Planning chiefs to decide on controversial proposals for transit sites for travellers in Poole

CONTROVERSY: One of the proposed sites

CONTROVERSY: One of the proposed sites

First published in News by

PLANNING chiefs will decide on whether or not to back controversial proposals for two traveller sites in Poole next week.

Borough of Poole’s planning committee is set to convene at the town’s Lighthouse theatre because of the large number of residents expected to attend.

Members will consider applications by the borough’s own environmental and consumer protections services for the two temporary stopping sites at Creekmoor and Oakdale.

However, there may yet be a further twist in the saga, following an increased offer to buy the Creekmoor site made by a Poole commercial property company earlier this week.

Forelle Estate’s £350,000 bid has prompted a special full council meeting at the end of this month. Borough officials have confirmed this debate will be followed by a members’ vote on whether or not to accept this offer.

There were rowdy scenes at Poole’s Civic Centre in January as around 200 people attempted to access an emergency council meeting, which ended with the council voting to press ahead with the planning applications to be heard next week.

Security guards were forced to shepherd some people from the main chamber before the meeting started, amid safety concerns about numbers trying to attend.

Borough of Poole deputy leader and planning cabinet portfolio holder Cllr Mike White said: “Poole experiences a number of unauthorised encampments each year.

“A temporary stopping place will help us more effectively manage this situation as it allows the police to use their powers to move unauthorised encampments to this site.”

The two separate proposals are for 12 pitches at Marshes End, Creekmoor, and four pitches at land north of the B&Q car park, Broadstone Way.

If the planning committee approves the applications, the two sites would be authorised for a temporary period between Good Friday and September 15.

Borough of Poole insists the sites would be closed for the rest of the year. Cllr White said: “Members of the planning committee will consider these applications and all the relevant planning issues before making a decision on whether the two temporary stopping places can go ahead.”

The meeting at the Lighthouse Theatre takes place at 9.15am on Thursday, March 20.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:51am Fri 14 Mar 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Will the councillors listen to the voice of the electorate? No.
Will they protect their own interests? Yes.
Will a transit camp make the slightest bit of difference to the annual invasion? No.
Do the travellers give a **** where they stop? No.
Will the councillors listen to the voice of the electorate? No. Will they protect their own interests? Yes. Will a transit camp make the slightest bit of difference to the annual invasion? No. Do the travellers give a **** where they stop? No. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 23

7:57am Fri 14 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

We will probably end up with the Travellers suing the Council - no water
available (confirmed by private company that owns water rights), dangerous
site to be on (considered by Council too dangerous for a park and ride
scheme (!)), danger to life (right by a busy dual carraige-way) - I've got it
in my diary to remind people at the next Council elections !
We will probably end up with the Travellers suing the Council - no water available (confirmed by private company that owns water rights), dangerous site to be on (considered by Council too dangerous for a park and ride scheme (!)), danger to life (right by a busy dual carraige-way) - I've got it in my diary to remind people at the next Council elections ! mimi55
  • Score: 12

9:56am Fri 14 Mar 14

RM says...

I'm confused as to why they're having the debate on Forelle's offer AFTER the planning meeting. Surely if the applications go through, the Council will be starting work immediately?
I'm confused as to why they're having the debate on Forelle's offer AFTER the planning meeting. Surely if the applications go through, the Council will be starting work immediately? RM
  • Score: 5

10:07am Fri 14 Mar 14

we-shall-see says...

Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE?

I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace!

Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days!
Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE? I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace! Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days! we-shall-see
  • Score: 6

10:19am Fri 14 Mar 14

RM says...

we-shall-see wrote:
Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE?

I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace!

Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days!
In fairness, all the homes on Baiter are on contaminated land. As far as I know, the residents have just been told not to grow vegetables, fruit trees etc because of that. Perhaps a Baiter resident would like to comment?
[quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE? I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace! Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days![/p][/quote]In fairness, all the homes on Baiter are on contaminated land. As far as I know, the residents have just been told not to grow vegetables, fruit trees etc because of that. Perhaps a Baiter resident would like to comment? RM
  • Score: 1

11:02am Fri 14 Mar 14

disquiet says...

