The Wyre Forest Agenda: They Giveth and then They Taketh Away

Tweetroll:

Adam Burling [@adamburling84]
FoSGPark [@FoSGPark]
helen elizabeth dyke [@helend54]
The Shuttle [@KiddiShuttle]
Worcestershire LEP [@worcsLEP]
Wyre Forest District Council [@WyreForestDC]
Wyre Forest Labour [@WyreForestLab]
Wyre Forest Labour [@labourblogger]

read more...

Facebookers:

A History of Stourport-on-Severn
Kidderminster Past
Kidderminster Rocks
The Kidderminster Shuttle
We love Stourport-On-Severn New

Wyre Forest Labour
Wyre Forest Young Labour

Adrian Beavis
Graham Ballinger
Karl Katic
Roger Lamb
Tom Watson

read more...

Flickringz:

Ghost Signs (local)
Kidderminster
Kidderminster Camera Club
Kidderminster Harriers FC
Worcestershire Wildlife Trust

read more...

Recent Photos:

1 of 25

Blessed are we living in a democracy
[]

See:I'm part of a democracy

http://www.wfa.org.uk/2011/12/22.asp or http://t.co/hO9uurCg

A microcosm of England Decision makers

	Thursday, 22 December 2011
	They Giveth and then They Taketh Away
	by John Campion

This is the Conservative Group position, the Council will have to make a decision next year, which the Conservatives group will take an active part in...

Wyre Forest Conservative Group have today said that following the Local Development Framework (LDF) consultation on the sites proposed by the independent consultants to accommodation the unmet demand for Gypsy and travellers sites they will listen and act on what the public have said.

The Conservative group on the District Council have said that following the consultation and the ward councillor representation they are not predisposed to support the Lea Castle Site, Stourport Road Bewdley Site, Sion Hill Middle School Site and the Manor farm site. There was an overwhelming voice from the public against [some of] what was being proposed by the independent consultants.

The first duty of locally elected representatives is to listen and engage with the communities that they serve. The Conservative group will do exactly that. The people have spoken and we will act. We are now not predisposed to support Lea Castle Site, Stourport Road Bewdley Site, Sion Hill Middle School Site or the Manor farm site being zoned for Gypsy and traveller sites as part of the (LDF process).

It was right that the Council put some of the sites recommended from the independent consultations out to public consultation, to allow the public to have their say in how this thorny issue is tackled. We will now continue to work with the scrutiny process in the New Year to identify how the unmet demand will now be met. It will ultimately be full Council next year that will decide which sites are included but we feel it is right that we tell our community our position at this early stage.

Sources:
Wyre Forest Conservatives

Campaigns:

Travellers Sites Debacle

Comments:

Tav
22 Dec 2011 So the Conservative Group are inclined to abandon Manor Farm, Lea Castle, Stourport Road Bewdley and Sion Hill School. So why did they not omit these sites for consultation and like they did for Tory sites? In fact why didn't the Cabal just listen to the public and ward councillors and 'feel that it was right that we tell the community' that they were going to undemocratically manipulate the consultation?

walkerno5
21 Dec 2011 So... where are the other required pitches going to go? Call to Kim Jong-un required.

Stephen Brown
21 Dec 2011 Maybe we didn't need so many in the first place and it's all a ruse to make us feel grateful to the Cabal, for the Cabal, and that we have a Cabal to look after our best interests…

Confusing yes but note - it says they will still have to meet the need so unless there has been a massive reduction the debate is not over and I hope it is far more constructive and less divisive from/in some quarters than the last debate which saw the cabal playing the prejudice card.

Anyway, a relief for the tenants of Manor Farm and against it being included in the site list in the first place.

Fran Oborski
21 Dec 2011 This is a perfectly reasonable and fair response to the Public Consultation and is a response which I am happy to endorse.

For your information there were hundreds of individual responses objecting to those 4 sites plus several thousand petition signatures. In total contrast there were no more than 20 objections to ANY site on Sandy Lane. Since the consultation period started the Council has approved further pitches on Sandy Lane and a couple of others have been put forward by land owners during the consultation period.

I am confident that we can secure enough sites to take us forward to 2017 and I am sure that between 2015-2017 the Council will be able to assess future need.

Meanwhile the I expect the rest of the Council will been seen to listen to and act on the wishes of the public.

Jon D
21 Dec 2011 Surely we will need a new leader of the Council now John's got the North Korean job full time?

Jonathan Cooper
21 Dec 2011 When I came out of the Stourport public meeting, it was said by several in attendance that Manor Farm would be dropped from the potential sites, and the members of the Wyre Forest Cabinet - and its supporters - would claim to be some kind of public heroes. This is exactly what appears to be happening!

