Fears raised temporary traveller site could be ‘fire risk’ and drive businesses to move out

Fears raised temporary traveller site could be ‘fire risk’ and drive businesses to move out

Fears raised temporary traveller site could be ‘fire risk’ and drive businesses to move out

Jeff Morley

First published in News by

FEARS were raised of businesses moving out and firefighters taking longer to reach burning homes if a temporary traveller transit site is approved at Creekmoor, Poole.

Residents had the chance to find out about Borough of Poole’s controversial proposals to place a 12 plot summer site on land at Safety Drive, opposite the fire station at a display held at Creekmoor library.

Ward councillor John Rampton told residents that nearby businesses had threatened to move out or build a big fence which would block access through Safety Drive.

“That would add another three minutes to response times for fire crews,” he said.

“They would have to go to Upton Country Park and back to get to Creekmoor and Canford Heath.”

Resident Len Smith said: “I can’t believe where they want to put it, next to the fire station.

“It’s a fire risk if they have to go all the way round.”

Ward member Cllr Judy Butt said although having a site made it easier for the police to move on illegal encampments, this was not the answer.

“The gipsy and traveller community are all saying they will find some private land and go on it,” she said.

Fears of contamination were allayed by Jeff Morley, team manager, environmental and consumer protection, Borough of Poole, who said the land was filled with domestic refuse and a base would be covered with gravel, allowing methane gases to escape.

He said there would be a fence, no permanent buildings but a skip would be put on the site when in use along with portable loos.

Nicky Hoar of Dorset Wildlife Trust said: “We will be commenting to make sure we get the best outcome for wildlife and biodiversity that may be affected.”

Cllr Rampton added: “I am encouraging all Creekmoor residents to attend the planning committee and write in with their views to the planning department.”

Please note: Any reference to gypsies or any racially offensive term, or any comment inciting violence or hatred is in breach of our terms and conditions and will result in your account being suspended without notice. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are legally recognised as ethnic groups, and protected by the Race Relations Act. Please keep your comments to this particular incident and do not generalise. Thanks for your co-operation.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:27pm Sat 15 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

He said there would be a fence, no permanent buildings but a skip would be put on the site when in use along with portable loos.


Haaaaaaaa class.

They have no idea whatsoever.
He said there would be a fence, no permanent buildings but a skip would be put on the site when in use along with portable loos. Haaaaaaaa class. They have no idea whatsoever. BIGTONE
  • Score: 19

4:44pm Sat 15 Feb 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

None of them should be allowed on H&S grounds until the traveling community can explain how they will deal with their own waste and keep the place in a clean and hygienic state.
None of them should be allowed on H&S grounds until the traveling community can explain how they will deal with their own waste and keep the place in a clean and hygienic state. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -6

5:17pm Sat 15 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........
We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........ muscliffman
  • Score: 21

6:18pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

I want an explanation on how a site which was considered too contaminated for people to park cars on, is suddenly OK for people to live on. There's obviously something wrong. Were we lied to when the Park and Ride had to go on a green field and be covered in tarmac? Are we being lied to now? It's one or the other.
......
Echo please do some investigative journalism and find out what the explanation is.
......
And the gypsy and traveller community are saying they won't use it, but will find private land. Tough luck Poole residents. There could be travellers next to your home, but it won't be the council's responsibility to move them on. Atkinson and Eades will have cost the borough hundreds of thousands of pounds for nothing. Hopefully all councillors from all parties will grow some and vote against this waste of money.
.......
Legislation could have changed by next year, so why haven't they decided to use one of the several areas which already have a hard surface for this summer, even if it means renting land. It's got to be cheaper than what they propose and will save a green area from going under a hard surface. They won't be happy until Poole has no natural ground left. Just look at the amount of water we've had to put up with this year - it can only get worse.
I want an explanation on how a site which was considered too contaminated for people to park cars on, is suddenly OK for people to live on. There's obviously something wrong. Were we lied to when the Park and Ride had to go on a green field and be covered in tarmac? Are we being lied to now? It's one or the other. ...... Echo please do some investigative journalism and find out what the explanation is. ...... And the gypsy and traveller community are saying they won't use it, but will find private land. Tough luck Poole residents. There could be travellers next to your home, but it won't be the council's responsibility to move them on. Atkinson and Eades will have cost the borough hundreds of thousands of pounds for nothing. Hopefully all councillors from all parties will grow some and vote against this waste of money. ....... Legislation could have changed by next year, so why haven't they decided to use one of the several areas which already have a hard surface for this summer, even if it means renting land. It's got to be cheaper than what they propose and will save a green area from going under a hard surface. They won't be happy until Poole has no natural ground left. Just look at the amount of water we've had to put up with this year - it can only get worse. Carolyn43
  • Score: 19

