Bournemouth Echo£400,000 land offer at Creekmoor agreed by Poole council (From Bournemouth Echo)

When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.

£400,000 land offer agreed

Bournemouth Echo: £400,000 land offer agreed £400,000 land offer agreed

POOLE councillors voted to accept a £400,000 offer tonight for land previously earmarked for a travellers’ temporary stopping site.

Commercial property company Forelle Estates wants to develop the plot, at Marshes End, Creekmoor, Poole, into a landmark office building that could create 200 jobs.

Speaking at Poole Civic Centre’s extraordinary council meeting, initially called for by the town’s three Creekmoor ward councillors, Borough of Poole leader Cllr Elaine Atkinson said: “I believe the offer went up and up to try to influence the planning committee, but this didn't happen. I don't think people were influenced on the planning committee, I think that the planning committee sat and made their decision on the reports that were before them.

"Whilst I agree that the money was offered to buy us off and I agree it was tainted, the site is tainted. Let's get on with it, let's sell it, let's get some office accommodation on there, and let’s have a real gateway.

"We still have the influence through planning to say what it should look like and what it should do, and I think on that basis it should go forward."

Meanwhile, Creekmoor ward councillor Judy Butt, who says the money raised could be used to finance a private land deal to help end the borough’s search for a suitable traveller transit site, said: "This is an opportune moment for us and we should be taking it up."

She added: "I urge everyone in the chamber to think long and hard. Failure to accept this bid will lead to having the same old scruffy piece of land there for another 20 years."

Forelle Estates lodged its increased offer days before Borough of Poole planning committee members met to consider the travellers’ sites applications. These two proposals were eventually ruled against.

The company’s initial £250,000 offer for Marshes End was turned down in February by the borough’s chief executive John McBride.

Forelle then upped its offer to £350,000 and finally to £400,000 three days before the planning committee convened at Poole’s Lighthouse Theatre.

After planning committee members ruled against the traveller site proposals, there was speculation the Forelle offer – which only remains on the table until Monday (March 31) – may have been withdrawn.

But the Poole property company, which owns Forelle House and Phoenix House next to the Marshes End site, insists it is serious about forging ahead with the new office build.

Managing director Michael Price says Poole is in need of extra office space and that the £400,000 offer is twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot.

The council voted to accept the offer with 17 for, 12 against and two abstentions.

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:23pm Fri 28 Mar 14

susi.m says...

Who voted, for and against? Who abstained?
Who voted, for and against? Who abstained? susi.m
  • Score: 20

7:26pm Fri 28 Mar 14

lilliputian says...

"the money was offered to buy us off and I agree it was tainted", quoted Cllr. Atkinson. Not as tainted as she has become though through her mishandling of this situation and inept leadership.
"the money was offered to buy us off and I agree it was tainted", quoted Cllr. Atkinson. Not as tainted as she has become though through her mishandling of this situation and inept leadership. lilliputian
  • Score: 35

7:27pm Fri 28 Mar 14

.Freckles says...

The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"
The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public" .Freckles
  • Score: 5

7:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

The Private Secter has won ,Thank God,
The Private Secter has won ,Thank God, cromwell9
  • Score: 17

7:59pm Fri 28 Mar 14

we-shall-see says...

Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor .....
Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor ..... we-shall-see
  • Score: 11

8:26pm Fri 28 Mar 14

i have heard it all now says...

Ha Ha you could not make up this saga,All we need now are the names of those who voted against this.

Bring on the ballot box.
Ha Ha you could not make up this saga,All we need now are the names of those who voted against this. Bring on the ballot box. i have heard it all now
  • Score: 16

8:33pm Fri 28 Mar 14

arti273 says...

I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price?

I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.
I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price? I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director. arti273
  • Score: -13

8:50pm Fri 28 Mar 14

djd says...

arti273 wrote:
I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price?

I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.
Once they have the site and build the offices, travellers can never use the site, even if they wanted.
That's what this company were prepared to pay to stop the travellers setting up sire near to their other offices.
[quote][p][bold]arti273[/bold] wrote: I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price? I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.[/p][/quote]Once they have the site and build the offices, travellers can never use the site, even if they wanted. That's what this company were prepared to pay to stop the travellers setting up sire near to their other offices. djd
  • Score: 23

8:52pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor .....
Creekmoor was not going to be a transit camp - it was going to be a Temporary Stopping Place. A transit site has to have more than portaloos, water supply and a skip - it has to have washing facilities, children play space and a lot more.
........
Unfortunately people do not seem to grasp that, or that it was the Planning Committee that refused the application for a TSP and was nothing to do with residents of Creekmoor, except that many pointed out the problems with the site as did many from across Poole.
......
Those who complain about the planning application not going through should look to themselves for not sending in written PLANNING reasons why it should have gone ahead, instead of moaning and blaming everyone else.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor .....[/p][/quote]Creekmoor was not going to be a transit camp - it was going to be a Temporary Stopping Place. A transit site has to have more than portaloos, water supply and a skip - it has to have washing facilities, children play space and a lot more. ........ Unfortunately people do not seem to grasp that, or that it was the Planning Committee that refused the application for a TSP and was nothing to do with residents of Creekmoor, except that many pointed out the problems with the site as did many from across Poole. ...... Those who complain about the planning application not going through should look to themselves for not sending in written PLANNING reasons why it should have gone ahead, instead of moaning and blaming everyone else. Carolyn43
  • Score: 4

8:56pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

djd wrote:
arti273 wrote:
I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price?

