Residents irate over work on potential travellers’ site in Poole

Bournemouth Echo: Marshes End at Creekmoor Marshes End at Creekmoor

CREEKMOOR residents are outraged after Borough of Poole began clearing land being considered for a controversial traveller stopping site, before it has gone before the planning committee.

Irate residents, who are complaining about a lack of consultation and democracy over the chosen sites, are more than ever convinced that the council has decided to forge ahead regardless.

Two possible sites on land at Marshes End, Creekmoor and off Broadstone Way have been put forward and planning permission for 12 pitches at the former site is due to be sought in March.

However council workmen have been spotted on the site clearing it of undergrowth – although Borough of Poole denies that any construction work is underway.

Creekmoor resident Terry Hughes said: “This deceitful and disgusting behaviour by our council makes me feel ashamed to be a Poole resident.”

He said the council had caused great distress to many elderly residents and it was now becoming clear that, “Creekmoor was always going to be the target for this, no matter what obstacles were going to be encountered.”

Another Creekmoor resident Edward Webster said he was “disappointed” that work appeared to have been started without planning permission.

“The application does not go to committee until next month so one assumes the outcome is already known,” he said. “I am told the work is to prevent birds nesting which would delay development.”

And Terry Stewart, of Dorset Council for the Protection of Rural England has called for work to be stopped until Dorset Wildlife Trust evaluates the site.

“When the park and ride site was approved, I understood that the wood next to it and the marsh were designated as protected,” he said.

“So it is wrong to clear the site until the full public consultation and the planning approval processes have been completed.”

Ward councillor Judy Butt said: “There is concern by residents that Borough of Poole are setting a poor example by starting work on the site at cost to council tax payers before planning permission has been granted.”

Shaun Robson, head of environmental and consumer protection said: “We can confirm to residents that no construction work has started on the Marshes End site and no materials have been delivered.

“The only action that has been taken so far relates to site clearance in preparation for site surveys which will be carried out to support the planning application.”

He said building materials that had been delivered to the neighbouring park and ride site were for a Three Towns Travel project and would be there temporarily.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:43am Mon 10 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

You know it's always been in the bag.
You know it's always been in the bag. BIGTONE

7:57am Mon 10 Feb 14

Lord Spring says...

Have they taken a leaf out of Ed Mitchells book.
Have they taken a leaf out of Ed Mitchells book. Lord Spring

8:05am Mon 10 Feb 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Just needs some of the residents to acquire suitable vehicles that will enable them to become part time travellers so that the site is always full, get my drift?
Just needs some of the residents to acquire suitable vehicles that will enable them to become part time travellers so that the site is always full, get my drift? The-Bleeding-Obvious

9:20am Mon 10 Feb 14

Jo__Go says...

Somebody is getting ahead of themselves at Phil's Folly...
Somebody is getting ahead of themselves at Phil's Folly... Jo__Go

9:37am Mon 10 Feb 14

smhinto says...

It is because that the plan was always going to go ahead regardless of public opinion or what people think.
.
Typical Council policy I'm afraid.
It is because that the plan was always going to go ahead regardless of public opinion or what people think. . Typical Council policy I'm afraid. smhinto

9:38am Mon 10 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

Note that the council refers to the site as Marshes End, except on the planning application where they've hidden the location under the title 'Safety Drive' so it's difficult to find to make a comment. Obviously they expect more comments objecting than they expect comments in support so are making it difficult to make a comment at all.
......
If there is any important wildlife, council workers tramping about on waterlogged ground (in fact it's a bog at the moment) won't do it a lot of good, but, with the secrecy with which this has been planned, perhaps that's the intention.
Note that the council refers to the site as Marshes End, except on the planning application where they've hidden the location under the title 'Safety Drive' so it's difficult to find to make a comment. Obviously they expect more comments objecting than they expect comments in support so are making it difficult to make a comment at all. ...... If there is any important wildlife, council workers tramping about on waterlogged ground (in fact it's a bog at the moment) won't do it a lot of good, but, with the secrecy with which this has been planned, perhaps that's the intention. Carolyn43

9:51am Mon 10 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?
More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"? DorsetFerret