8:09pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Bob49 says...

Floods of water - money will be no object - Cameron

Floods of travellers - oh yes, umm, well errr ... oh dear - Cameron

Perhaps the Daily Echo could tell us what are the proposals for a traveller's site at Chipping Norton
Floods of water - money will be no object - Cameron Floods of travellers - oh yes, umm, well errr ... oh dear - Cameron Perhaps the Daily Echo could tell us what are the proposals for a traveller's site at Chipping Norton Bob49
  • Score: 3

8:11pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Dino Dan says...

Why do these councillors feel they have the right to decide where the travellers are placed. Although I do not wish for a site to be put in Poole full stop I do not believe it's right they should be put next to a busy road or on contaminated land, I am sure if the site was over towards Sandbanks or Canford Cliffs it would not even reach the echo let alone suggested planning so here goes if they want to prove me wrong I have seen a couple nice sites 1. just to the left as you go over evening hill not contaminated and lovely views, failing that nice large green area between baiter and white cliff.

To be honest why don't the PAY like the rest of society plenty of caravan sites around.
Why do these councillors feel they have the right to decide where the travellers are placed. Although I do not wish for a site to be put in Poole full stop I do not believe it's right they should be put next to a busy road or on contaminated land, I am sure if the site was over towards Sandbanks or Canford Cliffs it would not even reach the echo let alone suggested planning so here goes if they want to prove me wrong I have seen a couple nice sites 1. just to the left as you go over evening hill not contaminated and lovely views, failing that nice large green area between baiter and white cliff. To be honest why don't the PAY like the rest of society plenty of caravan sites around. Dino Dan
  • Score: 7

12:34am Sun 16 Feb 14

joeinpoole says...

muscliffman wrote:
We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........
No, you're wrong. I'm very much in favour of the transit camps. It's a much better solution that what we have up until now ... which is basically nothing.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........[/p][/quote]No, you're wrong. I'm very much in favour of the transit camps. It's a much better solution that what we have up until now ... which is basically nothing. joeinpoole
  • Score: -11

7:06am Sun 16 Feb 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

muscliffman wrote:
We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........
And their own business interests. If you were a councillor and you owned a cafe in Broadstone, where gypsies regularly stop, would that perhaps affect your decision on if and where to place the site? Is that not a conflict of interest? Discuss.............
..........
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........[/p][/quote]And their own business interests. If you were a councillor and you owned a cafe in Broadstone, where gypsies regularly stop, would that perhaps affect your decision on if and where to place the site? Is that not a conflict of interest? Discuss............. .......... Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 9

10:32am Sun 16 Feb 14

Dorsetbaby says...