I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.
Once they have the site and build the offices, travellers can never use the site, even if they wanted.
That's what this company were prepared to pay to stop the travellers setting up sire near to their other offices.
Travellers said they wouldn't use the site - contaminated, subject to flooding, on a fast dual carriageway, e.t.c. So nothing has been lost. In fact, as the site had been independently valued at £200,000, the council is gaining enough money to buy a suitable plot in a suitable position that travellers WILL use.
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arti273[/bold] wrote: I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price? I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.[/p][/quote]Once they have the site and build the offices, travellers can never use the site, even if they wanted. That's what this company were prepared to pay to stop the travellers setting up sire near to their other offices.[/p][/quote]Travellers said they wouldn't use the site - contaminated, subject to flooding, on a fast dual carriageway, e.t.c. So nothing has been lost. In fact, as the site had been independently valued at £200,000, the council is gaining enough money to buy a suitable plot in a suitable position that travellers WILL use. Carolyn43
  • Score: 12

9:01pm Fri 28 Mar 14

fireflier says...

Best these nomads keep on travelling........Ba
ck to Ireland????
Best these nomads keep on travelling........Ba ck to Ireland???? fireflier
  • Score: 24

10:06pm Fri 28 Mar 14

snowflakes says...

Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long.
Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.
Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long. Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol. snowflakes
  • Score: 13

10:07pm Fri 28 Mar 14

snowflakes says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor .....
My thoughts too ..lol.
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor .....[/p][/quote]My thoughts too ..lol. snowflakes
  • Score: 6

10:10pm Fri 28 Mar 14

snowflakes says...

snowflakes wrote:
we-shall-see wrote:
Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor .....
My thoughts too ..lol.
Whatever, ensuring work for 200 people on the proposed Site is by far a better situation, than non-council tax paying travellers.
[quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Which just goes to show how money grabbing BoP really are ..... I wonder how much of the cash will be used for a transit camp and where that could be .... Perhaps they could extend the Sandbanks peninsula and see how welcome the travellers will be over there instead of Creekmoor .....[/p][/quote]My thoughts too ..lol.[/p][/quote]Whatever, ensuring work for 200 people on the proposed Site is by far a better situation, than non-council tax paying travellers. snowflakes
  • Score: 19

10:11pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Yankee1 says...

.Freckles wrote:
The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"
Why should the travelers 'win'?
[quote][p][bold].Freckles[/bold] wrote: The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"[/p][/quote]Why should the travelers 'win'? Yankee1
  • Score: 18

11:13pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

arti273 wrote:
I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price?

I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.
Yep, you've not been following this story...
[quote][p][bold]arti273[/bold] wrote: I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price? I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.[/p][/quote]Yep, you've not been following this story... Jo__Go
  • Score: 15

12:07am Sat 29 Mar 14

poolesean says...

Had a feeling that when b.o.p was offered the money things would change...b.o.p could use the money towards buying the large empty land off Herbert ave and build more housing and why not put the transit site on the empty land by twin sails hamworthy side?
Had a feeling that when b.o.p was offered the money things would change...b.o.p could use the money towards buying the large empty land off Herbert ave and build more housing and why not put the transit site on the empty land by twin sails hamworthy side? poolesean
  • Score: 3

6:14am Sat 29 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

poolesean wrote:
Had a feeling that when b.o.p was offered the money things would change...b.o.p could use the money towards buying the large empty land off Herbert ave and build more housing and why not put the transit site on the empty land by twin sails hamworthy side?
Why give them a site at all???
[quote][p][bold]poolesean[/bold] wrote: Had a feeling that when b.o.p was offered the money things would change...b.o.p could use the money towards buying the large empty land off Herbert ave and build more housing and why not put the transit site on the empty land by twin sails hamworthy side?[/p][/quote]Why give them a site at all??? mimi55
  • Score: 11

6:45am Sat 29 Mar 14

MMM444 says...

Good News, Now whose going to buy the Park and Ride Site then, thats next for the travellers no doubt
Good News, Now whose going to buy the Park and Ride Site then, thats next for the travellers no doubt MMM444
  • Score: -2

7:31am Sat 29 Mar 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

So in effect Poole Council has accepted a bribe to change a decision, sorry but isn't this illegal?
So in effect Poole Council has accepted a bribe to change a decision, sorry but isn't this illegal? itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: -8

