Approval granted for 120 homes in Bridgwater

Bridgwater Mercury: Bridgwater Wyndham ward councillor Gill Slocombe Bridgwater Wyndham ward councillor Gill Slocombe

A PROJECT to build 120 homes on green fields in Bridgwater has been given the green light today (January 15).

Planners from Sedgemoor District Council’s development control committee are still ironing out the conditions of the application by Summerfield Developments to build the homes south of Durleigh Road.

The scheme was recommended for approval by a planning officer because it would make a major contribution to The Meads Eco-Park and contribute to affordable housing needs in the district.

Bridgwater Wyndham ward councillor Gill Slocombe told the Mercury: “We, the ward councillors, are extremely disappointed.

“We still say this is a premature application which is not needed in the first five years of the Core Strategy.”

Cllr Slocombe said she felt the design brief was not in keeping with the surrounding area and fears the access road will have a major impact on traffic.

She added: “We will continue to fight on.”

The development is set to include a mix of detached and semi-detached homes, including 36 affordable houses.

It will also use 0.4 hectares of the Bridgwater Fair Field for an access road.

Summerfield says new homes are needed in Sedgemoor and the development would contribute towards flood defences, play equipment, and more than £300,000 to school places.

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:39pm Tue 15 Jan 13

sheldoncooper says...

Well, the blue touch paper has been lit.....
Well, the blue touch paper has been lit..... sheldoncooper

6:00pm Tue 15 Jan 13

smithy99 says...

Well what can I say.....an absolute disgrace of a decision.

Where are the new roads and Infrastructure to support these new houses? Yet again building more houses and the roads cannot cope.

Does anyone from Sedgemoor District Council live in Bridgwater or actually travel around Bridgwater? If they did then I am sure they would not have approved this proposal.

These days it takes me longer to travel from Dunball Rounderbout into Bridgwater town centre than it does to travel from the Aztec West Industrial estate in Bristol to Junction 23 on the M5.

I am seriously considering moving out of Bridgwater as I can no longer cope with the traffic conditions. It is such a shame as I earn a very good wage and I spend my wages in the local shops/restaurants and try to support the local Bridgwater economy wherever I can. If the traffic situation gets worse then I will have no choice but to move.

Sedgemoor District Council should hang their heads in shame.
Well what can I say.....an absolute disgrace of a decision. Where are the new roads and Infrastructure to support these new houses? Yet again building more houses and the roads cannot cope. Does anyone from Sedgemoor District Council live in Bridgwater or actually travel around Bridgwater? If they did then I am sure they would not have approved this proposal. These days it takes me longer to travel from Dunball Rounderbout into Bridgwater town centre than it does to travel from the Aztec West Industrial estate in Bristol to Junction 23 on the M5. I am seriously considering moving out of Bridgwater as I can no longer cope with the traffic conditions. It is such a shame as I earn a very good wage and I spend my wages in the local shops/restaurants and try to support the local Bridgwater economy wherever I can. If the traffic situation gets worse then I will have no choice but to move. Sedgemoor District Council should hang their heads in shame. smithy99

6:30pm Tue 15 Jan 13

noleaders says...

We were told at the consultation about the meads project that there was no link between that and further development, and that we should consider the two not linked..Here is the proof they are. People should be pro active about this and start campaigning to stop unwanted development locally but this is hard with new govt initiatives which essentially bribe communities..I asked councillors to ask for the vote at this mornings development control meeting to aIt wasnt..Only one councellor [ken Smout seriously considered the idea..Graham Granter said he didnt want it recorded and dont forget it was councellors Smedley, Pearce and Mickk leery who were so vociforous in promoting the meads project. This development will seriously damage wild life habitat, and pollute Durliegh Brook. If you dont agree with it and are sick off developers trashing our countryside in Somerset you could ring the developer Summerfield on 01823 257961 and very politely offer your opinion on the matter. Some of us find it hard to believe that the whole Bridgwater vision project isnt just a trojan horse made up with developers intersets in mind. People are sick of having our countryside trashed.No party so far has stood up to the bloated constuction industry.
We were told at the consultation about the meads project that there was no link between that and further development, and that we should consider the two not linked..Here is the proof they are. People should be pro active about this and start campaigning to stop unwanted development locally but this is hard with new govt initiatives which essentially bribe communities..I asked councillors to ask for the vote at this mornings development control meeting to aIt wasnt..Only one councellor [ken Smout seriously considered the idea..Graham Granter said he didnt want it recorded and dont forget it was councellors Smedley, Pearce and Mickk leery who were so vociforous in promoting the meads project. This development will seriously damage wild life habitat, and pollute Durliegh Brook. If you dont agree with it and are sick off developers trashing our countryside in Somerset you could ring the developer Summerfield on 01823 257961 and very politely offer your opinion on the matter. Some of us find it hard to believe that the whole Bridgwater vision project isnt just a trojan horse made up with developers intersets in mind. People are sick of having our countryside trashed.No party so far has stood up to the bloated constuction industry. noleaders

6:31pm Tue 15 Jan 13

noleaders says...

excuse typos..angry.
excuse typos..angry. noleaders

6:58pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

I share the same dismay that this has been passed Today, we were told, that this Developement, was not within the present round, as was being submitted in many opinions as premature.
Personally, I think it is unthinkable to have any 'Eco Project' on these lower Durleigh Ancient Flood Plains, I voiced also my dismay, that the FairField, was to have the Top end used as a permenant access road across land which is Under Charter for the People of Bridgwater to use, I believe Under King John's Reign( please correct me if I'm mistaken, I only went to Westover Sec Mod School ), The only possible Eco Park, must be a Water Park, as it was recently, Flooded, and many time since we used to use that area for cross country 45 years ago.
Have we not learn't anything re recent Floods, " You do NOT Build on Flood Plains". Now or in the Future !
As for the housing, as I've said b4 in Post's we should be Developing Brown Field Sites, ahead of Green field Developement land.
If, I had been on the DC Commitee, I would have had to speak, against the Proposal, 3 Mins and leave the Commitee Room, hoping that my words and actions, would have an effect on the Members Decision. But who knows!
Regards David Preece
Ex SDC Dev Control Member
Blue- Owl
I share the same dismay that this has been passed Today, we were told, that this Developement, was not within the present round, as was being submitted in many opinions as premature. Personally, I think it is unthinkable to have any 'Eco Project' on these lower Durleigh Ancient Flood Plains, I voiced also my dismay, that the FairField, was to have the Top end used as a permenant access road across land which is Under Charter for the People of Bridgwater to use, I believe Under King John's Reign( please correct me if I'm mistaken, I only went to Westover Sec Mod School ), The only possible Eco Park, must be a Water Park, as it was recently, Flooded, and many time since we used to use that area for cross country 45 years ago. Have we not learn't anything re recent Floods, " You do NOT Build on Flood Plains". Now or in the Future ! As for the housing, as I've said b4 in Post's we should be Developing Brown Field Sites, ahead of Green field Developement land. If, I had been on the DC Commitee, I would have had to speak, against the Proposal, 3 Mins and leave the Commitee Room, hoping that my words and actions, would have an effect on the Members Decision. But who knows! Regards David Preece Ex SDC Dev Control Member Blue- Owl Blue Owl

7:16pm Tue 15 Jan 13

noleaders says...

One Labour councellor justified it by saying when themeads project is running accesss will be improved for Penrose children..I dont know about any parents of Penrose pupils but Im sick of the children being used as a political football to justify wrecking the countryside..First they were used as an excise to build Haygrove at Skimmerton lane now its access to the Meads that they are being used to justify..of course everyone should have equal access to everywhere but I cant help feelingg when I hear Penrose pupils mentioned again..oh no whPenrose pupils deserve morte than life as a political foot ball for developers 106 agreements excuses.
One Labour councellor justified it by saying when themeads project is running accesss will be improved for Penrose children..I dont know about any parents of Penrose pupils but Im sick of the children being used as a political football to justify wrecking the countryside..First they were used as an excise to build Haygrove at Skimmerton lane now its access to the Meads that they are being used to justify..of course everyone should have equal access to everywhere but I cant help feelingg when I hear Penrose pupils mentioned again..oh no whPenrose pupils deserve morte than life as a political foot ball for developers 106 agreements excuses. noleaders

7:18pm Tue 15 Jan 13

noleaders says...

typo hell
typo hell noleaders

7:48pm Tue 15 Jan 13

sheldoncooper says...

I think i'll send an email to Tesco's. I wonder if they are fully aware of the effect that all of these developments ( Cellophane etc) are going to have on their potential new customers.

Nobody is going to be able to get into town from any direction soon !

Perhaps this is a ploy as there is no money to put into the town centre so just cut it off and let it fall into decline !
I think i'll send an email to Tesco's. I wonder if they are fully aware of the effect that all of these developments ( Cellophane etc) are going to have on their potential new customers. Nobody is going to be able to get into town from any direction soon ! Perhaps this is a ploy as there is no money to put into the town centre so just cut it off and let it fall into decline ! sheldoncooper

7:50pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Silverbirch says...

Let the Mercury print the names and photos of the councillors who approved this planning application so that we can see who will be going down in the town's history books as the people who allowed a road across the Fair field and the ruination of the west of the town. They have been willing to trade beautiful greenfields for a swamp. What benefit to the townspeople? None. They are the losers in this. What benefit to the developers? Loads of money. They are the only winners. Shame on you.
Let the Mercury print the names and photos of the councillors who approved this planning application so that we can see who will be going down in the town's history books as the people who allowed a road across the Fair field and the ruination of the west of the town. They have been willing to trade beautiful greenfields for a swamp. What benefit to the townspeople? None. They are the losers in this. What benefit to the developers? Loads of money. They are the only winners. Shame on you. Silverbirch

8:11pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Doverbeme says...

Bridgwater is swiftly becoming a giant housing estate.
Bridgwater is swiftly becoming a giant housing estate. Doverbeme

8:21pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Silverbirch wrote:
Let the Mercury print the names and photos of the councillors who approved this planning application so that we can see who will be going down in the town's history books as the people who allowed a road across the Fair field and the ruination of the west of the town. They have been willing to trade beautiful greenfields for a swamp. What benefit to the townspeople? None. They are the losers in this. What benefit to the developers? Loads of money. They are the only winners. Shame on you.
Silver birch, I'm inclined to agree with you, but unless there was a named vote called for, you will not know!
As it will not be minuted, however, there could have been some Members of the Commitee, who wimped out of making a decision, and absteined
Regards David Preece
AKA Blue -Owl
[quote][p][bold]Silverbirch[/bold] wrote: Let the Mercury print the names and photos of the councillors who approved this planning application so that we can see who will be going down in the town's history books as the people who allowed a road across the Fair field and the ruination of the west of the town. They have been willing to trade beautiful greenfields for a swamp. What benefit to the townspeople? None. They are the losers in this. What benefit to the developers? Loads of money. They are the only winners. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]Silver birch, I'm inclined to agree with you, but unless there was a named vote called for, you will not know! As it will not be minuted, however, there could have been some Members of the Commitee, who wimped out of making a decision, and absteined Regards David Preece AKA Blue -Owl Blue Owl

8:21pm Tue 15 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Yes good if the Mercury would publish the names as the councellors refused to ask for recorded vote..lets have the traitors names..
Yes good if the Mercury would publish the names as the councellors refused to ask for recorded vote..lets have the traitors names.. noleaders

8:24pm Tue 15 Jan 13

noleaders says...

I asked for named vote..I rang all councellors on agenda list, only two agreed but then didnt ask for it to be recorded..
I asked for named vote..I rang all councellors on agenda list, only two agreed but then didnt ask for it to be recorded.. noleaders

8:26pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Boring says...

36 houses will be "affordable housing" ? Yeah right!
30k then!
That will soon change once they start building,what's the odds on not one of the 120 houses costing less than 200k.

The meads "project" is a cloud cuckoo plan. I don't fancy sitting on a park bench wearing a wet suit.

SDC planners, wake up and get in the real world.
36 houses will be "affordable housing" ? Yeah right! 30k then! That will soon change once they start building,what's the odds on not one of the 120 houses costing less than 200k. The meads "project" is a cloud cuckoo plan. I don't fancy sitting on a park bench wearing a wet suit. SDC planners, wake up and get in the real world. Boring

8:43pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Blurby Monster says...

No comments. Money talks though, you better bet your life on it. Annyone you know seem a bit more flush with cash than usual, for no clear reason???
No comments. Money talks though, you better bet your life on it. Annyone you know seem a bit more flush with cash than usual, for no clear reason??? Blurby Monster

9:42pm Tue 15 Jan 13

grisleyreg says...