The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website.

I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites!

Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee?

Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place?

If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?
The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website. I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites! Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee? Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place? If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made? disquiet
  • Score: 11

11:12am Fri 14 Mar 14

Ikavanagh says...

So the council have their heads in the clouds again, by allowing travellers to use any site even temporary, will result in more expense to the rate payer.
They will go where they please, damage the area when they please, commit crime when they please.
The offer to buy the poluted land for development is a better option for the ciouncil.
Get real Guys.
So the council have their heads in the clouds again, by allowing travellers to use any site even temporary, will result in more expense to the rate payer. They will go where they please, damage the area when they please, commit crime when they please. The offer to buy the poluted land for development is a better option for the ciouncil. Get real Guys. Ikavanagh
  • Score: 5

11:30am Fri 14 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

disquiet wrote:
The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website.

I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites!

Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee?

Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place?

If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?
I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest?
......
What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on.
......
Can't trust then an inch!
[quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website. I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites! Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee? Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place? If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?[/p][/quote]I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest? ...... What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on. ...... Can't trust then an inch! Carolyn43
  • Score: 6

11:46am Fri 14 Mar 14

moleman says...

The Towergate offices have methane detectors in the basement which are regularly checked and if they go off then the office workers have to evacuate the buildings as a precaution.
How is this going to work if there is a build up of methane under the travellers site? Who is going to let the travellers know that they are at risk and need to get off the land ?
If this is not a health and safety concern, then I don't know what is.
The Towergate offices have methane detectors in the basement which are regularly checked and if they go off then the office workers have to evacuate the buildings as a precaution. How is this going to work if there is a build up of methane under the travellers site? Who is going to let the travellers know that they are at risk and need to get off the land ? If this is not a health and safety concern, then I don't know what is. moleman
  • Score: 4

11:57am Fri 14 Mar 14

boardsandphotos says...

moleman wrote:
The Towergate offices have methane detectors in the basement which are regularly checked and if they go off then the office workers have to evacuate the buildings as a precaution.
How is this going to work if there is a build up of methane under the travellers site? Who is going to let the travellers know that they are at risk and need to get off the land ?
If this is not a health and safety concern, then I don't know what is.
Well you're the mole man, go dig some holes, I'm sure you'll know about it before the rest of us. :0)
[quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: The Towergate offices have methane detectors in the basement which are regularly checked and if they go off then the office workers have to evacuate the buildings as a precaution. How is this going to work if there is a build up of methane under the travellers site? Who is going to let the travellers know that they are at risk and need to get off the land ? If this is not a health and safety concern, then I don't know what is.[/p][/quote]Well you're the mole man, go dig some holes, I'm sure you'll know about it before the rest of us. :0) boardsandphotos
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Fri 14 Mar 14

hadvar says...

Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'.
Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'. hadvar
  • Score: -6

12:28pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Plumber64 says...

Yet again this is a indication of how the Council in Poole is ran . You have a organisation that is rotten to the core . As soon a someone voices their concerns they are either removed or asked to leave . I hope that as voters in the up and coming elections chose to vote and correct the wrongs.

Vote for the people who work for you if you don't vote you will not change a thing .
Yet again this is a indication of how the Council in Poole is ran . You have a organisation that is rotten to the core . As soon a someone voices their concerns they are either removed or asked to leave . I hope that as voters in the up and coming elections chose to vote and correct the wrongs. Vote for the people who work for you if you don't vote you will not change a thing . Plumber64
  • Score: 6

1:44pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Every councillor in Poole has to sign and agree to abide by the Council Code of Conduct, viewable on the Borough of Poole website. One thing they all agree to abide by is "Members should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person."