8:50am Sat 29 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Yankee1 wrote:
.Freckles wrote:
The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"
Why should the travelers 'win'?
They haven't won. In fact Poole has gained. We're just in the same position regarding illegal encampments as last year; but are probably better off. Travellers know their rights - yes more rights than we have, which is totally wrong. They would probably have gone to court over Marshes End as being unsuitable for the reasons the Planning Committee gave. It would have cost the borough even more wasted money - money spent on a site that wasn't used plus court costs. So we'd have been worse off if it had been approved both financially and travellers pitching up on private land instead of public..
.....
The travellers were never going to use the temporary stopping place (it was intended to be a transit site which needs washing facilities, children's play area and a lot more). Accepting that we have no choice when it comes to allowing them to travel, a site needs to be found which they WILL use, and big enough to cater for all that come here - not a piddling little contaminated patch for a few which will solve nothing.
.......
And Atkinson needs to learn what's appropriate to say and what's not. Think she's still trying to justify her actions over this whole affair. The Planning Committee refused it on planning grounds, and for no other reason. She now admits the site is tainted - I hope she means in the way in which she and her cronies handled it all rather than pressure on the Planning Committee or the fact that Forelle wants to buy the site because they already own all the adjacent land.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold].Freckles[/bold] wrote: The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"[/p][/quote]Why should the travelers 'win'?[/p][/quote]They haven't won. In fact Poole has gained. We're just in the same position regarding illegal encampments as last year; but are probably better off. Travellers know their rights - yes more rights than we have, which is totally wrong. They would probably have gone to court over Marshes End as being unsuitable for the reasons the Planning Committee gave. It would have cost the borough even more wasted money - money spent on a site that wasn't used plus court costs. So we'd have been worse off if it had been approved both financially and travellers pitching up on private land instead of public.. ..... The travellers were never going to use the temporary stopping place (it was intended to be a transit site which needs washing facilities, children's play area and a lot more). Accepting that we have no choice when it comes to allowing them to travel, a site needs to be found which they WILL use, and big enough to cater for all that come here - not a piddling little contaminated patch for a few which will solve nothing. ....... And Atkinson needs to learn what's appropriate to say and what's not. Think she's still trying to justify her actions over this whole affair. The Planning Committee refused it on planning grounds, and for no other reason. She now admits the site is tainted - I hope she means in the way in which she and her cronies handled it all rather than pressure on the Planning Committee or the fact that Forelle wants to buy the site because they already own all the adjacent land. Carolyn43
  • Score: 12

8:54am Sat 29 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

arti273 wrote:
I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price?

I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.
If you read back through the Echo archives, you an find out all about this "story".
.....
A commercial company (in this case Forelle Estates) offered twice the price because they own already all the land next to the site and want to keep it as it is currently designated as employment land. The council was intending to go against it's own policy and use it as residential.
[quote][p][bold]arti273[/bold] wrote: I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price? I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.[/p][/quote]If you read back through the Echo archives, you an find out all about this "story". ..... A commercial company (in this case Forelle Estates) offered twice the price because they own already all the land next to the site and want to keep it as it is currently designated as employment land. The council was intending to go against it's own policy and use it as residential. Carolyn43
  • Score: 10

8:58am Sat 29 Mar 14

sea poole says...

Walking at Baiter Park and noticed the council has installed an electrical power supply site adjacent to the car park with the power supply running in a trench about 100m from the source. Wonder why...?
Walking at Baiter Park and noticed the council has installed an electrical power supply site adjacent to the car park with the power supply running in a trench about 100m from the source. Wonder why...? sea poole
  • Score: 6

9:13am Sat 29 Mar 14

steveatbournemouth says...

Despite all the moaners & know best brigade I think the Council were trying to do what was best for the WHOLE Borough. Not many residents seem to be worried for the new office workers who will work on contaminated land!!
Despite all the moaners & know best brigade I think the Council were trying to do what was best for the WHOLE Borough. Not many residents seem to be worried for the new office workers who will work on contaminated land!! steveatbournemouth
  • Score: -5

