Amongst the new books to appear in Waterstones’ Canterbury branch this week is the latest offering from Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister who opposed the imposition of harsh austerity measures on his country, much to the annoyance of the international financial elite. Eventually in Washington Varoufakis was asked point blank by Larry Summers, one of the high priests of the global economy; do you want to be on the inside or the outside? Summers said that outsiders prioritise their right to speak freely, but doing so loses support from the ‘insiders’. The insiders will shut out those who do not subscribe to the pre-existing consensus, defending their right (as they see it) to make the important decisions. “The key to such power networks is exclusivity and opacity”, writes Varoufakis in his book Adults in the Room: My Battle with Europe’s Deep Establishment (Bodley Head Publishing, £20.00).

We will return to Varoufakis below; but first here is an overview of the main outcomes from this week’s Parish Council meeting (Thursday. 11 May).

Chairmanship: The incumbent Chair, Alan Atkinson, was re-elected. He continues to enjoy the confidence of a sizable majority of the council, with 7 of 9 councillors voting for him. However, he no longer enjoys unanimous support, with Councillor Paul Ferguson, standing as a “stalking horse” candidate, attracting two votes. It remains to be seen what, if anything, this small shift in the barometer of support will signify.

Green Gap: The Chair announced that he had written to the Housing Inspector regarding his unauthorised letter of 20 March requesting an amendment of the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. He made an assurance to make public his latest letter which, he said, dealt with ‘the facts’ (although it is not clear at this stage what this means).

Neighbourhood Plan: The current draft contains plans to build in the two areas confirmed by the Inspector as conservation areas: the Brickfields and the Green Gap. The Council debated the motion passed at the Annual Parish Meeting of 27 April: that the Neighbourhood Plan be suspended pending adoption of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Councillors Paul Davies, Paldeep Dhillon and Paul Ferguson voted to respect this publicly-approved motion. With four votes against and two abstentions the result was a decision to overturn the APM motion. The Chair stated that the intention was for the Neighbourhood Plan to be completed around about September.

Cantley: Two matters of interest arose. First, it is now apparent that on 30 June 2015 Cantley proposed two possible sites for house building in the village: in the Green Gap; and land to the east of Conyngham Lane. Yet only the Green Gap site, favoured by some councillors, was presented to the village during the consultations of autumn 2015. Why was this? Second, Cantley wrote to the Parish Council on 20 April 2017 stating it wishes to sell land between the recreation ground and the A2 with planning permission for housing. Should this proposal not go ahead, Cantley wishes to build near Great Pett Farm.

Mountfield: The Council made the welcome decision to donate £1000 to the fund for a judicial review of the proposed Mountfield development.

Neighbourhood Plan Group Membership: With half the members of the NPG having resigned in recent weeks the suggestion was made to expand the membership. Councillor Paul Ferguson volunteered to serve on the group, noting his wide experience as a lawyer in dealing with planning regulation and his commitment to Bridge as a village. With the Parish Council evenly divided on his offer (4 votes for, 4 against, 1 abstention) the rules gave the casting vote to the Chair, who blocked the offer. It was pointed out that Councillor Ferguson could attend the Neighbourhood Plan Group meetings, but not participate in discussions. Adults in the room?

This was Mr Ferguson’s second meeting as a parish councillor, and he will have felt welcome by many of his colleagues. But on two or three occasions he faced hostility, with heckling and some openly disrespectful comments.  Councillor Ferguson was treated in a similar way to Mr Varoufakis in Washington: as an interloper. His is a voice that some clearly wish to silence. Is there room for insider-outsider distinctions on a council of nine? All councillors should have the right to speak without fear or favour, and offers of help should be welcomed.

As things stand, it seems likely that the Neighbourhood Plan will be completed as soon as possible (with the draft commitments to build on the Brickfields and on the Green Gap remaining) before consideration can be given to the Cantley proposals made public this week.

ConserveBridge notes again that the city is not looking to Bridge for new housing allocations and we reiterate our opposition to all new housing in our Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We thank all those who serve the village, and call upon all members of the Parish Council to find a way to collaborative productively for the common good of the community and to preserve the integrity of Bridge as a rural village.

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.