Planning chiefs bracing themselves for ‘fiery meeting’ over controversial traveller camps in Poole

Bournemouth Echo: A previous meeting about travellers A previous meeting about travellers

PLANNING chiefs are bracing themselves for a potentially fiery meeting to decide whether or not to back applications for two controversial traveller camps in Poole.

The Borough of Poole planning committee meeting, taking place tomorrow morning, has been shifted to Lighthouse because of the large numbers expected to attend.

Meanwhile a company has upped its offer to buy one of the sites – for £400,000.

Forelle Estates, which has property next to Marshes End, initially offered £250,000.

The council’s environmental and consumer protection services has submitted two applications for temporary stopping places at Creekmoor and Oakdale.

Borough of Poole’s full council has already voted to press ahead with the scheme, which is hoped will enable police to more swiftly disperse unauthorised traveller encampments from Poole’s public places.

Officials say that by having designated temporary stopping places within the borough, they hope to avoid a repeat of last summer that saw a raft of unauthorised encamp-ments cropping up around Poole’s parks and open spaces.

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.

Ahead of the planning meeting, due to be chaired by Poole Cllr planning committee vice chairman Peter Pawlowski, deputy Borough of Poole leader Cllr Mike White said: “Poole experiences a number of unauthorised encampments each year.

“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.”

A limited number of members of the public will only be able to speak before the committee deliberates if they have already contacted the council ahead of Thursday’s meeting.

At the end of this month a special full council meeting will be held to discuss a recently increased offer, made by Poole property company Forelle Estates, to purchase the Marches End site.

Forelle wants to build an office block on the site, in a move they say will create up to 200 jobs. Councillors will be able to vote on whether or not to accept this offer.

The report from officers for tomorrow’s planning committee meeting recommends councillors grant planning permission to allow both sites to be used as temporary stopping places for gypsies and travellers.

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:48am Wed 19 Mar 14

AmsterdamMan says...

Its a done deal.
Its a done deal. AmsterdamMan
  • Score: 23

7:15am Wed 19 Mar 14

RM says...

I wonder how much anti-incursion protection for Poole's green spaces £400k would buy?
I wonder how much anti-incursion protection for Poole's green spaces £400k would buy? RM
  • Score: 18

7:29am Wed 19 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

My monies on the council calling a halt to the meeting.because of embarrassing questions,and then announce their decision which was made weeks ago
My monies on the council calling a halt to the meeting.because of embarrassing questions,and then announce their decision which was made weeks ago kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 31

7:55am Wed 19 Mar 14

DorsetMumOf1 says...

It's going to go ahead no matter what. This meeting is pointless.
It's going to go ahead no matter what. This meeting is pointless. DorsetMumOf1
  • Score: 18

8:04am Wed 19 Mar 14

susi.m says...

Poole Council always pretends to consult on things but its always a done deal, no matter what it is. Eg. Recent things are Ashley Road changes, Poole Park. Consultation is a big joke. Council officers must all be laughing at the council tax payers.
Poole Council always pretends to consult on things but its always a done deal, no matter what it is. Eg. Recent things are Ashley Road changes, Poole Park. Consultation is a big joke. Council officers must all be laughing at the council tax payers. susi.m
  • Score: 23

8:39am Wed 19 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

They should publish the list of 90 sites considered, along with the reasons why 88 were rejected. My money's on some sites being rejected because they were in the wards of Atkinson, Eades and White.
.....
Will Atkinson be there tomorrow? I ask because of the post yesterday saying that she didn't attend the meeting in Creekmoor because the police couldn't ensure her safety - obviously from the savage, marauding lynch mob that is Creekmoor residents.
......
Now that £400,000 has been offered for the site, I'd have thought that all residents would be outraged if planning permission is granted when there's a perfectly good site just on the other side of the A350 (just a few yards away) out of site of traffic entering Poole which is ideal, with none of the problems of Marshes End and which I don't think anyone would object to.
They should publish the list of 90 sites considered, along with the reasons why 88 were rejected. My money's on some sites being rejected because they were in the wards of Atkinson, Eades and White. ..... Will Atkinson be there tomorrow? I ask because of the post yesterday saying that she didn't attend the meeting in Creekmoor because the police couldn't ensure her safety - obviously from the savage, marauding lynch mob that is Creekmoor residents. ...... Now that £400,000 has been offered for the site, I'd have thought that all residents would be outraged if planning permission is granted when there's a perfectly good site just on the other side of the A350 (just a few yards away) out of site of traffic entering Poole which is ideal, with none of the problems of Marshes End and which I don't think anyone would object to. Carolyn43
  • Score: 15

9:42am Wed 19 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared.

I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed.
The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared. I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 17

9:53am Wed 19 Mar 14

moleman says...

A report on the planning website indicates the level of Methane on the site is quite serious and that there should be "12 monitoring events over 12 months"to monitor "high gas generation". The ACS report indicates that the inclusion of a granular layer will be insufficient protection against landfill gas getting into the caravans.
So Marshes End is not safe for a travellers site and the Borough of Poole know this, if they go ahead then they will knowingly be putting people and animals at risk.
A report on the planning website indicates the level of Methane on the site is quite serious and that there should be "12 monitoring events over 12 months"to monitor "high gas generation". The ACS report indicates that the inclusion of a granular layer will be insufficient protection against landfill gas getting into the caravans. So Marshes End is not safe for a travellers site and the Borough of Poole know this, if they go ahead then they will knowingly be putting people and animals at risk. moleman
  • Score: 7

10:04am Wed 19 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared.