9:14am Sat 29 Mar 14

MMM444 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
.Freckles wrote:
The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"
Why should the travelers 'win'?
They haven't won. In fact Poole has gained. We're just in the same position regarding illegal encampments as last year; but are probably better off. Travellers know their rights - yes more rights than we have, which is totally wrong. They would probably have gone to court over Marshes End as being unsuitable for the reasons the Planning Committee gave. It would have cost the borough even more wasted money - money spent on a site that wasn't used plus court costs. So we'd have been worse off if it had been approved both financially and travellers pitching up on private land instead of public..
.....
The travellers were never going to use the temporary stopping place (it was intended to be a transit site which needs washing facilities, children's play area and a lot more). Accepting that we have no choice when it comes to allowing them to travel, a site needs to be found which they WILL use, and big enough to cater for all that come here - not a piddling little contaminated patch for a few which will solve nothing.
.......
And Atkinson needs to learn what's appropriate to say and what's not. Think she's still trying to justify her actions over this whole affair. The Planning Committee refused it on planning grounds, and for no other reason. She now admits the site is tainted - I hope she means in the way in which she and her cronies handled it all rather than pressure on the Planning Committee or the fact that Forelle wants to buy the site because they already own all the adjacent land.
Atkinson should resign, NOW, "Think she's still trying to justify her actions over this whole affair", Once again £thousands of pounds of council payers cash down the drain over this whole affair, this woman is an absolute liability, everything she's involved in is a disaster, infact sack the whole lot of them, unfit for purpose
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold].Freckles[/bold] wrote: The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"[/p][/quote]Why should the travelers 'win'?[/p][/quote]They haven't won. In fact Poole has gained. We're just in the same position regarding illegal encampments as last year; but are probably better off. Travellers know their rights - yes more rights than we have, which is totally wrong. They would probably have gone to court over Marshes End as being unsuitable for the reasons the Planning Committee gave. It would have cost the borough even more wasted money - money spent on a site that wasn't used plus court costs. So we'd have been worse off if it had been approved both financially and travellers pitching up on private land instead of public.. ..... The travellers were never going to use the temporary stopping place (it was intended to be a transit site which needs washing facilities, children's play area and a lot more). Accepting that we have no choice when it comes to allowing them to travel, a site needs to be found which they WILL use, and big enough to cater for all that come here - not a piddling little contaminated patch for a few which will solve nothing. ....... And Atkinson needs to learn what's appropriate to say and what's not. Think she's still trying to justify her actions over this whole affair. The Planning Committee refused it on planning grounds, and for no other reason. She now admits the site is tainted - I hope she means in the way in which she and her cronies handled it all rather than pressure on the Planning Committee or the fact that Forelle wants to buy the site because they already own all the adjacent land.[/p][/quote]Atkinson should resign, NOW, "Think she's still trying to justify her actions over this whole affair", Once again £thousands of pounds of council payers cash down the drain over this whole affair, this woman is an absolute liability, everything she's involved in is a disaster, infact sack the whole lot of them, unfit for purpose MMM444
  • Score: 18

9:39am Sat 29 Mar 14

calamity carney says...

Why sell the land? There was no need to do it?
Why sell the land? There was no need to do it? calamity carney
  • Score: -11

10:02am Sat 29 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

steveatbournemouth wrote:
Despite all the moaners & know best brigade I think the Council were trying to do what was best for the WHOLE Borough. Not many residents seem to be worried for the new office workers who will work on contaminated land!!
The buildings adjacent to this site are on contaminated ground too. They all have methane detectors and alarms, so it's perfectly safe for the office workers. Unlike on open ground, living in a caravan.
......
Macro in Creekmoor is on contaminated land, or hadn't you noticed the methane release pipes all around the perimeter?
[quote][p][bold]steveatbournemouth[/bold] wrote: Despite all the moaners & know best brigade I think the Council were trying to do what was best for the WHOLE Borough. Not many residents seem to be worried for the new office workers who will work on contaminated land!![/p][/quote]The buildings adjacent to this site are on contaminated ground too. They all have methane detectors and alarms, so it's perfectly safe for the office workers. Unlike on open ground, living in a caravan. ...... Macro in Creekmoor is on contaminated land, or hadn't you noticed the methane release pipes all around the perimeter? Carolyn43
  • Score: 8

10:02am Sat 29 Mar 14

RM says...

sea poole wrote:
Walking at Baiter Park and noticed the council has installed an electrical power supply site adjacent to the car park with the power supply running in a trench about 100m from the source. Wonder why...?
Hopefully, to power an electric fence but more likely it's to provide the usual illegal campers with a free power supply. When oh when are we going to see real democracy & equality in this country - instead of as it is now with the undeserving being regarded as 'more equal'.
[quote][p][bold]sea poole[/bold] wrote: Walking at Baiter Park and noticed the council has installed an electrical power supply site adjacent to the car park with the power supply running in a trench about 100m from the source. Wonder why...?[/p][/quote]Hopefully, to power an electric fence but more likely it's to provide the usual illegal campers with a free power supply. When oh when are we going to see real democracy & equality in this country - instead of as it is now with the undeserving being regarded as 'more equal'. RM
  • Score: 6

10:37am Sat 29 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

RM wrote:
sea poole wrote:
Walking at Baiter Park and noticed the council has installed an electrical power supply site adjacent to the car park with the power supply running in a trench about 100m from the source. Wonder why...?
Hopefully, to power an electric fence but more likely it's to provide the usual illegal campers with a free power supply. When oh when are we going to see real democracy & equality in this country - instead of as it is now with the undeserving being regarded as 'more equal'.
Is it perhaps a charging point for an electric car.
[quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sea poole[/bold] wrote: Walking at Baiter Park and noticed the council has installed an electrical power supply site adjacent to the car park with the power supply running in a trench about 100m from the source. Wonder why...?[/p][/quote]Hopefully, to power an electric fence but more likely it's to provide the usual illegal campers with a free power supply. When oh when are we going to see real democracy & equality in this country - instead of as it is now with the undeserving being regarded as 'more equal'.[/p][/quote]Is it perhaps a charging point for an electric car. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

12:02pm Sat 29 Mar 14

sap_user says...

The land is tainted, the site is tainted, the leader is tainted.

It's time to go Cllr. Atkinson
The land is tainted, the site is tainted, the leader is tainted. It's time to go Cllr. Atkinson sap_user
  • Score: 8

12:42pm Sat 29 Mar 14

arti273 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
arti273 wrote:
I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price?

