Can this be allowed for building on Green Barrier / Belt ?
-
Posts
-
@cllrpaulrogers 3277 wrote:
The context in which I made a comment on the dividend referring to it as a “business decision” is that a past dividend issued by a company is not a material consideration when determining planning applications.
Whilst I might not be familiar with the minute details of the accounts of Brymbo Developments Ltd having been brought up in the community and represented the ward since 2008, I well aware of past and present investments in the community.
As a member of the Planning Committee I feel it would be inappropriate to hold a telephone interview. Not quite sure what there is to dodge?
what part of the planning committee regulations lists it as inappropirate, especially as you have already admitted that you have abstained from any decision made about BDL. Are you scared to be accountable to your electorate? The people who voted you in and who you are suppose to serve.
you also have dodged the questionon why you dodged the request of phone interview in the first place.on subject of minute details of the accounts it was you who said the following…
“On the issue of the dividend I would rather comment once I have seen accounts over a longer period rather than just a snapshot of a period of time.”
so you have chosen not to study them although they have been available since you were last elected. why have you not studied themgetting to the nitty gritty
Issues & Questions Councillor Paul rodgerS (brymo & tanyfron) has dodged…1. issue of dividend
2. phone interview to be put on youtube
3. Could you clarify why the 5-6 sites within the development have not been revisited with the same interest as the green barrier field in question?
4. Could you also clarify what assurances can be given to the community that the spine road and the infrastructure is every built with all the back tracking the BDL is now almost famous for ?
5. And the last accounts of year ending 31st march 2012 have been publically available since mid december, did you know this?
6. Are you not up to date with accounts of this company that influences your ward greatly?
7. Shouldn’t you have investigated this before you started the election or don’t you do any research?
8. What has changed to make you not answer about the dividend when you have answered the question before in public?
9. And above all why do you keep on dodging issues, you are suppose to be serving your ward who gave you the honour to represent them?Please stop being a politician, be transparent and be a servant of your electorate in your answers.
@cllrpaulrogers 3277 wrote:
As a member of the Planning Committee I feel it would be inappropriate to hold a telephone interview. Not quite sure what there is to dodge?
How is this the case if you felt it appropriate to allow yourself to be quoted/interviewed for a piece to go into the media and remark on support for the application?
@zinger 3231 wrote:
Why wasn’t this all sorted out before the initial planning permission was agreed? How do we know that the developers will keep their promises with regards to the spine road & or the school?
This was pointed out in an objection that was sent in back in 2005 at the start of the development. The planning department failed to ensure an s106 agreement was in place which binds a developer to make certain concessions such as funding…for a spine road. Instead the developer was provided with permission for extra housing without being obliged to put the money towards the road etc.
I like that the supporting document makes the “no cost to the public purse” argument over the road, while arguing that the usual schools contribution (designed, of course, to mitigate the social and financial impact of the houses they will build) should be waived. The developer giveth and the developer (practically in the same breath) taketh away.
The only consolation is, I suppose, that the story should really go national given the obvious strength of community feeling over this. The whole saga really needs to be aired again, including the handling of matters by WCBC (who also flogged off Tanyfron’s playing fields for housing in the middle of it).
As for Cllr Rogers he should probably re-read the main points of conduct for planning committee members and ask himself whether it is really sensible to associate himself so closely in the press with “support” for a development.
PS. The “old” LDP is still active for the time being.
I personally think Cllr Rogers has behaved in a professional manner, I’m not sure why he is being attacked here. those who have something to answer for are the house builders who promised residents something they hadn’t ensured could be delivered. As a resident of the new estate I am sick of people objecting to the spine road when they don’t even live on this cut off estate without any of the facilities we were promised. Cllr Rogers has been very supportive of the residents here over numerous issues & he was deserving of election no matter what political party he represents. He knows the community very well as he is always available & makes an effort to communicate with the residents. I wish people would be constructive in their comments about the issue which is in essence about 500 New households being left in the middle of nowhere with no facilities.
I know people who live on the estate and I agree they have been let down badly by the developers. If Cllr Rogers is good for the area he will have no problem being re- elected when the time comes. As a politician he will be used to having to defend himself, it goes with the territory.
This is a forum and while you may not like the postings on here I would defend the right to freedom of speech. In many cases I do not agree with the point of view being aired but I would rather see opposing views to my own than have a forum that is restrained in any way.
@mrsB 3293 wrote:
I personally think Cllr Rogers has behaved in a professional manner, I’m not sure why he is being attacked here. those who have something to answer for are the house builders who promised residents something they hadn’t ensured could be delivered. As a resident of the new estate I am sick of people objecting to the spine road when they don’t even live on this cut off estate without any of the facilities we were promised. Cllr Rogers has been very supportive of the residents here over numerous issues & he was deserving of election no matter what political party he represents. He knows the community very well as he is always available & makes an effort to communicate with the residents. I wish people would be constructive in their comments about the issue which is in essence about 500 New households being left in the middle of nowhere with no facilities.
How has he been attacked?
How are people not being constructive?
@mrsB 3293 wrote:
As a resident of the new estate I am sick of people objecting to the spine road Cllr Rogers has been very supportive of the residents here over numerous issues & he was deserving of election no matter what political party he represents. He knows the community very well
The issue is not the spine road, I am personally not against the spine road. I am against over development and the use of this green barrier land to be utilised to pay for the developers mistakes. There are two applications here. One for a supermarket which nobody has issue with and the application to allow 70 extra dwellings on greenfield land.
The blame is firmly on Brymbo Developments Limited, they were the ones who made the promises initially and failed to build a road to link to the rest of their development, for which extra houses have already been allowed on two occasions. You may find it helpful to do some research on Brymbo community council minutes available online and other sources. What about the other residents of the area? Does Cllr Rogers not represent us too? Should they not represent all residents?
mrsB: no one here is objecting to the spine road, merely to the completely inappropriate use of “enabling development” to fund it, and the fact the developer is trying to put through an application soundly rejected as it was, to put it bluntly, a bad development.
As for Cllr Rogers, he may well give the ‘community’ (which in this context you seem to be saying is the new development?) plenty of support but we are merely asking him if he believes his actions were sensible as a planning committee member.
Taken from Brymbo Community Council minutes February 2012, shows the attitude of the developer and really shows Cllr Rogers working for the estate ;)
Cllr Monti said that residents of the new estate should be a priority as they were promised a school, shop and road and had been sold a lie. He said that the CC was absolutely disgusted with BDL and the way this project had been handled. Cllr Rogers said that BDL were totally fed up with criticism from BCC and did not wish to meet with members. Cllr Monti said that they had made a lot of money out of Brymbo. Cllr Rogers said that BDL believed that BCC were not working with them. Cllr Monti responded that BCC had worked hand in glove with BDL; however Cllr Rogers said that BDL disagreed and did not feel that that the Community Council had and they were critical of the CC .Cllr A Stapley asked what criticism had BDL of the CC, and Cllr Rogers said that there were a number of things. He said they would not meet with the CC until there was something positive to discuss. Cllr Birch said that the situation with the Spine Road was a disgrace He said that BDL continually wanted to build more houses. He asked where the support was for the residents who had bought these new properties. Cllr Rogers said that BDL was working on new projects in their community, and he did not think a meeting would be called for the foreseeable future.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
