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.