Westbourne

A rural village in West Sussex

The Westbourne Parish Plan was put together in 2006. It is the work of a committed group of villagers, who, headed by the Steering Group Chairman John Reeves, delivered questionnaires to all 981 households in Westbourne. The purpose of the Plan was to find out the views of residents about their Parish and to establish a number of action points that could lead to improvements; in other words, it is a kind of ‘wishlist’. The Plan was adopted by Chichester District Council and is a working document/tool. It is reviewed on a regular basis and is, for example, consulted whenever planning applications are in the pipeline. The Plan is also taken into consideration by the various Parish Council Committees.
The purpose of making the Parish Plan available on the village website is to ensure that it remains a working document for the inhabitants of Westbourne. Why not remind yourself of what was written in 2006? Or, if you are new to the village, why not take a look at the work that has already been done? If there is anything in the Plan that you feel has been overlooked, why not take this up with the Parish Council? You are more than welcome to attend their monthly meetings or to contact any councilor, whose contact details can be found on this website, in the Westbourne Magazine or on the noticeboard in the Square.

  

Introduction
Developing the Parish Plan has been an interesting and exciting experience. The process itself has been of value, and we hope that the contacts made and the commitment we’ve seen will continue to be of benefit to the community in the Parish.
There are so many people whose work and wisdom has contributed to this Plan - those brave enough to be in the Steering Group, the members of Working Groups, the people that handed out and collected questionnaires, all the incidental people who supported us and shared their ideas informally, and in particular all those who took the time to put their ideas on paper in the questionnaire.
The process
The Steering group was set up at a parish meeting on the 23rd February 2005. Their first task was to consider what was needed to find out the views of residents about their Parish. Working groups were set up to consider specific aspects that would need attention, and how to focus the questions.

We arrived at twenty-one key questions, asking about the Parish Environment, Traffic, Housing, Shops, Medical Services, Local Halls and Social Activities, etc. Our attention was on “what it’s like to live in Westbourne”, and particularly on questions that could lead to action for change or improvement.
In November 2005, the finalised questionnaire was delivered by volunteers to all the households within Westbourne Parish, which includes the villages of Aldsworth, Westbourne and Woodmancote. Of the 981 questionnaires delivered, a total of 430 were returned (43.8%), representing 1,052 people.
The resulting Action Plan is an evidence-based view of how we wish to see the Parish develop.
The action points in this report focus on the individuals, groups or official bodies that have the power to take the action required. This involves making a clear case with them, publicising our wishes and following up on the individual points. This probably requires work and research by small groups as well as by the Parish Council, focusing on individual action points and taking them forward in the appropriate way.
The future
This Parish Plan is not a “one off” but a live ongoing Plan. A standing item on the Parish Council agenda should be “Parish Plan implementation”. Progress should be reported back to the Parish via the minutes, the newsletter, the Parish Magazine and the web-site. Further, an independent annual review meeting will assess progress on actions and where necessary, priorities reworked.
Finally, on behalf of the Steering Group, I would like to thank everyone who helped to create this Parish Plan.
John Reeves (Steering Group Chairman)
The Old Orchard,
Old Farm Lane,
Westbourne,
PO10 8RU.
Results from Questionnaire

