FURTHER THOUGHTS TO PONDER......

Two points that need further elaboration in my notes: Sorry if its a bit long winded, but it is very important.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

I have felt for a long time that having the public speaking section outside the meeting is insulting to members of the public, and further does not afford them the protection of the Standards Code, in that a Parish Councillor is not bound to answer the question properly or truthfully. Moving this section into the main meeting would show that the PC values the public contribution : we are after all representatives of the Public Voice, we are not an autonomy.

The Chairman quite rightly based his decision on advice quoted by the Clerk from Charles Arnold Baker, the Parish Council "Bible". But I think she may have misinterpreted the rules. I have had cause over the years to refer regularly to CAB on various matters, and I can only recall a single passage referring to Public Participation, and as well as the above photo, I quote it below:

Public Participation : Many Councils set aside a period when the public can ask questions or even make statements. This is an excellent practice as long as the period is defined, and it is quite clearly understood that the public must not take part at any other time.

Parish Plans

I cannot know how many of my fellow councillors oppose or support Isles Quarry Housing, and statements could disqualify a councillor from voting at any Planning Hearing, even though Parish Councillors have no vote on planning. I can only therefore proceed on the basis that when the time comes, the PC will reflect the wishes of the Electorate, and oppose IQW Housing.

But before that unhappy day arrives, we need to put in place the ammunition that we will need to fight that application.

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council is very uneasy and twitchy, because their plan for IQW to go through without being noticed has failed, and they are now in a very awkward position. They have to continue to push through their plan for IQW, but they now also have to satisfy a Planning Inspector in this phase of the Local Development Framework that they have made every effort to support Parish Councils in their attempts to put together Parish Plans, Village Design Statements and Community Area Appraisals, each of which we can publish in direct opposition, or as obstacles to, TMBC's approved Policies. Awkward, innit ???? They deny it, of course, but there is an increasing whiff of desperation.

We have every right to include in our Parish Plan any policy we decide is good for us. For instance, we could designate IQW as an area of industrial use and public open space, or Quarry Hill as an area of local historical importance to be protected from traffic. The world is our oyster, or BG anyway.

These local documents will not overturn TMBC's wish for housing, but they will provide us with a powerful body of evidence at an inquiry that could just bring in conditions on any developer that would in turn make the whole project unviable. Worth trying, isn't it?

I sat at the LDF Inquiry that approved IQW housing, and one of TMBC's big lumps of evidence was OUR Parish Plan. A Parish Plan that we approved, at a public exhibition that had no mention of IQW, and indeed had statistics that 45% of us opposed any future large developments.

But the copy TMBC produced in evidence had been subtly altered: suddenly we appear to support more housing, and there were lots of mentions of IQW, in red highlights. Very Curious !!!

But I don't say this to start a witch hunt: that episode is past and gone: but we must use it to remind ourselves that next time we will be on guard, and ensure that these new documents show a clear picture of the Borough Green WE want.