Now if the estimated cost of the transit sites is £250,000 and a company is willing to pay £350,000 for that piece of land, I can instantly see 100,000 reasons why that code of conduct has been breached in regards to the public interest. Not only would the council be saving taxpayers £250,00 for the cost of any sites built they would also be gaining £100,000 towards the running costs. Utter madness to refuse such an offer.
Every councillor in Poole has to sign and agree to abide by the Council Code of Conduct, viewable on the Borough of Poole website. One thing they all agree to abide by is "Members should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person." Now if the estimated cost of the transit sites is £250,000 and a company is willing to pay £350,000 for that piece of land, I can instantly see 100,000 reasons why that code of conduct has been breached in regards to the public interest. Not only would the council be saving taxpayers £250,00 for the cost of any sites built they would also be gaining £100,000 towards the running costs. Utter madness to refuse such an offer. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 13

2:14pm Fri 14 Mar 14

moleman says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
Every councillor in Poole has to sign and agree to abide by the Council Code of Conduct, viewable on the Borough of Poole website. One thing they all agree to abide by is "Members should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person."

Now if the estimated cost of the transit sites is £250,000 and a company is willing to pay £350,000 for that piece of land, I can instantly see 100,000 reasons why that code of conduct has been breached in regards to the public interest. Not only would the council be saving taxpayers £250,00 for the cost of any sites built they would also be gaining £100,000 towards the running costs. Utter madness to refuse such an offer.
Who do we appeal to when the council members have breached their own code of conduct?
Can the decision be "called in " when the planning application gets the go ahead?
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Every councillor in Poole has to sign and agree to abide by the Council Code of Conduct, viewable on the Borough of Poole website. One thing they all agree to abide by is "Members should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person." Now if the estimated cost of the transit sites is £250,000 and a company is willing to pay £350,000 for that piece of land, I can instantly see 100,000 reasons why that code of conduct has been breached in regards to the public interest. Not only would the council be saving taxpayers £250,00 for the cost of any sites built they would also be gaining £100,000 towards the running costs. Utter madness to refuse such an offer.[/p][/quote]Who do we appeal to when the council members have breached their own code of conduct? Can the decision be "called in " when the planning application gets the go ahead? moleman
  • Score: 10

3:34pm Fri 14 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

RM wrote:
we-shall-see wrote: Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE? I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace! Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days!
In fairness, all the homes on Baiter are on contaminated land. As far as I know, the residents have just been told not to grow vegetables, fruit trees etc because of that. Perhaps a Baiter resident would like to comment?
I think the site at Baiter was decontaminated / cleaned as much as they possibly could unlike Marshes end where they intend to throw some gravel over it for a hardstanding.
[quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE? I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace! Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days![/p][/quote]In fairness, all the homes on Baiter are on contaminated land. As far as I know, the residents have just been told not to grow vegetables, fruit trees etc because of that. Perhaps a Baiter resident would like to comment?[/p][/quote]I think the site at Baiter was decontaminated / cleaned as much as they possibly could unlike Marshes end where they intend to throw some gravel over it for a hardstanding. ADST_2008
  • Score: 3

4:01pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Jo__Go says...

hadvar wrote:
Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'.
'no-brain' is right.
The idiotic and arrogant Lib-Dem administration at the time, along with the then Transportation big cheese Jim Bright, completely b*ll*xed the whole deal, covering a green field in tarmac, on the back of what we now know to be completely botched analysis of traffic flows, contamination, and financials.
The site is, however, still classed as Green Belt. It is bang up close and personal with a small housing development, in full view of the main route through Creekmoor, and defined as transport-use planning class. It is even less suitable than the Marshes End site, hard as it is to believe that's possible.
Best thing to do with the P&R is to dig it up and turn it back to agricultural use. Maybe rename it Bob Williams Folly...
[quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'.[/p][/quote]'no-brain' is right. The idiotic and arrogant Lib-Dem administration at the time, along with the then Transportation big cheese Jim Bright, completely b*ll*xed the whole deal, covering a green field in tarmac, on the back of what we now know to be completely botched analysis of traffic flows, contamination, and financials. The site is, however, still classed as Green Belt. It is bang up close and personal with a small housing development, in full view of the main route through Creekmoor, and defined as transport-use planning class. It is even less suitable than the Marshes End site, hard as it is to believe that's possible. Best thing to do with the P&R is to dig it up and turn it back to agricultural use. Maybe rename it Bob Williams Folly... Jo__Go
  • Score: 5