Are they going to be renting and paying for all that is being provided? The same as the rest of us have to. Are they going to be able to claim benefit? Because they have an address to use? Will they be working proper jobs and putting something back to our community? rather than helping themselves to what they want. As I know they do. As my daughter works in a local shop and sees this happen. Or are we going to bend over backwards to make sure that they get everything they need. There are plenty of homeless people in Poole and people struggling to pay rent to private landlords, which is costing us tax payers millions. If they can find a site to put travellers on. Why can they not find the money to help our own people who are in need of a little help right now to get them back on their feet. Let the Irish travellers stay in Ireland...
Are they going to be renting and paying for all that is being provided? The same as the rest of us have to. Are they going to be able to claim benefit? Because they have an address to use? Will they be working proper jobs and putting something back to our community? rather than helping themselves to what they want. As I know they do. As my daughter works in a local shop and sees this happen. Or are we going to bend over backwards to make sure that they get everything they need. There are plenty of homeless people in Poole and people struggling to pay rent to private landlords, which is costing us tax payers millions. If they can find a site to put travellers on. Why can they not find the money to help our own people who are in need of a little help right now to get them back on their feet. Let the Irish travellers stay in Ireland... Dorsetbaby
  • Score: 11

1:50pm Sun 16 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

joeinpoole wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........
No, you're wrong. I'm very much in favour of the transit camps. It's a much better solution that what we have up until now ... which is basically nothing.
Please explain how I am wrong?

I said I presume that the MAJORITY (not all) Poole taxpayers do not want any 'traveller' camps. By default that means a MINORITY (clearly including yourself) will - and we should respect your opinion, even if the majority almost certainly disagree with it.
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........[/p][/quote]No, you're wrong. I'm very much in favour of the transit camps. It's a much better solution that what we have up until now ... which is basically nothing.[/p][/quote]Please explain how I am wrong? I said I presume that the MAJORITY (not all) Poole taxpayers do not want any 'traveller' camps. By default that means a MINORITY (clearly including yourself) will - and we should respect your opinion, even if the majority almost certainly disagree with it. muscliffman
  • Score: 5

3:12pm Sun 16 Feb 14

goingsolo says...

Do people think for a minute that if there was a better site it would have been there instead of Creekmoor. I haven't heard anyone come up with a better idea, and if you do your homework, you'll find this is the government telling people they have to have a site in Poole, not our local Councillors. None of us want a traveller site here in Poole, for reasons said many times before, but its not the fault of local people, but the government, and they have been pushed and pushed by the Travellers to get 'equal rights'. What a great country we live in, that gives more rights to prisoners, asylum seekers and foreigners than our own local people - meanwhile, fight all we can, but its not a decision locally, its government, so lobby MPs and David Cameron if you want to make a difference.
Do people think for a minute that if there was a better site it would have been there instead of Creekmoor. I haven't heard anyone come up with a better idea, and if you do your homework, you'll find this is the government telling people they have to have a site in Poole, not our local Councillors. None of us want a traveller site here in Poole, for reasons said many times before, but its not the fault of local people, but the government, and they have been pushed and pushed by the Travellers to get 'equal rights'. What a great country we live in, that gives more rights to prisoners, asylum seekers and foreigners than our own local people - meanwhile, fight all we can, but its not a decision locally, its government, so lobby MPs and David Cameron if you want to make a difference. goingsolo
  • Score: 6

3:18pm Sun 16 Feb 14

fairandsquared says...

Cllr Rampton is making the situation much worse. I work up near Yarrow Close and none of the businesses around there, which is a permanent traveller site, have any problems and Tower Park is right next to them. To say businesses are going to move out is just paranoia and tarring all travellers with a same brush - just like saying all councillors are self-serving - talk about making assumptions before anything has happened. Anyone would think it was some invasion of aliens, they are just passing through for goodness sake!
Cllr Rampton is making the situation much worse. I work up near Yarrow Close and none of the businesses around there, which is a permanent traveller site, have any problems and Tower Park is right next to them. To say businesses are going to move out is just paranoia and tarring all travellers with a same brush - just like saying all councillors are self-serving - talk about making assumptions before anything has happened. Anyone would think it was some invasion of aliens, they are just passing through for goodness sake! fairandsquared
  • Score: -8

4:27pm Sun 16 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

Very pleasant lunch at the club this afternoon. Word on the grapevine is that a couple of senior figures at the council are seeking a way out of this impasse, one that would leave them with some credibility and honour. Anybody have any suggestions? (No, I am afraid I am unable to confirm my source and it is only a rumour).