I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed.
Unfortunately with the lack of consultation on this and the ward councillors only being told 3 days before the meeting which stated that these were the two chosen sites, many residents want answers on why this happened in such a dictatorial manner when we are supposed to live in a democracy, means that there will be challenges. The council, or at least some members of it, only has itself to blame. We know there were 90 sites, but we don't know why 81 of them were rejected as only 9 were on the final list.
.......
Anyone with common sense could see the Park and Ride was in the wrong place and would fail, bit that was imposed. Marshes end MIGHT have been a better site was was rejected on grounds of contamination. Is it any wonder that Creekmoor residents are furious that the site was considered too contaminated for parking cars on, but suddenly, with a little work, is suitable for people to live on - let's face it, people who no-one wants near them at that. It strikes many that Creekmoor is regarded as a place to dump anything the council wants out of the way. They pay council tax the same way as everyone else does, and there are some very attractive places in Creekmoor. Instead of "Poole, it's a beautiful place", "Rest surf and play", "Poole is open for business" perhaps they should adopt the slogan "Let's c**p on Creekmoor". I'm sure that's what residents there feel.
........
I'm also certain that,while no-one in Creekmoor would physically harm Atkinson, in spite of her cowardice in not attending the local meeting, she is currently the most hated person there - and is it any wonder? Springing this on them and sacking from the cabinet a hard working and well-respected councillor. What will she do next?
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared. I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately with the lack of consultation on this and the ward councillors only being told 3 days before the meeting which stated that these were the two chosen sites, many residents want answers on why this happened in such a dictatorial manner when we are supposed to live in a democracy, means that there will be challenges. The council, or at least some members of it, only has itself to blame. We know there were 90 sites, but we don't know why 81 of them were rejected as only 9 were on the final list. ....... Anyone with common sense could see the Park and Ride was in the wrong place and would fail, bit that was imposed. Marshes end MIGHT have been a better site was was rejected on grounds of contamination. Is it any wonder that Creekmoor residents are furious that the site was considered too contaminated for parking cars on, but suddenly, with a little work, is suitable for people to live on - let's face it, people who no-one wants near them at that. It strikes many that Creekmoor is regarded as a place to dump anything the council wants out of the way. They pay council tax the same way as everyone else does, and there are some very attractive places in Creekmoor. Instead of "Poole, it's a beautiful place", "Rest surf and play", "Poole is open for business" perhaps they should adopt the slogan "Let's c**p on Creekmoor". I'm sure that's what residents there feel. ........ I'm also certain that,while no-one in Creekmoor would physically harm Atkinson, in spite of her cowardice in not attending the local meeting, she is currently the most hated person there - and is it any wonder? Springing this on them and sacking from the cabinet a hard working and well-respected councillor. What will she do next? Carolyn43
  • Score: 6

10:07am Wed 19 Mar 14

Avengerboy says...

A meeting in the morning?
A meeting in the morning? Avengerboy
  • Score: 5

10:24am Wed 19 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Avengerboy wrote:
A meeting in the morning?
Yes, in spite of attempts to move it to the evening so more could attend, it was particularly arranged so that those on the school run or at work would not be able to attend, and it would also be difficult for pensioners because they can't use their bus passes until 9.30 and the meeting starts at 9.15 am. Underhand? This council? What do you think?
[quote][p][bold]Avengerboy[/bold] wrote: A meeting in the morning?[/p][/quote]Yes, in spite of attempts to move it to the evening so more could attend, it was particularly arranged so that those on the school run or at work would not be able to attend, and it would also be difficult for pensioners because they can't use their bus passes until 9.30 and the meeting starts at 9.15 am. Underhand? This council? What do you think? Carolyn43
  • Score: 12

11:41am Wed 19 Mar 14

TheDistrict says...

Do Poole Council seriously think that 16 stopover sites is going to curtail the problem of illegal sites. If they do, then they are more stupid than most think. There was more than 16 at Baiter Park last year intitally, some did move on before the authorities could move them by law. Then add up all the illegal sites across the conurbation. 16 stopover sites is a laugh. Poole Council take the £450k, and move on, this government and council will be out next year.
Do Poole Council seriously think that 16 stopover sites is going to curtail the problem of illegal sites. If they do, then they are more stupid than most think. There was more than 16 at Baiter Park last year intitally, some did move on before the authorities could move them by law. Then add up all the illegal sites across the conurbation. 16 stopover sites is a laugh. Poole Council take the £450k, and move on, this government and council will be out next year. TheDistrict
  • Score: 5

