Dear BPC

The attached minutes relating to the Bleadon Hill Housing Appeal have raised some concerns regarding communications to the public. According to 12 December BPC minutes attached, "Cllr Porter will submit a copy of the Bleadon Parish Plan to the hearing...". Having attended the inquiry (not a hearing) from 13-15 Dec, we do not recall the Plan being announced or discussed. NSC Planning stated that they did not have copy and BPC did not speak at the Inquiry in support of the Plan or against the application. We have not received any documentation, nor did we receive an answer as to whether anyone was going to present this information, nor were we given any considered answers to our questions to BPC submitted a month ago (see below).

Since our request for documentation we have found an old paper copy of the 2008 draft Parish Plan, now scanned and attached for your reference.

So, again, please can we have a copy of the 2009 adopted Parish Plan as previously requested in our emails of 5, 7 and 12 Dec 2016? Can you send us the associated Strategy and Financial plan also requested.

The minutes also state the Plan "..will carry a very limited weight as the need for massive housing development now takes precedent over Parish Plans.`` We are concerned with BPC's approach to this and future development applications. It is our understanding that the adopted, community based, Bleadon Parish Plan was stated to have limited weight during the recent Inquiry due to it not being correctly submitted by BPC to NSC to be incorporated into its policies in 2009. If it had been, it would have carried more weight. What is BPC's strategic plan to protect our rural village environment and way of life from this point onwards? Is it going to use the Parish Plan as its key guidance policy document and action plan? Is BPC going to submit the adopted Parish Plan to NSC for future policy inclusion; Is it going create a Neighbourhood Plan based on the existing Parish Plan; or is it following a Plan/Strategy not yet declared to the public?

The minutes also state "The lack of local school places is a concern which will be highlighted to the hearing.`` To our knowledge there was no formal BPC representation at the Inquiry, although the BPC Chair did speak as a member of the public. As BPC appears not to be following a Parish Plan and has still not published its roles, responsibilities, aims or priorities, when and how did school places become a priority concern for Bleadon, especially in relation to this application, over and above other aspects of the Parish Plan e.g. village status, traffic, environmental issues, etc. or indeed our strained health services?

We look forward hearing from you ASAP.

• Although we agree that the lack of public support was disappointing the Inquiry was held on week days, i.e. in working hours, making it very difficult for some people to attend. We/BOB feel that it is not a very inclusive process requiring members of the public to take time off work or depend on their council representatives. As BPC & NSC Councillors are all elected representatives for Bleadon surely the public can expect them to represent their community?
• Also perhaps that contradictory statements from BPC may also have made the public think that it wasn't worthwhile attending e.g. "... only North Somerset Council and the Action Group are allowed to speak ..."  (BVN 105)
• Have BPC and NSC considered the possibility that members of the public have been listening to their contradictory communications and have become aware that their views are not being heard and represented (e.g. Parish Plan) and that therefore BPC seem to be following their own, unpublished agenda and priorities? 
• That perhaps the public has seen that BPC will not independently stand up and represent them on issues such as this major planning application. Also have seen how BPC expect the public to do so with little/no support (lack of response during Inquiry to documentation and information requests)
• That BPC and NSC has effectively stated in its minutes that it is nearly powerless to fight Central Government on large planning applications despite public wishes e.g. statements such as "regardless of the wishes of any local plans that may be in place (BPC)" and that public views via its plans carry "absolutely no weight at all in planning issues ... Even Neighbourhood Plans now carry very minimal weight (Cllr Porter)". Perhaps that is why "Major developments are being approved in in-fill villages all the time now." (Cllr Porter) i.e. they have no protection.
• That perhaps the public have been made very aware how their views and emails would be treated by BPC in public and do not want to risk their reputation being tarnished in such a public manner  (e.g. via public meetings, minutes, extra-ordinary meeting, threats of vexatious policy, etc.). That is why we/BOB continue to raise issues, and request and share information on their behalf.