Quite agree Carolyn 43. It is time the Echo started to delve a little deeper into the matter.
Very pleasant lunch at the club this afternoon. Word on the grapevine is that a couple of senior figures at the council are seeking a way out of this impasse, one that would leave them with some credibility and honour. Anybody have any suggestions? (No, I am afraid I am unable to confirm my source and it is only a rumour). Quite agree Carolyn 43. It is time the Echo started to delve a little deeper into the matter. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 5

4:29pm Sun 16 Feb 14

cromwell9 says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Cllr Rampton is making the situation much worse. I work up near Yarrow Close and none of the businesses around there, which is a permanent traveller site, have any problems and Tower Park is right next to them. To say businesses are going to move out is just paranoia and tarring all travellers with a same brush - just like saying all councillors are self-serving - talk about making assumptions before anything has happened. Anyone would think it was some invasion of aliens, they are just passing through for goodness sake!
YOU must be new in these parts .Unlke the rest of us who were born in the town ,
The reason why the passing through travelers wont use the ManningsHeath site is because they are not welcome by the existing travelers who have ocupied the site for years
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Cllr Rampton is making the situation much worse. I work up near Yarrow Close and none of the businesses around there, which is a permanent traveller site, have any problems and Tower Park is right next to them. To say businesses are going to move out is just paranoia and tarring all travellers with a same brush - just like saying all councillors are self-serving - talk about making assumptions before anything has happened. Anyone would think it was some invasion of aliens, they are just passing through for goodness sake![/p][/quote]YOU must be new in these parts .Unlke the rest of us who were born in the town , The reason why the passing through travelers wont use the ManningsHeath site is because they are not welcome by the existing travelers who have ocupied the site for years cromwell9
  • Score: 4

4:52pm Sun 16 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

I note there are quite a few newcomers on this post. It might be worth your going through some of the earlier stories to save a lot of the same ground being covered. Just a reminder as to who voted (and how) for this proposal. I have to confess I hadn’t noticed the Rampton link before, must make life interesting at home for John.

Councillors who voted in favour were: Elaine Atkinson (C), Mike Brooke (LD), David Brown (LD), Brian Clements (LD), Jo Clements (LD), Sandra Cox (LD), Xena Dion (C), Phil Eades (LD), Phil Goodall (LD), Roy Godfrey (LD), Jennie Hodges (LD), Marion Le Poidevin (LD), Chris Matthews (LD), Charles Meachin (LD), Sandra Moore (LD), Ron Parker (C), Vikki Slade (LD), Neil Sorton (C), Ann Stribley (C), Tony Trent (LD), Mike White (C), Lindsay Wilson (LD), Graham Wilson (LD), Tony Woodcock (C).

Those voting against were: Peter Adams (C), Les Burden (C), Judy Butt (C), Sally Carpenter (PP), May Haines (C), Mark Howell (PP), Charmaine Parkinson (PP), Ian Potter (C), John Rampton (C), Janet Walton (C), Chris Wilson (PP).
Cllrs Carol Evans (C) and Karen Rampton (C) abstained.
Meanwhile, an amendment tabled at the meeting – by Cllr John Rampton - failed to get the necessary backing it needed to be implemented.
This amendment called for the main proposal to be deferred and the “status quo of Gypsy and traveller provision in Poole to be maintained.”
I note there are quite a few newcomers on this post. It might be worth your going through some of the earlier stories to save a lot of the same ground being covered. Just a reminder as to who voted (and how) for this proposal. I have to confess I hadn’t noticed the Rampton link before, must make life interesting at home for John. Councillors who voted in favour were: Elaine Atkinson (C), Mike Brooke (LD), David Brown (LD), Brian Clements (LD), Jo Clements (LD), Sandra Cox (LD), Xena Dion (C), Phil Eades (LD), Phil Goodall (LD), Roy Godfrey (LD), Jennie Hodges (LD), Marion Le Poidevin (LD), Chris Matthews (LD), Charles Meachin (LD), Sandra Moore (LD), Ron Parker (C), Vikki Slade (LD), Neil Sorton (C), Ann Stribley (C), Tony Trent (LD), Mike White (C), Lindsay Wilson (LD), Graham Wilson (LD), Tony Woodcock (C). Those voting against were: Peter Adams (C), Les Burden (C), Judy Butt (C), Sally Carpenter (PP), May Haines (C), Mark Howell (PP), Charmaine Parkinson (PP), Ian Potter (C), John Rampton (C), Janet Walton (C), Chris Wilson (PP). Cllrs Carol Evans (C) and Karen Rampton (C) abstained. Meanwhile, an amendment tabled at the meeting – by Cllr John Rampton - failed to get the necessary backing it needed to be implemented. This amendment called for the main proposal to be deferred and the “status quo of Gypsy and traveller provision in Poole to be maintained.” DorsetFerret
  • Score: 7