12:02pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Tony Trent says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
They should publish the list of 90 sites considered, along with the reasons why 88 were rejected. My money's on some sites being rejected because they were in the wards of Atkinson, Eades and White.
.....
Will Atkinson be there tomorrow? I ask because of the post yesterday saying that she didn't attend the meeting in Creekmoor because the police couldn't ensure her safety - obviously from the savage, marauding lynch mob that is Creekmoor residents.
......
Now that £400,000 has been offered for the site, I'd have thought that all residents would be outraged if planning permission is granted when there's a perfectly good site just on the other side of the A350 (just a few yards away) out of site of traffic entering Poole which is ideal, with none of the problems of Marshes End and which I don't think anyone would object to.
I am amazed at the expressions of support for a developer wanting to buy up Council land because they oppose what is proposed - regardless of the ammount offered. Can we now expect widespread public support if a developer wants to buy up a woodland or park to preserve or enhance their outlook (lots of developers hate trees). I can see a lot of that happenning if a precedent is set. There is more heat than light in this whole debate, and an absolute fortune being wasted on extra meetings when a decision should have been made by Cabinet to seek planning permission, and the planning committee deciding on facts folowing the longer than average consultation period. I can see plenty of scope for compromise if this were a normal application. Not sure it will go that way in view of the whipped up mass hysteria currently being witnessed, and the disregard of good practice in dealing with financial and legal processes. I now await the OTT reactions from the nameless ones!
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: They should publish the list of 90 sites considered, along with the reasons why 88 were rejected. My money's on some sites being rejected because they were in the wards of Atkinson, Eades and White. ..... Will Atkinson be there tomorrow? I ask because of the post yesterday saying that she didn't attend the meeting in Creekmoor because the police couldn't ensure her safety - obviously from the savage, marauding lynch mob that is Creekmoor residents. ...... Now that £400,000 has been offered for the site, I'd have thought that all residents would be outraged if planning permission is granted when there's a perfectly good site just on the other side of the A350 (just a few yards away) out of site of traffic entering Poole which is ideal, with none of the problems of Marshes End and which I don't think anyone would object to.[/p][/quote]I am amazed at the expressions of support for a developer wanting to buy up Council land because they oppose what is proposed - regardless of the ammount offered. Can we now expect widespread public support if a developer wants to buy up a woodland or park to preserve or enhance their outlook (lots of developers hate trees). I can see a lot of that happenning if a precedent is set. There is more heat than light in this whole debate, and an absolute fortune being wasted on extra meetings when a decision should have been made by Cabinet to seek planning permission, and the planning committee deciding on facts folowing the longer than average consultation period. I can see plenty of scope for compromise if this were a normal application. Not sure it will go that way in view of the whipped up mass hysteria currently being witnessed, and the disregard of good practice in dealing with financial and legal processes. I now await the OTT reactions from the nameless ones! Tony Trent
  • Score: -10

12:09pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Tony Trent says...

susi.m wrote:
Poole Council always pretends to consult on things but its always a done deal, no matter what it is. Eg. Recent things are Ashley Road changes, Poole Park. Consultation is a big joke. Council officers must all be laughing at the council tax payers.
What part of the Ashley Road consultation was deficient then? I supported ideas put forward by residents that I was uncertain about, and dropped some of those I originally backed because they were not widely supported. The consultation seemed quite extensive, and has continued since the main part was reported back.
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Poole Council always pretends to consult on things but its always a done deal, no matter what it is. Eg. Recent things are Ashley Road changes, Poole Park. Consultation is a big joke. Council officers must all be laughing at the council tax payers.[/p][/quote]What part of the Ashley Road consultation was deficient then? I supported ideas put forward by residents that I was uncertain about, and dropped some of those I originally backed because they were not widely supported. The consultation seemed quite extensive, and has continued since the main part was reported back. Tony Trent
  • Score: 1

12:12pm Wed 19 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Carolyn43 wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared.