I am so very pleased for the Barnes family - and to Manor Farm's many champions - that they have got the right and legitimate result. This issue has caused obvious distress since this whole case started. Manor Farm should never, ever have been put into the pot for consultation in the first place. WFDC failed to realise that Manor Farm was indeed a working facility, and even more alarming are in fact WFDC tenants, and have been since 1974. WFDC owes the Barnes family, and us the constituents an explanation into this clear blunder in my opinion.

Something that has been omitted in these latter stages is the feasibility of the Wyre Forest taxpayer paying an astounding �17,500 on a controversial so called consultation conducted by the Baker Group? So what happens now - does this �17,500 purely get written off? The whole Baker Group report was flawed with no substance to it whatsoever - this has now been proved. WFDC have yet again let down the residents of Wyre Forest by throwing taxpayers money literally down the drain, whilst implementing cuts due to a reduced expenditure in the next 12 months. This whole fiasco is an out and out disgrace!

Fran Obosrki: "Meanwhile I expect the rest of the Council will be seen to listen and act on the wishes of the public."

Isn't this a little too late? With respect to Councillor Oborski she and her supporters went into cohorts with the controlling Conservatives by denying the Wyre Forest electorate a referendum in the progress of our rather lavish single-site in February 2011. Where was this expectation of WFDC being seen to listen to their constituents then? This 'being seen to listen' is all very selective and a rather predictable excuse for covering up an almighty cock-up!

Tav
22 Dec 2011 Johnathan Cooper: "This 'being seen to listen' is all very selective and a rather predictable excuse for covering up an almighty cock-up!"

Hear, hear, you have hit the nail on the head here.

John Campion
21 Dec 2011 I would of thought the usual conspiracy theorists would have welcomed us saying we are listening to the public.

Tav
22 Dec 2011 John Campion: "... the usual conspiracy theorists..."

Oh, you haven't played that card for a long time. You only usually do when shit has hit the fan. Isn't calling me, blurfers and the 'Agenda conspiracy theorists equivalent to me shouting or speaking when I am not supposed to at council meetings? In all the time I have been in the public galleries of council meetings and even sat at the table of council meetings I have always followed protocol as best I can and I have never spoken out-of-turn or disrupted anyone. I thought courtesy breads courtesy but in this case I must be mistaken.

Read what has been said/written on this subject and tell me what has been predicted would happen, hasn't happened? Remember when Cllr. Jamie Shaw said you are going to mess this up? Remember when I said exactly what you would do at the Cabinet meeting at the start of all this?

Tav
22 Dec 2011 John I certainly hope you listened to the public involved in the consultation. Similarly I hope you have listened to Mark Garnier MP who was in-undated with correspondence on this issue and came to the conclusion that all sites should be abandoned. He is, after all, supposed to represent the public here. I actually agree and go along with Fran when she said, "That is a perfectly reasonable and fair response to the Public Consultation and is a response which I am happy to endorse."

Of course you haven't listened to the public on the sites you originally discounted that were excluded from the consultation (because you never asked them). Just another quick question then: Did you listen to me when I said you would cherry pick from the original sites up for consultation? I ask because you went awfully quiet when I correctly predicted what it is you would do.

John Campion
22 Dec 2011 Tavis, the reason I try not to comment on this site, or indeed answer all of the questions posed here is that my answers tend to incense the "conspirators" further, just look firstly at your own response and some of the rubbish from the other usual suspects below. It definitely isn't because I have gone quiet as to assert.

If anybody wants to talk to me directly I am happy to engage.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year by the way.

Jonathan Cooper
22 Dec 2011 John Campion: "I would of thought the usual conspiracy theorists would have welcomed us saying we are listening to the public."

I do welcome it - I do, but isn't all this listening to the public a little late in the day? Where was the WFDC's ear for the many other controversial issue that have arisen in the last 18 months? These certainly are not conspiracies, these are facts!

Is it not correct that as a Wyre forest taxpayer I am not at liberty to question the feasibility of the now completely flawed Baker Report? �17,500 was spent on this report which has now proved to be a total waste of taxpayers' money - is this really suggesting a conspiracy or am I just guilty of saying the blunt truth?

Are residents not entitled to question WFDC at the council's sheer lack of knowledge of Manor Farm NOT being a redundant facility - when in fact the inhabitants of Manor Farm are in fact council tenants.

These are not conspiracies; in my view these are very relevant points that WFDC should have addressed before plundering the people involved in a rather distressing position.

John Campion: "The first duty of locally elected representatives is to listen and engage with the communities that they serve. The Conservative group will do exactly that."

Well this would be a first wouldn't it? And like I commented earlier, it's all very selective! In the case of this Traveller Site issue it's been nothing short of blunderous from start to finish; and in these latter stages, WFDC are clearly doing everything they can to wriggle out of a mess that was in fact their very own creation!

There is no conspiracy involved in the criticism directed at those involved, it's an observation of common sense!