I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.
If you read back through the Echo archives, you an find out all about this "story".
.....
A commercial company (in this case Forelle Estates) offered twice the price because they own already all the land next to the site and want to keep it as it is currently designated as employment land. The council was intending to go against it's own policy and use it as residential.
Thank you for answering my question rather than just giving it a thumbs down - saves me reading through the archives, as fun as that would have been.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arti273[/bold] wrote: I've not been following this story, but why would a commercial business offer and pay twice the level of an independent open market valuation for the plot? Why not find another plot with a realistic asking price? I always understood the value of something to equal exactly what someone was prepared to pay for it. So either they need to find a new source of independent valuation or they should sack their acquisitions director.[/p][/quote]If you read back through the Echo archives, you an find out all about this "story". ..... A commercial company (in this case Forelle Estates) offered twice the price because they own already all the land next to the site and want to keep it as it is currently designated as employment land. The council was intending to go against it's own policy and use it as residential.[/p][/quote]Thank you for answering my question rather than just giving it a thumbs down - saves me reading through the archives, as fun as that would have been. arti273
  • Score: 2

3:47pm Sat 29 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

snowflakes wrote:
Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long.
Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.
Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder.
A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try.
Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here.
[quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long. Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.[/p][/quote]Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder. A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try. Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here. SuperSnooper
  • Score: -5

3:55pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Finally a common sense decision from the Council but who were the 12 that voted against accepting the offer and what were their reasons for doing so?
Finally a common sense decision from the Council but who were the 12 that voted against accepting the offer and what were their reasons for doing so? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

4:19pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
snowflakes wrote:
Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long.
Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.
Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder.
A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try.
Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here.
You seem to be pretty well informed on a lot of things about the council so maybe you can answer something that I find a little curious. As the article says there were 17 votes for and 12 against, which makes 29 but there are in fact 42 elected councillors, surely for something like this it should have been a full council vote. According to my maths the would mean 25 of Pooles 42 councillors either didn't vote or voted against, which is hardly keeping to the Code of Conduct of doing what is best for the community. This agreement to sell the land has saved the taxpayers of Poole a lot of money and only 17 Councillors could see that?, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the other 25.
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long. Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.[/p][/quote]Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder. A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try. Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here.[/p][/quote]You seem to be pretty well informed on a lot of things about the council so maybe you can answer something that I find a little curious. As the article says there were 17 votes for and 12 against, which makes 29 but there are in fact 42 elected councillors, surely for something like this it should have been a full council vote. According to my maths the would mean 25 of Pooles 42 councillors either didn't vote or voted against, which is hardly keeping to the Code of Conduct of doing what is best for the community. This agreement to sell the land has saved the taxpayers of Poole a lot of money and only 17 Councillors could see that?, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the other 25. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 3

4:29pm Sat 29 Mar 14

sap_user says...

The 11 councilors who voted against were all liberal democrats. The 17 councilors who voted for where 11 cons 4 PPP and 2 liberal dems, with 2 lib dems abstaining, there was a recorded vote these numbers can be checked.
The 11 councilors who voted against were all liberal democrats. The 17 councilors who voted for where 11 cons 4 PPP and 2 liberal dems, with 2 lib dems abstaining, there was a recorded vote these numbers can be checked. sap_user
  • Score: 1

6:24pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
snowflakes wrote:
Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long.
Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.
Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder.
A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try.
Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here.
With every post you give yourself away...

I don't recall anyone saying in this whole sorry saga that councillors are rich. Some have made some very poor choices, and compounded that by refusing to acknowledge what is obvious to pretty much anyone willing to maintain an open mind. For the most part (though granted not wholly) the debate has been about the merits, or rather the de-merits, of the appalling process and decisions made by Atkinson and her cronies. Leaving aside a couple of numpties who engaged in personal attack, and whose comments should have been removed, the story has been about their fitness to lead, which has been shown to be sadly lacking.
To be fair, Cllr Trent has also from time to time overstepped the mark on here, describing the interested residents of Creekmoor as 'a mob', and decrying the validity of popular involvement in the democratic process. This stuff cuts both ways...
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long. Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.[/p][/quote]Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder. A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try. Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here.[/p][/quote]With every post you give yourself away... I don't recall anyone saying in this whole sorry saga that councillors are rich. Some have made some very poor choices, and compounded that by refusing to acknowledge what is obvious to pretty much anyone willing to maintain an open mind. For the most part (though granted not wholly) the debate has been about the merits, or rather the de-merits, of the appalling process and decisions made by Atkinson and her cronies. Leaving aside a couple of numpties who engaged in personal attack, and whose comments should have been removed, the story has been about their fitness to lead, which has been shown to be sadly lacking. To be fair, Cllr Trent has also from time to time overstepped the mark on here, describing the interested residents of Creekmoor as 'a mob', and decrying the validity of popular involvement in the democratic process. This stuff cuts both ways... Jo__Go
  • Score: 1

6:36pm Sat 29 Mar 14

MMM444 says...

Jo__Go wrote:
SuperSnooper wrote:
snowflakes wrote:
Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long.
Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.
Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder.
A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try.
Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here.
With every post you give yourself away...