I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed.
Unfortunately with the lack of consultation on this and the ward councillors only being told 3 days before the meeting which stated that these were the two chosen sites, many residents want answers on why this happened in such a dictatorial manner when we are supposed to live in a democracy, means that there will be challenges. The council, or at least some members of it, only has itself to blame. We know there were 90 sites, but we don't know why 81 of them were rejected as only 9 were on the final list.
.......
Anyone with common sense could see the Park and Ride was in the wrong place and would fail, bit that was imposed. Marshes end MIGHT have been a better site was was rejected on grounds of contamination. Is it any wonder that Creekmoor residents are furious that the site was considered too contaminated for parking cars on, but suddenly, with a little work, is suitable for people to live on - let's face it, people who no-one wants near them at that. It strikes many that Creekmoor is regarded as a place to dump anything the council wants out of the way. They pay council tax the same way as everyone else does, and there are some very attractive places in Creekmoor. Instead of "Poole, it's a beautiful place", "Rest surf and play", "Poole is open for business" perhaps they should adopt the slogan "Let's c**p on Creekmoor". I'm sure that's what residents there feel.
........
I'm also certain that,while no-one in Creekmoor would physically harm Atkinson, in spite of her cowardice in not attending the local meeting, she is currently the most hated person there - and is it any wonder? Springing this on them and sacking from the cabinet a hard working and well-respected councillor. What will she do next?
Once again Caroline 43 thank you for your thoughts on this matter and once again I would ask you for your solution to the problem. I mean no offence but you are not the only one with strong views about how this issue has been handled by the council and certainly not the first to raise the underhand way it has come about. I believe you mentioned in the past that you teach, then you should know the difference between consultation, debate and negotiation, none of which, I agree, the council would apear to want to enter into. Put simply, the planning committee will find either for against the location of the site at Marshes End. If the former, what then? It would seem to me there is a case for involving the local government ombudsman over the process that has been applied but that is a long shot. Alternitavly they could change the name to' Knackers Yard', that would gurantee no traveler would want to be placed there. Let’s just wait and see what the result is and have a meeting that reflects the objectivity and maturity of Creek moor residents. Those that can get there that is.
[quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared. I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately with the lack of consultation on this and the ward councillors only being told 3 days before the meeting which stated that these were the two chosen sites, many residents want answers on why this happened in such a dictatorial manner when we are supposed to live in a democracy, means that there will be challenges. The council, or at least some members of it, only has itself to blame. We know there were 90 sites, but we don't know why 81 of them were rejected as only 9 were on the final list. ....... Anyone with common sense could see the Park and Ride was in the wrong place and would fail, bit that was imposed. Marshes end MIGHT have been a better site was was rejected on grounds of contamination. Is it any wonder that Creekmoor residents are furious that the site was considered too contaminated for parking cars on, but suddenly, with a little work, is suitable for people to live on - let's face it, people who no-one wants near them at that. It strikes many that Creekmoor is regarded as a place to dump anything the council wants out of the way. They pay council tax the same way as everyone else does, and there are some very attractive places in Creekmoor. Instead of "Poole, it's a beautiful place", "Rest surf and play", "Poole is open for business" perhaps they should adopt the slogan "Let's c**p on Creekmoor". I'm sure that's what residents there feel. ........ I'm also certain that,while no-one in Creekmoor would physically harm Atkinson, in spite of her cowardice in not attending the local meeting, she is currently the most hated person there - and is it any wonder? Springing this on them and sacking from the cabinet a hard working and well-respected councillor. What will she do next?[/p][/quote]Once again Caroline 43 thank you for your thoughts on this matter and once again I would ask you for your solution to the problem. I mean no offence but you are not the only one with strong views about how this issue has been handled by the council and certainly not the first to raise the underhand way it has come about. I believe you mentioned in the past that you teach, then you should know the difference between consultation, debate and negotiation, none of which, I agree, the council would apear to want to enter into. Put simply, the planning committee will find either for against the location of the site at Marshes End. If the former, what then? It would seem to me there is a case for involving the local government ombudsman over the process that has been applied but that is a long shot. Alternitavly they could change the name to' Knackers Yard', that would gurantee no traveler would want to be placed there. Let’s just wait and see what the result is and have a meeting that reflects the objectivity and maturity of Creek moor residents. Those that can get there that is. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 9

12:54pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Carol62 says...

As the planning permission meeting is not scheduled until tomorrow, would someone from the council like to explain why workman have been putting in the dropped kerbs at marshes end ahead of permission being granted ????
One can only assume again that the decision has already been made or else that's more money wasted !!
As the planning permission meeting is not scheduled until tomorrow, would someone from the council like to explain why workman have been putting in the dropped kerbs at marshes end ahead of permission being granted ???? One can only assume again that the decision has already been made or else that's more money wasted !! Carol62
  • Score: 5

1:29pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Speedymax says...

Tony Trent wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
They should publish the list of 90 sites considered, along with the reasons why 88 were rejected. My money's on some sites being rejected because they were in the wards of Atkinson, Eades and White.
.....
Will Atkinson be there tomorrow? I ask because of the post yesterday saying that she didn't attend the meeting in Creekmoor because the police couldn't ensure her safety - obviously from the savage, marauding lynch mob that is Creekmoor residents.
......
Now that £400,000 has been offered for the site, I'd have thought that all residents would be outraged if planning permission is granted when there's a perfectly good site just on the other side of the A350 (just a few yards away) out of site of traffic entering Poole which is ideal, with none of the problems of Marshes End and which I don't think anyone would object to.
I am amazed at the expressions of support for a developer wanting to buy up Council land because they oppose what is proposed - regardless of the ammount offered. Can we now expect widespread public support if a developer wants to buy up a woodland or park to preserve or enhance their outlook (lots of developers hate trees). I can see a lot of that happenning if a precedent is set. There is more heat than light in this whole debate, and an absolute fortune being wasted on extra meetings when a decision should have been made by Cabinet to seek planning permission, and the planning committee deciding on facts folowing the longer than average consultation period. I can see plenty of scope for compromise if this were a normal application. Not sure it will go that way in view of the whipped up mass hysteria currently being witnessed, and the disregard of good practice in dealing with financial and legal processes. I now await the OTT reactions from the nameless ones!
I would imagine the developer is concerned for his business, existing and future. Why should he not make an offer in those circumstances? Plus there are plenty of reasonable and legal arguments opposing permission already on the planning site including one from law firm CMS Cameron McKenna which says that as it stands the proposal is open to a legal challenge. There are also reasoned arguments from Cowling & West Surveyors, Terence O'Rourke Surveyors, Jomes Lang Laselle (JLL) and regardless of who they are working for the questions and points they raise are still valid and still need answering.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Trent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: They should publish the list of 90 sites considered, along with the reasons why 88 were rejected. My money's on some sites being rejected because they were in the wards of Atkinson, Eades and White. ..... Will Atkinson be there tomorrow? I ask because of the post yesterday saying that she didn't attend the meeting in Creekmoor because the police couldn't ensure her safety - obviously from the savage, marauding lynch mob that is Creekmoor residents. ...... Now that £400,000 has been offered for the site, I'd have thought that all residents would be outraged if planning permission is granted when there's a perfectly good site just on the other side of the A350 (just a few yards away) out of site of traffic entering Poole which is ideal, with none of the problems of Marshes End and which I don't think anyone would object to.[/p][/quote]I am amazed at the expressions of support for a developer wanting to buy up Council land because they oppose what is proposed - regardless of the ammount offered. Can we now expect widespread public support if a developer wants to buy up a woodland or park to preserve or enhance their outlook (lots of developers hate trees). I can see a lot of that happenning if a precedent is set. There is more heat than light in this whole debate, and an absolute fortune being wasted on extra meetings when a decision should have been made by Cabinet to seek planning permission, and the planning committee deciding on facts folowing the longer than average consultation period. I can see plenty of scope for compromise if this were a normal application. Not sure it will go that way in view of the whipped up mass hysteria currently being witnessed, and the disregard of good practice in dealing with financial and legal processes. I now await the OTT reactions from the nameless ones![/p][/quote]I would imagine the developer is concerned for his business, existing and future. Why should he not make an offer in those circumstances? Plus there are plenty of reasonable and legal arguments opposing permission already on the planning site including one from law firm CMS Cameron McKenna which says that as it stands the proposal is open to a legal challenge. There are also reasoned arguments from Cowling & West Surveyors, Terence O'Rourke Surveyors, Jomes Lang Laselle (JLL) and regardless of who they are working for the questions and points they raise are still valid and still need answering. Speedymax
  • Score: 4

