Meeting Notes
Present
Cllr June Lumley (JL) - Rochford District Council
Angela Hutchings (AH) - Rochford District Council
Paula Chapman (PC) - Rochford District Council
Cllr Simon Wootton (SW) - Rochford District Council
Cllr. George Ioannou (GI) - Rochford District Council
Cllr Paul White (PW) - Hullbridge Parish Council
Cllr Keith Ager (KA) - Hullbridge Parish Council
Doug MacEwen (DM) - Crouch Area Yachting Federation
Cllr Glen Dryhurst (GD) - Ashingdon Parish Council
Ken Wickham (KW) - Crouch Harbour Authority
Rachel Fancy (RF) - RSPB
Helen Quinnell (HQ) - Chelmsford City Council
Isabel Mansfield (IM) - Chelmsford City Council
Jack Ellum (JE) - Maldon District Council
Apologies
Canewdon Parish Council
Louise Best - Resident
Phil Sturges - Natural England
Cheryl Milton-White - Rochford District Council
Cllr Bryan Harker - Maldon District Council
Cllr Karl Jarvis - Maldon District Council
Cllr Adrian Fluker - Maldon District Council
Cllr. Elaine Bamford - Maldon District Council
Cllr Sue White - Maldon District Council
Keith Powell - Independent
Kim Hughes - Riverside Village Holiday Park
Beverley Davies - Essex RCC
Elizabeth Rose - Essex RCC
Cllr Wendy Stamp - Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council
Welcome & Introductions
1) JL welcomed members of the River Crouch Coastal Community Team (RCCCT) to the meeting and each member introduced themselves.
Notes of the Last Meeting Held on 11 September 2019
2) The notes were agreed subject to the following amendments:
- Page 1 – Present – Cllr George Ioannou’s initials be changed to GI
- Page 3, item 16 – JA should read JE (Jack Ellum)
Update since last Meeting (Paula Chapman)
3) PC advised that the Economic Development Team had been working closely with the Path to Prosperity Project Team to identify key points along the coast. They had visited as far out as Great Wakering and then back to Hullbridge; this was a vast coastal area and very long.
4) It was noted that the Project Team had also been in contact with Maldon District Council and Chelmsford City Council.
5) The Economic Development Team had also recently spoken to Visit Essex who had commissioned a DNA study of the coast. The tourism focus was new for the Rochford District.
6) Site visits had taken place to identify where markers would be placed which would improve access from train stations/road networks to the coast. Discussions had also taken place regarding the hopper service within the Rochford District; ideally from the Rochford Train Station to Wallasea Island.
7) PC has highlighted the work we are doing with Discover 2020 and also mentioned some of the farms that have diversified, such as Apton Hall which now offers bed and breakfast accommodation.
8) HQ advised that potential locations for signage in South Woodham had also been sent to the Path to Prosperity Project Team. She had met with the Liaison Officer and showed her round some of the locations. Woodham was spread out in terms of the offer and would not qualify for a hopper service. Conversations were now taking place with the Town Council about feedback. Would also be visiting the new Sainsbury’s store to discuss signage.
9) PC advised that Essex Highways had made contact and she was currently liaising with the Clerk of Hullbridge Parish Council about another counter post to be erected in Hullbridge; one had already been erected on Wallasea Island.
Action: PC agreed to contact members via email, between meetings, as the project progressed.
10) JE confirmed that he has also met with Essex County Council representatives last week and identified a number of locations for appropriate signage. There were also a couple of locations within Maldon District Council’s area for hopper services. Hoping to add value to the project by complementing/enhancing existing signage, at the very least swapping maps at a later stage.
11) In response to a question, PC confirmed that Natural England did not have funding and were working with Essex County Council (ECC). Therefore, there would be no project overlap.
12) PC advised that we will be looking to utilise Parish Council notice boards as much as possible and would be contacting the appropriate Clerks in due course.
13) PC confirmed that there would be some waymarkers along the coast, but the purpose of the tourist map was to highlight what facilities are near to the coast, i.e. public conveniences, car parking, etc.
14) There was a limit on signage and some routes had been discounted due to safety concerns, i.e. Fambridge Road and the Purdeys Industrial Estate. Now focussing on promoting routes that have good footpaths and are accessible from public transport. HQ advised that it had been useful having the Liaison Officers visit the specific areas because this had highlighted that not all areas were viable.
15) The initial scope was for ECC Officers to meet District Council representatives to carry out a desktop study and map out good locations based around the public transport network. ECC would then report back on suggested locations and the District Council would then provide further feedback. Once this process had been finalised, the information would be shared with the group and it was at this stage that local expertise would be invaluable. It was important to make sure that the most accessible routes were signposted.
16) PC confirmed that not every Parish was along the coast; therefore, in the first instance, she would be contacting Canewdon, Hullbridge and Great Wakering.
New Terms of Reference (TOR)
17) The draft Terms of Reference (TOR) were considered by the team and it was noted that the intention was to keep the TOR simple and flexible, which would enable an easy review from time to time.
18) The composition of the RCCCT was noted and AH reported that the intention was for the wider group to have a fluid membership and be easily accessible to new members. The Steering Group would consist of a core team which would direct the business and instigate task and finish groups.
Steering Group Membership and Appointment of Vice-Chair
19) With regard to the membership of the Steering Group, AH advised that there was an error on the TOR document; an Elected Councillor from Ashingdon Parish Council should be included within the Public Sector Section.
Action: TOR document to be amended accordingly. (AH)
20) GI requested that an Elected Councillor from Stambridge Parish Council be included on the Steering Group, but it was agreed that the purpose of the Steering Group was to have a limited membership and not every single Parish would be represented.
