WALL OF SHAME, HALL OF FAME.

A new page has been added to our website which is encouraging residents to nominate their District Councillor to the Wall of Shame or the Hall of Fame. Just click on the link to view:

https://slurrykent.wordpress.com/our-councillors-fhdc/

This page has a distance to run yet, so get those thinking caps on (as if you’d have to think too hard) and contact us here: https://slurry.org.uk/contact/ with your very own nomination(s).

S&DRA

PRINCES PARADE RESULT.

If we were betting people, would we have put a tenner on the application of Princes Parade being turned down, even at a 1000/1 ? Of course not. Why? Because we have familiarised ourselves with the self serving individuals that fill the halls of the Civic Centre, being out of touch with the majority of Folkestone and Hythe Residents, and probably not giving a jot.

Most of you would now be aware that the application went through, 5 For , 4 Against. For those of you that didn’t attend the Civic Centre last Thursday evening or have viewed the media stream, here’s a a brief summary of the evenings events:

Nine Voting Committee members were in attendance: Clive Goddard (Chair,Con) Roger Wilkins (Con) Dick Pascoe (Con) Philip Martin (Con) Michael Lyons (Con) David Owen (Con). It should be noted at this juncture that David Owen abstained and the remainder voted ‘For’ the application.

The remaining members were: Damon Robinson (UKIP), Len Laws (UKIP) Paul Peacock (Con) Susie Govett (Ind). Needless to say, all 4 voted against the application.

The session lasted a little over 1 hour 50 minutes with comments from all nine members ranging from if you don’t approve this, you’re more than likely to get a Margate style fun fair, travellers or some other monstrosity. After the gallery stopped laughing at Councillor Lyons, we heard from Dick Pascoe who entered the debate with sarcasm, stating that he had emails that opposed the application – at least ten. With a paucity of intelligent comment, the public gallery were dismayed by the contemptible and arrogant position of a so-called peoples representative. Philip Martin was espousing the apparatchik tribal mantra of Pascoe and Lyons, so no change there then. David Owen was concerned about the engineering problem that may ensue, and needed more research to be carried out, so he abstained. Roger Wilkins said nothing (thank goodness) but, once again took the easy, mindless route to vote ‘For’. Goddard, always a banker for a dependable vote with the herd, voted ‘For’.

Susie Govett was the star of the show, citing how Hythe was the posher end of the district and so why would you want even more posher homes, affording a sea view and a top premium attached. It was obvious that the proposed houses built with a sea view, deemed to be ‘affordable’ wouldn’t be affordable at all. There is no such thing as ‘affordable’.

Paul Peacock was damning about the safety surrounding the road re-routing, next to the canal with Damon Robinson and Len Laws questioning the viability and location of the Leisure Centre. All four agreed that if sited at Martello Lakes it would better serve the communities of the Marsh.

The vote was a disappointment but was expected. Where the ‘Save Princes Parade’ group go with this now is up to them. Either way, our Association will, as always, give our full support.

Just to recap: These are the Councillors that wish to build 150 premium priced houses and a Leisure Centre on Princes Parade against the wishes of the majority of the electorate: Goddard, Wilkins, Pascoe, Martin and Lyons.

GoddardwilkinspascoemartinLyons

And these are the Councillors who support the views and wishes of the majority:

Govett, Peacock, Laws and Robinson.

govettPeacocklawsRobinson

Next May, you may well being voting, in a DISTRICT election for one of these Councillors in your ward. Taking off your silly, general election tribal hat, who would you vote for?

Have a good week.

S&DRA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Princes Parade showdown.

Featured above are the two biggest supporters of turning Princes Parade into an unwanted, unneeded urbanisation: David “Dog toilet” Monk and Jenny Nine homes Hollingsbee; Leader and Deputy Leader respectively. Not only is the proposed development not required, but these two individuals are also not required. Please read on to ensure that this becomes a reality next May.

The application to build 150 houses and a leisure centre on Princes Parade is going before the FHDC Planning Committee, Civic Centre, Castle Hill Avenue, Folkestone, on the 16th August.

With a demonstration beginning at 6.15pm and the Council meeting at 7pm, be sure to allow good time for parking.

