Pyrford Neighbourhood Forum
MINUTES OF MEETING
DATE: Friday 25th October 2013
VENUE: 8pm Church of the Good Shepherd Annexe
PRESENT: Martin Doyle – (Chairman)
Ian Whittle – Vice Chairman
Graham Chrystie – Woking Borough Councillor
Cliff Bolton – Publicity Officer
Angela Doyle – Membership Secretary
Yvette Bolton – Secretary
Pat Barnes, Geoff Geaves, Mike Doyle, Ernie Elliott, Vicki Kirby, Tony Pratt, Barbara Provis
other members present – See Appendix
IN ATTENDANCE: Carole March, deputy CDR West Byfleet
APOLOGIES: Sheila & David Buckley, Sarah Fife, Peter & Jennifer Froude, Carole Gale,
Martin Hardcastle , Peter Harvey, Rita Harvey, Robert Hughes and Wendy Hughes,
Dr R S Lawrence, Ian & Janis Lipscombe Giles Mathieson, Morny Pritchett,
David Thompson, Julian Walker, Brian & Joan Wilson, Steve Wright
|1.0||Martin Doyle (MD) opened the meeting, introducing himself as the Chairman of the PNF and Chief District Representative for Pyrford of the Three Village Residents Association. MD was very pleased that so many people had come along to the meeting.|
|1.1||Papers had already been handed out which included The Agenda, The Application, Annex 1 The Constitution, Annex 2 Demographic Information, List of Committee Members, Appendix B list of Forum members to date, Appendix C map of proposed Neighbourhood area.|
|1.2||MD went through the agenda and the aims of the evening.|
|1.3||Graham Christie (GC) stated that the PNF is something that has been created by you, the members, and is not a creation of the Council. The PNF presents a big opportunity for the local community and is not just a talking shop. He explained that Woking Borough Council (WBC) has a core plan and Pyrford can create its own plan which, once ratified, will be incorporated with the Borough plan and have similar force in planning law. GC said that the Hook Heath application had been approved by the Council the previous night. Hook Heath is the first recognised neighbourhood forum for Woking. Byfleet’s application is currently out for public consultation and Pyrford could be number 3. There is government finance available through WBC. Hook Heath had applied for £7k and has received approval for £6,700. Similar funding is available to PNF.|
He explained the procedure which starts with the application document, the constitution and a definition of the neighbourhood area. Once this application has been formally accepted, it is loaded onto the council web site for a period of 6 weeks public consultation. We would hope for it to be approved by February. After that, the PNF will be the recognised body for developing a neighbourhood plan. It is not straight forward and there will be a lot of work, gathering statistics, etc. When the plan is submitted, there is again a period of public consultation. Once that process is completed, the plan undergoes inspection by an independent examiner and then will be put to a popular vote of all electors in The Area. Assuming popular approval, the plan will go to the Borough for the final endorsement.
GC added that neighbourhood boundaries are not a legal specification. It is up to the residents to decide where they should be. They do not need to relate to ward boundaries which are often decided purely on the need to balance populations.
|1.4||MD set out what the Forum had achieved in the past 4-5 weeks. The initial public meeting on the 25 September attracted some 50 people. At this meeting it was agreed to establish a Forum, to elect officers and to form a committee to develop an application for recognition. Two meetings of the committee were held on 4th and 11th October. Minutes of these three meetings are on display on the board at the back of the room and also on the website. MD was very grateful for the efforts of Steve Wright in setting up the web site so quickly. All key documents are available on the web site, and there is space for you to give us your comments. We are also available on the social networks of Twitter and Facebook.|
Officers were elected at these meetings, but we still require Community and Business Liaison Officers to talk to voluntary organisations active in Pyrford and to businesses, shops, nursing homes, golf courses. If anybody is interested in getting involved in the community, please let MD know.
All expenditure to date for hall hire, printing etc. has been provided by the Byfleet, West Byfleet and Pyrford Residents’ Association (BWBPRA) – for which we are most grateful.