Overall, the Parish is considered a safe, clean, peaceful, friendly place with a semi-rural character and sufficient shops and other facilities. A strong desire was expressed that any future housing developments should maintain the sense of open spaces partly by ensuring that the surrounding farmland is not built on. Similarly, any new building designs should be sympathetic to the character of the existing parish. People were very clear that before any more building takes place the basic service infrastructure needs improvement. This includes pavements, parking, traffic calming, sewage and electricity,
a) Water & Drainage
38 households (9% of respondents) have been affected by flooding in the past. 124 (29% of respondents)) were not satisfied that there were sufficient flood prevention measures in place. The majority of ditches are over-grown and there does not appear to be any plan to operate the Mill Stream’s sluice gates in emergency.
Action Point 1:
1) Determine who is responsible for the ditches and find out how to ensure that regular clearance is undertaken.
2) Ensure that a clear plan for operating the Mill Stream’s sluice gates is in place.
By Whom: Parish Council & Environment Agency
When: 2006 and ongoing.
b) Pavements & Local Rights of Way
26 (6.5% of respondents)) complained of dog-fouled pavements. The majority did not specify a particular location but those who did indicated North Street and East Street.
372 (92% of respondents) regularly use the footpaths and bridleways. Of those, 79 (21%) thought that the stiles, paths and signposts were not well maintained. Most complaints were due to vegetation not being cut back; this also applied to some pavements.
A map of local footpaths and suggested walks was proposed.
There were a number of complaints about unregistered motorbikes being ridden on existing footpaths. This is dealt with in the Police Section.
Action Point 2:
1) Publicise dog-warden’s contact details. (Dog-warden can impose fines on offending dog owners).
2) Determine who is responsible for overgrown hedgerows and ensure that clearance is undertaken.
3) Prepare footpath map and/or guide.
By Whom: Residents, Parish Council & Dog-warden.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
c) Recycling & Waste Disposal
Residents in the Parish are enthusiastic about recycling and want to recycle more. Over 51% of respondents wanted the service improved, commenting overwhelmingly on the absence of local glass recycling facilities.
Marlpit Lane amenity tip is very much appreciated and is used by over 65% of respondents. This would probably be close to 100% if it was open on Saturdays as well.
Those who used Marlpit Lane wanted it improved so that recyclable materials and green waste can be separated out from non-recyclables.
Action Point 3:
1) Provide local glass recycling facilities.
2) Open Marlpit Lane on Saturday.
3) Separate out green waste etc. from non-recyclables at Marlpit Lane.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council & County Council.
When: 2006 and ongoing.

The questions with the most comments all related to traffic and the problems it creates; Parking 59%, Speeding 53% and Volume of traffic 38%.
a) Parking is especially a problem in the area outside the Co-op for shoppers followed by North Street and to a lesser extent East Street for residents. Various suggestions were put forward to resolve the problems, namely
· provision of a central car-park,
· enforcement of double yellow lines by traffic wardens,
· developing a one-way system around the Stag pub
· allow parking on one side only of North and East Street and reconfigure the Square to increase parking spaces.
Away from the centre of Westbourne, parking is also a problem and the most common suggestion was to restrict further development and where development did take place to ensure/enforce a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per new dwelling.
Action Point 4:
1) Examine all the above suggestions.
2) Seek new innovative ideas.
3) Challenge all objections by District, County and Highways, and continue to make appropriate representations.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council, County Council and Highways Agency.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
b) Speed of traffic is the second major concern of most respondents. The specific places highlighted as of most concern are
· East Street,
· Foxbury Lane,
· Monks Hill,
· North Street,
· River Street
· White Chimney Row.
There was a general concern about speed throughout the Parish. Traffic calming by speed cameras is seen as impractical due to cost and the number that would be necessary. Lower speed limits and traffic lights to control the speed might be unenforceable, judging by the number who ignore present limits and jump red lights in other villages. The Highways Department has suggested that having cars parked in the street slows traffic; this is not borne out by the fact that both East Street and North Street, the two streets most congested by car-parking, suffer noticeably from speeding cars.
What is required is something that forces motorists to slow down. It was suggested that either severe “Pinch Points” or “Speed Humps” are required.
Action Point 5:
1) Seek suitable locations for “Pinch Points” or “Speed Humps” in the roads listed above.
2) Seek new innovative ideas.
3) Challenge all objections by District, County and Highways, and persist in making representations about these ideas.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council, County Council and Highways Agency.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Two other issues were highlighted: these were
a. the lack of a pedestrian crossing in the Square and
b. the absence of pavements along River Street and White Chimney Row.
There is no safe means of crossing the Square; parked cars and delivery vans restrict the sightlines of both pedestrians and drivers whilst traffic speed is of concern to young, old and the disabled. A crossing point is urgently required.
The absence of a pavement from the eastern end of Commonside to the school is a serious hazard for children walking to the school in River Street. The problem is exacerbated by the large number of parents who drive their children to the school and park at the side of the road.
Similarly, there is no pavement along the narrow section of White Chimney Row. There is no clear view for pedestrians or drivers along the Row. There is only room for two saloon cars to pass each other, so if a larger vehicle such as the regular bus or a truck meets anything going in the opposite direction, one of them has to reverse. When residents had a meeting with Highways and the Police in the Row, the police officer refused to walk along the Row without his yellow reflective jacket considering it to be too dangerous, although residents have to walk there. White lines and slow signs on the road surface have not brought about any reduction in the speed of cars and vans along the Row. There is insufficient width to provide a pavement, so more drastic action is required such as severe reduction of traffic speed or road closure.
Action Point 6:
1) Install pedestrian crossing in the Square.
2) Provide a pavement in River Street.
3) Drastically reduce traffic speed in White Chimney Row or close the road to through traffic.
4) Challenge all objections by District, County and Highways and persist in making representations about these ideas.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council, County Council and Highways Agency.
When: 2006 and ongoing.