The application has the approval of the FHDC Planning department, but this could be overturned by the committee, which would be entirely in order, given that those councillors have been put into public office by Folkestone & Hythe residents, who incidentally, share the view that Princes Parade should be left as an open vista for all to enjoy whilst taking the sea air during their daily or weekly pounding of the promenade

Princes Parade
Princes Parade and Royal Military Canal, aerial view

We are all aware that certain members of the Planning Committee would like to see Princes Parade as another urbanisation, swelling the coffers of developers and others, but do we really need more housing with well over 14,000 houses already in the local plan; houses that will be way out of reach, price-wise, for local people on a local salary? Here are the committee members who will be voting on whether our land is turned into an unwanted, upmarket housing estate:

Membership

Contact information

Support officer: Kate Clark.

Phone: 01303 853267

Email: committee@folkestone-hythe.gov.uk

Web site: http://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk

Perhaps you would like to email them (just click on their name to reveal contact details) and ask them their position on misrepresenting the wishes of the majority of residents who wish to enjoy Princes Parade ‘au naturel‘.

If you can’t get along on the 16th August, you can view the whole event via live streaming:

https://shepway.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

Our priority will be to see which committee member(s) will be voting against the wishes of the local population so we can take the appropriate action next May at the District Elections ballot box. We hope you will too.

So our initial message to all of those members is this: We’re watching you very, very closely. Our second message is: We’re all looking forward to seeing you all on Thursday, 16th August.

Until then,

S&DRA.

STICK IN YOUR POSTCODE

No, we’re not targeting you for the latest box set collection of Love Island or The Jeremy Kyle show. If you’re watching such mind numbing diatribe tripe, our prayers this evening will be for you.

We’ve all read about the deforestation of the South American rain forests and how trees and vegetation remove harmful pollutants in our atmosphere. Well, here’s your chance to find out how much pollution is removed in your area simply by sticking in your postcode here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc519/pollution/index.html

With the onset of over 14,000 homes planned for the Shepway region, via the Local (democratic) Plan, spread throughout our towns and villages, the idea of importing an unwanted and unneeded 12,000 dwelling new town at Otterpool, at the behest of Council Leader David Monk and his close associates is disproportionate to the needs of local people.

You wouldn’t have to be an Environmental guru to realise that the more housing and traffic assembled in just one area would, ultimately, bring more pollution, which is why our Association, along with other groups and Parish Councils are vehemently opposed to the destruction of our countryside, giving way to greedy developers and injudicious actions by our so-called representatives.

Hollingsbee laughing48fb5-image-765230Slide1

Deputy Leader Hollingsbee (con), Councillor Carey (con), and Leader Monk, supporting the proposed development being tagged as Otterpool Park.

In a 2016 NHS report it states “Air pollution is contributing to about 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK,”  https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/air-pollution-kills-40000-a-year-in-the-uk-says-report/

Moreover, the number of vehicles on England’s roads has risen by 2.5 million in the last five years, while road space has only increased by 0.6%. The Local Government Association (LGA) warned that this disparity not only increases congestion and air pollution, but also affects local economies.

Would you support a massive development that would compromise your loved one’s health and even contribute to their early demise?

We have said it before and make no apologies for repeating it: just because you live outside of the proposed New Town area; Sellindge, Lympne, Newingreen, Westenhanger, and Court at Street and think you will not be affected by an additional 30,000 people using the NHS, drinking and bathing in our limited water resources and using local roads, think again.

Please support our campaign by passing on our ‘subscribe’ link to friends, family and neighbours:

http://eepurl.com/c6vAkL

Many thanks,

S&DRA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LYMPNE AIRFIELD STILL UNDER ATTACK

With our so-called representatives hell bent on turning our rural communities into a dystopian urban sprawl, David Plumstead has reacted to an article posted in this months Lympne Parish Council’s Newsletter:

http://www.lympnepc.kentparishes.gov.uk/2018/07/23/august-newsletter/

“I have read of Lympne Parish Council’s meeting with Homes England (the Government) whose weasel worded proposal for Lympne Airfield has to be dumped straight back in its lap along with the message ‘Pull the other one it’s got bells on!’

