I get the feeling this presentation was nothing more than an exercise in being able to say, "Well, you were consulted, weren't you?" when any old planning application gets granted - just to keep the country-clueless metropolitan elite in Westminster happy.

Insert plural of expletive meaning "illegitimate children" here...

Then make them do the school or give their contribution before they are allowed to start the development.

Is they build where the are thinking of building the school could be closed in the winter if the flooding gets to bad.

The most worrying part of the development proposals in my opinion is the bit that designates Cotford as "a higher order rural centre capable of supporting a significant element of the new homes identified for the rural area."

I'm not sure this adheres to the concept of a 'new village' and it will turn into an 'urban sprawl'.

I suspect this has all been decided already and that these 'consultations' are just paying lip service to the whole process. Nevertheless, I submitted some comments to the Council.

There has been some discussion of concern regarding the proposed development as I've been going around with the petition for the speed restriction on Deane Road today calling on homes in Burge Farm, Cole Close and Healey's Meadow.

The proposed development, if it goes ahead, will directly and adversely affect the residents of these streets. I passed on the advice to put the reasons for feeling opposed to this proposal in writing. When I phoned the Council this morning to ask who to address my letter to, I was told the Head of Planning for this area is Mr. Timothy Burton.

Tempus, I did speak to a gentleman in the Council office who assured me that was the name of  the person I needed to contact.

Oh, hold on---- this was the same office that gave us reassuring information about when the bin men were coming -----------------

Seriously though, I think my information is correct - I heard a rustle of paper as if he were looking it up for me! 

TonyM wrote on 16. Feb 2010 at 14:52:


Agreed, TonyM and it certainly hasn't gone off my radar.

I had a quick look on Labour's website and couldn't see any ref. to putting the plans on hold but hope this is the case. 

TDBC seems to have spent an awful lot of money on this project to date.  It's time Ross Henley (Leader) made TDBC's current policy very clear. 

Thank goodness it's general election year.  These Labour proposals will certainly impact on my vote.  I want to hear Conservative and LibDem policies.  If they abolish the proposals, how will they deal with the problem? 

The only ref. I could find on Jeremy Browne's website was under "Representing All the Communities in Our Area" - "I take both global and environmental concerns seriously, including opposing excessive housing development and working to reduce traffic congestion." (He could start in Cotford then, to reduce congestion and selfish parking!!! )  Sorry, I digress.....)

Jeremy Browne is frequently in the Gazette but seems strangely quiet on this issue.  Maybe because the LibDem TDBC is taking the project so seriously? 

Who knows, but what we do need to know is the Conservative and LibDem alternative policies.

As I said, I'm glad it's general election year, and next year is TDBC election year. 

Don't believe the conservative lies, they are telling councils one thing and voters another, it doesn't matter who wins the election they will still need to build new houses, if any one read there campaign policy on gypsies in the papers lately, it was very carefully worded to sound like they wer going to stop any more sites, but they only listed things that you cant do in planning already, but when they attend meetings with councils they telling them that they have to build more sites, if they are doing that on one front they will do it when it comes to building more houses, we need two forms of attack 1 try to stop it completely2 if we cant stop it get them to move it to a place where it wont damage the village and put some sort of block on that land so it will never be built on.