Sedgemoor is such a poor excuse for a local authority, they seem to have a policy of doing all they can to cause problems in Bridgwater, Shame on them all.
Sedgemoor is such a poor excuse for a local authority, they seem to have a policy of doing all they can to cause problems in Bridgwater, Shame on them all. grisleyreg

9:58pm Tue 15 Jan 13

grisleyreg says...

Sedgemoor staff at the Meads consultation in Westfield Church clearly said the Eco park and housing development were not linked but now we can all see they are,
Proves staff will say anything it takes to get what they want.
If ever a town needs a change of councillors it's Bridgwater
Sedgemoor staff at the Meads consultation in Westfield Church clearly said the Eco park and housing development were not linked but now we can all see they are, Proves staff will say anything it takes to get what they want. If ever a town needs a change of councillors it's Bridgwater grisleyreg

10:21pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Waterway says...

This has to be worst decision ever made by the Planners at Sedgemoor Council. I don't entirely blame the elected representatives, but I do take issue with the advice they seemingly receive from their own Planning Officers who support ALMOST EVERY large housing development which appears on their desks. Can anyone remember the last large housing development which was recommended for refusal by the Planning Officers at Sedgemoor? This latest planning fiasco seriously damages the credibility of the Planning Officers and Sedgemoor District Council. Developers must see the Planners at Sedgemoor as a bit of a 'soft touch', rather than accept an offer of £300k towards developing the Eco park and other small works, the Planners should have taken a much more proactive approach to ensure the Developer made a significant contribution to the highway infrastructure which will now be tested to the limit as a result of the decision to allow them to build yet more homes. I couldn't see Taunton Deane Council allowing any Developer to get away with contributing such a pathetic amount. I question why we have elected representatives if the paid Officers are the real decision makers,
This has to be worst decision ever made by the Planners at Sedgemoor Council. I don't entirely blame the elected representatives, but I do take issue with the advice they seemingly receive from their own Planning Officers who support ALMOST EVERY large housing development which appears on their desks. Can anyone remember the last large housing development which was recommended for refusal by the Planning Officers at Sedgemoor? This latest planning fiasco seriously damages the credibility of the Planning Officers and Sedgemoor District Council. Developers must see the Planners at Sedgemoor as a bit of a 'soft touch', rather than accept an offer of £300k towards developing the Eco park and other small works, the Planners should have taken a much more proactive approach to ensure the Developer made a significant contribution to the highway infrastructure which will now be tested to the limit as a result of the decision to allow them to build yet more homes. I couldn't see Taunton Deane Council allowing any Developer to get away with contributing such a pathetic amount. I question why we have elected representatives if the paid Officers are the real decision makers, Waterway

9:20am Wed 16 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Blurby Monster wrote:
No comments. Money talks though, you better bet your life on it. Annyone you know seem a bit more flush with cash than usual, for no clear reason???
Obviously, you are making veiled comment, as to backhanders, brown envelopes!!!. But, this does not happen, it may well have many many years ago, in the past, but again that is only conjecture, and Speculation!!
As I've said before, anyone who has Actual proof, and I mean proof that will stand up to Scrutiny, and Police investigation. I will follow it up, and take it to the Authorities.....So, please do not make Scurrilous Accusations without the Facts to back it up!!
Regards David Preece
Blue- Owl
[quote][p][bold]Blurby Monster[/bold] wrote: No comments. Money talks though, you better bet your life on it. Annyone you know seem a bit more flush with cash than usual, for no clear reason???[/p][/quote]Obviously, you are making veiled comment, as to backhanders, brown envelopes!!!. But, this does not happen, it may well have many many years ago, in the past, but again that is only conjecture, and Speculation!! As I've said before, anyone who has Actual proof, and I mean proof that will stand up to Scrutiny, and Police investigation. I will follow it up, and take it to the Authorities.....So, please do not make Scurrilous Accusations without the Facts to back it up!! Regards David Preece Blue- Owl Blue Owl

9:32am Wed 16 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

What has to be remembered is that what ever Planning Application is Submitted to SDC, it is the Planning Officers, that make the Contact between the Applicant and his Agent, then Planning Guidence is given, by the Planning Dept, as to the Criteria & Planning Regs that are applicable in each individual case.
It is then the Planning Officer, gives their, again Professional Advice, to the Applicants Agent. As to whether they are for or Against, this application, will then ONLY Go to Commitee, if the Ward Councillor, or the BTC if inside Bridgwater Boundaries, are opposing to the Planning Officers.
Than it will either be with drawn for amendments, or will then go forward to the SDC Planning Panel, to discuss and vote on, the outcome is not PRE- determined, as many of you elude it to be @ this Stage.!!!

Regards David Preece
Ex Member SDC Planning Commitee
Blue-Owl
What has to be remembered is that what ever Planning Application is Submitted to SDC, it is the Planning Officers, that make the Contact between the Applicant and his Agent, then Planning Guidence is given, by the Planning Dept, as to the Criteria & Planning Regs that are applicable in each individual case. It is then the Planning Officer, gives their, again Professional Advice, to the Applicants Agent. As to whether they are for or Against, this application, will then ONLY Go to Commitee, if the Ward Councillor, or the BTC if inside Bridgwater Boundaries, are opposing to the Planning Officers. Than it will either be with drawn for amendments, or will then go forward to the SDC Planning Panel, to discuss and vote on, the outcome is not PRE- determined, as many of you elude it to be @ this Stage.!!! Regards David Preece Ex Member SDC Planning Commitee Blue-Owl Blue Owl

9:47am Wed 16 Jan 13

noleaders says...

All people who opposse this application should today get on to thier councellors and demand action on the permission given to build a road on the fairfield. It was given to us by a family called Allen and the grand children of this family maaintain the covenant stands..This may be dealt wioth by an insurance company but is it legal.Also the ombudsman has been consulted as to if the core strategy document is legal.If it isnt I wonder if the bits of it used to pass this premature application are legal? People please get ringing your councellors. Also ask them to tell you how they voted at the development cointrol meeting if they were there.You can also ring the developer and politely explain that as a resident you dont want them building on greenfield or the fairfield. To them this is just one site but its not good publicity for thier company...some people might see them taking the faitfield as stealing although Im not sure if it is technically..are our represetatives just giving it away? Also; once land has been gifted to sedgemoor for Meads project it will be given to a third party to maintain..probably Bridgwater college..will this land be legally gifted to them? More of our land given away? lets try really hard to get this company to back out, legally and politely..Do they want the ditinction of being the company who people feel stole part of the fairfield from us? Fight back people..get on the phone.
All people who opposse this application should today get on to thier councellors and demand action on the permission given to build a road on the fairfield. It was given to us by a family called Allen and the grand children of this family maaintain the covenant stands..This may be dealt wioth by an insurance company but is it legal.Also the ombudsman has been consulted as to if the core strategy document is legal.If it isnt I wonder if the bits of it used to pass this premature application are legal? People please get ringing your councellors. Also ask them to tell you how they voted at the development cointrol meeting if they were there.You can also ring the developer and politely explain that as a resident you dont want them building on greenfield or the fairfield. To them this is just one site but its not good publicity for thier company...some people might see them taking the faitfield as stealing although Im not sure if it is technically..are our represetatives just giving it away? Also; once land has been gifted to sedgemoor for Meads project it will be given to a third party to maintain..probably Bridgwater college..will this land be legally gifted to them? More of our land given away? lets try really hard to get this company to back out, legally and politely..Do they want the ditinction of being the company who people feel stole part of the fairfield from us? Fight back people..get on the phone. noleaders

9:52am Wed 16 Jan 13

19th hole says...

I too was at the same presentation as grisley and we raised the question of a pact between the eko park and housing we were informed quite firmlly by the presenters this would not happen
Isuppose it will be named as LAKESIDE VILLAS AND A DINGEY SUPPLIED WITH EACH SALE the outcome of all this is disaster for the local community west street will become grid locked
I too was at the same presentation as grisley and we raised the question of a pact between the eko park and housing we were informed quite firmlly by the presenters this would not happen Isuppose it will be named as LAKESIDE VILLAS AND A DINGEY SUPPLIED WITH EACH SALE the outcome of all this is disaster for the local community west street will become grid locked 19th hole

9:57am Wed 16 Jan 13

djr86 says...

Disgusting.

I don't know how such a decision can be made when the local community's feelings towards the project are so clear.

It's very easy to become disillutioned with it all.
Disgusting. I don't know how such a decision can be made when the local community's feelings towards the project are so clear. It's very easy to become disillutioned with it all. djr86

10:15am Wed 16 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Wonder if we can get the application called in or a judicial review of the core strategy document being used when it may not be legal in parts..Dont get disillusioned..Do something..
Wonder if we can get the application called in or a judicial review of the core strategy document being used when it may not be legal in parts..Dont get disillusioned..Do something.. noleaders

10:19am Wed 16 Jan 13

grisleyreg says...

Perhaps the councillors who voted for this would like to come out into the open and name themselves , however I suspect the yellow streak will take over and they will hide behind anonymity.
If any Bridgwater elected councillors are involved this will hopefully be remember at the next elections.
Perhaps the councillors who voted for this would like to come out into the open and name themselves , however I suspect the yellow streak will take over and they will hide behind anonymity. If any Bridgwater elected councillors are involved this will hopefully be remember at the next elections. grisleyreg

10:39am Wed 16 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Perhaps councellors who voted aghainst it will self name then we can draw our conclusions about the rest. Apparantly planning permission can be revoked legally in certain circumstances.we could also ask for judicial review..Any rersidents willing to start the ball rolling or engage..
Perhaps councellors who voted aghainst it will self name then we can draw our conclusions about the rest. Apparantly planning permission can be revoked legally in certain circumstances.we could also ask for judicial review..Any rersidents willing to start the ball rolling or engage.. noleaders

11:00am Wed 16 Jan 13

Waterway says...

noleaders wrote:
Perhaps councellors who voted aghainst it will self name then we can draw our conclusions about the rest. Apparantly planning permission can be revoked legally in certain circumstances.we could also ask for judicial review..Any rersidents willing to start the ball rolling or engage..
Really no point, Planners will do whatever they like and don't listen to the public anymore. How many consultations have we had in this town where residents are clearly opposed to more housing, more supermarkets yet the Planners are driven by more development which generates more revenue for Sedgemoor. Until they separate planning from the wider economic plan they have conjured up they will continue to build yet more houses and we as residents will continue to have no say in the matter. Said it before and will say it again, Sedgemoor seem not to understand the democratic process.
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: Perhaps councellors who voted aghainst it will self name then we can draw our conclusions about the rest. Apparantly planning permission can be revoked legally in certain circumstances.we could also ask for judicial review..Any rersidents willing to start the ball rolling or engage..[/p][/quote]Really no point, Planners will do whatever they like and don't listen to the public anymore. How many consultations have we had in this town where residents are clearly opposed to more housing, more supermarkets yet the Planners are driven by more development which generates more revenue for Sedgemoor. Until they separate planning from the wider economic plan they have conjured up they will continue to build yet more houses and we as residents will continue to have no say in the matter. Said it before and will say it again, Sedgemoor seem not to understand the democratic process. Waterway

1:25pm Wed 16 Jan 13

No but seriously says...

i wonder where the millions of gallons of flood water is to pumped, every Year, i suppose the Parret, more flooding for the levels or even Bridgwater, Hmm, dont sound water tight to me.Ah perhaps to alliviate the traffic problem, we could all have boats, to travel in.
i wonder where the millions of gallons of flood water is to pumped, every Year, i suppose the Parret, more flooding for the levels or even Bridgwater, Hmm, dont sound water tight to me.Ah perhaps to alliviate the traffic problem, we could all have boats, to travel in. No but seriously

3:19pm Wed 16 Jan 13

MartinB58 says...

Another example of SDC planning officers & committee seemingly wanting to turn Sedgemoor into a concrete wilderness with total disregard for what local people think. Only one way to (possibly) change things and thats to vote the current council out when elections next come round.
Another example of SDC planning officers & committee seemingly wanting to turn Sedgemoor into a concrete wilderness with total disregard for what local people think. Only one way to (possibly) change things and thats to vote the current council out when elections next come round. MartinB58

7:57pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Bridgy old Boy says...