4:25pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

hadvar wrote:
Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'.
Well the Park & Ride was actually scratched off the list of 90 proposed sites because it is apparently green belt, the site in question it next to it in Safety Drive by the Fire station.
[quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'.[/p][/quote]Well the Park & Ride was actually scratched off the list of 90 proposed sites because it is apparently green belt, the site in question it next to it in Safety Drive by the Fire station. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

5:00pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Tictock says...

Between Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch councils - they are driving the evidence more in the direction of a conurbation council! Cut costs and get professional!
Between Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch councils - they are driving the evidence more in the direction of a conurbation council! Cut costs and get professional! Tictock
  • Score: -1

5:38pm Fri 14 Mar 14

cunone says...

ADST_2008 wrote:
RM wrote:
we-shall-see wrote: Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE? I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace! Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days!
In fairness, all the homes on Baiter are on contaminated land. As far as I know, the residents have just been told not to grow vegetables, fruit trees etc because of that. Perhaps a Baiter resident would like to comment?
I think the site at Baiter was decontaminated / cleaned as much as they possibly could unlike Marshes end where they intend to throw some gravel over it for a hardstanding.
When Baiter was developed the standards of remediation were much lower. However it was always known that the soil was not fit to grow veg etc, residents were told this at the outset - perhaps with the passage of time this been forgotten. Baiter was capped with clay not remediated. The problem with Baiter is that it was all made ground from the waste of town gas coke and below it the tide still flows in and out so capping was the only real solution

With respect to Marshes End it would not be a place I would live.

Many residents of Poole maybe pleased today the traveller site is not near them. But remember when books need replacement in your children's school (Poole being the worst education authority in the Country) or your elderly parent needs help from social services there probably wont be the money as its been spent on an unwanted site that is not fit for purpose.

Rather than provide free traveller accommodation perhaps we should be looking imposing fines on residents who employ travellers for if they could not do CASH Jobs they may not be so keen to come here. We have a duty of care to each other not the employ these people who take jobs away from local trades. The choice is yours Gypo or not to Gypo
[quote][p][bold]ADST_2008[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]we-shall-see[/bold] wrote: Whilst I don't agree with travellers parking up where ever they want to, I do not think that site is suitable at all for them. Would any of the councillors care to house their own children or grandchildren on a CONTAMINATED SITE? I think not, so why expect other people do put their children at risk in this way? It's a disgrace! Travellers should do what other caravan users do and pay to use registered sites and not expect tax payers to foot the bill of massive clean up operations behind them. If they didn't leave such a disgusting mess, most people probably wouldn't mind them staying on public green spaces for a few days![/p][/quote]In fairness, all the homes on Baiter are on contaminated land. As far as I know, the residents have just been told not to grow vegetables, fruit trees etc because of that. Perhaps a Baiter resident would like to comment?[/p][/quote]I think the site at Baiter was decontaminated / cleaned as much as they possibly could unlike Marshes end where they intend to throw some gravel over it for a hardstanding.[/p][/quote]When Baiter was developed the standards of remediation were much lower. However it was always known that the soil was not fit to grow veg etc, residents were told this at the outset - perhaps with the passage of time this been forgotten. Baiter was capped with clay not remediated. The problem with Baiter is that it was all made ground from the waste of town gas coke and below it the tide still flows in and out so capping was the only real solution With respect to Marshes End it would not be a place I would live. Many residents of Poole maybe pleased today the traveller site is not near them. But remember when books need replacement in your children's school (Poole being the worst education authority in the Country) or your elderly parent needs help from social services there probably wont be the money as its been spent on an unwanted site that is not fit for purpose. Rather than provide free traveller accommodation perhaps we should be looking imposing fines on residents who employ travellers for if they could not do CASH Jobs they may not be so keen to come here. We have a duty of care to each other not the employ these people who take jobs away from local trades. The choice is yours Gypo or not to Gypo cunone
  • Score: 4