I don't recall anyone saying in this whole sorry saga that councillors are rich. Some have made some very poor choices, and compounded that by refusing to acknowledge what is obvious to pretty much anyone willing to maintain an open mind. For the most part (though granted not wholly) the debate has been about the merits, or rather the de-merits, of the appalling process and decisions made by Atkinson and her cronies. Leaving aside a couple of numpties who engaged in personal attack, and whose comments should have been removed, the story has been about their fitness to lead, which has been shown to be sadly lacking.
To be fair, Cllr Trent has also from time to time overstepped the mark on here, describing the interested residents of Creekmoor as 'a mob', and decrying the validity of popular involvement in the democratic process. This stuff cuts both ways...
Exactly, and ex councillor Judy Butt was sacked for standing up to this idiot Cllr Atkinson, who should be re-instated.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: Well done accepting the £400.000 And keeping them out.That piece of land has been an eyesore for too long. Atkinson can arrange a site local to her property now. One must be vigilant at ensuring the travellers are allocated a resting place..lol.[/p][/quote]Atkinson doesn't own a property,, like most people these days she can't afford to get on the property ladder. A lot of people on here seem to think all the councillors are rich people, which isn't correct, and no one will ever earn enough as a councillor to be able to buy a house,, no matter what party you support, no one is a councillor for the money,, so although many are say we say misguided, at least they bother to try. Anyone can stand to be a councillor, in all parties there is a desperate shortage of good people willing to stand... You can understand why reading half of the abuse on here.[/p][/quote]With every post you give yourself away... I don't recall anyone saying in this whole sorry saga that councillors are rich. Some have made some very poor choices, and compounded that by refusing to acknowledge what is obvious to pretty much anyone willing to maintain an open mind. For the most part (though granted not wholly) the debate has been about the merits, or rather the de-merits, of the appalling process and decisions made by Atkinson and her cronies. Leaving aside a couple of numpties who engaged in personal attack, and whose comments should have been removed, the story has been about their fitness to lead, which has been shown to be sadly lacking. To be fair, Cllr Trent has also from time to time overstepped the mark on here, describing the interested residents of Creekmoor as 'a mob', and decrying the validity of popular involvement in the democratic process. This stuff cuts both ways...[/p][/quote]Exactly, and ex councillor Judy Butt was sacked for standing up to this idiot Cllr Atkinson, who should be re-instated. MMM444
  • Score: 3

10:23am Sun 30 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

Judy butt is still a councillor,, not an ex councillor,, you can't sack a councillor,, that's a job for the electorate...
She had to leave her post as she was actively campaigning against HER own policy, she was in charge of the whole gypsy site saga, then she decided to vote against it,, major conflict of interest..
An example of the same thing would be the chancellor of the exchecker , standing up and giving his big budget speach, then sitting down and voting against it...
Unfortunately Judy butt did not have either the intelligence or the integrity to understand that and she should have stepped down from cabinet so she would be free to represent just her own constituents,, but asits very clear she lacks many qualities she decided to make a bit fuss instead.

So what's the outcome ? Nothing !!! Nothing changes, she is stills councillor, the gypsy site wasn't built, the status quo continues,, everyone in creekmoor will vote conservative again because all the other parties voted for the gypsy site there,, so no change at all, just Judy Butt doing a very poor job, wasting tax payers money and acting the fool...
Judy butt is still a councillor,, not an ex councillor,, you can't sack a councillor,, that's a job for the electorate... She had to leave her post as she was actively campaigning against HER own policy, she was in charge of the whole gypsy site saga, then she decided to vote against it,, major conflict of interest.. An example of the same thing would be the chancellor of the exchecker , standing up and giving his big budget speach, then sitting down and voting against it... Unfortunately Judy butt did not have either the intelligence or the integrity to understand that and she should have stepped down from cabinet so she would be free to represent just her own constituents,, but asits very clear she lacks many qualities she decided to make a bit fuss instead. So what's the outcome ? Nothing !!! Nothing changes, she is stills councillor, the gypsy site wasn't built, the status quo continues,, everyone in creekmoor will vote conservative again because all the other parties voted for the gypsy site there,, so no change at all, just Judy Butt doing a very poor job, wasting tax payers money and acting the fool... SuperSnooper
  • Score: -1

10:27am Sun 30 Mar 14

SuperSnooper says...

And, for those idiots on here that seem to think I am either on the council or a political party member,, stop being idiots, I am not.
My personal opinion is that we should not have ANY councillors, and I don't think politics should be involved in councils. It always gets in the way of people doing the right thing.
And, for those idiots on here that seem to think I am either on the council or a political party member,, stop being idiots, I am not. My personal opinion is that we should not have ANY councillors, and I don't think politics should be involved in councils. It always gets in the way of people doing the right thing. SuperSnooper
  • Score: -2

11:05am Sun 30 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
Judy butt is still a councillor,, not an ex councillor,, you can't sack a councillor,, that's a job for the electorate...
She had to leave her post as she was actively campaigning against HER own policy, she was in charge of the whole gypsy site saga, then she decided to vote against it,, major conflict of interest..
An example of the same thing would be the chancellor of the exchecker , standing up and giving his big budget speach, then sitting down and voting against it...
Unfortunately Judy butt did not have either the intelligence or the integrity to understand that and she should have stepped down from cabinet so she would be free to represent just her own constituents,, but asits very clear she lacks many qualities she decided to make a bit fuss instead.