As Kerry Rickards once told the much derided (by Blue owl anyway) Bridgwater Forward Group "the Developer is king"!
As Kerry Rickards once told the much derided (by Blue owl anyway) Bridgwater Forward Group "the Developer is king"! Bridgy old Boy

8:22pm Wed 16 Jan 13

MBR Extreme says...

Somewhere to park for free when the fairs on. ;)
Somewhere to park for free when the fairs on. ;) MBR Extreme

9:20am Thu 17 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Waterway wrote:
This has to be worst decision ever made by the Planners at Sedgemoor Council. I don't entirely blame the elected representatives, but I do take issue with the advice they seemingly receive from their own Planning Officers who support ALMOST EVERY large housing development which appears on their desks. Can anyone remember the last large housing development which was recommended for refusal by the Planning Officers at Sedgemoor? This latest planning fiasco seriously damages the credibility of the Planning Officers and Sedgemoor District Council. Developers must see the Planners at Sedgemoor as a bit of a 'soft touch', rather than accept an offer of £300k towards developing the Eco park and other small works, the Planners should have taken a much more proactive approach to ensure the Developer made a significant contribution to the highway infrastructure which will now be tested to the limit as a result of the decision to allow them to build yet more homes. I couldn't see Taunton Deane Council allowing any Developer to get away with contributing such a pathetic amount. I question why we have elected representatives if the paid Officers are the real decision makers,
The Post you wrote, " you could'nt believe that Cllrs or Officers on Taunton Deane would'nt allow the Planning Applications, that Sedgemoor approve". well, I can tell you that people living in Taunton Deane, who r indeed Councillors, wish that their Officers did actually, consider as a possibility, these Major Businesses and Companies into their area, down @ Taunton. They are so so Jeleous of the New Businesses that we in Sedgemoor, have attracted in the last 10 years, with the start, being the J24 Agricultural Centre, @ Huntworth, I remember well @ the time SCC Highways & Taunton County Planners making every effort to try to put this on the back burner, so that they in Taunton, would be able to get their alternative scheme @ Wellington off the Drawing Board.
I say, Well Done to the then Leader of SDC, Cllr John Lang and the Exec. Members, for persevering to enable this successful Centre to be here in Sedgemoor, now all we want, is SCC to do the Highway improvements, that were part of the conditions associated with the Site, Only 5-6 years late!!!
Regards Blue -Owl aka DavidL Preece
[quote][p][bold]Waterway[/bold] wrote: This has to be worst decision ever made by the Planners at Sedgemoor Council. I don't entirely blame the elected representatives, but I do take issue with the advice they seemingly receive from their own Planning Officers who support ALMOST EVERY large housing development which appears on their desks. Can anyone remember the last large housing development which was recommended for refusal by the Planning Officers at Sedgemoor? This latest planning fiasco seriously damages the credibility of the Planning Officers and Sedgemoor District Council. Developers must see the Planners at Sedgemoor as a bit of a 'soft touch', rather than accept an offer of £300k towards developing the Eco park and other small works, the Planners should have taken a much more proactive approach to ensure the Developer made a significant contribution to the highway infrastructure which will now be tested to the limit as a result of the decision to allow them to build yet more homes. I couldn't see Taunton Deane Council allowing any Developer to get away with contributing such a pathetic amount. I question why we have elected representatives if the paid Officers are the real decision makers,[/p][/quote]The Post you wrote, " you could'nt believe that Cllrs or Officers on Taunton Deane would'nt allow the Planning Applications, that Sedgemoor approve". well, I can tell you that people living in Taunton Deane, who r indeed Councillors, wish that their Officers did actually, consider as a possibility, these Major Businesses and Companies into their area, down @ Taunton. They are so so Jeleous of the New Businesses that we in Sedgemoor, have attracted in the last 10 years, with the start, being the J24 Agricultural Centre, @ Huntworth, I remember well @ the time SCC Highways & Taunton County Planners making every effort to try to put this on the back burner, so that they in Taunton, would be able to get their alternative scheme @ Wellington off the Drawing Board. I say, Well Done to the then Leader of SDC, Cllr John Lang and the Exec. Members, for persevering to enable this successful Centre to be here in Sedgemoor, now all we want, is SCC to do the Highway improvements, that were part of the conditions associated with the Site, Only 5-6 years late!!! Regards Blue -Owl aka DavidL Preece Blue Owl

9:34am Thu 17 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

It is Unfortunatly, not the fault of local Planning Officers, as to the number of houses, being built now, all over the Country, let alone here in Sedgemoor, or down the rd in Taunton. There is according to National Statistics a Nation Wide Housing shortage, we were told a number of years ago ,within last 5 years, can't exactly remember when, that we in Sedgemoor, had to Plan for and have 7000, new homes built, upto 2020.
I' pleased to say that when the Conservatives, took over Number 10-11 Downing St, with our current Lib -Dem Partner in Govnment. these numbers were reduced a little.
With a Policy directive, that Brown Field Development should be brought forward first. Thats why Cockerhurst Farm Housing Dev, was shelved as not within Planning Guidelines. I was still on the SDC Planning Commitee as it was then, and it made the decisions to approve or refuse, much clearer.
Brown Field Developement First, and we still have plenty of Sites Available in the Sedgemoor District.
Regards Blue-Owl
Aka- David L Preece
It is Unfortunatly, not the fault of local Planning Officers, as to the number of houses, being built now, all over the Country, let alone here in Sedgemoor, or down the rd in Taunton. There is according to National Statistics a Nation Wide Housing shortage, we were told a number of years ago ,within last 5 years, can't exactly remember when, that we in Sedgemoor, had to Plan for and have 7000, new homes built, upto 2020. I' pleased to say that when the Conservatives, took over Number 10-11 Downing St, with our current Lib -Dem Partner in Govnment. these numbers were reduced a little. With a Policy directive, that Brown Field Development should be brought forward first. Thats why Cockerhurst Farm Housing Dev, was shelved as not within Planning Guidelines. I was still on the SDC Planning Commitee as it was then, and it made the decisions to approve or refuse, much clearer. Brown Field Developement First, and we still have plenty of Sites Available in the Sedgemoor District. Regards Blue-Owl Aka- David L Preece Blue Owl

10:39am Thu 17 Jan 13

noleaders says...

I dont agree that the cattle market is a good idea, you cant take these things in isolation; Cattle breeding creates greenhouse gases ..also some of us non meat eaters just see places like that as hell holes that oppresss animals..People like Derek mead who is responsible for the cattle market and development in highbridge etc are part of ,as I see it a larger problem;Mead is a dairy farmer/developer..pe
ople like this often use dairy herds to service land debt, they buy land thats agricultural and put cattle on it but in the long trem they want to get change of use to develop it..so everything they do is geared to development of green field sites at some point..in the meantime people like Mead are demonising badgers who they want off the land they hope to build on..In my opinion people like this are behind the destruction of our countryside..Take the recent application to build at cokerhurst farm, the application was from a big american company who were working with little local developer..by working with them presumably they wanted the application to look less like a big multi national company destoying our enviroment..the app went to the planning inspector and was thrown out..but I hear that another developer has already approached the counci..with the new nppf planning framework the govt will now let developers bribe residents with cash incentives to sell our Heritage. No party ,inc Labour or anyone else has pledged to over turn this legislation to protect the enviroment from rapist developers.I dont agree there is nothing wee can do..I appreciate it is all probably corrupt but if any new party or existing one was to tackle this issue of land grabbing by developers I
reckon they would get votes..remember the 38 degrees vote to save the forests from sale..people dp
o care about this..just, it seems few local councellors..
I dont agree that the cattle market is a good idea, you cant take these things in isolation; Cattle breeding creates greenhouse gases [16 per cent of total I think]..also some of us non meat eaters just see places like that as hell holes that oppresss animals..People like Derek mead who is responsible for the cattle market and development in highbridge etc are part of ,as I see it a larger problem;Mead is a dairy farmer/developer..pe ople like this often use dairy herds to service land debt, they buy land thats agricultural and put cattle on it but in the long trem they want to get change of use to develop it..so everything they do is geared to development of green field sites at some point..in the meantime people like Mead are demonising badgers who they want off the land they hope to build on..In my opinion people like this are behind the destruction of our countryside..Take the recent application to build at cokerhurst farm, the application was from a big american company who were working with little local [devon] developer..by working with them presumably they wanted the application to look less like a big multi national company destoying our enviroment..the app went to the planning inspector and was thrown out..but I hear that another developer has already approached the counci..with the new nppf planning framework the govt will now let developers bribe residents with cash incentives to sell our Heritage. No party ,inc Labour or anyone else has pledged to over turn this legislation to protect the enviroment from rapist developers.I dont agree there is nothing wee can do..I appreciate it is all probably corrupt but if any new party or existing one was to tackle this issue of land grabbing by developers I reckon they would get votes..remember the 38 degrees vote to save the forests from sale..people dp o care about this..just, it seems few local councellors.. noleaders

3:03pm Thu 17 Jan 13

jimee says...

How about some of the other places getting a share of the house building like highbridge on that derelict old pub there or in the town where its falling down
How about some of the other places getting a share of the house building like highbridge on that derelict old pub there or in the town where its falling down jimee

6:36pm Thu 17 Jan 13

the voice of common sense says...

Come on then summerfield developers put your money where your mouths are and build the eco park and the affordable houses first so that you can't crawl out of your agreements (like many other developers have been allowed to by SDC in the past) by claiming that you don't have the money to carry out your promises and just build more "executive style" homes like you really want to.
Come on then summerfield developers put your money where your mouths are and build the eco park and the affordable houses first so that you can't crawl out of your agreements (like many other developers have been allowed to by SDC in the past) by claiming that you don't have the money to carry out your promises and just build more "executive style" homes like you really want to. the voice of common sense

9:20pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Silverbirch says...

the voice of common sense wrote:
Come on then summerfield developers put your money where your mouths are and build the eco park and the affordable houses first so that you can't crawl out of your agreements (like many other developers have been allowed to by SDC in the past) by claiming that you don't have the money to carry out your promises and just build more "executive style" homes like you really want to.
Good point. They should get the ecopark established and open before they lay the first brick on the housing development.
[quote][p][bold]the voice of common sense[/bold] wrote: Come on then summerfield developers put your money where your mouths are and build the eco park and the affordable houses first so that you can't crawl out of your agreements (like many other developers have been allowed to by SDC in the past) by claiming that you don't have the money to carry out your promises and just build more "executive style" homes like you really want to.[/p][/quote]Good point. They should get the ecopark established and open before they lay the first brick on the housing development. Silverbirch

11:25pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Waterway says...

This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?
This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge? Waterway

12:28am Fri 18 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Waterway wrote:
This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?
Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!!
So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary.
Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election.
It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising.
Blue -Owl Regards.
PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,
[quote][p][bold]Waterway[/bold] wrote: This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?[/p][/quote]Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!! So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary. Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election. It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising. Blue -Owl Regards. PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts, Blue Owl

12:42am Fri 18 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

I forgot to mention, that I was Self-Employed when as an Elected Councillor, so no I did'nt get paid any wages from a company, if I was'nt working selling wine , then I was'nt earning. Many Councillors run their own Businesses, claim nothing back as expenses for out of pocket costs. as they realise the financial restraints that Councils are under. Although, perfectly entitled to.
We also have refused pay increases over the 8 yrs , I was a Cllr, also voted against having pension rights, as this would only have added to to finances burdon of SDC.So, if you are on say £25-30 K a year, and your Employer will pay you to attend to a Councillors Duties, put your name down, for a Main Party, or as suggest, as an Independant, I wish you all the best. You will really know then, the score.
Regards David Preece Blue -Owl
I forgot to mention, that I was Self-Employed when as an Elected Councillor, so no I did'nt get paid any wages from a company, if I was'nt working selling wine , then I was'nt earning. Many Councillors run their own Businesses, claim nothing back as expenses for out of pocket costs. as they realise the financial restraints that Councils are under. Although, perfectly entitled to. We also have refused pay increases over the 8 yrs , I was a Cllr, also voted against having pension rights, as this would only have added to to finances burdon of SDC.So, if you are on say £25-30 K a year, and your Employer will pay you to attend to a Councillors Duties, put your name down, for a Main Party, or as suggest, as an Independant, I wish you all the best. You will really know then, the score. Regards David Preece Blue -Owl Blue Owl

2:15pm Fri 18 Jan 13

windswept and interesting says...