6:32pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

hadvar wrote:
Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'.
The council took government money for the park and ride so it has to remain as that. It's also part of the transport plan. What transport plan?
......
What out local government servants (that's what they are - servants - even though they call themselves "officers") need to remember is that if you're going to lie you need to remember that lie. Not do as they have done and forget that they said Marshes End was too contaminated to park cars on. They might think residents have short memories, but they haven't. Either it's too contaminated to park cars on and therefore unsuitable for human habitation or the park and ride could have gone there saving tarmacking over a green field. Which is it? It can't be both.
......
Having read the planning report (all 25 pages of it), which lists all that's wrong with the site, I'm not surprised that it concludes that it should go ahead because the road is dangerous - but they don't care; people in Millfield will be able to see the travellers, but they don't care; the land is contaminated with methane and perhaps other substances, but they don't care; the value of property in the area will go down, but they don't care; the travellers will be in a caged area and viewed by workers in the adjacent offices, but they don't care; the site suffers from noise, light and air pollution detrimental to the health of anyone living on it, but they don't care; plus other statements in the same vane implying they don't care. Obviously someone with clout is pushing very hard to get this scheme approved.
.....
Additionally there are no reptiles on the site, but they will include a reptile barrier along the west and southern boundary. If there are no reptiles, why?
[quote][p][bold]hadvar[/bold] wrote: Apologies to all Creekmorians.....but surely, if we have to have some kind of transit camp, the Park and Ride is the place. It's a 'no-brainer'.[/p][/quote]The council took government money for the park and ride so it has to remain as that. It's also part of the transport plan. What transport plan? ...... What out local government servants (that's what they are - servants - even though they call themselves "officers") need to remember is that if you're going to lie you need to remember that lie. Not do as they have done and forget that they said Marshes End was too contaminated to park cars on. They might think residents have short memories, but they haven't. Either it's too contaminated to park cars on and therefore unsuitable for human habitation or the park and ride could have gone there saving tarmacking over a green field. Which is it? It can't be both. ...... Having read the planning report (all 25 pages of it), which lists all that's wrong with the site, I'm not surprised that it concludes that it should go ahead because the road is dangerous - but they don't care; people in Millfield will be able to see the travellers, but they don't care; the land is contaminated with methane and perhaps other substances, but they don't care; the value of property in the area will go down, but they don't care; the travellers will be in a caged area and viewed by workers in the adjacent offices, but they don't care; the site suffers from noise, light and air pollution detrimental to the health of anyone living on it, but they don't care; plus other statements in the same vane implying they don't care. Obviously someone with clout is pushing very hard to get this scheme approved. ..... Additionally there are no reptiles on the site, but they will include a reptile barrier along the west and southern boundary. If there are no reptiles, why? Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

7:46pm Fri 14 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
disquiet wrote:
The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website.

I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites!

Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee?

Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place?

If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?
I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest?
......
What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on.
......
Can't trust then an inch!
Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures?
If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the
Council would be breaking the Planning Laws
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website. I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites! Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee? Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place? If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?[/p][/quote]I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest? ...... What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on. ...... Can't trust then an inch![/p][/quote]Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures? If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the Council would be breaking the Planning Laws mimi55
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Fri 14 Mar 14

apm1954 says...

we vote them in we vote them out. our choice dear cllr please note.
we vote them in we vote them out. our choice dear cllr please note. apm1954
  • Score: 2

8:46pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

mimi55 wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
disquiet wrote:
The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website.