10:35am Mon 10 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?
Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have got £12.1 million between them from the government to make travel improvements along main routes. What Poole is "improving" is on:
.......
http://www.boroughof
poole.com/transport-
and-streets/transpor
t-policy/poole-three
-towns-travel/pooles
-three-towns-travel-
projects/
.......
Note that "consultation" on improvements to Ashley Road rook place. Anyone hear about that? Anyone notice improvements on what has been listed as completed?
......
Can't see anything on the list about anything going on near the Park and Ride, where they've put materials which they say are not for the travellers' site. They really do think residents are stupid.
.......
Of course, if the travellers' site does go ahead and the travellers' refuse to use it for very good reasons that have been included in objections, then they'll either go to Bournemouth or onto private land. Poole council won't have the problem or expense of moving them on, but they could still end up parking on private land near you and others will have the problem of moving them instead.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: More dirty tricks from this shady council but am I missing something. What is "The three town travel project"?[/p][/quote]Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have got £12.1 million between them from the government to make travel improvements along main routes. What Poole is "improving" is on: ....... http://www.boroughof poole.com/transport- and-streets/transpor t-policy/poole-three -towns-travel/pooles -three-towns-travel- projects/ ....... Note that "consultation" on improvements to Ashley Road rook place. Anyone hear about that? Anyone notice improvements on what has been listed as completed? ...... Can't see anything on the list about anything going on near the Park and Ride, where they've put materials which they say are not for the travellers' site. They really do think residents are stupid. ....... Of course, if the travellers' site does go ahead and the travellers' refuse to use it for very good reasons that have been included in objections, then they'll either go to Bournemouth or onto private land. Poole council won't have the problem or expense of moving them on, but they could still end up parking on private land near you and others will have the problem of moving them instead. Carolyn43

10:56am Mon 10 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

So, it's a done deal then. Surprise, surprise.
So, it's a done deal then. Surprise, surprise. speedy231278

11:04am Mon 10 Feb 14

ljw1414 says...

Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am
Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am ljw1414

11:11am Mon 10 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

Come on Poole Council at least get the dodgy explanations right, just look to your Christchurch Council colleagues for a fine example!

Because Poole Council should have said that this 'traveller' site work is of course in connection with an 'archaeological survey' - similar to the one that 'accidently' ensured that several Christchurch (TPO) protected trees were controversially felled by developers the other day.

Once again the serious question arises - do some of our Public Servants now regard themselves as our unaccountable Masters ? The smell from Creekmoor just keeps getting worse.
Come on Poole Council at least get the dodgy explanations right, just look to your Christchurch Council colleagues for a fine example! Because Poole Council should have said that this 'traveller' site work is of course in connection with an 'archaeological survey' - similar to the one that 'accidently' ensured that several Christchurch (TPO) protected trees were controversially felled by developers the other day. Once again the serious question arises - do some of our Public Servants now regard themselves as our unaccountable Masters ? The smell from Creekmoor just keeps getting worse. muscliffman

11:41am Mon 10 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

ljw1414 wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am
The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.
[quote][p][bold]ljw1414[/bold] wrote: Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am[/p][/quote]The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again. .... They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days. ....... Foolproof. Carolyn43

11:42am Mon 10 Feb 14

pd7 says...

NIMBY's
NIMBY's pd7

12:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

pd7 wrote:
NIMBY's
Dik ed
[quote][p][bold]pd7[/bold] wrote: NIMBY's[/p][/quote]Dik ed BIGTONE

12:34pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????
All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over. GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY?????? Letcommonsenseprevail

12:34pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ljw1414 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
ljw1414 wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am
The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again.
....
They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days.
.......
Foolproof.
Hahahaha oh right that's going to work then ,fantastic logic !
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ljw1414[/bold] wrote: Can somebody explain to me how are they going to police this so called transit site as I'm sure I read it is a temporary site for travellers staying no more than 3 weeks at a time ,are they having a receptionist on the gate ,taking bookings ? And when their times up and they decide they like it there are we going to have to listen to how court orders to get them off are in place at god knows how much expense ,or have I missed something ? Confused legal bill payer of Dorset that I am[/p][/quote]The council have said that the gates will be locked. When the travellers arrive, someone from the council will unlock the gates, and when they leave they'll lock them again. .... They will be allowed to stay on the site for up to 30 days. ....... Foolproof.[/p][/quote]Hahahaha oh right that's going to work then ,fantastic logic ! ljw1414

12:35pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

pd7 wrote:
NIMBY's
Where do you live pdo7? we can ask the council to put travellers in your front garden and see how you like it.................
[quote][p][bold]pd7[/bold] wrote: NIMBY's[/p][/quote]Where do you live pdo7? we can ask the council to put travellers in your front garden and see how you like it................. Letcommonsenseprevail

12:36pm Mon 10 Feb 14

mw2010 says...

Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge) mw2010

12:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

skippy123 says...

marshes end is a good place they might just sink down and never be seen again
marshes end is a good place they might just sink down and never be seen again skippy123

1:04pm Mon 10 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

pd7 wrote:
NIMBY's
Yes, and who can blame them?
[quote][p][bold]pd7[/bold] wrote: NIMBY's[/p][/quote]Yes, and who can blame them? speedy231278

2:06pm Mon 10 Feb 14

live-and-let-live says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????
that only works when the council needs an excuse to stop others from doing something
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over. GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????[/p][/quote]that only works when the council needs an excuse to stop others from doing something live-and-let-live

2:20pm Mon 10 Feb 14

JayJay45 says...