Blue Owl wrote:
Waterway wrote:
This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?
Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!!
So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary.
Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election.
It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising.
Blue -Owl Regards.
PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,
Well I for one won't be putting my name forward as I'd have to deal with people like you who are NEVER wrong !
[quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waterway[/bold] wrote: This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?[/p][/quote]Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!! So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary. Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election. It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising. Blue -Owl Regards. PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,[/p][/quote]Well I for one won't be putting my name forward as I'd have to deal with people like you who are NEVER wrong ! windswept and interesting

2:21pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

Blue Owl wrote:
Waterway wrote:
This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?
Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!!
So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary.
Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election.
It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising.
Blue -Owl Regards.
PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,
That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism.

If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies.
[quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waterway[/bold] wrote: This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?[/p][/quote]Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!! So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary. Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election. It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising. Blue -Owl Regards. PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,[/p][/quote]That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism. If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies. Samej1

9:54pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Samej1 wrote:
Blue Owl wrote:
Waterway wrote:
This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?
Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!!
So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary.
Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election.
It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising.
Blue -Owl Regards.
PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,
That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism.

If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies.
Sameji No your assumption is incorrect, it isn't if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen! The person that I was responding to was, the Post said more people should possibly stand as an Independant Cllr.
The fact is, I was making was more people should indeed stand, try to get elected, with enough support, from the Electorate . My point was, it's easy to let others make the effort and Do!, whilst, others do nothing ,but, criticise.
Only, a fool stands for a role of Councillor, without understanding the Commitment it takes. I can assure you I'm no fool.
Regards Blue-Owl
[quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waterway[/bold] wrote: This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?[/p][/quote]Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!! So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary. Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election. It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising. Blue -Owl Regards. PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,[/p][/quote]That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism. If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies.[/p][/quote]Sameji No your assumption is incorrect, it isn't if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen! The person that I was responding to was, the Post said more people should possibly stand as an Independant Cllr. The fact is, I was making was more people should indeed stand, try to get elected, with enough support, from the Electorate . My point was, it's easy to let others make the effort and Do!, whilst, others do nothing ,but, criticise. Only, a fool stands for a role of Councillor, without understanding the Commitment it takes. I can assure you I'm no fool. Regards Blue-Owl Blue Owl

7:47am Sat 19 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

Blue Owl wrote:
Samej1 wrote:
Blue Owl wrote:
Waterway wrote:
This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?
Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!!
So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary.
Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election.
It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising.
Blue -Owl Regards.
PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,
That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism.

If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies.
Sameji No your assumption is incorrect, it isn't if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen! The person that I was responding to was, the Post said more people should possibly stand as an Independant Cllr.
The fact is, I was making was more people should indeed stand, try to get elected, with enough support, from the Electorate . My point was, it's easy to let others make the effort and Do!, whilst, others do nothing ,but, criticise.
Only, a fool stands for a role of Councillor, without understanding the Commitment it takes. I can assure you I'm no fool.
Regards Blue-Owl
Sorry I don't feel I can engage with you any more, your posts (to me) seem to be full of contradiction - not to mention the difficulty reading your prose.
All the best.
[quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waterway[/bold] wrote: This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?[/p][/quote]Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!! So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary. Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election. It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising. Blue -Owl Regards. PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,[/p][/quote]That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism. If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies.[/p][/quote]Sameji No your assumption is incorrect, it isn't if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen! The person that I was responding to was, the Post said more people should possibly stand as an Independant Cllr. The fact is, I was making was more people should indeed stand, try to get elected, with enough support, from the Electorate . My point was, it's easy to let others make the effort and Do!, whilst, others do nothing ,but, criticise. Only, a fool stands for a role of Councillor, without understanding the Commitment it takes. I can assure you I'm no fool. Regards Blue-Owl[/p][/quote]Sorry I don't feel I can engage with you any more, your posts (to me) seem to be full of contradiction - not to mention the difficulty reading your prose. All the best. Samej1

10:46am Sat 19 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Samej1 wrote:
Blue Owl wrote:
Samej1 wrote:
Blue Owl wrote:
Waterway wrote:
This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?
Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!!
So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary.
Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election.
It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising.
Blue -Owl Regards.
PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,
That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism.

If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies.
Sameji No your assumption is incorrect, it isn't if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen! The person that I was responding to was, the Post said more people should possibly stand as an Independant Cllr.
The fact is, I was making was more people should indeed stand, try to get elected, with enough support, from the Electorate . My point was, it's easy to let others make the effort and Do!, whilst, others do nothing ,but, criticise.
Only, a fool stands for a role of Councillor, without understanding the Commitment it takes. I can assure you I'm no fool.
Regards Blue-Owl
Sorry I don't feel I can engage with you any more, your posts (to me) seem to be full of contradiction - not to mention the difficulty reading your prose.
All the best.
This is the point, I was attempting to get across, one cannot, just dismiss someone, and walk away, just because, you feel the person of whom you are trying to help, with whatever the potential problem might be that He or She might have contacted you about, as an Elected Councillor. Likewise, if as, stated by Windswept & Interesting, Posting....
My intention is not through this Forum to deliberately alienate others, but, I do feel that, comments are made without the insight and actual knowledge, to back up what points are being made.
I could myself take exception to the Post " That said, I was never wrong, of course, I am @ times, but I will always express my Personal belief of a situation, and if I am misinformed, and wrong, have always Apologised. It takes a greater person to admit they are in the wrong. I'm sorry, if some of you do not like what I post, for whatever reason, but, in this Forum, I like the rest who part- take of this Medium to get things of their chest into Word's, to express personal beliefs, must also as I do, expect frosty responses. That is what I call Debate and Freedom to express ones thoughts.
Without the Mercury,s Editor and the Censors, stifling debate, by cutting the Forum Posts as they were a little while ago.
As this is the only Forum, they at present allow, apart from Facebook etc.
The Mercury Editor ask' & Requests us the reader to contribute to the actual PostBag Column in the Hardcopy paper, But, rarely there is more than one letter, I'm sure there are many who write to the Editor, for this section, but unless you are writing some thing that is none controversy ,it will not make the print room .!
Regards Blue-Owl
[quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waterway[/bold] wrote: This issue seems to have polarised the views of the local community and proves there are strong feelings opposed to the councils desire to build more homes. Agree with almost all the views expressed but what's the point of moaning and doing nothing proactive. This issues is clearly a vote winner and the political parties of all persuasions had better take note - half a dozen new Independent Councillors on Sedgemoor council at the next elections could democratically challenge the council policy on responsible development. Any budding new Councillors willing to take on a challenge?[/p][/quote]Do you honestly think that those, who are shouting and posting their Comments, would actually, put them selves forward and stand for Election, I would love to see them, commit their time for the good of the Community and Others.!! No it's so much easier to criticise from Behind an Pseudonym name. None of the existing or past District Councillors of whichever Party, are there for their own good or Personal Gain. For the Small Retainer a month, does'nt cover the Hours, spent dealing with Ward Residents queries, who think that as an Elected Cllr, you are there 24/ 7, to deal with their problems, then there is the Commitee Meetings , Parish/town Council Meetings, Planning , Scrutiny, Finance, Full Council, then other Group meetings, Training, Diversity Training, etc. the hours go on!! So come on all of you who think being a Councillor is a snip of a Job, see if you Boss will allow you the time off work to attend to the Daytime agenda meetings. then when you want to have an evening to go somewhere with your Wife or family ,you cannot as you have to attend a seminar, or an evening Meeting scheduled in the Diary. Only less than a third of the Electorate bother to go and cast a Vote, @ an Election. It's Far easier to let others Do, whilst standing back and Criticising. Blue -Owl Regards. PS. Now see the replies flood in, I shall be swamped, but not with residents, who are willing and ready to take up the Challenge, of standing for SDC / BTC Elections!!!But with all of you who just want to get at my Posts because the truth hurts,[/p][/quote]That old chestnut? People stand, or should do, to REPRESENT the electorate (and those amongst it who are vulnerable and cannot make their voices heard) - it's not a ***** waving exercise of 'I'm a councillor so I care more than you', that smacks of elitism. If you stand and are elected without understanding the role, the phrase 'if you can't stand the heat....etc' applies.[/p][/quote]Sameji No your assumption is incorrect, it isn't if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen! The person that I was responding to was, the Post said more people should possibly stand as an Independant Cllr. The fact is, I was making was more people should indeed stand, try to get elected, with enough support, from the Electorate . My point was, it's easy to let others make the effort and Do!, whilst, others do nothing ,but, criticise. Only, a fool stands for a role of Councillor, without understanding the Commitment it takes. I can assure you I'm no fool. Regards Blue-Owl[/p][/quote]Sorry I don't feel I can engage with you any more, your posts (to me) seem to be full of contradiction - not to mention the difficulty reading your prose. All the best.[/p][/quote]This is the point, I was attempting to get across, one cannot, just dismiss someone, and walk away, just because, you feel the person of whom you are trying to help, with whatever the potential problem might be that He or She might have contacted you about, as an Elected Councillor. Likewise, if as, stated by Windswept & Interesting, Posting.... My intention is not through this Forum to deliberately alienate others, but, I do feel that, comments are made without the insight and actual knowledge, to back up what points are being made. I could myself take exception to the Post " That said, I was never wrong, of course, I am @ times, but I will always express my Personal belief of a situation, and if I am misinformed, and wrong, have always Apologised. It takes a greater person to admit they are in the wrong. I'm sorry, if some of you do not like what I post, for whatever reason, but, in this Forum, I like the rest who part- take of this Medium to get things of their chest into Word's, to express personal beliefs, must also as I do, expect frosty responses. That is what I call Debate and Freedom to express ones thoughts. Without the Mercury,s Editor and the Censors, stifling debate, by cutting the Forum Posts as they were a little while ago. As this is the only Forum, they at present allow, apart from Facebook etc. The Mercury Editor ask' & Requests us the reader to contribute to the actual PostBag Column in the Hardcopy paper, But, rarely there is more than one letter, I'm sure there are many who write to the Editor, for this section, but unless you are writing some thing that is none controversy ,it will not make the print room .! Regards Blue-Owl Blue Owl

3:19pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Silverbirch says...

Can we please return to the topic, namely the shocking plan to ruin the fair field and surrounding area.
Can we please return to the topic, namely the shocking plan to ruin the fair field and surrounding area. Silverbirch

7:03pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Silverbirch wrote:
Can we please return to the topic, namely the shocking plan to ruin the fair field and surrounding area.
Don't you realise, it is too late, the decision, has been made. Unless you want to challenge the outcome. But, as I've tried to explain, one has to challenge on Planning Grounds, not on personal feelings.
Blue- Owl.
[quote][p][bold]Silverbirch[/bold] wrote: Can we please return to the topic, namely the shocking plan to ruin the fair field and surrounding area.[/p][/quote]Don't you realise, it is too late, the decision, has been made. Unless you want to challenge the outcome. But, as I've tried to explain, one has to challenge on Planning Grounds, not on personal feelings. Blue- Owl. Blue Owl

12:18pm Mon 21 Jan 13

fegmaniac says...

When do the houses go on sale? I have always fancied living in Durleigh and this looks like it will be a lovely area to move to. Bring it on.....
When do the houses go on sale? I have always fancied living in Durleigh and this looks like it will be a lovely area to move to. Bring it on..... fegmaniac

1:19pm Mon 21 Jan 13

MBR Extreme says...

Yes all the Wayne and Waynettas with their 10 kids ,living off benefits in housing association properties can now afford to live up durleigh, which means they can walk around with there noses in the air whilst smoking roll Ups.
Yes all the Wayne and Waynettas with their 10 kids ,living off benefits in housing association properties can now afford to live up durleigh, which means they can walk around with there noses in the air whilst smoking roll Ups. MBR Extreme

1:58pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Hombre says...

Reading the text of the article, this has only been "recommended for approval by a planning officer".
Looking at the SDC planning site, nothing has been decided!
Complain to the following (again from SDC web site)...

The committee comprises of the following:

Councillor Bob Filmer (Chairman)
Councillor Dennis Davey (Deputy Chairman)
Councillor Derek Alder
Councillor Alan Bradford
Councillor Peter Downing
Councillor Tony Grimes
Councillor Dawn Hill
Councillor Neville Jones
Councillor Mike Caswell
Councillor Ken Smout
Councillor Dave Loveridge
Councillor Alex Glassford
Councillor Ken Richards
Councillor Graham Granter
Councillor Mike Mansfield
Reading the text of the article, this has only been "recommended for approval by a planning officer". Looking at the SDC planning site, nothing has been decided! Complain to the following (again from SDC web site)... The committee comprises of the following: Councillor Bob Filmer (Chairman) Councillor Dennis Davey (Deputy Chairman) Councillor Derek Alder Councillor Alan Bradford Councillor Peter Downing Councillor Tony Grimes Councillor Dawn Hill Councillor Neville Jones Councillor Mike Caswell Councillor Ken Smout Councillor Dave Loveridge Councillor Alex Glassford Councillor Ken Richards Councillor Graham Granter Councillor Mike Mansfield Hombre

2:46pm Mon 21 Jan 13

noleaders says...

