should proceed on the Bridge neighbourhood Plan until the Canterbury District Local Plan has been adopted”. Please come and make your views known.