Tav
22 Dec 2011 John, you were around here in a shot when you realised this political stunt was backfiring and being miss-handled by BBC Hereford & Worcester. (Surprisingly the Shuttle has reported it right!).

Tav
22 Dec 2011 John Campion: "If anybody wants to talk to me directly I am happy to engage."

OK, let's meet in January before the LDF panel, scrutiny and cabinet meetings. I would like to bring my video camera and record it, so I can then post the whole meeting on the 'Agenda. If anybody else wants in, just ask.

Stephen Brown
22 Dec 2011 Mr Campion: I have no actual idea who these 'conspirators' or 'usual suspects' might be in your mind (I can guess) but to refer to some people in this dismissive manner only demonstrates a level of contempt you have for people who are, from what I can see, only seeking more democracy, openness and transparency in council matters. That they challenge the way the Tory ruling group goes about its business sometimes is right and proper where concerns exist - especially because there have been, and are many issues, that have blatantly lead to people's wishes being ignored by the ruling Tory group. And to challenge that is not 'rubbish' as you claim, rather the opposite, some are fed up with the 'rubbish' or rather implausible explanations you appear to dream up to justify what your group is up to, mostly for political self gain. We're not all so daft as to not be able to see what's going on here.

Tav
21 Dec 2011 I was saving this for after the Cabinet meeting next year, but it seems to be flooding out now. I'm confused as to whether if only the Sandy Lane sites are allocated have we met the demand we are required for the LDF? If the answer is yes then why discount these four sites now after tensions have flared. If the answer is no, then are the sites you originally discounted (undemocratically by the way) going to go through this same process sometime later next year? I would appreciate an answer here John.

Stephen Brown
21 Dec 2011 Call me cynical but...

It may be the right decision but it also underlines the lack of any real democracy in Wyre Forest.

Why? Because Tory press releases prior to any proper council decision, such as the democratic sham the meetings are anyway, are now more or less the council policy.

It's almost laughable the way it's presented if it wasn't such a serious subject.

Err, where is the respect for due council process? Oh, no matter, it's a good pre-xmas' news story for those generous Tories to share with us to prove how much they care about us on an issue they ramped up anyway for self-gain. Cheers!

Neil Harman
22 Dec 2011 "Cllr. John Campion, WFDC Conservative Group Leader says "The first duty of locally elected representatives is to listen and engage with the communities that they serve. The Conservative group will do exactly that. The people have spoken and we will act."

@John Campion: It's just a pity you didn't listen to the 1,000+ people who consulted with you over the Vale Road issue, or 3,500 for the single site, or the leisure centres [it will be bulldozed and a new one built so your mates Asda can shoot the town a little more]. It's also a pity that you have to use your group to manipulate this even further just before xmas' [good result for Manor Farm or not, it is not a good result for Sandy Lane, as predicted]. What about the perfectly suitable Naylors field after you undemocratically removed it from the consultation? As Tav asks, will this be put out next time?

On the other hand, perhaps this is the start of the metamorphosis into a democratically run council. Unfortunately, your wording is a desire to get some good news out before xmas' and one very much doubts that we will see independent voting either at council or cabinet [cabal] the day after. I am sure the hands will rise in unison as normal to push through exactly what you wanted to happen as decided months ago. Cynical old me eh?

Tav
22 Dec 2011 @John Campion: If Neil is right and this is the start of a 'metamorphosis into a democratically run council', is this 'release-our-intentions-before-a-meeting' going to be a regular thing? I mean from now on are you going to issue a press release of your Tory pre-meetings (the party whip) on how you have ordered your Tory followers to vote? Or is this a one-off political stunt?

Kevin Ludwig
22 Dec 2011 Breaking News: Wyre Forest Council reduce expenditure by handing over media control to Fred Karno!

FlipC
22 Dec 2011 Well isn't this a surprise? It's not as if someone [cough] cynically pointed out that the sites had already been chosen with those that would be known to be rejected added only to present the illusion of choice.

@Fran: "there were no more than 20 objections to ANY site on Sandy Lane" Gee really I've no idea why that would be given that the council is obviously so receptive to objections in this area. Were any notices sent out to the industrial units that don't get a Shuttle delivered that sites were being considered or is this yet another case of using lack of evidence as evidence of lack?

Fran Oborski
22 Dec 2011 The due Council process is that the LDF Panel will meet on January 16th and make recommendations to Scrutiny. Scrutiny will meet on Jan 30th and make recommendations to Cabinet which meets on Jan 31st and the February Council meeting will make the final decision.

Fran Oborski
22 Dec 2011 Those who keep up to date with Planning Committee decisions will know that since the Consultation period started, the Planning Committee has approved additional sites on Sandy Lane which have reduced the overall need for additional sites.
Additional capacity at Sandy Lane has come forward during the consultation process.
This will NOT give us an overall total of 45 pitches for the ENTIRE plan period but it COULD take us up to 2017 and if the Council commits to carrying out a further review of needs between 2015 and 2017 we should be OK.