There were nine votes for building and four against on tuesday at the development control meeting. Some of us have already stood for election, in my case once as a green candidate and as an independent more recently and even though not elected at that point we still turn up at planning enquiries and council meetings to try to make a difference, but its hard because there aree so many hidden agendas. Take the meads; I dont believe the project was concieved to facilitate public access, in my opinion it was concieved as a roundabout way to let development into the area..allowing the public to continue using the flooded fields we alresdy use makes littlt difference..its the wildlife who will suffer as hsabitat is destroyed and Durliegh brook polluted, harming otters and water voles. Alkso have you noticed how whenever someone has an iffy scheme residents dont want the pupils at Penrose are hijacked as a political football..This time were being told the meads will improve access for penrose pupils..surely the council could havce done that anyway without developers profitting or our Heritage being given to developers. Its like the Haygrove debacle..councillors
, including David Loverage wanted it to go right out of town up to Skimmerton lane..ruining greenfield and making penrose pup[ils trek right out of the town boundry to get to school...Now when I hear someone mention Penrose I wonderr what they are going to be used to justify this time..its an old political trick.,. choose a fluffy subject that no one in thier right mind would be seen to oppose, then exploit it to use for dodgy ends. We already have access to the Meads and the wildlife are fine currently..some of the excuses to build these houses include that they would provide surviellence of the meads, as if the townspeople cant be trusted to walk through the fields and as if people in the new houses couldnt be criminals because they live there..all criminals l,ive somewhere, mostly in houses..often theyre mps!..Also the comment from extreme is disengenous..Ive heard labour party people say that durliegh residents dont want to join up with hamp but this seems more like the labour party trying to stir up an argument that doesnt exist by trying to bring classwar into the mix..as a working class persomn nyself Id say I dont want it built on nbecause its greenfield nothing to do with hamp.
There were nine votes for building and four against on tuesday at the development control meeting. Some of us have already stood for election, in my case once as a green candidate [in the 80s] and as an independent more recently and even though not elected at that point we still turn up at planning enquiries and council meetings to try to make a difference, but its hard because there aree so many hidden agendas. Take the meads; I dont believe the project was concieved to facilitate public access, in my opinion it was concieved as a roundabout way to let development into the area..allowing the public to continue using the flooded fields we alresdy use makes littlt difference..its the wildlife who will suffer as hsabitat is destroyed and Durliegh brook polluted, harming otters and water voles. Alkso have you noticed how whenever someone has an iffy scheme residents dont want the pupils at Penrose are hijacked as a political football..This time were being told the meads will improve access for penrose pupils..surely the council could havce done that anyway without developers profitting or our Heritage being given to developers. Its like the Haygrove debacle..councillors , including David Loverage wanted it to go right out of town up to Skimmerton lane..ruining greenfield and making penrose pup[ils trek right out of the town boundry to get to school...Now when I hear someone mention Penrose I wonderr what they are going to be used to justify this time..its an old political trick.,. choose a fluffy subject that no one in thier right mind would be seen to oppose, then exploit it to use for dodgy ends. We already have access to the Meads and the wildlife are fine currently..some of the excuses to build these houses include that they would provide surviellence of the meads, as if the townspeople cant be trusted to walk through the fields and as if people in the new houses couldnt be criminals because they live there..all criminals l,ive somewhere, mostly in houses..often theyre mps!..Also the comment from extreme is disengenous..Ive heard labour party people say that durliegh residents dont want to join up with hamp but this seems more like the labour party trying to stir up an argument that doesnt exist by trying to bring classwar into the mix..as a working class persomn nyself Id say I dont want it built on nbecause its greenfield nothing to do with hamp. noleaders

3:08pm Mon 21 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Also its never too late; To try to get a judicial review or to make your strong feelings politely felt to a developer..Summerfie
ld may not want thier name dragged through the mud as the building company who wrecked a covenant that has been about 600 years of Bridgwater people having free access to this lovely spot. Lets see some more of tghe Monmouth rebellion attitude..people dont sit there and let these bastards sell your Heritage...or give it away. Give your councellors the benefit of your opinion..thats what theyre allegedly there for and if theyre saying theyre just jupes of council officials you need to politely go after those too..I spent two days trying to have a diologue with Shaun Fleet but he was in meetings andf never got back to me in time before the d c meeting..therse people take your council tax and are allegedly there to represent you..
Also its never too late; To try to get a judicial review or to make your strong feelings politely felt to a developer..Summerfie ld may not want thier name dragged through the mud as the building company who wrecked a covenant that has been about 600 years of Bridgwater people having free access to this lovely spot. Lets see some more of tghe Monmouth rebellion attitude..people dont sit there and let these bastards sell your Heritage...or give it away. Give your councellors the benefit of your opinion..thats what theyre allegedly there for and if theyre saying theyre just jupes of council officials you need to politely go after those too..I spent two days trying to have a diologue with Shaun Fleet [council officer] but he was in meetings andf never got back to me in time before the d c meeting..therse people take your council tax and are allegedly there to represent you.. noleaders

5:13pm Mon 21 Jan 13

fegmaniac says...

MBR Extreme wrote:
Yes all the Wayne and Waynettas with their 10 kids ,living off benefits in housing association properties can now afford to live up durleigh, which means they can walk around with there noses in the air whilst smoking roll Ups.
Um yes good point. Maybe I will give it a miss then!!! :-)
[quote][p][bold]MBR Extreme[/bold] wrote: Yes all the Wayne and Waynettas with their 10 kids ,living off benefits in housing association properties can now afford to live up durleigh, which means they can walk around with there noses in the air whilst smoking roll Ups.[/p][/quote]Um yes good point. Maybe I will give it a miss then!!! :-) fegmaniac

9:18pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
Perhaps councellors who voted aghainst it will self name then we can draw our conclusions about the rest. Apparantly planning permission can be revoked legally in certain circumstances.we could also ask for judicial review..Any rersidents willing to start the ball rolling or engage..
No leader, Why don't you go for the Judicial review, Bob, as you are not an Elected Councillor, it will be a good learning Curb, it's all well posting these Comments, about revoking the decision, but remember, it has to be on
Legal Planning Terms.
Regards Blue-Owl.
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: Perhaps councellors who voted aghainst it will self name then we can draw our conclusions about the rest. Apparantly planning permission can be revoked legally in certain circumstances.we could also ask for judicial review..Any rersidents willing to start the ball rolling or engage..[/p][/quote]No leader, Why don't you go for the Judicial review, Bob, as you are not an Elected Councillor, it will be a good learning Curb, it's all well posting these Comments, about revoking the decision, but remember, it has to be on Legal Planning Terms. Regards Blue-Owl. Blue Owl

9:25pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
I dont agree that the cattle market is a good idea, you cant take these things in isolation; Cattle breeding creates greenhouse gases ..also some of us non meat eaters just see places like that as hell holes that oppresss animals..People like Derek mead who is responsible for the cattle market and development in highbridge etc are part of ,as I see it a larger problem;Mead is a dairy farmer/developer..pe

ople like this often use dairy herds to service land debt, they buy land thats agricultural and put cattle on it but in the long trem they want to get change of use to develop it..so everything they do is geared to development of green field sites at some point..in the meantime people like Mead are demonising badgers who they want off the land they hope to build on..In my opinion people like this are behind the destruction of our countryside..Take the recent application to build at cokerhurst farm, the application was from a big american company who were working with little local developer..by working with them presumably they wanted the application to look less like a big multi national company destoying our enviroment..the app went to the planning inspector and was thrown out..but I hear that another developer has already approached the counci..with the new nppf planning framework the govt will now let developers bribe residents with cash incentives to sell our Heritage. No party ,inc Labour or anyone else has pledged to over turn this legislation to protect the enviroment from rapist developers.I dont agree there is nothing wee can do..I appreciate it is all probably corrupt but if any new party or existing one was to tackle this issue of land grabbing by developers I
reckon they would get votes..remember the 38 degrees vote to save the forests from sale..people dp
o care about this..just, it seems few local councellors..
No leader, I have just read this Post, in my opinion you are leaving your self open to a Legal Suit, with some of your comments you make, and the references you make to Derek Mead& the Cattle Market, as you call it, which is the Agricultural Centre @ J24
Regards Blue -Owl
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: I dont agree that the cattle market is a good idea, you cant take these things in isolation; Cattle breeding creates greenhouse gases [16 per cent of total I think]..also some of us non meat eaters just see places like that as hell holes that oppresss animals..People like Derek mead who is responsible for the cattle market and development in highbridge etc are part of ,as I see it a larger problem;Mead is a dairy farmer/developer..pe ople like this often use dairy herds to service land debt, they buy land thats agricultural and put cattle on it but in the long trem they want to get change of use to develop it..so everything they do is geared to development of green field sites at some point..in the meantime people like Mead are demonising badgers who they want off the land they hope to build on..In my opinion people like this are behind the destruction of our countryside..Take the recent application to build at cokerhurst farm, the application was from a big american company who were working with little local [devon] developer..by working with them presumably they wanted the application to look less like a big multi national company destoying our enviroment..the app went to the planning inspector and was thrown out..but I hear that another developer has already approached the counci..with the new nppf planning framework the govt will now let developers bribe residents with cash incentives to sell our Heritage. No party ,inc Labour or anyone else has pledged to over turn this legislation to protect the enviroment from rapist developers.I dont agree there is nothing wee can do..I appreciate it is all probably corrupt but if any new party or existing one was to tackle this issue of land grabbing by developers I reckon they would get votes..remember the 38 degrees vote to save the forests from sale..people dp o care about this..just, it seems few local councellors..[/p][/quote]No leader, I have just read this Post, in my opinion you are leaving your self open to a Legal Suit, with some of your comments you make, and the references you make to Derek Mead& the Cattle Market, as you call it, which is the Agricultural Centre @ J24 Regards Blue -Owl Blue Owl

9:33pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
I dont agree that the cattle market is a good idea, you cant take these things in isolation; Cattle breeding creates greenhouse gases ..also some of us non meat eaters just see places like that as hell holes that oppresss animals..People like Derek mead who is responsible for the cattle market and development in highbridge etc are part of ,as I see it a larger problem;Mead is a dairy farmer/developer..pe

ople like this often use dairy herds to service land debt, they buy land thats agricultural and put cattle on it but in the long trem they want to get change of use to develop it..so everything they do is geared to development of green field sites at some point..in the meantime people like Mead are demonising badgers who they want off the land they hope to build on..In my opinion people like this are behind the destruction of our countryside..Take the recent application to build at cokerhurst farm, the application was from a big american company who were working with little local developer..by working with them presumably they wanted the application to look less like a big multi national company destoying our enviroment..the app went to the planning inspector and was thrown out..but I hear that another developer has already approached the counci..with the new nppf planning framework the govt will now let developers bribe residents with cash incentives to sell our Heritage. No party ,inc Labour or anyone else has pledged to over turn this legislation to protect the enviroment from rapist developers.I dont agree there is nothing wee can do..I appreciate it is all probably corrupt but if any new party or existing one was to tackle this issue of land grabbing by developers I
reckon they would get votes..remember the 38 degrees vote to save the forests from sale..people dp
o care about this..just, it seems few local councellors..
No leader, I have just read this Post, in my opinion you are leaving your self open to a Legal Suit, with some of your comments you make, and the references you make to Derek Mead& the Cattle Market, as you call it, which is the Agricultural Centre @ J24
Regards Blue -Owl
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: I dont agree that the cattle market is a good idea, you cant take these things in isolation; Cattle breeding creates greenhouse gases [16 per cent of total I think]..also some of us non meat eaters just see places like that as hell holes that oppresss animals..People like Derek mead who is responsible for the cattle market and development in highbridge etc are part of ,as I see it a larger problem;Mead is a dairy farmer/developer..pe ople like this often use dairy herds to service land debt, they buy land thats agricultural and put cattle on it but in the long trem they want to get change of use to develop it..so everything they do is geared to development of green field sites at some point..in the meantime people like Mead are demonising badgers who they want off the land they hope to build on..In my opinion people like this are behind the destruction of our countryside..Take the recent application to build at cokerhurst farm, the application was from a big american company who were working with little local [devon] developer..by working with them presumably they wanted the application to look less like a big multi national company destoying our enviroment..the app went to the planning inspector and was thrown out..but I hear that another developer has already approached the counci..with the new nppf planning framework the govt will now let developers bribe residents with cash incentives to sell our Heritage. No party ,inc Labour or anyone else has pledged to over turn this legislation to protect the enviroment from rapist developers.I dont agree there is nothing wee can do..I appreciate it is all probably corrupt but if any new party or existing one was to tackle this issue of land grabbing by developers I reckon they would get votes..remember the 38 degrees vote to save the forests from sale..people dp o care about this..just, it seems few local councellors..[/p][/quote]No leader, I have just read this Post, in my opinion you are leaving your self open to a Legal Suit, with some of your comments you make, and the references you make to Derek Mead& the Cattle Market, as you call it, which is the Agricultural Centre @ J24 Regards Blue -Owl Blue Owl

9:47pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Hombre wrote:
Reading the text of the article, this has only been "recommended for approval by a planning officer".
Looking at the SDC planning site, nothing has been decided!
Complain to the following (again from SDC web site)...