12% of respondents strongly objected to any new housing in the Parish. The remainder accepted there was probably a need for some new houses. It was generally agreed that the prerequisites before any new houses are built were:
· improved parking in the village and provision of off-street parking for each new property,
· traffic reduction and safer roads,
· Planning Conditions to reduce traffic and to improve local utilities (gas, electricity, sewage, etc.)
Affordable housing to meet local needs and first time buyers were seen to be the highest priority closely followed by elderly accommodation.
45% of respondents expressed an opinion on where any new houses should be built. The most favoured location was The Old Army Camp in Cemetery Lane followed by Brownfield sites/Infilling.
Action Point 7:
1) Additional Planning Conditions as detailed above to be imposed on any new Planning Applications.
2) Parishioners’ wishes on location and type of any new housing to be respected and not be ignored by central planning.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council and County Council.
When: 2006 and ongoing.

a) Public Transport
20% of respondents use the local bus service. Of that 20%, 58% thought that the service has not improved over the past 2 years. The main improvements that were wanted are
· Frequency
· Timetables displayed
· Reliability
Action Point 8:
1) Improve frequency
2) Display timetables.
3) Improve reliability.
By Whom: Parish Council, Bus Company.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
b) Police/Law & Order
The Parish is generally perceived to be a safe environment with low levels of crime. There is the occasional theft, most which appears to be opportunistic, vandalism of cars and property and the riding of unregistered motorcycles on footpaths. This latter item was the most frequently mentioned crime at 26 (6.5% of respondents) responses.
81% of respondents were not aware of or had not met the Community Policeman, 56% of respondents were not or didn’t know if they were covered by the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme and 61% didn’t know the local Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator.
Most of the anti-social behaviour occurred in the evenings and most respondents wanted a greater police presence at that time.
26 (6.5% of respondents) complained of unregistered motorbikes being ridden on footpaths.
Action Point 9:
1) Greater preventative police presence in the evenings.
2) More awareness of the Neighbourhood Watch scheme and its Co-ordinator.
By Whom: Parish Council, Police Authority & Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
c) Local Representatives
54% of respondents didn’t know a Parish Councillor, 72% didn’t know the District Councillor and 76% didn’t know the County Councillor. This may reflect the general apathy at large regarding politics but from the comments made, the biggest problem is lack of information of intent and feedback from the Parish Council. Only 10% believed they were ‘Well informed’ on Parish matters, 34 % ‘Poorly’ or ‘Not At All’ and 48% ‘Reasonably’ informed. Of this last figure almost everyone mentioned they got the information from the late John Holliss’ articles in the Parish magazine.
Action Point 10:
1) More openness and information from the Parish Council.
2) Regular newsletters from the Parish Council.
3) Greater use of Westbourne web-site by Parish Council.
By Whom: Parish Council.
When: 2006 and ongoing.

a) Halls
There are 4 places in the Parish where meetings can be held; the Church Hall, the Baptist Church Hall, Woodmancote Church and the Westbourne Club. 74% of respondents use these places either regularly or when the occasion arises and 69% did not believe there was need for another hall.
b) Sports and Social Activities
Generally, it was considered that there were enough sporting and social activities for all ages except for the 12 to 18 age group where the most frequently expressed wish was for a Youth Club.
Action Point 11:
1) Explore the possibility of organising a Youth Club, and take appropriate action steps.
By Whom: Parish Council and Parents.
When: 2006 and ongoing.