2:07pm Wed 19 Mar 14

disquiet says...

It is clear the site selection process was fundamentally flawed.

Councillors in positions of authority have abused their power to ensure sites were not selected in their wards, irrespective of suitability - sycophantic party members have then followed suit.

What can be done about this? I really don't know. It's clear the council are unwilling to listen to residents as evidenced by the lack of pre-planning application consultations, the many objections and the 100's of signatures on petitions.

As previously mentioned I suspect, if proposals were to go ahead, local businesses will mount a legal challenge.

Maybe the council will listen to that? We shall see.
It is clear the site selection process was fundamentally flawed. Councillors in positions of authority have abused their power to ensure sites were not selected in their wards, irrespective of suitability - sycophantic party members have then followed suit. What can be done about this? I really don't know. It's clear the council are unwilling to listen to residents as evidenced by the lack of pre-planning application consultations, the many objections and the 100's of signatures on petitions. As previously mentioned I suspect, if proposals were to go ahead, local businesses will mount a legal challenge. Maybe the council will listen to that? We shall see. disquiet
  • Score: 24

2:15pm Wed 19 Mar 14

guisselle says...

Its all a lottery whichever way you look at it, just swing to the right a bit and
lurch to the left otherwise just ask the middle man!
Its all a lottery whichever way you look at it, just swing to the right a bit and lurch to the left otherwise just ask the middle man! guisselle
  • Score: 2

4:58pm Wed 19 Mar 14

suzigirl says...

moleman wrote:
A report on the planning website indicates the level of Methane on the site is quite serious and that there should be "12 monitoring events over 12 months"to monitor "high gas generation". The ACS report indicates that the inclusion of a granular layer will be insufficient protection against landfill gas getting into the caravans. So Marshes End is not safe for a travellers site and the Borough of Poole know this, if they go ahead then they will knowingly be putting people and animals at risk.
So lets not give the travellers permission to pitch their caravans at Marshes End and what will happen - yes you have quessed it they will park their caravans there anyway! So what happens if any of the travellers are affected/made ill by the methane? They will then clog up Poole Hospital!
[quote][p][bold]moleman[/bold] wrote: A report on the planning website indicates the level of Methane on the site is quite serious and that there should be "12 monitoring events over 12 months"to monitor "high gas generation". The ACS report indicates that the inclusion of a granular layer will be insufficient protection against landfill gas getting into the caravans. So Marshes End is not safe for a travellers site and the Borough of Poole know this, if they go ahead then they will knowingly be putting people and animals at risk.[/p][/quote]So lets not give the travellers permission to pitch their caravans at Marshes End and what will happen - yes you have quessed it they will park their caravans there anyway! So what happens if any of the travellers are affected/made ill by the methane? They will then clog up Poole Hospital! suzigirl
  • Score: 1

5:17pm Wed 19 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.
The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome. pete woodley
  • Score: -7

5:21pm Wed 19 Mar 14

cunone says...

