Community Action Program
Proposal
Ian Dossett
4/2/14
Objective
• To discuss and subsequently propose a means to consolidate and manage topics
raised during the Neighbourhood Planning work which are in addition to the final
NP itself.
• In addition to consider how similar items from other initiatives can be considered
and prioritised alongside these.
Background
• NP teams have identified a significant number of items for attention. These are very
varied in nature but can be categorised into problems, potential improvements & policies
for consideration
• The formal NP report will focus on a limited number of key Policies, however there needs
to be a means to consider the benefit from the non formal report material which makes
up the bulk number of actions
• As these residual items are outside the core NP, a mechanism is proposed for the PC to
consider, which will assist with establishing the merit of each item and its implications.
• To take many of the items forward would require the engagement of one or more
different parties such as the PC, CWAC, NP or potentially volunteers
• Additionally it has been noted that previous initiatives identified possible actions but it is
not clear whether these have been followed up e.g. the recommendation in the “Rural
Conservation Character Assessment” that overhead cables should be replaced by
underground cables when the opportunity arises
Requirement
To establish a mechanism which
• captures NP team identified items which are in addition to the main NP report
• can be extended to include any similar nature items from other initiatives
whether past or present
• enables such items to be considered, prioritised, allocated and tracked e.g. steps
on bypass and bypass drainage
• provides an up to date picture of the position, accessible to all
• enables effective management
Proposed Mechanism
• Establish a Control Sheet separated in to categories of
•
•
•
•
Problems
Improvements
Policies
Addressed archived items
• All NP items considered worth pursuing to be included such that it is a dependable source of information
• Also consider including similar items from
• Previous studies e.g. “Rural Conservation Character Assessment” (1995) and previous Ashton Hayes Parish Plan (2009)
• Energy Company e.g. LED street light trial
• New items that arise e.g. that affect the quality of the environment in which we live
• To equally compare priorities across categories
• PC each year to select a balanced portfolio of short to long term work items for attention with input from
residents. Note important to set realistic, clear and achievable steps e.g. an initial assessment for unclear items
• PC to initiate actions as appropriate and progress 3rd parties responsible for specific action
• Outcomes to be noted on Control Sheets and published on Parish website
• Closed items to be archived at end of year on separate page
Control Sheet Content (see examples)
For illustration purposes the examples include input from the Parish Plan, Rural Conservation Area Assessment and
the Neighbourhood Planning Environment Group and their inter-dependencies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Category; main grouping for ease of reference
Description; including location (preferably GPS grid reference)
Source; e.g. Conservation assessment, NP document describing in more detail the items
Priority; High (action now), Medium (action when space available), Low (leave to later, None (no action required as
closed)
Status; Pending, Work IN Progress (WIP), Completed, Closed, Transferred
Impact; High (results very apparent), Medium (no major impacts), Low (not very significant)
Action by; who is responsible for action e.g. Parish Council (PC), CWAC, Land Owner (LO), Energy Company (EC),
Volunteer workgroup
Effort; Low (less than a man-days work), Medium (2-10days), High (>10 days)
Budgetary Cost; guesstimate of cost ballpark
Commentary; key summary information and reference to fuller information
Benefits
• Provides one shared dependable point of reference i.e. one version of the truth
• More accessible as provides appropriate reference to detailed documents rather than having to
search them for potential content
• Easier management as information is in one place
• Help prevent items of merit being lost due to more pressing matters
• Means to capture, record, communicate and progress NP items
• Provides a quick reference to the history of items and where to look for more information
• Provides a transparent reliable mechanism rather than relying on who remembers what
• Help balance financial and non financial aspects in terms of resources and what can be gained
• Inform budget setting
• Helps be able to respond to notice of available funds e.g. Woodland trust, footpath scheme
• Provides a mechanism to ensure the latest position re the NP actions can be accessed in future
years as progress is made e.g. affordable housing completed at some stage. This will help avoid
unnecessary planning.
Implications
• Needs initial setup
• NP to establish basic mechanism and load it with NP material
• Past sources of material to be reviewed for appropriate material e.g. Conservation report, Parish
Plan, current PC items, Energy Co items. What else? Who would do this?
• PC to adopt, maintain and publish the mechanism; Note this mechanism is itself a
potential NP policy output
• PC to demonstrate action on the items contained even if to just consider and close items
with the rationale as to why. Also to establish priorities for initial works
• Consider inclusion of related material from Energy Company, Woodland Trust etc.
• If agreed by the PC and once loaded with NP material then the NP group to assess and
report on the key aspects on these items. The report to include the control Sheets with
the then current status. Also to include a brief description of each item and its benefits
• Challenge of framing items such that can be addressed clearly and closed. The exception
is policies which may also need end or review points e.g. LED’s
• Review process annually to ensure appropriate fit, and being used effectively.
Parish Council presentation Minute of Meeting
Ian Dossett a member of the Neighbourhood Planning team presented proposals (see attached proposal and illustrative example) to the Meeting as to how the NP output both in terms of the content of
the formal document and other lesser but important proposals could be managed in the future.
The proposal put forward was for all items to be recorded on a standard set of control sheets split between
•
problems
•
improvements
•
policies
•
addressed archive issues
•
It was also proposed that this can be extended to include other village items such as PC raised matters, Energy Co. etc. The benefit being that a common rigorous transparent approach would be in
place for all such matters. This would enable priorities and implications to be considered comparably in terms of what needs to be done.
•
The key benefits were seen as
•
Provides one shared dependable point of reference i.e. one version of the truth
•
More accessible as provides appropriate reference to detailed documents rather than having to search them for potential content
•
Easier management as information is in one place
•
Help prevent items of merit being lost due to more pressing matters
•
Means to capture, record, communicate and progress NP items
•
Provides a quick reference to the history of items and where to look for more information
•
Provides a transparent reliable mechanism rather than relying on who remembers what
•
Help balance financial and non financial aspects in terms of resources and what can be gained
•
Inform budget setting
•
Helps be able to respond to notice of available funds e.g. Woodland trust, footpath scheme
•
Provides a mechanism to ensure the latest position re the NP actions can be accessed in future years as progress is made e.g. affordable housing completed at some stage. This will help avoid
unnecessary planning.
The proposals were accepted by the PC. IGD was asked whether he would help set this up and advise re its use over the first year. He agreed to do this.