21) JE suggested that Parish representatives on the Maldon side could feed back to other Parish Councils via the Parish Council Forum and JL cofnrimed the same could happen via the Rochford Hundred. It was agreed that the group did not want to be dominated by elected representatives to the exclusion of business representation.
22) DM advised that Battlesbridge (via Roy Hart who sits on Rettendon Parish Council) had applied to join the group, but had not received a response. It appeared that this request had been made to Maldon District Council. It was agreed that Battlesbridge should be included within the Public Sector section.
Action: TOR document to be amended accordingly. (AH)
It was noted that previously Cllr Bob Massey had represented both South Woodham Parish Council and Chelmsford City Council.
23) JE suggested that if the Steering Group continued to grow, there would be a need to look at membership again. There was a concern that if it were to become overly public-bodied, then business representatives would fall away.
24) PC asked whether Paglesham Parish Council had expressed an interest in taking part during the engagement process. AH confirmed that she had received no further feedback. It was agreed to remove Paglesham Parish Council from the TOR document.
Action: Remove Paglesham Parish Council from the TOR document. (AH)
25) In response to a question from PW concerning planning permissions that had been granted several years ago, PC advised that there was only so much that officers could do within the National Planning Framework. AH agreed that the aim of this forum was to try and build business confidence, provide funding opportunities and encourage businesses to feel that this was the right time to invest. A couple of key businesses had been identified and also hoping to encourage emerging companies.
26) PC advised that the Economic Development Team were fighting on a weekly basis to stop pub closures. This was an ongoing battle and a nationwide problem.
27) JE advised that Maldon District Council would be considering the TOR at a Council meeting in December. It was like that a single representative would be appointed and a substitute would be identified as well. Other Members may well express an interest in joining the wider group.
Action: Amend TOR document to allow for the provision of substitutes. (AH)
28) AH confirmed that the amended TOR document would be considered by RDC’s Full Council on 17 December 2019. SW confirmed that RDC’s representative would also be agreed at this meeting.
29) JE pointed out that the vast majority of Parish representation was from south of the River Crouch, with four or five Parishes on the north of the River not being offered a position on the Steering Group. This could become an issue when making larger funding applications. AH advised that when larger funding applications were made, the stakeholders would be identified at an early stage and if the TOR needed to be amended to reflect additional parties then the document allowed for this flexibility.
30) In response to a query, it was agreed that as the Crouch Harbour Authority was a statutory body, it should stand alone and be kept separate within the maritime sector.
31) GD suggested the possibility of merging the RCCCT (Rivers Crouch and Roach) with the Blackwater Community Team (BCT), but it was agreed that merging would not resolve the representation issue. PC advised that the BCT was moving in a different direction and was looking to become a community interest group. If a specific project required it, then the two teams could consult.
32) It was noted that the RSPB had been included within the business community sector for Steering Group purposes as it was considered that their drive/interests were the same as a commercial organisation.
33) GI reported that the three Chambers of Trade within the Rochford District had formed a group known as the 3 Chambers, which should have a place on the Steering Group. It was agreed that there should be one representative from the 3 Chambers and one from the Burnham Chamber of Commerce on the Steering Group. Action: JE agreed to contact the Burnham Chamber of Commerce for a representative
34) The Team agreed to approach the new Port Manager at Baltic Wharf Distribution to discuss nominating a representative to attend the Steering Group.
Action: PC to contact the Port Manager at Baltic Wharf. (PB)
35) It was agreed that it would be useful to have a have a business representative from Battlesbridge. HQ agreed to look at possible contacts arising from the Path to Prosperity information and report back in due course. She also agreed to contact Roy Hart (see point 18 above), but it was agreed that there would need to be clarity on whether he was representing local authority or business interests.
Action: HQ to provide Battlesbridge business contacts and make contact with Roy Hart. (HQ)
36) It was noted that the Steering Group would require the right input of skills/expertise in order to function at the correct level.
37) When discussing the voting rights for business representatives, the Team noted that there were currently 13 votes, taking the amendments discussed above into account. It was therefore agreed that that all 5 business community representatives should have a vote, bringing the total number of votes to 18. It was felt that this provided a good balance between private and public sector.
38) The draft TOR stated that the Vice-Chair should be appointed from the business or maritime community.
39) DM nominated Keith Powell (KP) (Independent) as Vice-Chair and this was seconded by GI. AH advised that this would reduce the number of seats around the table, but the TOR could be amended to allow KP to stand as Vice-Chair.
40) PC advised that KP had sent his apologies for this meeting, but had indicated that he did want to be involved with the Steering Group.
41) The Team agreed that KP would be an asset to the Steering Group and it was agreed that he should become Vice-Chair.
Action: TOR to be amended accordingly. (AH)
Any Other Business
42) DM requested that the annual joint meeting with the Blackwater Community Team be continued.
43) KA provided paperwork which gave an update on the following two projects:
- Damage to embankment at Brandy Hole
- Completion of footpath works either side of Hullbridge
Action: Incorporate paperwork into the minutes for circulation.
44) GD, PW and KA were currently walking along/around the Brandy Hole area to identify possible routes.
Date of Steering Group Meeting and Close
45) AH suggested quarterly meetings for the Steering Group and it was agreed that the first of these meetings should be held in January. Possible dates would be circulated in due course.
Action: Circulate possible dates for January 2020 meeting. (JJ)
46) JE suggested that rebuilding projects/ideas should come forward from Members in advance of the January meeting. AH agreed that there should be a prioritised forward plan of business, whilst retaining the need to be flexible as and when opportunities arose.
47) Meeting commenced at 10:00 and finished at 11:20.