6:41pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

fairandsquared wrote:
Cllr Rampton is making the situation much worse. I work up near Yarrow Close and none of the businesses around there, which is a permanent traveller site, have any problems and Tower Park is right next to them. To say businesses are going to move out is just paranoia and tarring all travellers with a same brush - just like saying all councillors are self-serving - talk about making assumptions before anything has happened. Anyone would think it was some invasion of aliens, they are just passing through for goodness sake!
It's not John Rampton making this up. The businesses have said that if the site goes ahead (a) they will erect fencing around their site so that the voluntary agreement they have with the fire service to cut through to go north towards Broadstone will no longer exist adding to the response time in case of a fire, and (b) they may consider relocating. It isn't paranoia.
[quote][p][bold]fairandsquared[/bold] wrote: Cllr Rampton is making the situation much worse. I work up near Yarrow Close and none of the businesses around there, which is a permanent traveller site, have any problems and Tower Park is right next to them. To say businesses are going to move out is just paranoia and tarring all travellers with a same brush - just like saying all councillors are self-serving - talk about making assumptions before anything has happened. Anyone would think it was some invasion of aliens, they are just passing through for goodness sake![/p][/quote]It's not John Rampton making this up. The businesses have said that if the site goes ahead (a) they will erect fencing around their site so that the voluntary agreement they have with the fire service to cut through to go north towards Broadstone will no longer exist adding to the response time in case of a fire, and (b) they may consider relocating. It isn't paranoia. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

6:47pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

joeinpoole wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........
No, you're wrong. I'm very much in favour of the transit camps. It's a much better solution that what we have up until now ... which is basically nothing.
It isn't a solution - the representatives of the gypsies/travellers have already said they won't use the proposed site for various valid reasons, but will move on to private land, which could be near you. The only difference will be that a green area will have been destroyed and the council won't have the responsibility of moving them on - landowners will..
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: We seem to be diverting into tiny detail/s when we should be concentrating on the basic principles. I believe I am safe to presume that the majority of Poole taxpayers do NOT want this 'traveller' site, so that alone should be sufficient to democratically prevent it's construction. However with notable exceptions many of Poole's Councillors (and the PCC) evidently place their own future political interests above the opinions of those they were supposed to be representing so........[/p][/quote]No, you're wrong. I'm very much in favour of the transit camps. It's a much better solution that what we have up until now ... which is basically nothing.[/p][/quote]It isn't a solution - the representatives of the gypsies/travellers have already said they won't use the proposed site for various valid reasons, but will move on to private land, which could be near you. The only difference will be that a green area will have been destroyed and the council won't have the responsibility of moving them on - landowners will.. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Carolyn43 says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Very pleasant lunch at the club this afternoon. Word on the grapevine is that a couple of senior figures at the council are seeking a way out of this impasse, one that would leave them with some credibility and honour. Anybody have any suggestions? (No, I am afraid I am unable to confirm my source and it is only a rumour).