a) Web-site
A Westbourne Web-site was set up earlier this year with space for everything concerning Westbourne Parish to be published. This site requires input from all Parish organisations, Councillors, business’s, clubs and associations, etc.
Action Point 12:
1) Maintain, input information and publicise Web-site.
By Whom: Parish organisations and Web-site committee.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
b) Residents’ and/or Business Association
76% believed that the Parish would benefit from having such organisations to serve its interests and to co-ordinate activities as seen in Emsworth and other local Parishes. It would be useful to have a forum for the Westbourne businesses.
It is not envisaged that these associations would replace or usurp the Parish Council but would rather work with it to improve the Parish according to the expressed needs of the residents (for example - setting up a Youth Club.)
Action Point 13:
1) Form a Resident’s and/or Business Association.
By Whom: Existing Management groups in the Parish, e.g. Westbourne Week Committee and other interested parties.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point Summary
Action Point 1:
1) Determine who is responsible for the ditches and find out how to ensure that regular clearance is undertaken.
2) Ensure that a clear plan for operating the Mill Stream’s sluice gates is in place.
By Whom: Parish Council & Environment Agency
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 2:
1) Publicise dog-warden’s contact details. (Dog-warden can impose fines on offending dog owners).
2) Determine who is responsible for overgrown hedgerows and ensure that clearance is undertaken.
3) Prepare footpath map and/or guide.
By Whom: Residents, Parish Council & Dog-warden.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 3:
1) Provide local glass recycling facilities.
2) Open Marlpit Lane on Saturday.
3) Separate out green waste etc. from non-recyclables at Marlpit Lane.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council & County Council.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 4:
1) Examine all the above suggestions.
2) Seek new innovative ideas.
3) Challenge all objections by District, County and Highways, and continue to make appropriate representations.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council, County Council and Highways Agency.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 5:
1) Seek suitable locations for “Pinch Points” or “Speed Humps” in the roads listed above.
2) Seek new innovative ideas.
3) Challenge all objections by District, County and Highways, and persist in making representations about these ideas.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council, County Council and Highways Agency.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 6:
1) Install pedestrian crossing in the Square.
2) Provide a pavement in River Street.
3) Drastically reduce traffic speed in White Chimney Row or close the road to through traffic.
4) Challenge all objections by District, County and Highways and persist in making representations about these ideas.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council, County Council and Highways Agency.
When: 2006 and ongoing
Action Point 7:
1) Additional Planning Conditions as detailed above to be imposed on any new Planning Applications.
2) Parishioners’ wishes on location and type of any new housing to be respected and not be ignored by central planning.
By Whom: Parish Council, District Council and County Council.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 8:
1) Improve frequency
2) Display timetables.
3) Improve reliability.
By Whom: Parish Council, Bus Company.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 9:
1) Greater preventative police presence in the evenings.
2) More awareness of the Neighbourhood Watch scheme and its Co-ordinator.
By Whom: Parish Council, Police Authority & Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 10:
1) More openness and information from the Parish Council.
2) Regular newsletters from the Parish Council.
3) Greater use of Westbourne web-site by Parish Council.
By Whom: Parish Council.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 11:
1) Explore the possibility of organising a Youth Club, and take appropriate action steps.
By Whom: Parish Council and Parents.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 12:
1) Maintain, input information and publicise Web-site.
By Whom: Parish organisations and Web-site committee.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Action Point 13:
1) Form a Resident’s and/or Business Association.
By Whom: Existing Management groups in the Parish, e.g. Westbourne Week Committee and other interested parties.
When: 2006 and ongoing.
Group members, past & present.
Steering Group
David Childs-Hopkins
Nigel Else
Helen Everett
John Holliss
Joanna Howard
Susan Kirkwood-Taylor
John Reeves
Howard Wilks
Valerie Witts
Community Group
Christine Adsett
James Baker
June Burton
Rob Clarke
Jenny Cunningham
Frieda Lawes
Debbie Munroe
Val Owen
Diana Outhwaite
Makaela Papworth *
Roddy Russell
Facilities & Environment Group
P. Bridger
Gina Cooper
Tony Cullen
Chris Garner
Joanna Howard
Bill Jones
Bob King
Debbie Munroe
Christopher Shaw *
Peter Stainsby
Jeremy Stewart
Transport Group
Naomi Boyd-Brown
Jane Child
David Childs-Hopkins
Jean Csaky *
David Everett
Bob Harbroe-Bush
Bob King
John Morgan
Debbie Munroe
Planning
Valerie Witts *
Bob Cooper
Joanna Howard
Caroline Manners
David Todd
Website
Jim Barlow *

* Denotes Group Leaders