It is evident Planning will be granted regardless of objections.
To be frank when did a public objection ever have any impact on the outcome of an issue.
Cllr Trent asks why all the hysteria to me the reply is easy.
Poole Council did not consult BEFORE they decided to allocate the land for Travellers despite what has been said. Therefore the only objections that can be made are those of a technical nature not the principle of the development. Creekmoor residents concur that there needs to be a resolution to the traveller problem indeed Creekmoor has suffered for years with illegal camps long before last years Whitecliff problem. However this community is being dictated to hence the level of objection. We would have liked to see an open democratic process but that has never been offered. They speak of the consultation at the Library and yes there was one but the officers were poorly briefed and unable to provide answers. So once again mushroom syndrome.
Some groups of Travellers have shown the town little respect however if we cage them all in a concentration camp like environment don't be surprised if they show even less respect and cause a bigger issue.
I wonder how those who vote for the scheme will feel when there is an accident with say a young child running out of the site on to the A35. or when there is a claim in respect of ill health because of the contamination.
If such claims are made please can any action be directed at those who voted for the scheme not the poor bloody rate payer. Remember Atkinson / Eddes when there is a claim we look to you to take the blame.
It is evident Planning will be granted regardless of objections. To be frank when did a public objection ever have any impact on the outcome of an issue. Cllr Trent asks why all the hysteria to me the reply is easy. Poole Council did not consult BEFORE they decided to allocate the land for Travellers despite what has been said. Therefore the only objections that can be made are those of a technical nature not the principle of the development. Creekmoor residents concur that there needs to be a resolution to the traveller problem indeed Creekmoor has suffered for years with illegal camps long before last years Whitecliff problem. However this community is being dictated to hence the level of objection. We would have liked to see an open democratic process but that has never been offered. They speak of the consultation at the Library and yes there was one but the officers were poorly briefed and unable to provide answers. So once again mushroom syndrome. Some groups of Travellers have shown the town little respect however if we cage them all in a concentration camp like environment don't be surprised if they show even less respect and cause a bigger issue. I wonder how those who vote for the scheme will feel when there is an accident with say a young child running out of the site on to the A35. or when there is a claim in respect of ill health because of the contamination. If such claims are made please can any action be directed at those who voted for the scheme not the poor bloody rate payer. Remember Atkinson / Eddes when there is a claim we look to you to take the blame. cunone
  • Score: 1

6:35pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

DorsetFerret wrote:
Carolyn43 wrote:
DorsetFerret wrote:
The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared.