It is vital that everyone opposed to David Monk, Susan Carey, Jennifer Hollingsbee, Damian Collins and Shepway Council’s chaotic, unworkable and patently unsustainable plans for an Otterpool Newtown and equally boneheaded proposals from MPs Collins and Charlie Elphicke for dealing with the horrendous HGV, van and car traffic problems and air pollution that would ensue, understands that they are part of a scheme which relies on the social, physical and environmental destruction of Lympne, its village and historic Airfield and the communities of Sellindge, Newingreen, Westenhanger and West Hythe. Stanford and Aldington would also suffer directly and indirectly

All to satisfy the greed and myopic drive for power of a handful of extremely selfish and self-regarding individuals who have no right to be holding public office.

Within this can of worms the Airfield is our little boy with his finger in the dyke and party pooper to those named above and their grand Otterpool design.

The Friends of Lympne Airfield Association, The Shepway Environment and Community Network and the NO Otterpool Newtown Coalition are 100% opposed to any move that chisels away at the Airfield which must be conserved as it is. Giving any ground, even a few square yards there would inevitably lead to the loss of not just the rest of the Airfield but the villages and communities of Lympne, Sellindge, Newingreen, Westenhanger and West Hythe and we will continue to campaign implacably on that premiss.

Were we to find ourselves in opposition in that regard to our own Parish Council it would signal to Homes England (The Government/ Damian Collins/David Monk/Susan Carey and Jennifer Hollingsbee et al) in letters 10ft tall that the only course of action open to them given the overwhelming community opposition to the Newtown plan is ‘Divide and Rule’.

David Plumstead”

7pm. Thursday, 16th August. Be there.

The application to build 150 houses and a leisure centre on Princes Parade is going before the FHDC Planning Committee on the 16th August. It has the approval of the FHDC Planning department, but this could be overturned by the committee, which would be entirely in order, given that those councillors have been put into public office by Folkestone & Hythe residents, who incidentally, share the view that Princes Parade should be left as an open vista for all to enjoy whilst taking the sea air during their daily or weekly pounding of the promenade

Princes Parade
Princes Parade and Royal Military Canal, aerial view

We are all aware that certain members of the Planning Committee would like to see Princes Parade as another urbanisation, swelling the coffers of developers and others, but do we really need more housing with well over 14,000 houses already in the local plan; houses that will be way out of reach, price-wise, for local people on a local salary? Here are the committee members who will be voting on whether our land is turned into an unwanted, upmarket housing estate:

Membership

Contact information

Support officer: Kate Clark.

Phone: 01303 853267

Email: committee@folkestone-hythe.gov.uk

Web site: http://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk

Perhaps you would like to email them (just click on their name to reveal contact details) and ask them their position on misrepresenting the wishes of the majority of residents who wish to enjoy Princes Parade ‘au naturel‘.

If you can’t get along on the 16th August, you can view the whole event via live streaming: Details to follow on this.

Our priority will be to see which committee member(s) will be voting against the wishes of the local population so we can take the appropriate action next May at the District Elections ballot box. We hope you will too.

So our initial message to all of those members is this: We’re watching you very, very closely. Our second message is: We’re all looking forward to seeing you all on Thursday, 16th August.

Until then,

S&DRA.

WATER,WATER EVERYWHERE?

That’s the impression that our beloved Folkestone & Hythe District Council, along with their development bedfellows and apparatchik consultants and PR sidekicks would want us all to believe.

The fact of the matter is, there’s not enough water to support major development in the Folkestone and Hythe area over the coming years.

These are the facts: Affinity Water (AW) our local water company, the experts in delivering water to our taps, are concerned, very concerned that the existing infrastructure will not be able to deliver anything near the amount of water to supply a new town of 12,000 homes. In fact a figure of 1000 homes from AW has already been quoted. (Please see the link below if you think that upgrading the infrastructure is the solution).

AW supply water to 160,000 people in the Folkestone and Hythe area, known as the Dour region. The projected housing figure, excluding the proposed Otterpool New Town, for the area is a further 24,000 homes. This equates to an additional 57,600 people, given the average figure of 2.4 people per household, making 217,600 people. Moreover, no allowance has been made for industry or commercial enterprise. So you wouldn’t have to be a mathematical genius to calculate that with a limited supply of the wet stuff, blanket building in the area would be an environmental disaster.