So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!
So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval! JayJay45

2:21pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Baysider says...

mw2010 wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)
Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.
[quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote: Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development. Baysider

2:28pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Dr Strangelove says...

Who do they work for or rather serve? Not the voters so don't vote for them next time round vote for an independent or turn up but spoil the paper when voting.
Who do they work for or rather serve? Not the voters so don't vote for them next time round vote for an independent or turn up but spoil the paper when voting. Dr Strangelove

3:10pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Jo__Go says...

Baysider wrote:
mw2010 wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)
Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.
I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote: Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.[/p][/quote]I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec.... Jo__Go

3:35pm Mon 10 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

Job done.Thanks Lib Dems,
The travelers wont use it ,They will proberly park out side the houses in the road ,As long as they are taxed and insured ,
Come to think of it they might park on my front lawn ,
Then i will have to get a court order to move them on .At my exspence.
Job done.Thanks Lib Dems, The travelers wont use it ,They will proberly park out side the houses in the road ,As long as they are taxed and insured , Come to think of it they might park on my front lawn , Then i will have to get a court order to move them on .At my exspence. cromwell9

3:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Baysider wrote:
mw2010 wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)
Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.
I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....
I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote: Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.[/p][/quote]I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....[/p][/quote]I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place? DorsetFerret

5:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

dustbindanny says...

Creekmoor residents, I hope you will welcome your new neighbours, Bunting , Balloons Flags etc, after all it's your Council tax that will be paying for this?and what,s the betting this years tax will be increased.? We the tax paying public are ' mugs' these Councils do not work for the people that ' put the money in the pot' ...!
Creekmoor residents, I hope you will welcome your new neighbours, Bunting , Balloons Flags etc, after all it's your Council tax that will be paying for this?and what,s the betting this years tax will be increased.? We the tax paying public are ' mugs' these Councils do not work for the people that ' put the money in the pot' ...! dustbindanny

6:18pm Mon 10 Feb 14

smhinto says...

As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!!
As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there. . Or could they ?? . They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway. . So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous. . It's a no brainer!! smhinto

7:10pm Mon 10 Feb 14

davecook says...

JayJay45 wrote:
So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!
This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......
[quote][p][bold]JayJay45[/bold] wrote: So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval![/p][/quote]This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus....... davecook

7:55pm Mon 10 Feb 14

tramp_about_town says...

Letcommonsenseprevai
l
wrote:
All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over.
GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????
Forget protected species, they should be checking for Japanese Knotweed. Rife around there! Clearing that up would blow the budget.
[quote][p][bold]Letcommonsenseprevai l[/bold] wrote: All it needs is for a protected species to be found on the site.......game over. GET MY DRIFT EVERYBODY??????[/p][/quote]Forget protected species, they should be checking for Japanese Knotweed. Rife around there! Clearing that up would blow the budget. tramp_about_town

8:15pm Mon 10 Feb 14

apm1954 says...

i expect cllr eades , "the mayor" has been down there with his strimmer, seeing it was his idea to lump this on creekmoor.
i expect cllr eades , "the mayor" has been down there with his strimmer, seeing it was his idea to lump this on creekmoor. apm1954

8:41pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Baysider says...

smhinto wrote:
As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there.
.
Or could they ??
.
They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway.
.
So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous.
.
It's a no brainer!!
...yes well you would recognise a no brainer better than most wouldn't you!
[quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: As I have stated in an earlier post. Why was'nt the Council refuse tips not utilised as a transit area for these (whatever you want to call them) as they could not possibly make any more mess and stench other than that of which is already there. . Or could they ?? . They could steal as much as they wanted as it would have been other people's throw away items anyway. . So everyone's a winner i.e. the Council would not have to pay for a site to be developed. All the mess and stench would be contained in a refuse tip of which is fit for purpose. Lastly, these (whatever you want to call them) could be contained in an area where they would not annoy the general law abiding populous. . It's a no brainer!![/p][/quote]...yes well you would recognise a no brainer better than most wouldn't you! Baysider

8:48pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Baysider says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Baysider wrote:
mw2010 wrote:
Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)
Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.
I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....
I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?
...so the previous poster wasn't brave enough and inventive enough to name someone and come up with any remotely plausible explanation for how bribery might be involved and now we are having allegations that masonry is involved? In a temporary traveller sight.