I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed.
Unfortunately with the lack of consultation on this and the ward councillors only being told 3 days before the meeting which stated that these were the two chosen sites, many residents want answers on why this happened in such a dictatorial manner when we are supposed to live in a democracy, means that there will be challenges. The council, or at least some members of it, only has itself to blame. We know there were 90 sites, but we don't know why 81 of them were rejected as only 9 were on the final list.
.......
Anyone with common sense could see the Park and Ride was in the wrong place and would fail, bit that was imposed. Marshes end MIGHT have been a better site was was rejected on grounds of contamination. Is it any wonder that Creekmoor residents are furious that the site was considered too contaminated for parking cars on, but suddenly, with a little work, is suitable for people to live on - let's face it, people who no-one wants near them at that. It strikes many that Creekmoor is regarded as a place to dump anything the council wants out of the way. They pay council tax the same way as everyone else does, and there are some very attractive places in Creekmoor. Instead of "Poole, it's a beautiful place", "Rest surf and play", "Poole is open for business" perhaps they should adopt the slogan "Let's c**p on Creekmoor". I'm sure that's what residents there feel.
........
I'm also certain that,while no-one in Creekmoor would physically harm Atkinson, in spite of her cowardice in not attending the local meeting, she is currently the most hated person there - and is it any wonder? Springing this on them and sacking from the cabinet a hard working and well-respected councillor. What will she do next?
Once again Caroline 43 thank you for your thoughts on this matter and once again I would ask you for your solution to the problem. I mean no offence but you are not the only one with strong views about how this issue has been handled by the council and certainly not the first to raise the underhand way it has come about. I believe you mentioned in the past that you teach, then you should know the difference between consultation, debate and negotiation, none of which, I agree, the council would apear to want to enter into. Put simply, the planning committee will find either for against the location of the site at Marshes End. If the former, what then? It would seem to me there is a case for involving the local government ombudsman over the process that has been applied but that is a long shot. Alternitavly they could change the name to' Knackers Yard', that would gurantee no traveler would want to be placed there. Let’s just wait and see what the result is and have a meeting that reflects the objectivity and maturity of Creek moor residents. Those that can get there that is.
I retired from teaching over 10 years ago. My experience of decision making:-
.....
Consultation: a need is identified. Open discussion of the need for something to be done. Several suggestions put forward for investigation. In this case 90 sites were listed and considered BEHIND CLOSED doors, whittled down to 9 with two identified to go ahead BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
......
Debate: Discussion following investigation of the several suggestions, with a final selection of (usually) two to choose from. In this case no discussion let alone detailed discussion.Just two sites decided on BEHIND CLOSED DOORS by whom?
.......
Negotiation: Detailed information of those to be considered and a vote on which one. In this case decision BEHIND CLOSED DOORS by whom? There will be a token vote in public tomorrow, but with work already going ahead.
......
I've read everything on the application on Poole web site. The Marshes End site has so many problems that make it unsuitable, apart from the fact that the council lied when it said Marshes End was too contaminated for a car park and put a green field under tarmac, but they now say it is suitable for residential use with a small amount of work. In addition it is designated as employment land. Selling the site and the creation of jobs would benefit Poole. It would also keep the "Gateway to Poole" looking welcoming instead of a metal-fenced compound.
.....
I've already said what my suggestion for a site is the other side of the A350 - just a few yards away from Marshes End. It was on the original list was rejected, reason unknown.
......
As I have also previously said, I have absolutely no time for politicians at any level, and this has just confirmed to me that they are mostly selfish, on a power trip and want to be dictators rather than operate a democracy.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carolyn43[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetFerret[/bold] wrote: The sale of the contaminated land for £400k would be more than sufficient to move travellers on next year, even if it means they spend a few weeks in other wards. This would allow time for plans to be properly considered when the government change the rules and allow local authorities to work together on this issue. With Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole acting together a better location could be found that satisfies everybody and the cost shared. I find the Echo's headline above a little inflammatory and may almost guarantee a heated meeting. Not what is required, sensible argument and decisions are what's needed.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately with the lack of consultation on this and the ward councillors only being told 3 days before the meeting which stated that these were the two chosen sites, many residents want answers on why this happened in such a dictatorial manner when we are supposed to live in a democracy, means that there will be challenges. The council, or at least some members of it, only has itself to blame. We know there were 90 sites, but we don't know why 81 of them were rejected as only 9 were on the final list. ....... Anyone with common sense could see the Park and Ride was in the wrong place and would fail, bit that was imposed. Marshes end MIGHT have been a better site was was rejected on grounds of contamination. Is it any wonder that Creekmoor residents are furious that the site was considered too contaminated for parking cars on, but suddenly, with a little work, is suitable for people to live on - let's face it, people who no-one wants near them at that. It strikes many that Creekmoor is regarded as a place to dump anything the council wants out of the way. They pay council tax the same way as everyone else does, and there are some very attractive places in Creekmoor. Instead of "Poole, it's a beautiful place", "Rest surf and play", "Poole is open for business" perhaps they should adopt the slogan "Let's c**p on Creekmoor". I'm sure that's what residents there feel. ........ I'm also certain that,while no-one in Creekmoor would physically harm Atkinson, in spite of her cowardice in not attending the local meeting, she is currently the most hated person there - and is it any wonder? Springing this on them and sacking from the cabinet a hard working and well-respected councillor. What will she do next?[/p][/quote]Once again Caroline 43 thank you for your thoughts on this matter and once again I would ask you for your solution to the problem. I mean no offence but you are not the only one with strong views about how this issue has been handled by the council and certainly not the first to raise the underhand way it has come about. I believe you mentioned in the past that you teach, then you should know the difference between consultation, debate and negotiation, none of which, I agree, the council would apear to want to enter into. Put simply, the planning committee will find either for against the location of the site at Marshes End. If the former, what then? It would seem to me there is a case for involving the local government ombudsman over the process that has been applied but that is a long shot. Alternitavly they could change the name to' Knackers Yard', that would gurantee no traveler would want to be placed there. Let’s just wait and see what the result is and have a meeting that reflects the objectivity and maturity of Creek moor residents. Those that can get there that is.[/p][/quote]I retired from teaching over 10 years ago. My experience of decision making:- ..... Consultation: a need is identified. Open discussion of the need for something to be done. Several suggestions put forward for investigation. In this case 90 sites were listed and considered BEHIND CLOSED doors, whittled down to 9 with two identified to go ahead BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. ...... Debate: Discussion following investigation of the several suggestions, with a final selection of (usually) two to choose from. In this case no discussion let alone detailed discussion.Just two sites decided on BEHIND CLOSED DOORS by whom? ....... Negotiation: Detailed information of those to be considered and a vote on which one. In this case decision BEHIND CLOSED DOORS by whom? There will be a token vote in public tomorrow, but with work already going ahead. ...... I've read everything on the application on Poole web site. The Marshes End site has so many problems that make it unsuitable, apart from the fact that the council lied when it said Marshes End was too contaminated for a car park and put a green field under tarmac, but they now say it is suitable for residential use with a small amount of work. In addition it is designated as employment land. Selling the site and the creation of jobs would benefit Poole. It would also keep the "Gateway to Poole" looking welcoming instead of a metal-fenced compound. ..... I've already said what my suggestion for a site is the other side of the A350 - just a few yards away from Marshes End. It was on the original list was rejected, reason unknown. ...... As I have also previously said, I have absolutely no time for politicians at any level, and this has just confirmed to me that they are mostly selfish, on a power trip and want to be dictators rather than operate a democracy. Carolyn43
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

Before someone asks why I live here. Unfortunately for me I'm trapped by family circumstances, but as soon as those problems are resolved I'll be out of what in the past would have been called a "rotten borough" as quickly as I can, even if I have to sell up below market value.
Before someone asks why I live here. Unfortunately for me I'm trapped by family circumstances, but as soon as those problems are resolved I'll be out of what in the past would have been called a "rotten borough" as quickly as I can, even if I have to sell up below market value. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

7:42pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Carolyn43 says...