So what has our Council and their blanket building chums said that will convince us that a 12,000 ( or is it 10,000, 8.500 or 5,500) New Town will have enough water to drink, bathe in and flush our loo’s. In a nutshell, this is what they are saying:

They will install the type of infrastructure that will supply water to Otterpool Town whereby, instead of each resident using the average of around 155 litres each day, they can get it down to 80 litres per person each day.  How? They say that they will be using, through their preferred infrastructure developer; Albion water, a system of ‘re-use’. This could be a combination of grey water (basin, sink, bath shower) and/or rainwater being redirected via a treatment unit, to serve the flushing of WC’s. This would require ‘over and above’ the usual amount of water infrastructure, adding to the cost of each house. Let us not forget that the infrastructure housing fund that was in the offing for Otterpool has been pulled by central Government. And let us also not forget that there is a cost in operating a re-use system that some local residents may well not be able to afford. And what of rainwater use? If the holding reservoir becomes depleted due to a lack of rain, potable water WILL be used to serve the properties.

So, for the moment, let us all agree that residents will be using 80 litres of potable water each day. This would be a saving of 75 litres per person each day. Now, given that our Council can’t make up its mind that the New Town will be 12,000 or 5,500 houses, lets assume an average figure of 8,750 houses. AW have already stated that over the coming years they would be adding an additional 57,600 customers to their base, making a total water output to residential properties of 32.64 million litres of water each and every day.

The total saving of potable water usage at Otterpool New Town, if each house was fitted with a re-use’ facility, and if it rained enough to keep the bulk reservoirs filled, would be 1.575 million litres each and every day. Not to confuse matters, if Otterpool Town (of 8,750 houses) was included in the projected 24,000 homes this would add a further 1.68 million litres to the 32.64 million litres making a grand total of 34.32 million litres.

With developers and FHDC talking as if this scheme was the ‘be all and end all’ to conserve water, we can see that the scale of proposed water saving (if achieved)  across the Dour region is minimal.

The proposal set out to conserve water on this scale is nonsensical and is another exercise in hoodwinking a planning inspector to approve a development that, in environmental terms, really is a ‘bridge too far’.

With our climate changing, we will have to ensure that development is appropriately managed and sited in areas more able to cope with population growth and migration.

To conclude, we are including a submission to the draft FHDC Core Strategy made by Parish Councillor Les Barratt that pretty much sums up the state of play regarding water issues and development in the Folkestone and Hythe area. It is a ‘long read’ but well worth a look.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=f3d29dce98&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-a:r1659225245353016218&th=164b6af7e01021cf&view=att&disp=safe&realattid=f_jjtovsgp0

If you’re interested in how the water savings will be made by Folkestone & Hythe District Council, please visit the site in 30 years time. If you’re not sure where the water recycling plant is, don’t worry, you cant miss it. It’s right next door to the Unicorn Farm.

Have a nice weekend.

S&DRA

 

 

Parliament’s bubble is still firmly intact.

Mondays (9.7.18) session in Parliament was an illustration of how distanced the current Prime Minister is about our communities, whether it be through fault of her own or her MP’s.

Set out below is the transcript from Hansard where Dover MP, Charlie Elphicke, still under police investigation from early November 2017, scores another hit espousing the importance of delivering the Lorry Park in the event of a ‘No deal’ Brexit.

In the PM’s response it was both gut churning and sickening to hear “He (Elphicke) champions the rights and needs of his constituents very eloquently in this House”.

Parliament’s bubble is still undented by the Judicial review or local residents opprobrium toward the biggest, unworkable, global Lorry Park sited between our Kentish Villages. Even more reason to view our previous posts and fill out the Highways England survey:

Photo of Charlie ElphickeCharlie Elphicke Conservative, Dover

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that no deal preparations will be stepped up. What are those preparations; how will they be stepped up; will they include new money; and most importantly, will they include the delivery of the lorry park on the roads to the channel ports that was promised two years ago but that has not yet been delivered by the Department for Transport?

Photo of Theresa MayTheresa May The Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party

As I said earlier, £1.5 billion has already been allocated, and the Chancellor has made £3 billion available over two years for the various preparations, which include the no deal preparations. The new Brexit Secretary will take on the task of ensuring that we step up those no deal preparations. I know from previous discussions the concern my hon. Friend has about the potential lorry park in Kent in relation to the port of Dover. He champions the rights and needs of his constituents very eloquently in this House.

 

Have your say on the Lorry Park. Part 2.