I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites!

Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee?

Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place?

If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?
I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest?
......
What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on.
......
Can't trust then an inch!
Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures?
If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the
Council would be breaking the Planning Laws
I enquired. Apparently the petition of over 100 signatures was registered with the council who will pass it to the planners. Seems a funny way of doing things, but is what has to happen. There was another petition of 68 signatures, which was the one on the planning application web site. I was suspicious but there's nothing underhanded in that part of the application.
......
It still beggars belief that the proposal is being recommended. As I said someone is obviously pushing very, very hard to make it happen.
[quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website. I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites! Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee? Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place? If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?[/p][/quote]I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest? ...... What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on. ...... Can't trust then an inch![/p][/quote]Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures? If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the Council would be breaking the Planning Laws[/p][/quote]I enquired. Apparently the petition of over 100 signatures was registered with the council who will pass it to the planners. Seems a funny way of doing things, but is what has to happen. There was another petition of 68 signatures, which was the one on the planning application web site. I was suspicious but there's nothing underhanded in that part of the application. ...... It still beggars belief that the proposal is being recommended. As I said someone is obviously pushing very, very hard to make it happen. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

8:46pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

mimi55 wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
disquiet wrote:
The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website.

I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites!

Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee?

Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place?

If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?
I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest?
......
What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on.
......
Can't trust then an inch!
Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures?
If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the
Council would be breaking the Planning Laws
I enquired. Apparently the petition of over 100 signatures was registered with the council who will pass it to the planners. Seems a funny way of doing things, but is what has to happen. There was another petition of 68 signatures, which was the one on the planning application web site. I was suspicious but there's nothing underhanded in that part of the application.
......
It still beggars belief that the proposal is being recommended. As I said someone is obviously pushing very, very hard to make it happen.
[quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website. I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites! Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee? Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place? If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?[/p][/quote]I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest? ...... What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on. ...... Can't trust then an inch![/p][/quote]Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures? If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the Council would be breaking the Planning Laws[/p][/quote]I enquired. Apparently the petition of over 100 signatures was registered with the council who will pass it to the planners. Seems a funny way of doing things, but is what has to happen. There was another petition of 68 signatures, which was the one on the planning application web site. I was suspicious but there's nothing underhanded in that part of the application. ...... It still beggars belief that the proposal is being recommended. As I said someone is obviously pushing very, very hard to make it happen. Carolyn43
  • Score: 2

10:25pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Yankee1 says...

The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car:

The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.
The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car: The very ample car park at BH15 2RU. Yankee1
  • Score: 2

12:38am Sat 15 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

Yankee1 wrote:
The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car:

The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.
Your comment amounts to soliciting a criminal offense.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car: The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.[/p][/quote]Your comment amounts to soliciting a criminal offense. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

2:17am Sat 15 Mar 14

mimi55 says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
mimi55 wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
disquiet wrote:
The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website.

I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites!

Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee?

Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place?