The committee comprises of the following:

Councillor Bob Filmer (Chairman)
Councillor Dennis Davey (Deputy Chairman)
Councillor Derek Alder
Councillor Alan Bradford
Councillor Peter Downing
Councillor Tony Grimes
Councillor Dawn Hill
Councillor Neville Jones
Councillor Mike Caswell
Councillor Ken Smout
Councillor Dave Loveridge
Councillor Alex Glassford
Councillor Ken Richards
Councillor Graham Granter
Councillor Mike Mansfield
Remember this report by the Mercury is a report on the Tuesdays Planning Meeting held on the day of Publication of the Mercury, hence on the Presses on Monday, so the report was stating that the recommendation of the Officers, was to approve @ The Actual Meeting that morning. The Commitee then would look at the Application b4 them. Then make their decision.
Regards Blue-Owl
[quote][p][bold]Hombre[/bold] wrote: Reading the text of the article, this has only been "recommended for approval by a planning officer". Looking at the SDC planning site, nothing has been decided! Complain to the following (again from SDC web site)... The committee comprises of the following: Councillor Bob Filmer (Chairman) Councillor Dennis Davey (Deputy Chairman) Councillor Derek Alder Councillor Alan Bradford Councillor Peter Downing Councillor Tony Grimes Councillor Dawn Hill Councillor Neville Jones Councillor Mike Caswell Councillor Ken Smout Councillor Dave Loveridge Councillor Alex Glassford Councillor Ken Richards Councillor Graham Granter Councillor Mike Mansfield[/p][/quote]Remember this report by the Mercury is a report on the Tuesdays Planning Meeting held on the day of Publication of the Mercury, hence on the Presses on Monday, so the report was stating that the recommendation of the Officers, was to approve @ The Actual Meeting that morning. The Commitee then would look at the Application b4 them. Then make their decision. Regards Blue-Owl Blue Owl

1:45pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Hombre says...

So to sum up, people are against these houses because they can.
If the go ahead was given by local Labour councillors would there be the same outcry?
I don't see how the road can be improved between the new development and the bottom of West Street.
So to sum up, people are against these houses because they can. If the go ahead was given by local Labour councillors would there be the same outcry? I don't see how the road can be improved between the new development and the bottom of West Street. Hombre

2:32pm Tue 22 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer.
Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer. noleaders

2:33pm Tue 22 Jan 13

noleaders says...

concerete typo
concerete typo noleaders

2:49pm Tue 22 Jan 13

jimeee says...

Why dont some of the other places get houses round here like axbridge or highbridge.
Why dont some of the other places get houses round here like axbridge or highbridge. jimeee

12:06am Wed 23 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

jimeee wrote:
Why dont some of the other places get houses round here like axbridge or highbridge.
They do, my colleague and Ex Cllr Paul Herbert brought £11 Million pounds worth of Social Housing to Bridgwater, that is the 300 homes being constructed, as we Post, by Yarlington Homes, on the Kingsmead Developement, by the Willow Man, on the Morrisons Site, adjacent land. we would not have had that if it had not been for his determination and hard work fighting for it, So noleader, you don't know what you are talking about, like the Bridgwater B Frward Group that you seem to associate your self to.jimee, we do.
Noleader, you state, that Quote " we do not need houses around here, you might not, but ask the people of Bridgwater, some 4000 residents, who are on the SDC Register, tat they don't have the right to a home..
You I'm afraid to say jump onto whatever band wagon is appropriate @ that time, no wonder you have stood fr Election so any times under so many Parties, ie who ever will have you as a Candidate, I wonder why you have never been elected. if you views are supported by so many, stand as an Independant o a clear mandate, then f the Electorate, like what you stand for, they will put a Big X in the Ballot Paper against your name.
[quote][p][bold]jimeee[/bold] wrote: Why dont some of the other places get houses round here like axbridge or highbridge.[/p][/quote]They do, my colleague and Ex Cllr Paul Herbert brought £11 Million pounds worth of Social Housing to Bridgwater, that is the 300 homes being constructed, as we Post, by Yarlington Homes, on the Kingsmead Developement, by the Willow Man, on the Morrisons Site, adjacent land. we would not have had that if it had not been for his determination and hard work fighting for it, So noleader, you don't know what you are talking about, like the Bridgwater B Frward Group that you seem to associate your self to.jimee, we do. Noleader, you state, that Quote " we do not need houses around here, you might not, but ask the people of Bridgwater, some 4000 residents, who are on the SDC Register, tat they don't have the right to a home.. You I'm afraid to say jump onto whatever band wagon is appropriate @ that time, no wonder you have stood fr Election so any times under so many Parties, ie who ever will have you as a Candidate, I wonder why you have never been elected. if you views are supported by so many, stand as an Independant o a clear mandate, then f the Electorate, like what you stand for, they will put a Big X in the Ballot Paper against your name. Blue Owl

12:27am Wed 23 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer.
You say that 2 Labour Councillors voted for the Development, why if you know this, have you not named them as others ave asked in these posts. I personally think to vote for this application was foolhardy, as the Meads project, built on a Flood plain is ludicrous, however, if the Housing issue had been looked at as an individual Planning App on it's own Merit, then if it brought, as it does, affordable housing, within te scheme, as it clearly does, then that is fine, little to object to on Planning Grounds. But, if Highways, objected to the Application ,because of access & egress, then the Scheme should have been rejected as the Ward Councillors said. Then we come to the crux of the matter should an access road, be allowed on an ancient West Street Field, given to the People of Bridgwater, by ancient charter, from The then King John.
So how many Metres of the field will be lost, to provide an access road, for this development??.
Did the BTCouncil, declare an interest, as they own and are responsible for the allotments that run on the lower edge of the Fairfield, boardering Durleigh Brook, vested interest me thinks !!
As and when the time the price is right, will we see these allotments, sold for possible housing development. Monies into BTC Coffers, in the bank along side the Civic Enhancement fund, not being spent and used for the purpose it was taken from the Bridgwater Rate Payer..
So when you are next criticising SDC, fr selling assets to fund new projects, ask your ate Cllr John Turner, when he is going to announce when and on what he is going to recommend his Abiur Dominated BTC, to spend OUR Money on, what Civic Enhancement..
The Auditorium and Back stage of the Town Hall, would be a good Project, or will the Mayors Parlour, be voted as more needy.......You know my views.
Regards Blue -Owl
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer.[/p][/quote]You say that 2 Labour Councillors voted for the Development, why if you know this, have you not named them as others ave asked in these posts. I personally think to vote for this application was foolhardy, as the Meads project, built on a Flood plain is ludicrous, however, if the Housing issue had been looked at as an individual Planning App on it's own Merit, then if it brought, as it does, affordable housing, within te scheme, as it clearly does, then that is fine, little to object to on Planning Grounds. But, if Highways, objected to the Application ,because of access & egress, then the Scheme should have been rejected as the Ward Councillors said. Then we come to the crux of the matter should an access road, be allowed on an ancient West Street Field, given to the People of Bridgwater, by ancient charter, from The then King John. So how many Metres of the field will be lost, to provide an access road, for this development??. Did the BTCouncil, declare an interest, as they own and are responsible for the allotments that run on the lower edge of the Fairfield, boardering Durleigh Brook, vested interest me thinks !! As and when the time the price is right, will we see these allotments, sold for possible housing development. Monies into BTC Coffers, in the bank along side the Civic Enhancement fund, not being spent and used for the purpose it was taken from the Bridgwater Rate Payer.. So when you are next criticising SDC, fr selling assets to fund new projects, ask your ate Cllr John Turner, when he is going to announce when and on what he is going to recommend his Abiur Dominated BTC, to spend OUR Money on, what Civic Enhancement.. The Auditorium and Back stage of the Town Hall, would be a good Project, or will the Mayors Parlour, be voted as more needy.......You know my views. Regards Blue -Owl Blue Owl

9:41am Wed 23 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Blue Owl wrote:
noleaders wrote:
Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer.
You say that 2 Labour Councillors voted for the Development, why if you know this, have you not named them as others ave asked in these posts. I personally think to vote for this application was foolhardy, as the Meads project, built on a Flood plain is ludicrous, however, if the Housing issue had been looked at as an individual Planning App on it's own Merit, then if it brought, as it does, affordable housing, within te scheme, as it clearly does, then that is fine, little to object to on Planning Grounds. But, if Highways, objected to the Application ,because of access & egress, then the Scheme should have been rejected as the Ward Councillors said. Then we come to the crux of the matter should an access road, be allowed on an ancient West Street Field, given to the People of Bridgwater, by ancient charter, from The then King John.
So how many Metres of the field will be lost, to provide an access road, for this development??.
Did the BTCouncil, declare an interest, as they own and are responsible for the allotments that run on the lower edge of the Fairfield, boardering Durleigh Brook, vested interest me thinks !!
As and when the time the price is right, will we see these allotments, sold for possible housing development. Monies into BTC Coffers, in the bank along side the Civic Enhancement fund, not being spent and used for the purpose it was taken from the Bridgwater Rate Payer..
So when you are next criticising SDC, fr selling assets to fund new projects, ask your ate Cllr John Turner, when he is going to announce when and on what he is going to recommend his Abiur Dominated BTC, to spend OUR Money on, what Civic Enhancement..
The Auditorium and Back stage of the Town Hall, would be a good Project, or will the Mayors Parlour, be voted as more needy.......You know my views.
Regards Blue -Owl
Apologies for the typing eorroes errors in the above post, the iPad seems to have a mind of its own, with predictive text, and not putting the front letter on many words, plus it could be the half bottle of wine, that was consumed prior, to Posting.
Regards Blue - Owl
PS.
I wonder why BTC, don't respond to the Questions re, Civic Enhancement Fund, nestled in Nat West Bank??.obviously they don't want to commit our money to a useful project, I remember, Cllr John Turner, saying that the Town Council, had to keep a reserve, well that is not what the extra Tax, was collected for, it was Ring Fenced for " Civic Enhancement", not to Fund the BTC , Annual Running Costs & Expenditure.!!??
[quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer.[/p][/quote]You say that 2 Labour Councillors voted for the Development, why if you know this, have you not named them as others ave asked in these posts. I personally think to vote for this application was foolhardy, as the Meads project, built on a Flood plain is ludicrous, however, if the Housing issue had been looked at as an individual Planning App on it's own Merit, then if it brought, as it does, affordable housing, within te scheme, as it clearly does, then that is fine, little to object to on Planning Grounds. But, if Highways, objected to the Application ,because of access & egress, then the Scheme should have been rejected as the Ward Councillors said. Then we come to the crux of the matter should an access road, be allowed on an ancient West Street Field, given to the People of Bridgwater, by ancient charter, from The then King John. So how many Metres of the field will be lost, to provide an access road, for this development??. Did the BTCouncil, declare an interest, as they own and are responsible for the allotments that run on the lower edge of the Fairfield, boardering Durleigh Brook, vested interest me thinks !! As and when the time the price is right, will we see these allotments, sold for possible housing development. Monies into BTC Coffers, in the bank along side the Civic Enhancement fund, not being spent and used for the purpose it was taken from the Bridgwater Rate Payer.. So when you are next criticising SDC, fr selling assets to fund new projects, ask your ate Cllr John Turner, when he is going to announce when and on what he is going to recommend his Abiur Dominated BTC, to spend OUR Money on, what Civic Enhancement.. The Auditorium and Back stage of the Town Hall, would be a good Project, or will the Mayors Parlour, be voted as more needy.......You know my views. Regards Blue -Owl[/p][/quote]Apologies for the typing eorroes errors in the above post, the iPad seems to have a mind of its own, with predictive text, and not putting the front letter on many words, plus it could be the half bottle of wine, that was consumed prior, to Posting. Regards Blue - Owl PS. I wonder why BTC, don't respond to the Questions re, Civic Enhancement Fund, nestled in Nat West Bank??.obviously they don't want to commit our money to a useful project, I remember, Cllr John Turner, saying that the Town Council, had to keep a reserve, well that is not what the extra Tax, was collected for, it was Ring Fenced for " Civic Enhancement", not to Fund the BTC , Annual Running Costs & Expenditure.!!?? Blue Owl

10:29am Thu 24 Jan 13

noleaders says...