From tonight’s attendance of the meeting MD feels confident we have passed the 200 membership level today. This will help show the council that we have broad community support. However, we still need to do more to attract members of the younger generation to join the Forum. MD explained that it was important to progress the application quickly, in order to meet the tight timetable for recognition at next February’s Council meeting. MD stated that the Neighbourhood Plan will not be able to stop all development but at least it will, hopefully, be able to ensure some reasonable control over developments.
Copies of the draft application had been distributed to everyone present. MD explained that there were still two unfinished areas. The boundary still needed to be finalised and also a section needed to give some statistics on the make up of the forum membership. MD asked if anyone had any questions or suggestions about the wording. As there were none, it was now time to decide on the boundary
MD explained that the map in the draft application pack basically uses the parish boundary, delineated by the red line. The red line at the top end of the map cuts streets in half and also goes through houses. This hardly ideal. What we want is to submit a proposal which follows property boundaries and keeps streets together as much as possible. This is what we need to agree tonight.
The main area of contention is the boundary between Pyrford and West Byfleet. Initially, we thought to use the WBC Ward Boundary. However, this excludes a number of GU postcode streets. So, the postcode boundary was considered, but we found this excludes a number of streets within the Church Parish. The Church Parish is not perfect either, notably because of the line cutting streets in half and across the middle of individual properties.
The problem has been discussed within the BWBPRA, and everyone agrees that the best judges of which community should represent individual streets are the residents directly affected. Carole March, the deputy Chief District Representative for West Byfleet, confirmed that both villages want to be able to agree a common boundary and that we are looking to the residents to guide us. With this in mind, we organised a leaflet drop to every household in the roads likely to be affected. With the notable exception of Elmstead Road and its two cul-de-sacs, this produced rather mixed feedback, with about 60% for Pyrford and 40% for West Byfleet. MD did not feel this vote was unequivocal enough of a mandate to proceed, without opening the question to discussion from the floor.
The residents of the Elmstead Road area felt that they have far more in common with Pyrford and a petition, with nearly 30 signatures, has been handed to MD requesting the inclusion of Elmstead Road and its cul-de-sacs within the PNF area. Only one resident has indicated an opposing view.
About 7-8 people who were in the audience live from either Coldharbour, Oakcroft or Hollybank Road and agreed that it was the sense of being part of a community which was more important. They are looking to PNF to represent their streets.
Stephen Temple, born in Pyrford, stated that one of Pyrfords’ greatest assets was its walks including around Providence Place so it would be better to push the boundaries out a little. Pyrford has a distinct heritage. So the village should organise itself. For instance, the field at the back of the Arbor Youth Club would benefit the village, if used as a recreation ground.
In the light of the views expressed on the night, MD proposed that the boundary line be moved up to the Old Woking Road, along from Coldharbour Road and down Elmstead Road, (south side of Old Woking Road and both sides of Elmstead Rd). A member of the audience pointed out that this excluded the north side of Old Woking Road, east of Hurst Way, in West Byfleet, which looks strange. He proposed that the boundary line continue east along the golf course up to the Shearwater Road roundabout and then through the middle of Old Woking Road up to Elmstead Rd. Attendees were asked to vote on this option. This proposal was agreed unanimously, so that the resultant map be submitted as the proposed neighbourhood area.
|2.2||MD thanked everyone for taking the time to review the draft application and for the guidance received on the boundary. That would enable him to finalise the application document, which he was aiming to submit to WBC before the end of October. He then declared that at 9.05pm the formal proceedings of the Meeting we concluded. It was now time for everyone present to take the opportunity to put forward their own ideas for the future of Pyrford. He suggested that everyone took a break for refreshments and to then break into informal teams of their choosing, to work on their ideas. The audience then split into three teams.|
|3.0||Meeting resumed at 9.40 p.m.|
MD stated that participants could also send their thoughts and suggestions to the web-site, or via Facebook or Twitter, or to him via e-mail if they wished.