So what's the outcome ? Nothing !!! Nothing changes, she is stills councillor, the gypsy site wasn't built, the status quo continues,, everyone in creekmoor will vote conservative again because all the other parties voted for the gypsy site there,, so no change at all, just Judy Butt doing a very poor job, wasting tax payers money and acting the fool...
If you feel that Judy Butt should have resigned, I wonder what you think about the fact she was replaced by someone who also voted against the ludicrous plan. Let me guess they are all idiots, easy to do a bit of name calling when you don't actually have the balls to post under your real names isn't it.

As for 'What's the outcome'... A landmark office building will be built on one of Poole's gateways, 200 new jobs for the community. £400k to the Council so they now have the funding for a transit site and a business rates revenue of somewhere in the region of £135k a year. Obviously to such a genius as yourself that equates to nothing but an idiot like myself thinks that is actually a good thing for Poole. So well done Judy Butt for standing up for those who elected her to stand up for them.
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: Judy butt is still a councillor,, not an ex councillor,, you can't sack a councillor,, that's a job for the electorate... She had to leave her post as she was actively campaigning against HER own policy, she was in charge of the whole gypsy site saga, then she decided to vote against it,, major conflict of interest.. An example of the same thing would be the chancellor of the exchecker , standing up and giving his big budget speach, then sitting down and voting against it... Unfortunately Judy butt did not have either the intelligence or the integrity to understand that and she should have stepped down from cabinet so she would be free to represent just her own constituents,, but asits very clear she lacks many qualities she decided to make a bit fuss instead. So what's the outcome ? Nothing !!! Nothing changes, she is stills councillor, the gypsy site wasn't built, the status quo continues,, everyone in creekmoor will vote conservative again because all the other parties voted for the gypsy site there,, so no change at all, just Judy Butt doing a very poor job, wasting tax payers money and acting the fool...[/p][/quote]If you feel that Judy Butt should have resigned, I wonder what you think about the fact she was replaced by someone who also voted against the ludicrous plan. Let me guess they are all idiots, easy to do a bit of name calling when you don't actually have the balls to post under your real names isn't it. As for 'What's the outcome'... A landmark office building will be built on one of Poole's gateways, 200 new jobs for the community. £400k to the Council so they now have the funding for a transit site and a business rates revenue of somewhere in the region of £135k a year. Obviously to such a genius as yourself that equates to nothing but an idiot like myself thinks that is actually a good thing for Poole. So well done Judy Butt for standing up for those who elected her to stand up for them. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 3

11:50am Sun 30 Mar 14

MMM444 says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
SuperSnooper wrote:
Judy butt is still a councillor,, not an ex councillor,, you can't sack a councillor,, that's a job for the electorate...
She had to leave her post as she was actively campaigning against HER own policy, she was in charge of the whole gypsy site saga, then she decided to vote against it,, major conflict of interest..
An example of the same thing would be the chancellor of the exchecker , standing up and giving his big budget speach, then sitting down and voting against it...
Unfortunately Judy butt did not have either the intelligence or the integrity to understand that and she should have stepped down from cabinet so she would be free to represent just her own constituents,, but asits very clear she lacks many qualities she decided to make a bit fuss instead.

So what's the outcome ? Nothing !!! Nothing changes, she is stills councillor, the gypsy site wasn't built, the status quo continues,, everyone in creekmoor will vote conservative again because all the other parties voted for the gypsy site there,, so no change at all, just Judy Butt doing a very poor job, wasting tax payers money and acting the fool...
If you feel that Judy Butt should have resigned, I wonder what you think about the fact she was replaced by someone who also voted against the ludicrous plan. Let me guess they are all idiots, easy to do a bit of name calling when you don't actually have the balls to post under your real names isn't it.

As for 'What's the outcome'... A landmark office building will be built on one of Poole's gateways, 200 new jobs for the community. £400k to the Council so they now have the funding for a transit site and a business rates revenue of somewhere in the region of £135k a year. Obviously to such a genius as yourself that equates to nothing but an idiot like myself thinks that is actually a good thing for Poole. So well done Judy Butt for standing up for those who elected her to stand up for them.
Absolutely Super Dooperly put Marty
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: Judy butt is still a councillor,, not an ex councillor,, you can't sack a councillor,, that's a job for the electorate... She had to leave her post as she was actively campaigning against HER own policy, she was in charge of the whole gypsy site saga, then she decided to vote against it,, major conflict of interest.. An example of the same thing would be the chancellor of the exchecker , standing up and giving his big budget speach, then sitting down and voting against it... Unfortunately Judy butt did not have either the intelligence or the integrity to understand that and she should have stepped down from cabinet so she would be free to represent just her own constituents,, but asits very clear she lacks many qualities she decided to make a bit fuss instead. So what's the outcome ? Nothing !!! Nothing changes, she is stills councillor, the gypsy site wasn't built, the status quo continues,, everyone in creekmoor will vote conservative again because all the other parties voted for the gypsy site there,, so no change at all, just Judy Butt doing a very poor job, wasting tax payers money and acting the fool...[/p][/quote]If you feel that Judy Butt should have resigned, I wonder what you think about the fact she was replaced by someone who also voted against the ludicrous plan. Let me guess they are all idiots, easy to do a bit of name calling when you don't actually have the balls to post under your real names isn't it. As for 'What's the outcome'... A landmark office building will be built on one of Poole's gateways, 200 new jobs for the community. £400k to the Council so they now have the funding for a transit site and a business rates revenue of somewhere in the region of £135k a year. Obviously to such a genius as yourself that equates to nothing but an idiot like myself thinks that is actually a good thing for Poole. So well done Judy Butt for standing up for those who elected her to stand up for them.[/p][/quote]Absolutely Super Dooperly put Marty MMM444
  • Score: 4