If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?
I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest?
......
What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on.
......
Can't trust then an inch!
Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures?
If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the
Council would be breaking the Planning Laws
I enquired. Apparently the petition of over 100 signatures was registered with the council who will pass it to the planners. Seems a funny way of doing things, but is what has to happen. There was another petition of 68 signatures, which was the one on the planning application web site. I was suspicious but there's nothing underhanded in that part of the application.
......
It still beggars belief that the proposal is being recommended. As I said someone is obviously pushing very, very hard to make it happen.
if this decision goes ahead without full Council Meeting because of 100
signature petition will complain to Local Council Omsbudman
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimi55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disquiet[/bold] wrote: The planning officers case reports for these sites are now available on the BoP website. I guess it should come as no surprise that they recommend to Grant (with conditions) on both sites! Do we know who the members are that make up the planning committee? Will they not be the very same people that have forced these proposals through in the first place? If so, how can an objective, impartial decision be made?[/p][/quote]I understood that it had to go before the full council because a petition of between 100 and 175 signatures had been registered. The report says it was a petition of 6, which is what they photocopied for the BOP web site. Where are the rest? ...... What they have confirmed in this report is that we were lied to over the site being too contaminated to park cars on for the Park and Ride when they put a perfectly good green field under tarmac instead. They now say it's fine for people to live on. ...... Can't trust then an inch![/p][/quote]Can someone confirm if there has been a petition of over 100 signatures? If so - I think the Local Council Omsbudman should be consulted - as the Council would be breaking the Planning Laws[/p][/quote]I enquired. Apparently the petition of over 100 signatures was registered with the council who will pass it to the planners. Seems a funny way of doing things, but is what has to happen. There was another petition of 68 signatures, which was the one on the planning application web site. I was suspicious but there's nothing underhanded in that part of the application. ...... It still beggars belief that the proposal is being recommended. As I said someone is obviously pushing very, very hard to make it happen.[/p][/quote]if this decision goes ahead without full Council Meeting because of 100 signature petition will complain to Local Council Omsbudman mimi55
  • Score: 0

10:17am Sat 15 Mar 14

RM says...

Yankee1 wrote:
The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car:

The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.
Joking apart, what about the land attached to the disused police station at the Civic Centre? Hard standing already in place, no actual residents to be disturbed.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car: The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.[/p][/quote]Joking apart, what about the land attached to the disused police station at the Civic Centre? Hard standing already in place, no actual residents to be disturbed. RM
  • Score: 6

11:01am Sat 15 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

RM wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car:

The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.
Joking apart, what about the land attached to the disused police station at the Civic Centre? Hard standing already in place, no actual residents to be disturbed.
Ah, but council workers and councillors will be able to see it and know that it's close to them, and we can't have that can we?
[quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car: The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.[/p][/quote]Joking apart, what about the land attached to the disused police station at the Civic Centre? Hard standing already in place, no actual residents to be disturbed.[/p][/quote]Ah, but council workers and councillors will be able to see it and know that it's close to them, and we can't have that can we? Carolyn43
  • Score: 7

12:18pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

RM wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car:

The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.
Joking apart, what about the land attached to the disused police station at the Civic Centre? Hard standing already in place, no actual residents to be disturbed.
And the post code for that bit of land just happens to be...... BH15 2RU ;)
[quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: The answer, to a suitable spot for travelers' use, is right next to each councillor's car: The very ample car park at BH15 2RU.[/p][/quote]Joking apart, what about the land attached to the disused police station at the Civic Centre? Hard standing already in place, no actual residents to be disturbed.[/p][/quote]And the post code for that bit of land just happens to be...... BH15 2RU ;) Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

12:50pm Sat 15 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Following this story has been a fascinating insight into how to create a disaster. Two aspects have bought this issue about, Councillor Philip Eades current Mayor of Poole and the arrogance of the council leadership. Hopefully it is nearing a conclusion which will prove positive for the residents of Poole as a whole.

Love Eades quotes on his council web page.

'Quote

"I wish to see a greater allocation of Council resources to improve Branksome Rec"

Quote

"I wish to see the approval rating of Poole's planning process raised amongst local people"

Avoided a travellers site in the 'preferred' consultants choice,the first instance, well done!

You can form your own opinion as to the second quote.
Following this story has been a fascinating insight into how to create a disaster. Two aspects have bought this issue about, Councillor Philip Eades current Mayor of Poole and the arrogance of the council leadership. Hopefully it is nearing a conclusion which will prove positive for the residents of Poole as a whole. Love Eades quotes on his council web page. 'Quote "I wish to see a greater allocation of Council resources to improve Branksome Rec" Quote "I wish to see the approval rating of Poole's planning process raised amongst local people" Avoided a travellers site in the 'preferred' consultants choice,the first instance, well done! You can form your own opinion as to the second quote. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 8

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