Quite agree Carolyn 43. It is time the Echo started to delve a little deeper into the matter.
They would have credibility and honour if they showed common sense and admitted the site isn't suitable for any number of reasons listed in objections that have been submitted.
......
I'm sure that, when the planning application first appeared on the council web site there was an aerial photo showing the site on the other side, south of the bypass, opposite the fire station, as the one proposed. It's not on the web site now, which just shows drawings of the location next to the fire station. This would be more suitable in terms of access, not flooding, well away from Creekmoor residents, easy access to the town, etc.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Very pleasant lunch at the club this afternoon. Word on the grapevine is that a couple of senior figures at the council are seeking a way out of this impasse, one that would leave them with some credibility and honour. Anybody have any suggestions? (No, I am afraid I am unable to confirm my source and it is only a rumour). Quite agree Carolyn 43. It is time the Echo started to delve a little deeper into the matter.[/p][/quote]They would have credibility and honour if they showed common sense and admitted the site isn't suitable for any number of reasons listed in objections that have been submitted. ...... I'm sure that, when the planning application first appeared on the council web site there was an aerial photo showing the site on the other side, south of the bypass, opposite the fire station, as the one proposed. It's not on the web site now, which just shows drawings of the location next to the fire station. This would be more suitable in terms of access, not flooding, well away from Creekmoor residents, easy access to the town, etc. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

12:33pm Mon 17 Feb 14

DorsetFerret says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
Very pleasant lunch at the club this afternoon. Word on the grapevine is that a couple of senior figures at the council are seeking a way out of this impasse, one that would leave them with some credibility and honour. Anybody have any suggestions? (No, I am afraid I am unable to confirm my source and it is only a rumour).

Quite agree Carolyn 43. It is time the Echo started to delve a little deeper into the matter.
They would have credibility and honour if they showed common sense and admitted the site isn't suitable for any number of reasons listed in objections that have been submitted.
......
I'm sure that, when the planning application first appeared on the council web site there was an aerial photo showing the site on the other side, south of the bypass, opposite the fire station, as the one proposed. It's not on the web site now, which just shows drawings of the location next to the fire station. This would be more suitable in terms of access, not flooding, well away from Creekmoor residents, easy access to the town, etc.
It would seem the common sense approach would be that of the planning committee knocking this idea into touch. Just two things may get in the way of this (a) Common sense appears to be in short supply at the councils offices and (b) I believe (and I stand to be corrected) most of the planning committee is made up of those councillors who voted in favour of this proposal. Enough said.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: Very pleasant lunch at the club this afternoon. Word on the grapevine is that a couple of senior figures at the council are seeking a way out of this impasse, one that would leave them with some credibility and honour. Anybody have any suggestions? (No, I am afraid I am unable to confirm my source and it is only a rumour). Quite agree Carolyn 43. It is time the Echo started to delve a little deeper into the matter.[/p][/quote]They would have credibility and honour if they showed common sense and admitted the site isn't suitable for any number of reasons listed in objections that have been submitted. ...... I'm sure that, when the planning application first appeared on the council web site there was an aerial photo showing the site on the other side, south of the bypass, opposite the fire station, as the one proposed. It's not on the web site now, which just shows drawings of the location next to the fire station. This would be more suitable in terms of access, not flooding, well away from Creekmoor residents, easy access to the town, etc.[/p][/quote]It would seem the common sense approach would be that of the planning committee knocking this idea into touch. Just two things may get in the way of this (a) Common sense appears to be in short supply at the councils offices and (b) I believe (and I stand to be corrected) most of the planning committee is made up of those councillors who voted in favour of this proposal. Enough said. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 5

2:49pm Mon 17 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

Any more excuses coming out.
Any more excuses coming out. pete woodley
  • Score: -5

1:15pm Thu 20 Feb 14

ADST_2008 says...

Businesses moving out and firefighters taking longer to reach burning homes?, this cannot be right for Poole just because 1 senior cabinet member said it was and to boot with no consultation to the rate payer in creekmoor..
Businesses moving out and firefighters taking longer to reach burning homes?, this cannot be right for Poole just because 1 senior cabinet member said it was and to boot with no consultation to the rate payer in creekmoor.. ADST_2008
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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