• Our Parish Plan represents the view of our community for the 20 years. Considering Cllr Porter's statements above, NSC planning process and BPC stating that they have been "clearly told that national planning policies, driven by central government, insist that massive housing developments must be approved regardless of the wishes of any local plans that may be in place" (07/12/16 email); what is the point of Local Government and its elective representatives if they don't/can't represent the views and agreed plans of residents? (Especially as they are financed by council tax and parish precepts to do this).
• Is BPC and NSC confirming that if we/the public want anything to be done to protect our community we have to communicate directly with Central Government via our local MP's? Is this democracy?
• Please remember that despite Cllr. Porter's minuted comments (09/01/17), according to historic BPC minutes the Bleadon's Plan was adopted and submitted to NSC in 2009 and therefore the public expected it to be used to inform future BPC service priorities, spending and support its submitted comments to development applications and other issues for the next 20 years! As BPC did not respond to Cllr Porter's statements at the time is BPC stating they have no current or documented/communicated future plans to protect our community?
• To our/public knowledge the BPC Parish Plan process started in 2005, was adopted and then submitted to NSC in 2009 i.e. before the Localism Act came into effect in 2011 which introduced Neighbourhood Plans. As far as we're aware BPC can have various plans as they have different purposes; that these plans may stand alone, overlap, support and/or reference NSC plans e.g. its Core Strategy. At the moment it appears BPC is following none. 
• While Parish Plans may not have the same status as Neighbourhood Plans for deciding Housing Development, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) for one seem to state that they remain a valid resource for public engagement see https://planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/improve-where-you-live/shape-your-local-area/parish-plans. 
• Despite BPC 2009 minutes stating otherwise, BPC seems not to have ensured that our Parish Plan was part of the adopted NSC Local Strategic Plan process, with current councillors seemingly not referring to it at all. If the above CPRE advice is correct we believe that BPC should now make every effort to put things right with the communication of the Parish Plan, submitted to NSC as a Supplementary Planning Document. We feel that this is especially important given that BPC spent a considerable amount of finance and years of resource consulting with its electorate to produce a 20 year plan. See https://planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/improve-where-you-live/shape-your-local-area/neighbourhood-plans/deciding-if-you-need-a-neighbourhood-plan. A planned approach was also suggested to us by the NSC barrister during the Inquiry indicating that it does have some use in representing public views for Bleadon.
• While the Bleadon Parish Plan's origin was before your, and some councillors appointment (see 07/12/16 email below),  it still remains well within its stated 20 year life time. For it now to be considered by the present constitution of BPC and NSC as irrelevant seems at odds with CPRE and frankly an outrage and an insult to those who participated in the process and the electorate who paid for it. Moreover it is arguably a gross waste of public finance and the financial ombudsman should perhaps consider whether our local community governance has been well served, especially if the Bleadon Hill Appeal is granted!
• From BPC communications (e.g. 07/12/16 email below) it seems to be saying that new councillors and clerks do not need to be aware of any previous BPC plans, protocols, agreements, etc. BPC/NSC seem to be saying that when a new initiative comes along previous plans become null and void with no public explanation or continuity, upgrade/inclusion of past work. Is BPC saying that as new councillors join that it is not BPC's responsibillity for any previous public 'agreements', resolutions or publications; and that they do not have to inform the public or any changes/plans they have made or intend to make that affect their community/environment?
• Is BPC therefore expecting the public to keep track of this information (e.g. plans, processes, guidance, protocol, agreements, resolutions) and inform BPC if they want them honored? If so, we/BOB have tried this for over 10 years on behalf of residents and in our experience it tends to lead to negative public statements about us and threats of the BPC vexatious policy.
• Is BPC saying its not their responsibility to prevent the waste of public time, money and effort by repeating the sameprocesses and mistakes over and over; instead of basing their actions/decisions from a position of previous councillor/public knowledge? (e.g. parish plan, Inquiry, halls, resolutions, etc.)
• It seems to us that BPC's delivery of localism currently seems to have failed in Bleadon despite its previous quality council status that was much maligned.

• In our experience, if current and former BPC councillors were more transparent (see Transparency Code for Parish Councils) in their duties and actions (as they've publicly said they would be several times) including the purpose/aims/goals/Plan of BPC then this issue, and many other current ones, may not have occurred.
• As you know, BPC does not have to comply with NALC or SLCC, just as it seems not to take heed of recommended government and ICO guidance on website design and transparency publications. However, it should surely listen to its own electorate's plan?
• If it made information accessible and gave it correctly, in a timely manner, then we/the public would not have to ask the Clerk for it and he would not have to answer so many emails.