Tav
22 Dec 2011 To be honest Fran I was dreading this response, I had hoped it came from John Campion or another cabalist who are culpable rather than from you. What you are saying is that with the Gatehouse site approved the cabal could have cut out all of the consultation sites but the Sandy Lane sites. This is a waste of �17,500 of taxpayers' money for the Baker report, but that it is only money _ it comes and goes. What is sickening in the pitch of my stomach is the hardship and grieve the cabal have caused which (we now know) they obviously didn't need to, particularly the anguish towards Leander Walton and family.

Neil Harman
22 Dec 2011 There was absolutely no formal consultation or notice sent to any units on the Sandy Lane industrial Estate. I did see a notice on the gate on the corner of nelson road, but not anywhere else.

Leander Walton
22 Dec 2011 I have never quoted that the council gave me the information. I was informed by the press at 3pm when Tim and I received a phone call from Hereford and Worcester radio. If you read the words that I wrote (written after 5pm) they duplicate the press release from John Campion as a conservative and duplicate the words that he has written on this agenda. I passed no other comment. One may ask - Should the council have informed Tim and I - the humane majority would probably say yes. However we appear to be wrapped up in political nonsense on what is and isn't allowed. However we do seem to be able to get around any legal implication when it suits but i will leave my comments at that. Just please all remember that this is not just a farm or a political tool - it is our home and we have had our lives put on hold for over 3 months. We are just relieved and hope that this shambles is fully resolved in January and we can get on with our lives.

John Campion
22 Dec 2011 @Jonathan: Your continued assertion that I or my colleagues would abuse our position for our own gain is exactly why I struggle to attach any value to any comments. You should not judge other people by what you would do yourself in our position.

I and my colleagues act to discharge our duties with honesty and to the best of our abilities with the information at hand. If you don't like the decisions, fine, but don't question my motivation for making them.

As to the Baker report, other than a miss-description of the farm, which the Council pointed out early on, what other flaws are there in their work? You, nor anyone else have pointed out these apparent serious flaws, not liking the outcome doesn't make it flawed.

Quite frankly Jonathan, you and some of the other commenters on this site are starting to sound like empty wind bags. Drag yourself from the comfort of your arm chair, engage with the people you claim to represent, put yourself to the electorate in the democratic process and see if they agree with you! If you don't like what others are doing in your name, use the democratic process you claim to support to change it. Or does this all sound a little like hard work? You could commit to not drawing an allowance? You could commit to spending �500k per year on office accommodation rather than services? You could also commit to continuing to spend near �900k on the leisure subsidy a year? all at a time when the councils income is falling. Oh and I forgot you could make all the Councils car parks free at the same time!

Tim and Leander have conducted themselves through all of this process with dignity and a level head. Their calm and reasoned contribution to this process has been very humbling.

Jon D
22 Dec 2011 John Campion is still saying 'put up or shut up' - unbelievable! "Your continued assertion that I or my colleagues would abuse our position for our own gain.... You should not judge other people by what you would do yourself in our position" - outrageous slander to a constituent! "I and my colleagues act to discharge our duties with honesty" - can we have it in print that this includes Stephen Clee?

Aitchk
27 Dec 2011 "WCC have rather put the kybosh on Lea Castle on Sion Hill on the grounds of shortage of school places and wanting to keep Sion Hill for educational use."

Was this an objection under the consultation process? Did WCC make its views known prior to any consideration of site allocation? Were WCC consulted prior the selection of sites to go forward for consultation? If not, why not?

Thousands of Wyre Forest residents could have been spared weeks of painful anxiety, not to mention the expense to the WFDC of several public meetings, and the cost of administering the consultation.

Fran Oborski
29 Dec 2011 The WCC responses are to the consultation.

Aitchk
27 Dec 2011 I'm confused! What is the position with the consultation process now? Will the objections to all proposed sites be processed? Will they be published?

Graham Ballinger
23 Dec 2011 @ Tav: I have consistently shared your views and that of many other bloggers about this whole debacle - it has been a Tory political stunt from day one which back-fired on them when their own MP clearly was as gob-smacked as the rest of us about how this whole thing had come about in the first place! I said quite openly to other Councillors and many members of the public BEFORE any of the three public meetings and before the start of the "consultation" that the Cabinet would withdraw all of the sensitive site proposals (probably about a dozen of the original fifteen) so that they could ultimately be seen as your caring, sharing Conservatives!! That is precisely what has happened and the writing was on the wall when Councillors Oborski and Hart proposed the additional pitches on the Gatehouse site on Sandy Lane and this AGAINST the clear recommendation of the Planning Officers for REFUSAL. Why else did this happen and again this before the consultation?