When I say houses are not neede I am referring to the fact that this borough hasthe legal required amount for the next five years; ie the five year housing supply. Disengenuous remarks are not helpful David ..I stood for election twice in 30 years, got 5 per cent of vote for greens and didnt do too badly for an indie second time but this is off the point, sure locals are more interested in whats happening to thier civic space, so if you dont mind I wont get dragged into some daft slanging match.
When I say houses are not neede I am referring to the fact that this borough hasthe legal required amount for the next five years; ie the five year housing supply. Disengenuous remarks are not helpful David [I dont think Ill call you Blue owl if you dont mind, as Im pretty sure no birds esp not those associated with wisdom would be of similar mindset to yourself]..I stood for election twice in 30 years, got 5 per cent of vote for greens and didnt do too badly for an indie second time but this is off the point, sure locals are more interested in whats happening to thier civic space, so if you dont mind I wont get dragged into some daft slanging match. noleaders

10:33am Thu 24 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Reread what I said re two councillors; which was that two councellors said we dont need the housing;One was Julian Taylor, who said the town is awash with houses and the other was a con I believe in the planning meeting who voted against the planning app, he said houses arent selling well currently, inc his own so voted no..I was there but didnt have time to record who voted yes, its tricky to do that in the seconds you have in the meeting which is why I asked for the vote to be recorded.
Reread what I said re two councillors; which was that two councellors said we dont need the housing;One was Julian Taylor, who said the town is awash with houses and the other was a con I believe in the planning meeting who voted against the planning app, he said houses arent selling well currently, inc his own so voted no..I was there but didnt have time to record who voted yes, its tricky to do that in the seconds you have in the meeting which is why I asked for the vote to be recorded. noleaders

12:29pm Thu 24 Jan 13

noleaders says...

To clarify..only 4 people voted against ,nine voted for, Im not sure for certain who voted for but some were Labour, hence wanting to clarify, although Ive noticed that none have self named, if they think theyre right whats the problem?
To clarify..only 4 people voted against ,nine voted for, Im not sure for certain who voted for but some were Labour, hence wanting to clarify, although Ive noticed that none have self named, if they think theyre right whats the problem? noleaders

1:40pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer.
Bob, I'm sorry but you cannot back track, from your 'Opening Statement'
Quote Houses are not Needed, either in the Councils 5 yr Plan or in reality!'
So I am not trying to undermine what you are saying, you are entitled to your opinion, but you must be a little cautious in your allegations, when specifically naming, or speculating a view, the Libel and Slander Laws are there for a Purpose, so beware!!
You name Derek Mead, he is and was was and possibility still a Farmer, but over the last 10 + years, like many land owners, he has become a Developer, which is his right to be, what he as an individual, or as part of a syndicate does regarding purchase or disposal of land assets, is his business. Only, when he applies for Planning Consent on any Land, does it become a Planning issue. Then, that's when the Planning restrictions and Policy, comes into the forray.
Bob, I realised that the post, came from you, so know like me, I came out the " Closset So to speak" as I am not bothered a@ all, who knows
my views.
Those who want annominity, can use a
Pseudenom, if they wish to post, without being accountable, for their comments.
Regards David Preece
Aka Blue-Owl
Ps. Perhaps instead of 'no leader' you should sign in as Indstanding4election
.
Cheeeers David P
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: Im against the houses period because they re not needed, either in the councils five year plan or in reality..even two councellors are saying they re not needed. The Labour party councellors did vote for the development..Blue Owl; Ive not said anything I dont believe to be true..People get away with too much because the real facts are not knownand I notice,quel suprise ,that the mercury today names another Meade as land and planning director of Summerfield..Richard Meade..anyone noticing a pattern here..Lets ay it like it is shall we..developers like Meade.. Notaro.. Wilson homes etc are eating up our countryside...not with social housing but often so called executive homes and they are not bought by cash strapped locals but investors to rent out to commuters..This is what were losing our countryside for.Also, locally some ex farmers are now acting as agents for developers..a certain one keeps cropping up wherever local development is mooted and residents dont want it..these people get fat fees for spotting opportunities for developers..theyre part of the problem..personally I am heartsick of seeing the enviroment vanish under concertet just to make these developers richer.[/p][/quote]Bob, I'm sorry but you cannot back track, from your 'Opening Statement' Quote Houses are not Needed, either in the Councils 5 yr Plan or in reality!' So I am not trying to undermine what you are saying, you are entitled to your opinion, but you must be a little cautious in your allegations, when specifically naming, or speculating a view, the Libel and Slander Laws are there for a Purpose, so beware!! You name Derek Mead, he is and was was and possibility still a Farmer, but over the last 10 + years, like many land owners, he has become a Developer, which is his right to be, what he as an individual, or as part of a syndicate does regarding purchase or disposal of land assets, is his business. Only, when he applies for Planning Consent on any Land, does it become a Planning issue. Then, that's when the Planning restrictions and Policy, comes into the forray. Bob, I realised that the post, came from you, so know like me, I came out the " Closset So to speak" as I am not bothered a@ all, who knows my views. Those who want annominity, can use a Pseudenom, if they wish to post, without being accountable, for their comments. Regards David Preece Aka Blue-Owl Ps. Perhaps instead of 'no leader' you should sign in as Indstanding4election . Cheeeers David P Blue Owl

10:30pm Thu 24 Jan 13

BaldCarl2 says...

Wow. I'd love to see all you councillors have a mass brawl.
Wow. I'd love to see all you councillors have a mass brawl. BaldCarl2

9:09am Fri 25 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
To clarify..only 4 people voted against ,nine voted for, Im not sure for certain who voted for but some were Labour, hence wanting to clarify, although Ive noticed that none have self named, if they think theyre right whats the problem?
You are quite right, the Commitee Members are able to cast their own vote in which ever way they read, so to speak, the information b4 them. In written documentation, and with always the Head On, ie with the Planning Guidelines, Legal Advice, as if they decide to vote against a Recommendation from the Planning Officers, or Highways, they have to be able to Justify their Decision to a Statatory standpoint.
They do not have an obligation to have a recorded vote!
If the individual Councillor, has had contact from Members of the Public, giving the Cllr, the feeling of their Constituents, that overwhelmingly their Ward residents, would like the Councillor to take on board their wishes, then it is up to the Commitee Member, to vote with their wishes in mind, or with the Councillors own convictions ,of course the Cllr, would have to justify to his Ward Constituents, the reasoning as to why, or of course, there is always the withdrawal situation, hence not taking part in the decision! This I would say , would be a 'Copout'. Not advisable, as you are there to represent !!
At the end of the Day, none of the Parties, either the Planning Officers, or the Applicant, whoever they be, put any pressure or influence on Members on the Commitee.
Fact, as having been a Member Of Planning Commitee myself, on SDC.
Regards, Blue-Owl aka David Preece
Ps.
Hopefully Clarifying Matters with, information, not speculation. Never, was I given or offered Bribes, incentives, or Backhanders, ie Brown Envelopes, or to my knowledge, has any other Members of SDC Planning Panel, as I've said b4 to Bloggers, if you have FACTs which contradict my Knowlege then contact me, ASAP.
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: To clarify..only 4 people voted against ,nine voted for, Im not sure for certain who voted for but some were Labour, hence wanting to clarify, although Ive noticed that none have self named, if they think theyre right whats the problem?[/p][/quote]You are quite right, the Commitee Members are able to cast their own vote in which ever way they read, so to speak, the information b4 them. In written documentation, and with always the Head On, ie with the Planning Guidelines, Legal Advice, as if they decide to vote against a Recommendation from the Planning Officers, or Highways, they have to be able to Justify their Decision to a Statatory standpoint. They do not have an obligation to have a recorded vote! If the individual Councillor, has had contact from Members of the Public, giving the Cllr, the feeling of their Constituents, that overwhelmingly their Ward residents, would like the Councillor to take on board their wishes, then it is up to the Commitee Member, to vote with their wishes in mind, or with the Councillors own convictions ,of course the Cllr, would have to justify to his Ward Constituents, the reasoning as to why, or of course, there is always the withdrawal situation, hence not taking part in the decision! This I would say , would be a 'Copout'. Not advisable, as you are there to represent !! At the end of the Day, none of the Parties, either the Planning Officers, or the Applicant, whoever they be, put any pressure or influence on Members on the Commitee. Fact, as having been a Member Of Planning Commitee myself, on SDC. Regards, Blue-Owl aka David Preece Ps. Hopefully Clarifying Matters with, information, not speculation. Never, was I given or offered Bribes, incentives, or Backhanders, ie Brown Envelopes, or to my knowledge, has any other Members of SDC Planning Panel, as I've said b4 to Bloggers, if you have FACTs which contradict my Knowlege then contact me, ASAP. Blue Owl

2:28pm Tue 29 Jan 13

noleaders says...

David, my name isnt the Bob of who you speak ,who some of us believe is part of the problem, and this isnt about personalities, which is off the point;Personally I dont think someone should be able to sell great chunks of the eco system off just because they can afford to buy it; were all on the planet together;If the Amazon vanishes due to burger makers or oil drilling we are all the losers because the amazon helps create air for us all to breathe,on a smaller scale who ever owns land ,it is still part of the eco system we all rely on to exist,people shouldnt just be able to buy land then exploit it, removing it from public/animal access..I stand by my comments about builders, all proveable..but back to the point..what can we do about the development by the fairfield?
David, my name isnt the Bob of who you speak ,who some of us believe is part of the problem, and this isnt about personalities, which is off the point;Personally I dont think someone should be able to sell great chunks of the eco system off just because they can afford to buy it; were all on the planet together;If the Amazon vanishes due to burger makers or oil drilling we are all the losers because the amazon helps create air for us all to breathe,on a smaller scale who ever owns land ,it is still part of the eco system we all rely on to exist,people shouldnt just be able to buy land then exploit it, removing it from public/animal access..I stand by my comments about builders, all proveable..but back to the point..what can we do about the development by the fairfield? noleaders

9:01am Wed 30 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
David, my name isnt the Bob of who you speak ,who some of us believe is part of the problem, and this isnt about personalities, which is off the point;Personally I dont think someone should be able to sell great chunks of the eco system off just because they can afford to buy it; were all on the planet together;If the Amazon vanishes due to burger makers or oil drilling we are all the losers because the amazon helps create air for us all to breathe,on a smaller scale who ever owns land ,it is still part of the eco system we all rely on to exist,people shouldnt just be able to buy land then exploit it, removing it from public/animal access..I stand by my comments about builders, all proveable..but back to the point..what can we do about the development by the fairfield?
In reply to your Question? What can be done re the selling of the Access Strip from the Fairfield, to enable the Eco Park and the Durleigh Rd Housing development.
1. Firstly, I would urge everyone to support Cllrs Gill Slocombe& Cllr David Baker, as they are the Ward Cllrs who need to know that we and you are supporting their Views.

2. Not being directly involved any more, I have not read under what
Criteria, the top end of the Fairfield was reasoned , as to be acceptable for disposal for this scheme!?

3. One reason could be that, it was judged on the Terms' being for the Greater Good' !! To & for the Local Community, I'm sure Cllr Slocombe will have the exact Clause under which
This transfer of land, took place.
4. As I had already Blogged a couple of weeks ago, that personally, I was also against, not only the So Called Eco-Water Park on the Flood Plains between Durleigh Brook And Hamp, The Meads. We must lean, from previous mistakes, that low lying land must not be Built on or developed, so the Eco Park, may not actually have constructed houses on it. but, if land at an adjoining site is developed, then the surface run off water, does just that, in to drains, existing water courses, culverts that are already filled to capacity in heavy rain downpourings.