See the planning department has finally put a petition with 623 signatures from people living all over the place but working in one of the businesses on the web site. They've had it since 28th February.
See the planning department has finally put a petition with 623 signatures from people living all over the place but working in one of the businesses on the web site. They've had it since 28th February. Carolyn43
  • Score: 1

8:37pm Wed 19 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

pete woodley wrote:
The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.
UKIP will stand up for the hard working British person,
We did not fight two WORLD WARS to hand our beloved GB to the EU, or the GERMANS ,or anybody else .
Travellers like any other minority group ,have to realise ,they are the minority,.
And the Majority in a Democracy will have the last say ,on any issue in their own country,
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.[/p][/quote]UKIP will stand up for the hard working British person, We did not fight two WORLD WARS to hand our beloved GB to the EU, or the GERMANS ,or anybody else . Travellers like any other minority group ,have to realise ,they are the minority,. And the Majority in a Democracy will have the last say ,on any issue in their own country, cromwell9
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Wed 19 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

pete woodley wrote:
The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.
You must be one of those silly LIB DEMS,
Who wasted 1Million on that other crazy sceme of yours .The Creekmore park and ride
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.[/p][/quote]You must be one of those silly LIB DEMS, Who wasted 1Million on that other crazy sceme of yours .The Creekmore park and ride cromwell9
  • Score: 3

8:46pm Wed 19 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Do Poole Council seriously think that 16 stopover sites is going to curtail the problem of illegal sites. If they do, then they are more stupid than most think. There was more than 16 at Baiter Park last year intitally, some did move on before the authorities could move them by law. Then add up all the illegal sites across the conurbation. 16 stopover sites is a laugh. Poole Council take the £450k, and move on, this government and council will be out next year.
I dont think so,
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Do Poole Council seriously think that 16 stopover sites is going to curtail the problem of illegal sites. If they do, then they are more stupid than most think. There was more than 16 at Baiter Park last year intitally, some did move on before the authorities could move them by law. Then add up all the illegal sites across the conurbation. 16 stopover sites is a laugh. Poole Council take the £450k, and move on, this government and council will be out next year.[/p][/quote]I dont think so, cromwell9
  • Score: 1

9:15pm Wed 19 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

cromwell9 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.
You must be one of those silly LIB DEMS,
Who wasted 1Million on that other crazy sceme of yours .The Creekmore park and ride
Typical UKIP, Absolutely wrong assumption,as John T will agree.I will not waste any more time with this sillly boy.
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.[/p][/quote]You must be one of those silly LIB DEMS, Who wasted 1Million on that other crazy sceme of yours .The Creekmore park and ride[/p][/quote]Typical UKIP, Absolutely wrong assumption,as John T will agree.I will not waste any more time with this sillly boy. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

9:15pm Wed 19 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

cromwell9 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.
You must be one of those silly LIB DEMS,
Who wasted 1Million on that other crazy sceme of yours .The Creekmore park and ride
Typical UKIP, Absolutely wrong assumption,as John T will agree.I will not waste any more time with this sillly boy.
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: The whole issue has been turned into a political battle with some outsiders jumping on the bandwagon for publicity,and UKIP taking advantage of vote catching,I am surprised that Tony Woodcock wants to join UKIP,i always thought he had more sense,than that,he has gone right down in my esteem. UKIP'S chairman lives in creekmoor,doesnt he, very convenient for the campaign,totally unbiassed of course.Wonder if he and ukip would fight if the travellers were sited in Branksome.[/p][/quote]You must be one of those silly LIB DEMS, Who wasted 1Million on that other crazy sceme of yours .The Creekmore park and ride[/p][/quote]Typical UKIP, Absolutely wrong assumption,as John T will agree.I will not waste any more time with this sillly boy. pete woodley
  • Score: -1

4:26am Thu 20 Mar 14

Mad Karew says...

Carol62 wrote:
As the planning permission meeting is not scheduled until tomorrow, would someone from the council like to explain why workman have been putting in the dropped kerbs at marshes end ahead of permission being granted ????
One can only assume again that the decision has already been made or else that's more money wasted !!
I understand the dropped kerbs are for a cycle path and nothing to do with the transit site.
The planning committee are supposed to be impartial and make decisions purely on the evidence in front of them, but it's difficult to find enough people who haven't already made up their minds one way or the other. And Atkinson has been lobbying some of the committee members and trying to tell them to vote in favour.
If this goes ahead it will almost certainly be challenged in the High Court, with the risk of mega bucks in costs going against Poole Council. Maybe then they will sell the site to pay the court costs...........
[quote][p][bold]Carol62[/bold] wrote: As the planning permission meeting is not scheduled until tomorrow, would someone from the council like to explain why workman have been putting in the dropped kerbs at marshes end ahead of permission being granted ???? One can only assume again that the decision has already been made or else that's more money wasted !![/p][/quote]I understand the dropped kerbs are for a cycle path and nothing to do with the transit site. The planning committee are supposed to be impartial and make decisions purely on the evidence in front of them, but it's difficult to find enough people who haven't already made up their minds one way or the other. And Atkinson has been lobbying some of the committee members and trying to tell them to vote in favour. If this goes ahead it will almost certainly be challenged in the High Court, with the risk of mega bucks in costs going against Poole Council. Maybe then they will sell the site to pay the court costs........... Mad Karew
  • Score: 2

11:58am Thu 20 Mar 14

DorsetFerret says...

Congratulations to Creekmoor ward councillors, residents and those on the planning committee who voted for common sense. Let's hope that this is the end of this proposal and look forward to some resignations for miss- management and waste of tax payers money.
Congratulations to Creekmoor ward councillors, residents and those on the planning committee who voted for common sense. Let's hope that this is the end of this proposal and look forward to some resignations for miss- management and waste of tax payers money. DorsetFerret
  • Score: 2

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