Each of the teams then reported back on their discussions.
|3.1||Recreational Facilities in the Village|
1. What is happening with the land behind the Arbor Youth Club?
2. How do we keep the youth in the village?
3. Youth Officer – there used to be one. It was pointed out there is a Church Youth Officer in the village.
4. Could organise BMX cycling and some form of keep fit.
5. Thriving cricket club, church etc.
We need to make sure these associations are maintained as we go forward. It was noted that there is a very active youth club in the Church of the Good Shepherd and they have a very effective Youth Officer.
MD thanked Geoff Geaves for volunteering to help with Community Liaison.
1. Concerned about possible development along Upshott Lane.
2. Burhill Estates would like to sell some of their land.
3. Concerns about speeding in Pyrford Road.
4. Entrance to the village shops needs sorting out, maybe have to sacrifice a tree to widen / straighten the road and create safer parking.
5. Greater emphasis on double yellow lines in certain places, for businesses and residential roads. Council need to ease the situation.
6. Woodlands Avenue car park is often half full, because people don’t know about it and it needs to be better advertised. Business people could get reduced fees.
7. Need to enlarge the parking Zone area.
8. Poor lighting in some parts of the Old Woking Road.
9. Floyds Lane needs parking restrictions.
10. An area for commercial parking on the Rowley Bristow site would be useful.
11. Recreation: Supplying of exercise stations, to be made available at the rear of the playground, Pyrford Common.
|3.3||Cycleways and Pathways|
1. Cycleways and pathways should be linked together.
2. Traditions Golf Course – need a path alongside the west bank of the Wey Navigation.
3. The Anchor – would be lovely to be able to cycle through to RHS Wisley in safety.
4. Teggs Lane – surface is not too good. At Abbey Close, the surface is poor; tree roots coming up to the surface.
5. Talked about biodiversity – and the need for allotments in Pyrford. Council may have some land they could release.
All information from the charts produced here will be made available on the web-site.
MD thanked everybody for their efforts this evening. If anybody would like to form other working groups to continue the building of a Pyrford Wish List, then please do so. We have until February, before work can start in earnest on producing a Plan. If there is something important that you want to know, please contact MD.
Members were encouraged to take home blank membership forms to hand out to neighbours who might wish to join.
Meeting ended at 10.15 p.m.
|4.0||Next Meeting date – No immediate plans for any follow-up meetings. There was brief discussion that Friday evening was not particularly popular – MD will advise when next meeting is required.|
Other members attending 25th October
Jane Allen, John Allen, Linda Atkin, Steve Atkin, Jenny Backshall, Mr Backshall, Gordon Barr, Davinder Birk,
Maria Birk, J Browne, Cliff Butler, Nigel Butt, Danielle Carpenter, Angela Cartledge, Richard Cartledge,
Barbara Chapman, Phil Coleman, Ron Colvin, Malcolm Cuckow, Paul Cunliffe, Terry Daly, Carol Donnelly,
Donald Eggins, Peter Gardner, Yvonne Geaves, Paul Geib, Sharon Geib, ? Geib, Gail Graves, Thomas Grimshaw Darren Hall, Nancy Hall, Gillian Hartley, John Hartley, Pat Hounsell, Steve Hounsell, Gillian Hunt, Ivor Hunt,
John Hussey, Sheila Hussey, Norman Ingate, Barbara James, G Jarvis, Rita Jarvis, Eunice Jones, ? Kirby,
Andrew Lavis, Susan Lavis, Graham Laycock, Jeannie Ley, Richard Ley, Ian Makowski, A Malcher,
Marion Malcher, Anthony Manser, Susan Martin, Ben Maynard, George McKinnia, Karen McKinnia,
Elisabeth Meakin, , Bernard McNeill, St Helen McNeill, Elisabeth Meakin, Anne Miller, Audrey Milne,
Pauline Newton, Sheridan Quintal, Norman Ratcliffe, Pat Ratcliffe, Michael Roberts, Valerie Roberts,
Patricia Rochester, Valerie Sanders, Jules Smith, Prof. Stephen Temple, Derek Thorpe, Joan Thorpe, Lisa Topper, David Williams, Dorothy Williams, Chris Wood