If you haven’t been along to a Highways England, Lorry Park consultation yet, they have now ended, but don’t despair. You can still make your views be known by taking the online survey, but it will end on the 22nd July. The online survey is relatively simple but if you need guidance, a copy of David Plumsteads’ (The Shepway Environment and Community Network) survey form is set out below. Needless to say, our views are mirrored by David’s. Here are the relevant questions and answers.:

6 Are you responding on behalf of an organisation? (optional) Yes

7 If yes, please provide details of the organisation The Shepway Environment and Community Network a non-party political voluntary group of which I am the coordinator.

8 How often do you travel on the M20/A20?  Weekly

9 How often do you travel on the M2/A2?  Rarely

10 For what reasons do you travel on the M20/A20 and/or M2/A2? (Please tick all boxes that apply). Local resident

11 How does traffic congestion caused by an activation of Operation Stack during periods of cross-Channel disruption affect you? (Please tick all boxes that apply). As a local resident, As a local road user, As a motorway user

12 Operation Stack addresses congestion caused by lorries during periods of cross-Channel disruption. To what extent, do you agree or disagree with the need for an alternative solution? Strongly agree

13 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the idea of developing a lorry holding area solution that reduces the need to activate Operation Stack during periods of cross-Channel disruption? Strongly disagree

14 Taking account of the identified benefits and disadvantages set out in the brochure, do you have a preference for any of the following lorry holding area solutions? I don’t agree with lorry holding areas

15 Where do you think that any new lorry holding areas should be located? (Please tick as many as appropriate). I don’t agree with lorry holding areas

16 If you agree with a lorry holding area solution, do you have specific suggestions about where lorry holding areas could be located? If yes, please provide details below. : N/A

17 How serious a problem is illegal or inappropriate lorry parking in Kent? Serious problem

18 To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the need to provide more everyday 24-hour lorry parking facilities in Kent? Strongly disagree

19 Where should any additional lorry parking for everyday 24-hour use be provided? (Please tick all boxes that apply). I don’t agree with lorry holding areas

20 Did you attend a public information exhibition? No

21 If you attended an exhibition, please specify the location or locations attended. (Please tick all boxes that apply).

22 How did you hear about this public information exercise? Local community group

23 How helpful have you found our public information exercise at explaining the existing traffic issues and our proposed approach to address them? Helpful

24 Do you have any further comments about this public information exercise? : Yes. It amounts to public misinformation. Throughout this Questionnaire – you, Highways England – have been addressing the symptoms resulting in our overcrowded road network and have failed to confront the disease. Since starting to campaign against the expansion of road capacity in 1987 we have steadfastly maintained that doing so simply encourages and results in greater and greater volumes of road traffic – cars and trucks. Unless and until the absurd political oxymoronical mantra requiring the ‘need for economic development’ to qualify every pronouncement on ‘sustainability’ is jettisoned, every new mile of roadway will continue instantly to be taken up by cars and trucks, road traffic will everlastingly be subject to Operation Stack conditions and there will be no ‘sustainability’. In our society wedded to everlasting economic development, only a catastrophic collapse in air quality and far more serious loss of natural environmental health on which we all depend for our existence will halt the proliferation of cars and trucks. Human beings have yet to develop the capacity to eat, drink and breath money.

David Plumstead 6th July 2018

25 Is there anything else you want us to take into account.

Yes. The negative effect of society’s and Government’s collective irresponsible behaviour towards the statutory/legal requirement and absolute necessity to reduce emissions of C02 and other compounds.’ Politicians are renowned for a preference to ignore the elephant in the room and successive Governments fixated on the outcome of the next general election and the retention of power are able only to repeat the quote ‘Its the economy, stupid!

Please go online and take the survey here:

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/solutions-to-operation-stack/consultation/

If you don’t take the time or trouble to allocate 10 minutes of your time to fill out the survey, you could end up with the worlds biggest Lorry Park on your doorstep. You have been warned.

S&DRA

Editors note: For those of you who think that a 3,600 truck Lorry Park would cure the problem of congestion on the M20 at times of French Ferry Operators strike or inclement weather, think again (including you Mr. Damian Collins MP and Councillor Jenny Hollingsbee). In the summer of 2015 there were 9,000 lorries stacked on the M20. If the proposed lorry park was full at Stanford West, there would be 5,400 stacked on the M20. Moreover, Junction 11 would be closed due to the 2 Km slip road rule, thereby making travelling in the locality worse, a lot worse. Get those thinking caps on.