Echo readers are a pretty special bunch.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote: Whats this then build first then get planning permission, oh i mean send out a few brown envelopes (nudge nudge)[/p][/quote]Could you please clarify who it is you believe has received a bribe in relation to this development then and why? It makes far more sense to me that the opposite would be true ie it is in no ones financial interest to progress the development.[/p][/quote]I doubt there's money involved, but Big Phil will be pushing the officers hard to make sure they hit his timetable. Wouldn't do for it not to be ready to shunt travellers off Branksome Rec....[/p][/quote]I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions about money being involved but I wonder how many funny handshakes have been taking place?[/p][/quote]...so the previous poster wasn't brave enough and inventive enough to name someone and come up with any remotely plausible explanation for how bribery might be involved and now we are having allegations that masonry is involved? In a temporary traveller sight. Echo readers are a pretty special bunch. Baysider

10:33pm Mon 10 Feb 14

peterm8264 says...

why not stop the petty wrangling and get down to the facts ,the council are looking for a get out clause to the problem of moving travellers on ,unfortunately they have gone about it in an undemocratic way and upset all the residents of the area by trying to use a soft target now after the first application , the other one comes along for the back of B and Q .lets get to the point it is a total waste of tax payers money and will be rejected by the travellers anyway .Councellor Eades does not want it in his ward so someone else has to have it at any expense.Mr mayor , why not come to the local meeting and see the feelings that you have stirred up or are you too scared about the 3 minute rule,and the gypsy community.
why not stop the petty wrangling and get down to the facts ,the council are looking for a get out clause to the problem of moving travellers on ,unfortunately they have gone about it in an undemocratic way and upset all the residents of the area by trying to use a soft target now after the first application , the other one comes along for the back of B and Q .lets get to the point it is a total waste of tax payers money and will be rejected by the travellers anyway .Councellor Eades does not want it in his ward so someone else has to have it at any expense.Mr mayor , why not come to the local meeting and see the feelings that you have stirred up or are you too scared about the 3 minute rule,and the gypsy community. peterm8264

11:32am Tue 11 Feb 14

Teddy 1 says...

I would like to see a published list of the other 90 sites which were apparently unsuitable and why that decision was made.

Why is the mannings heath site not a contender as an existing site?

Why has the site not been surveyed for wildlife first? Surley this is out of order and some sort of offence!

We have a good soil analysis company in Dorset, why not ask them to analysethe soil to see if it is toxic to live on.




why is the council forging ahead with public opinion so against the location?

Why is the council hiding the consultation document in the planning process safety pages as another commenter suggested?

can the echo run an Freedom of information request to see ALL documentatiin (including all correspondence between councillors and council officers etc) this is all public information and withholding information is an offence).

Are the echo going to be running a headline story exposing the above points!
I would like to see a published list of the other 90 sites which were apparently unsuitable and why that decision was made. Why is the mannings heath site not a contender as an existing site? Why has the site not been surveyed for wildlife first? Surley this is out of order and some sort of offence! We have a good soil analysis company in Dorset, why not ask them to analysethe soil to see if it is toxic to live on. why is the council forging ahead with public opinion so against the location? Why is the council hiding the consultation document in the planning process safety pages as another commenter suggested? can the echo run an Freedom of information request to see ALL documentatiin (including all correspondence between councillors and council officers etc) this is all public information and withholding information is an offence). Are the echo going to be running a headline story exposing the above points! Teddy 1

3:36pm Tue 11 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

davecook wrote:
JayJay45 wrote:
So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval!
This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......
Are you quite sure they are rattus norvegicus and not Arvicola amphibius (Water Vole)? This could make a huge difference for claiming protected status. Perhaps you have also noticed the Marsh Buzzard in the area, both species would explain this.
[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JayJay45[/bold] wrote: So they've now removed any evidence of nesting areas that could be deemed important or sensitive to the wildlife of Poole! Is this legal without having consulted with the likes of Natural England and relevant agencies to obtain an Environmental Report like us law abiding citizens have to do prior to submitting planning approval![/p][/quote]This is an area which was reclaimed using rubbish and infill from various building projects a few years ago when the Upton Bypass was built. Suddenly it might become an important wildlife area. The only wildlife I have seen here recently when walking round the edge of Holes Bay was a load of rats scurrying about. Whilst I appreciate Natural England are obsessed with frilly lizards and pink spotted snakes or whatever floats their boat, I hardly think they will waste much time protecting a family of rattus norvegicus.......[/p][/quote]Are you quite sure they are rattus norvegicus and not Arvicola amphibius (Water Vole)? This could make a huge difference for claiming protected status. Perhaps you have also noticed the Marsh Buzzard in the area, both species would explain this. DorsetFerret

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