4:19pm Sun 30 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

sap_user wrote:
The 11 councilors who voted against were all liberal democrats. The 17 councilors who voted for where 11 cons 4 PPP and 2 liberal dems, with 2 lib dems abstaining, there was a recorded vote these numbers can be checked.
Very interesting thank you. The only conservative leaflet ever put through my door to try to recruit me was about 15 years ago and I kid you not,on a four page leaflet had one page with a picture of some hugely fat people and another dominated by some clip art of a pile of cakes. Hardly the local party to put exercise for themselves or the children of the borough as a priority. So recreation grounds and children's play areas shut all summer not a problem. "Let them eat cake" as the Marie Antoinette said before they cut her head off .£400K should buy quite a bit of cake-assuming a contract ever gets signed at that price that is!
[quote][p][bold]sap_user[/bold] wrote: The 11 councilors who voted against were all liberal democrats. The 17 councilors who voted for where 11 cons 4 PPP and 2 liberal dems, with 2 lib dems abstaining, there was a recorded vote these numbers can be checked.[/p][/quote]Very interesting thank you. The only conservative leaflet ever put through my door to try to recruit me was about 15 years ago and I kid you not,on a four page leaflet had one page with a picture of some hugely fat people and another dominated by some clip art of a pile of cakes. Hardly the local party to put exercise for themselves or the children of the borough as a priority. So recreation grounds and children's play areas shut all summer not a problem. "Let them eat cake" as the Marie Antoinette said before they cut her head off .£400K should buy quite a bit of cake-assuming a contract ever gets signed at that price that is! ashleycross
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Sun 30 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

Yankee1 wrote:
.Freckles wrote:
The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"
Why should the travelers 'win'?
The travellers have not lost out by the site not being built. Every open space in Poole is still legally up for grabs with no chance of a court order to move anyone on. How is that losing out? An official site where you need to give your name and where and when you were born is not a popular option with a lot of people who use the parks and recreation grounds at the moment. But it would allow court orders to move them on from what would become illegal encampments in the place used at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold].Freckles[/bold] wrote: The real reason the travellers lost out - money! Not because "the council listened to the public"[/p][/quote]Why should the travelers 'win'?[/p][/quote]The travellers have not lost out by the site not being built. Every open space in Poole is still legally up for grabs with no chance of a court order to move anyone on. How is that losing out? An official site where you need to give your name and where and when you were born is not a popular option with a lot of people who use the parks and recreation grounds at the moment. But it would allow court orders to move them on from what would become illegal encampments in the place used at the moment. ashleycross
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

SuperSnooper wrote:
And, for those idiots on here that seem to think I am either on the council or a political party member,, stop being idiots, I am not.
My personal opinion is that we should not have ANY councillors, and I don't think politics should be involved in councils. It always gets in the way of people doing the right thing.
Exactly who are you calling an idiot????
[quote][p][bold]SuperSnooper[/bold] wrote: And, for those idiots on here that seem to think I am either on the council or a political party member,, stop being idiots, I am not. My personal opinion is that we should not have ANY councillors, and I don't think politics should be involved in councils. It always gets in the way of people doing the right thing.[/p][/quote]Exactly who are you calling an idiot???? Jo__Go
  • Score: 0

12:47am Mon 31 Mar 14

guisselle says...

With the shortage of family homes in Poole and Bournemouth there will be
more people living in caravans the way things are going!
With the shortage of family homes in Poole and Bournemouth there will be more people living in caravans the way things are going! guisselle
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Mon 31 Mar 14

MarloweOS says...

So does this mean grade separating Holes Bay North roundabout will never happen?
So does this mean grade separating Holes Bay North roundabout will never happen? MarloweOS
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Wed 2 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Now watch for them to choose sites all over the place hoping someone will offer double the value to keep the Caravan Using Nomadic Travelling Society away! I bet it won't work twice.....
Now watch for them to choose sites all over the place hoping someone will offer double the value to keep the Caravan Using Nomadic Travelling Society away! I bet it won't work twice..... speedy231278
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Lord Parkstone says...

If travellers want some land to live on then let them buy their own land preferably somewhere remote and uninhabited. .......
If travellers want some land to live on then let them buy their own land preferably somewhere remote and uninhabited. ....... Lord Parkstone
  • Score: 1

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