 

 

Deja vu au Chateau

Same old, same old. That was the story as angry residents streamed out of the Otterpool (Offshore) Park exhibition hosted by ‘out of town’ folk hired by FHDC.

Residents told us of ‘experts’ describing Stone Street as Stone Road with other ‘experts’ pleading with angry residents to stop the barrage of questioning, simply because they didn’t have the answers. All in all, it wasn’t a lot different from the two previous public, tick-a-box consultations.

We said on our previous, Watch this space,  post, that questions would be answered from a leaflet handed to residents as they entered the consultation. Here they be:

  1. Why build a New Town when all of our housing needs have been met for the next 20 years? Why indeed. This proposed development was the brain child of Leader David Monk and his close associates within FHDC. It has nothing to do with Planning and is totally cash driven to bolster Council income. 

  2. What public consultation was there before FHDC (SDC) decided to build an new town amidst our villages? None.

  3. How many houses will there be in the new town, 12,000, 10,000, 8.500, 5,500? Many figures have been banded about in an attempt to confuse us all. Obfuscation is just one of the feeble weapons in the FHDC armoury that we have grown accustomed to.

  4. How can water supply for the district be guaranteed when Affinity Water say they can only supply enough for 1000 new houses at Otterpool Park? This is a subject that has to be investigated in detail. We will dedicate one of our forthcoming posts purely on Water Resources within the Dour (F & H) region. It is true that Affinity Water can only supply 1000 houses (we have the evidence) via the existing, limited infrastructure, given that water is available.

  5. How many houses at Otterpool Park will be ‘affordable’? Put simply, will an average Shepway salary be enough to secure a home for a local resident? – NO. With the average income of around £23,000 pa, there would be no way that a local person would be able to secure a home on Otterpool Park.  Even with a combined salary of £46,000, purchasing a new property would be out of the question. Moreover, the saving for a deposit of typically £12,000 would be near impossible if an individual or a couple are already renting at exorbitant rates.

  6. What changes will FHDC make to plans for Otterpool Park now that the anticipated £281,000,000 Government Housing Infrastructure Fund has been refused. Fewer community facilities?, Lower quality landscaping?, Less Green space?, Fewer and less affordable houses?, Scrap the high speed station at Westenhanger? It stands to reason that the less money available for non profitable features of a development, the more likely it is that they will be pulled. We see it on a regular basis where developers promise 30% ‘affordable’ homes on a section 106 agreement but halfway through a development, 30% becomes 10% because the developer says there isn’t enough money left in the pot. Moreover, Council Leader Monk and his team have already stated that services in the district would be cut if Government financial support wasn’t forthcoming (see KM, F&H Express 26th July 2017 – More Government cash needed or key services will take the hit) to build Otterpool Park. 

  7. Is it now time to cancel the Otterpool Park Park project? Even though FHDC have already wasted thousands of pounds of our Council Tax money on consultants of many shades overseeing the promotion of what would be a dystopian nightmare for us all, we are sure that you would all agree that cancelling the Otterpool Park project is the only option. Looking to the future, with land in Council ownership (which in effect is our land), a coming together of all local residents to agree and decide on the future for our communities, our children and grandchildren is the way forward. The only way, of course to do this, is to rid the Council offices of the incumbents that hold power. May 2019 is the date to set in your diaries. Only we can do it, but it is up to each and everyone of us to spread the word. More on this soon.

A better than expected turnout was a surprise to us all thanks to our own teams, alongside local press. Recording residents comments is always helpful in assessing the level of support for Otterpool Park which we have done on the previous two occasions. Many of the comments are not printable but lets just say that the one word expletive that repeatedly filled the air was the term used for fairly warm waste from a cattle herd, useful in agriculture after composting.

Out of 146 residents interviewed, 130 were opposed to Otterpool Park, 10 supported it and 4 were undecided. No doubt FHDC will put their own spin on the consultation, but the facts can not be denied. This is supposed to be, as set down by Government, community led. It really is nothing of the kind.

A final word to all those residents who have signed up to our website – a big thank you. It is only through information sharing that change will happen. We have already heard about two families that have recently moved into the area not knowing anything about a new town on the cards, even though a thorough search was carried out by their solicitors? Why didn’t FHDC disclose such information?

Please keep your emails coming in to us, we’d love to hear from you.

S&DRA.