The Farthings Community Group – Meeting #2
14 October 2024 at 7.30pm in the Margaret Preston Room, Wreningham Village Hall
Aim: To continue the process of the community planning the future of The Farthings
Objectives:
- Review consolidated inputs/ideas submitted following from meeting #1.
- Consider practicalities/maintenance/costs /resources etc.
- Consider and Categorise ideas:
- probables – are workable, and with characteristics fitting The Farthings
- possibles – need further work – not quite a match for The Farthings
- maybes – longer term / dependencies
- sorry-but-no – with difficult characteristics / no benefit
Meeting notes:
Input Documents:
- A4 plan of site
- Collated list of projects/ideas (Farthings projects list.xlsx)
Review of inputs
Those attending took each set of ideas in turn and discussed them and then agreed a category for each:
Project | Discussion | ? | S106 Action? | Comment |
Miyawaki Forest planting | Has merit; environmental benefit; visual benefit; needs community work to plant and care for. Need to have fencing take advice from existing plantings | Keep | Prepare site for planting | Jean L to explore further Examples exists in and around the county – see Norwich Fringe Project at Heartsease park (?) |
Community orchard | Has merit; environmental benefit; | Keep | None | Could have a variety of fruits – apples, pears; plums… |
Sense garden | visual/scent/tactile/aural benefits; community design; planting and managing | Keep | None | Rosie T has direct experience of such gardens |
Amphitheatre | Adds a topological feature; multi-uses; (school children 1 user) | keep | Use spoil to create and build | Need to design – size; style; location Note vital to contact school on planned use or expectations. Also to know how they will manage the children when on site |
Community Allotments | Too many issues with ascetic; no sheds allowed; no obvious need | Reject | n/a | n/a |
Pond enhancement | Flora: Community design and planting Advice to be obtained (contact Rachael Long re pond experts) | Keep | FWP already committed to create 2 new ponds and modify existing pond | Fauna: not discussed |
Willow Tunnel | Community design, planting, location, management | Keep | None | Could use other plants to create other tunnels – such as roses; honeysuckle; etc. Note would need protecting until well established |
Bird & other fauna enhancements | Community consideration ad plan; Some will be placed by FWP | Keep | S106 (see house planning details too) | Consider existing bats – no new lights in field; minimise impact on them. |
Log collections / piles | To provide habitat for insects and small mammals; consider where to be located – probably by boundary hedge; environment benefit addition | Keep | Suggested in the SNC environmental comments | |
Other ponds | New ponds created by FWP – merge with above as general pond enhancement | Keep / merge | Provided for in S106? | |
Publicity / Communications | Need – but must manage currently local comms for village | Keep | None | Consider carefully how to communicate and penetration into other communities |
Opening ceremony project | keep it local – villagers only? Not until Spring 2026 | Keep? | None (although FWP have offered to do signage based on WPC submitted design (thinking there was school competition) | Consider carefully how to communicate and penetration into other communities |
School project | Need to engage with school to establish their thoughts on use of the site. | Keep | None | Timing – after transfer to WPC ownership. Plenty of time to consider? |
Monitoring project | On-going need to monitor performance for benefits (environmental and community) | Keep | Request baseline to be used by SNC and English Nature | Will need careful planning and regular activities to collect data |
Sponsorship project | Obtaining additional funding will be an issue; need planning and resourcing New projects will be funded by the community. | Keep | S106/Commuted sum | WPC to manage commuted sum and fund maintenance of site, and structures |
Exercise circuit | Considered that the pathways should be sufficient without having an extra track in place. Little support within the team | Reject | None | |
Picnic area | Worried that purpose built picnic area could be detrimental to the site | Reject | None | This implies solid surface of some type (concrete, flagstones). WPC do not wish construction on the site |
Field Meadow | [Omitted from first version!] One of the main areas within the site – Rachael Long onside for supply of seed. | Keep | Strip topsoil as preparation – other work? | Andrew Moore will advise and lead this project. Need to manage cutting and removal of hay. |
Boundary Hedge (south side) | Recognised that there are very particular issues to be addressed with the Church Road residents | New / Keep | Possible S106 actions – direct FWP how to plant out the hedge | Note WPC expect to maintain a boundary around the whole site with just 4 entrances: Church Road / Footpath 5/ Hethel Road / new Hethel Road footpath |
Path definition | This structure is key to pulling together the whole site; enabling access to certain part (e.g. ponds); allowing mobility (2m width in places / overall?) hence a separate project needed to feed into the draft S106 | New/Keep | Yes – revision to draft proposal | To enable all to enjoy this space need to include those with mobility issues |
Other points from the discussions:
- Ask FWP about plot 4 ownership – It will impact definition of the boundary hedge and nature of access if not owned by a resident.
- All of the ideas/projects above are currently without definition of
- a location – attendees are asked to consider suggestions for placement
- size – what is a workable size for those which can be varied?
- sequence – which should happen first; which should then follow?
- Bridges – note that access is required for the vehicle (tractor) to cut hedges / trees in western half of site – wider bridge? Ask FWP for ideas.
- Definition of acceptable User – what is to be included and what excluded – set of rules needed to be formalised before transfer (e.g. no motor vehicles, except for motorised wheelchairs, say)
- French drain on southern boundary – not clear on the maps – ask FWP for details of positioning and reach [note the drainage engineer is currently designing the system for the site].
- Drainage of southwestern corner (by PF5) – often boggy – this has been raised with FWP and they will ensure the drainage design addressed this too.
- Drainage regulator in Southwest corner – need plans to be transferred to WPC. Request from FWP maintenance schedule and regime
- Anticipated that FWP will monitor progress on whole site – keeping photographic evidence of work done, etc. Discuss with them including appropriately positioned (no incursion into residential space) recordings of The Farthings as part of our local heritage records. [David Kirk is happy to discuss directly].
- Signage – what has been FWP’s proposals?
Attendees were asked to
- consider further the results of their deliberations
- keep up with suggesting other uses of The Farthings
- communicate this process with neighbours and friends in the village
- encourage same to offer their services, interest, and involvement
- consider the timetable for this
- Draft S106 needs to be revised and passed to FWP for their review
- Site work may possible start in January 2025
- The Farthings ready for transfer to WPC around Autumn 2026
- FWP to complete work on site in 2026 Q1/Q2
- FWP warranty for The Farthings S106 works lasts 1 year from transfer.
The Third meeting is scheduled for the 21st October 2024.