One of the questions, I posed when the Planning was Approved, was what was the BTC, view or were they, supporting, or against this? Or do they benefit, as this new access will give them better access to the Allotments between the Fairfield and Durleigh Brook. Who knows in the future whether, these allotments could be allocated for future housing ??, if the present usage was deemed not to be needed.

I would ask, to see the Actual wording of the Charter, which is obviously held in the Archives somewhere. As, we are under the impression that this Charter for the Fairfield, was given, in Pertuity,
To Bridgwater, by King John.
I'm sure that Dr Peter Cuttimore (apols if I have his surname incorrect) who has assisted the Museum, and BTC, with his Knowlege would I'm sure be able to clarify the Terms of the Gift of original land to the Town.
I hope this helps
Regards David Preece
Blue-Owl
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: David, my name isnt the Bob of who you speak ,who some of us believe is part of the problem, and this isnt about personalities, which is off the point;Personally I dont think someone should be able to sell great chunks of the eco system off just because they can afford to buy it; were all on the planet together;If the Amazon vanishes due to burger makers or oil drilling we are all the losers because the amazon helps create air for us all to breathe,on a smaller scale who ever owns land ,it is still part of the eco system we all rely on to exist,people shouldnt just be able to buy land then exploit it, removing it from public/animal access..I stand by my comments about builders, all proveable..but back to the point..what can we do about the development by the fairfield?[/p][/quote]In reply to your Question? What can be done re the selling of the Access Strip from the Fairfield, to enable the Eco Park and the Durleigh Rd Housing development. 1. Firstly, I would urge everyone to support Cllrs Gill Slocombe& Cllr David Baker, as they are the Ward Cllrs who need to know that we and you are supporting their Views. 2. Not being directly involved any more, I have not read under what Criteria, the top end of the Fairfield was reasoned , as to be acceptable for disposal for this scheme!? 3. One reason could be that, it was judged on the Terms' being for the Greater Good' !! To & for the Local Community, I'm sure Cllr Slocombe will have the exact Clause under which This transfer of land, took place. 4. As I had already Blogged a couple of weeks ago, that personally, I was also against, not only the So Called Eco-Water Park on the Flood Plains between Durleigh Brook And Hamp, The Meads. We must lean, from previous mistakes, that low lying land must not be Built on or developed, so the Eco Park, may not actually have constructed houses on it. but, if land at an adjoining site is developed, then the surface run off water, does just that, in to drains, existing water courses, culverts that are already filled to capacity in heavy rain downpourings. One of the questions, I posed when the Planning was Approved, was what was the BTC, view or were they, supporting, or against this? Or do they benefit, as this new access will give them better access to the Allotments between the Fairfield and Durleigh Brook. Who knows in the future whether, these allotments could be allocated for future housing ??, if the present usage was deemed not to be needed. I would ask, to see the Actual wording of the Charter, which is obviously held in the Archives somewhere. As, we are under the impression that this Charter for the Fairfield, was given, in Pertuity, To Bridgwater, by King John. I'm sure that Dr Peter Cuttimore (apols if I have his surname incorrect) who has assisted the Museum, and BTC, with his Knowlege would I'm sure be able to clarify the Terms of the Gift of original land to the Town. I hope this helps Regards David Preece Blue-Owl Blue Owl

9:09am Wed 30 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

BaldCarl2 wrote:
Wow. I'd love to see all you councillors have a mass brawl.
No that's your way of sorting out a problem no doubt.!!! The grown up and sensible way is to debate, reason, come to an amicable decision where possible, if not accept the Majority Veiw Point.
Your petty comments, are just that, you r entitled to make them, but they don't pass Mustard, in my mind...But then what do I know, Nothing!!! Obviously, as u r the Higher Authority.
Blue -Owl.
One day u may post something that is Positive, enlightening, and more over constructive to a debate or Posting !!
[quote][p][bold]BaldCarl2[/bold] wrote: Wow. I'd love to see all you councillors have a mass brawl.[/p][/quote]No that's your way of sorting out a problem no doubt.!!! The grown up and sensible way is to debate, reason, come to an amicable decision where possible, if not accept the Majority Veiw Point. Your petty comments, are just that, you r entitled to make them, but they don't pass Mustard, in my mind...But then what do I know, Nothing!!! Obviously, as u r the Higher Authority. Blue -Owl. One day u may post something that is Positive, enlightening, and more over constructive to a debate or Posting !! Blue Owl

5:20pm Wed 30 Jan 13

noleaders says...

useful advice David. Thank you.It seems to me that the Bwater vision project was conceived to facilitate building where it would not otherwise be tolerated, and I understand one resident believes parts of the core strategy are not legal .I am against the Meads project which seems to be an excuse conceived to facilitate building around it.I really wish more people would interest themselves in local planning issues, we could do with a dedicated resisents group to keep abreast of it , to act rather than react when stuff blows up that residents are going to hate.eople would then learn skills as they went along, it seems to me that thanks to the new planning policy framework that everyone who cares about the enviroment is going to have to stay on red alert fort tyhe foreseeable future if we want to try to curb the worst excesses of this unpopular legislation.
useful advice David. Thank you.It seems to me that the Bwater vision project was conceived to facilitate building where it would not otherwise be tolerated, and I understand one resident believes parts of the core strategy are not legal .I am against the Meads project which seems to be an excuse conceived to facilitate building around it.I really wish more people would interest themselves in local planning issues, we could do with a dedicated resisents group to keep abreast of it , to act rather than react when stuff blows up that residents are going to hate.eople would then learn skills as they went along, it seems to me that thanks to the new planning policy framework that everyone who cares about the enviroment is going to have to stay on red alert fort tyhe foreseeable future if we want to try to curb the worst excesses of this unpopular legislation. noleaders

7:40pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
useful advice David. Thank you.It seems to me that the Bwater vision project was conceived to facilitate building where it would not otherwise be tolerated, and I understand one resident believes parts of the core strategy are not legal .I am against the Meads project which seems to be an excuse conceived to facilitate building around it.I really wish more people would interest themselves in local planning issues, we could do with a dedicated resisents group to keep abreast of it , to act rather than react when stuff blows up that residents are going to hate.eople would then learn skills as they went along, it seems to me that thanks to the new planning policy framework that everyone who cares about the enviroment is going to have to stay on red alert fort tyhe foreseeable future if we want to try to curb the worst excesses of this unpopular legislation.
And ,yet I have a Brownfield site, in Bridgwater, that I have been trying to forward for Planning since 2010 July,
I am being, thwarted at every step, from Planning Dept SDC, to SCC Highways, Taunton. I won't go into how much, in Planning Application Fee's and Architect Cost's to date, now we've been in formed that if we don't resubmit plans, by 8th Feb. Deadline, I will have to pay again, over £2000.00
I wonder how we are expected to do this when it is now over 6 Weeks since we met with Planning Officer, to enquire, as to what we need to do, so as to satisfy Planning & Highways concerns, as I am posting this, no response, received from either, so how can we re- submit an application.
So for those of you out there that, think we Ex Councillor, get Planning Nodded through on a " Wink", Think On!! I expect its payback, for all their decisions, I managed with my Cllrs on the Planning Commitee in the past. To overturn, so as to allow sensible decisions to prevail I''ve spent 6-8 years fighting for the correct decisions to be made, where they are right to be passed or denied with my fellow Cllrs.
Regards Blue-Owl
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: useful advice David. Thank you.It seems to me that the Bwater vision project was conceived to facilitate building where it would not otherwise be tolerated, and I understand one resident believes parts of the core strategy are not legal .I am against the Meads project which seems to be an excuse conceived to facilitate building around it.I really wish more people would interest themselves in local planning issues, we could do with a dedicated resisents group to keep abreast of it , to act rather than react when stuff blows up that residents are going to hate.eople would then learn skills as they went along, it seems to me that thanks to the new planning policy framework that everyone who cares about the enviroment is going to have to stay on red alert fort tyhe foreseeable future if we want to try to curb the worst excesses of this unpopular legislation.[/p][/quote]And ,yet I have a Brownfield site, in Bridgwater, that I have been trying to forward for Planning since 2010 July, I am being, thwarted at every step, from Planning Dept SDC, to SCC Highways, Taunton. I won't go into how much, in Planning Application Fee's and Architect Cost's to date, now we've been in formed that if we don't resubmit plans, by 8th Feb. Deadline, I will have to pay again, over £2000.00 I wonder how we are expected to do this when it is now over 6 Weeks since we met with Planning Officer, to enquire, as to what we need to do, so as to satisfy Planning & Highways concerns, as I am posting this, no response, received from either, so how can we re- submit an application. So for those of you out there that, think we Ex Councillor, get Planning Nodded through on a " Wink", Think On!! I expect its payback, for all their decisions, I managed with my Cllrs on the Planning Commitee in the past. To overturn, so as to allow sensible decisions to prevail I''ve spent 6-8 years fighting for the correct decisions to be made, where they are right to be passed or denied with my fellow Cllrs. Regards Blue-Owl Blue Owl

4:40pm Thu 31 Jan 13

noleaders says...

planning depts are a bit of a mystery to many of us; I have a property in the town which Id like to develop which could be turned from one house to units which would provide housing for multiple people but its on an alleged floodplain..never know it to flood in living memory,unlike the fairfield, but only big developers seem to be able to get over issues like this with thier 106 money, ordinary mortals appear to get thwarted...it seems people would rather build on greenfield than use up brownfield..Spoke to someone who knows about the charters and it seems they are in latin and can be a little vague..still working on that one..local residents are also on the case I believe..
planning depts are a bit of a mystery to many of us; I have a property in the town which Id like to develop[brown field] which could be turned from one house to units which would provide housing for multiple people but its on an alleged floodplain..never know it to flood in living memory,unlike the fairfield, but only big developers seem to be able to get over issues like this with thier 106 money, ordinary mortals appear to get thwarted...it seems people would rather build on greenfield than use up brownfield..Spoke to someone who knows about the charters and it seems they are in latin and can be a little vague..still working on that one..local residents are also on the case I believe.. noleaders

2:29pm Tue 5 Feb 13

noleaders says...

http://www.bridgwate
rarchives.org.uk/cha
rters/reconserved/

http://www.bridgwate
rarchives.org.uk/cha
rters/

http://www.friarn.co
.uk/fairs/
http://www.bridgwate rarchives.org.uk/cha rters/reconserved/ http://www.bridgwate rarchives.org.uk/cha rters/ http://www.friarn.co .uk/fairs/ noleaders

9:27pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
planning depts are a bit of a mystery to many of us; I have a property in the town which Id like to develop which could be turned from one house to units which would provide housing for multiple people but its on an alleged floodplain..never know it to flood in living memory,unlike the fairfield, but only big developers seem to be able to get over issues like this with thier 106 money, ordinary mortals appear to get thwarted...it seems people would rather build on greenfield than use up brownfield..Spoke to someone who knows about the charters and it seems they are in latin and can be a little vague..still working on that one..local residents are also on the case I believe..
As, I believe that in the actual Documents, there must be the Terms under which the ' Charter ' was made. If this is in Latin, there must be Scholars, or Museum Curators @ Taunton, who can decipher these ancient Archives.
Why, has an access road not been considered in the past years for the Showmanship Guild to get on to the St Mathews Fairfield.@ the Top end where the Animal horse and sheep sales take place. Funny now, when access is needed for an unrelated housing project.??
Blue-Owl
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: planning depts are a bit of a mystery to many of us; I have a property in the town which Id like to develop[brown field] which could be turned from one house to units which would provide housing for multiple people but its on an alleged floodplain..never know it to flood in living memory,unlike the fairfield, but only big developers seem to be able to get over issues like this with thier 106 money, ordinary mortals appear to get thwarted...it seems people would rather build on greenfield than use up brownfield..Spoke to someone who knows about the charters and it seems they are in latin and can be a little vague..still working on that one..local residents are also on the case I believe..[/p][/quote]As, I believe that in the actual Documents, there must be the Terms under which the ' Charter ' was made. If this is in Latin, there must be Scholars, or Museum Curators @ Taunton, who can decipher these ancient Archives. Why, has an access road not been considered in the past years for the Showmanship Guild to get on to the St Mathews Fairfield.@ the Top end where the Animal horse and sheep sales take place. Funny now, when access is needed for an unrelated housing project.?? Blue-Owl Blue Owl

4:02pm Wed 6 Feb 13

noleaders says...

very good points David.
very good points David. noleaders

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree