Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
megilleland

Newton Farm Town Green Action Group

Recommended Posts

post-109-0-83954600-1355484300.jpg

 

People may remember that a meeting was called four years ago (February 2006) to highlight the threat to open space at Argyll Rise by development from Herefordshire Housing. At that time it was agreed to pursue an application to turn this piece of land into a town green and protect it for future generations.

 

Newton Farm Town Green Action Group made an initial application to create this green and following a public inquiry in July 2007, it transpired that we met all the criteria (4 points), except one, which was that the residents were using the land "by right" and not “as of right". Herefordshire Housing was delighted with this result and urged Herefordshire Council to refuse the application for town green status.

 

Surprisingly, ignoring the inquiry inspector's report, Herefordshire Council's lawyer recommended that the Council registered it as a town green. However, Hereford Housing's QC at the council meeting (November 2007) argued that Herefordshire Council would be wrong in going against the inspector's report. The Council followed the inspector's advice and rejected the application.

 

It would appear that the saving of this piece of land would be lost, except that NFTGAG had a second application in hand, due to a change in the law, and this was submitted to Herefordshire Council for consideration (October 2007). Herefordshire Housing is again opposing the second application and NFTGAG are submitting new evidence that we hope will overturn the original decision to not create the green.

 

Due to the protracted delay in dealing with this second application, a complaint was made against Herefordshire Council through the Local Government Ombudsman. This has resulted in the Council ensuring it gets advice on the law of town and village greens from one of the country's most experienced barristers in this field, Mr Vivian Chapman QC.

 

The hearing is to be held before the Regulatory Committee at Brockington, Hafod Road on Tuesday 2nd November 2010 at 2.00pm. Mr Vivian Chapman QC will advise the Committee with Miss Morag Ellis QC for Herefordshire Housing and Christopher Whitmey for Newton Farm Town Green Action Group.

 

Any public support for this cause on the day would be extremely welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-2-13302954565951_thumb.jpg

 

People may remember that a meeting was called four years ago (February 2006) to highlight the threat to open space at Argyll Rise by development from Herefordshire Housing. At that time it was agreed to pursue an application to turn this piece of land into a town green and protect it for future generations.

 

Newton Farm Town Green Action Group made an initial application to create this green and following a public inquiry in July 2007, it transpired that we met all the criteria (4 points), except one, which was that the residents were using the land "by right" and not “as of right". Herefordshire Housing was delighted with this result and urged Herefordshire Council to refuse the application for town green status.

 

Surprisingly, ignoring the inquiry inspector's report, Herefordshire Council's lawyer recommended that the Council registered it as a town green. However, Hereford Housing's QC at the council meeting (November 2007) argued that Herefordshire Council would be wrong in going against the inspector's report. The Council followed the inspector's advice and rejected the application.

 

It would appear that the saving of this piece of land would be lost, except that NFTGAG had a second application in hand, due to a change in the law, and this was submitted to Herefordshire Council for consideration (October 2007). Herefordshire Housing is again opposing the second application and NFTGAG are submitting new evidence that we hope will overturn the original decision to not create the green.

 

Due to the protracted delay in dealing with this second application, a complaint was made against Herefordshire Council through the Local Government Ombudsman. This has resulted in the Council ensuring it gets advice on the law of town and village greens from one of the country's most experienced barristers in this field, Mr Vivian Chapman QC.

 

The hearing is to be held before the Regulatory Committee at Brockington, Hafod Road on Tuesday 2nd November 2010 at 2.00pm. Mr Vivian Chapman QC will advise the Committee with Miss Morag Ellis QC for Herefordshire Housing and Christopher Whitmey for Newton Farm Town Green Action Group.

 

Any public support for this cause on the day would be extremely welcome.

 

To Mr MEGILLELAND

I only hope that our 3 local district councillors do not say anything, as I fear if you do win, the Regulatory Committee may be classed as favouring there fellow councellors. Therefor it could be an apeal.

 

I suspect that the 3 local district councillors will not read this message as this website is gradually dieing because of lack of support as we all know who close down the Belmont Rural Website. The only person to read this will be Cllr Powell, as this is her website and is biased in favour of her. In reality this website is not a true representative voice of the people of Belmont, Hunderton, or Newton Farm. This website is Glenda Powell, you can tell by all the entries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-2-13302954565951_thumb.jpg

 

People may remember that a meeting was called four years ago (February 2006) to highlight the threat to open space at Argyll Rise by development from Herefordshire Housing. At that time it was agreed to pursue an application to turn this piece of land into a town green and protect it for future generations.

 

Newton Farm Town Green Action Group made an initial application to create this green and following a public inquiry in July 2007, it transpired that we met all the criteria (4 points), except one, which was that the residents were using the land "by right" and not “as of right". Herefordshire Housing was delighted with this result and urged Herefordshire Council to refuse the application for town green status.

 

Surprisingly, ignoring the inquiry inspector's report, Herefordshire Council's lawyer recommended that the Council registered it as a town green. However, Hereford Housing's QC at the council meeting (November 2007) argued that Herefordshire Council would be wrong in going against the inspector's report. The Council followed the inspector's advice and rejected the application.

 

It would appear that the saving of this piece of land would be lost, except that NFTGAG had a second application in hand, due to a change in the law, and this was submitted to Herefordshire Council for consideration (October 2007). Herefordshire Housing is again opposing the second application and NFTGAG are submitting new evidence that we hope will overturn the original decision to not create the green.

 

Due to the protracted delay in dealing with this second application, a complaint was made against Herefordshire Council through the Local Government Ombudsman. This has resulted in the Council ensuring it gets advice on the law of town and village greens from one of the country's most experienced barristers in this field, Mr Vivian Chapman QC.

 

The hearing is to be held before the Regulatory Committee at Brockington, Hafod Road on Tuesday 2nd November 2010 at 2.00pm. Mr Vivian Chapman QC will advise the Committee with Miss Morag Ellis QC for Herefordshire Housing and Christopher Whitmey for Newton Farm Town Green Action Group.

 

Any public support for this cause on the day would be extremely welcome.

 

megilleland

I only hope that our 3 local district councillors do not say anything, as I fear if you do win, the Regulatory Committee may be classed as favouring there fellow councellors. Therefor it could be an apeal.

 

I suspect that the 3 local district councillors will not read this message as this website is gradually dieing because of lack of support as we all know who close down the Belmont Rural Website. The only person to read this will be Cllr Powell, as this is her website and is biased in favour of her. In reality this website is not a true representative voice of the people of Belmont, Hunderton, or Newton Farm. This website is Glenda Powell, you can tell by all the entries.

 

:Angry_32: No other member other than yourself feel this website is dying. The counter of Belmont Voice stands at over 70.500 hardly a sign of it dying! As it has been said by admin on many occasions here the other councillors including the parish councillors have all been invited to join and they have declined, with the exception of one parish councillor. Just for clarity the Belmont Rural website is still in existance and reports on Belmont Parish matters including posting the minutes of the parish council meetings, as it was set up to do for the people living in the Belmont estate, there is also a facility for private email pertaining to Belmont, where residents can post their comments by following the link....

 

In regard to the Regulatory Committee meeting, all three district councillors have been advised of the procedure and rules of the Regulatory committee in where they stand on the Town Green matter.

 

If you care to read again the page 'about BV' you will see this is a community website for the Belmont Ward which consists of Newton Farm, Belmont and Hunderton, but some of the 44 members also live within the wider South Wye area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Roger Edwards, I have to agree with their comments that this site is biased as we recently have seen with the Belmont Rural Website. When the situation got difficult Councillor Powell as we all well know threatened the site so it was closed down due to these. This thus left democracy floating in the air, what happened to freendom of speach, all the comments made were true and factual, this site was useful where issues could be posted and a real debate started and of course the Parish Council would also take note of these and try to address them.

 

I wonder if people really know what is going on with Glenda Powell you will all shortly find out?

 

END

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ame='Glenda Powell' date='27 October 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1288184580' post='657']

 

To Belmont re megilleland it was I Roger who wrote the reply and not megilleland, just to put the facts right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr MEGILLELAND

I only hope that our 3 local district councillors do not say anything, as I fear if you do win, the Regulatory Committee may be classed as favouring there fellow councellors. Therefor it could be an apeal.

 

I suspect that the 3 local district councillors will not read this message as this website is gradually dieing because of lack of support as we all know who close down the Belmont Rural Website. The only person to read this will be Cllr Powell, as this is her website and is biased in favour of her. In reality this website is not a true representative voice of the people of Belmont, Hunderton, or Newton Farm. This website is Glenda Powell, you can tell by all the entries.

Well you could NOT be further from the truth, THIS WEBSITE IS NOT CLLR POWELLS!!!!!

 

I PERSONALLY SET UP THIS WEBSITE OF MY OWN FREE WILL AND TOTALLY AT MY OWN EXPENSE.

 

THIS SITE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLLR POWELL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! SO BEFORE YOU START MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT.

 

I HAVE RUN WEBSITE AND FORUMS FOR OVER 12 YEARS, SO I THINK THAT QUALIFIES ME.

 

THAT SAID, TO BE FAIR TO CLLR POWELL, SHE IS THE ONLY ACTIVE COUNCILLOR HERE! HENCE WHY SHE SEEMS TO GET ALL THE FLACK! I PERSONALLY THINK ITS DISGUSTING THAT NONE OF THE OTHER CLLRS ARE NOT REPRESENTING US ALL ON HERE, ARE THEY NOT PROFESSIONALS?

 

AS FOR THE BR WEBSITE, I DID NOT AGREE WITH THE WAY IN WHICH ALL POSTS AND EMAILS WERE EDITED TO SUIT THE EDITOR, "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" LIVES HERE! (THAT'S WHAT FORUMS ARE FOR!) AS ALL POSTS INCLUDING THIS ONE ARE LIVE AND ARE REAL OPINIONS OF OUR MEMBERS.

THE BR EDITOR/ADMINISTRATOR OBVIOUSLY GOT A LITTLE FRIGHTENED AND CLOSED HIS SITE, IN MY OPINION HE WAS CLEARLY UNSURE AND HAD NO CONFIDENCE AND WHAT HAD BEEN SAID ON THE SITE, OTHERWISE THE SITE WOULD STILL BE ACTIVE TODAY.

 

ITS EASY TO VERBALLY ATTACK OTHER MEMBERS ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THESE MEMBERS HIDE BEHIND ALIASES, I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR YEARS ON MANY FORUMS, REAL HONEST PEOPLE WITH GOOD CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS AND CRITICISM

USE THEIR REAL NAMES, HENCE WHY ALIASES ARE OFTEN NOT TAKEN SERIOUS AND USUALLY IGNORED.

 

THIS FORUM IS HERE TO STAY, AS FOR THE MEMBERS, THEY WILL COME AND GO FROM MY EXPERIENCE...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to megilleland, I have to agree with their comments that this site is biased as we recently have seen with the Belmont Rural Website. When the situation got difficult Councillor Powell as we all well know threatened the site so it was closed down due to these. This thus left democracy floating in the air, what happened to freendom of speach, all the comments made were true and factual, this site was useful where issues could be posted and a real debate started and of course the Parish Council would also take note of these and try to address them.

 

I wonder if people really know what is going on with Glenda Powell you will all shortly find out?

 

END

 

To BELMONT re megilland it was I who wrote the reply and not megilland just to put the facts right, the reply does not show up that clearly and one gets the impression that megilland replied to megilland.

 

I certainly agree with you’re your comments, and with ref to “I wonder if people really know what is going on with Glenda Powell you will all shortly find out†I am excited and I cannot wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you could NOT be further from the truth, THIS WEBSITE IS NOT CLLR POWELLS!!!!!

 

I PERSONALLY SET UP THIS WEBSITE OF MY OWN FREE WILL AND TOTALLY AT MY OWN EXPENSE.

 

THIS SITE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLLR POWELL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! SO BEFORE YOU START MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT.

 

I HAVE RUN WEBSITE AND FORUMS FOR OVER 12 YEARS, SO I THINK THAT QUALIFIES ME.

 

THAT SAID, TO BE FAIR TO CLLR POWELL, SHE IS THE ONLY ACTIVE COUNCILLOR HERE! HENCE WHY SHE SEEMS TO GET ALL THE FLACK! I PERSONALLY THINK ITS DISGUSTING THAT NONE OF THE OTHER CLLRS ARE NOT REPRESENTING US ALL ON HERE, ARE THEY NOT PROFESSIONALS?

 

AS FOR THE BR WEBSITE, I DID NOT AGREE WITH THE WAY IN WHICH ALL POSTS AND EMAILS WERE EDITED TO SUIT THE EDITOR, "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" LIVES HERE! (THAT'S WHAT FORUMS ARE FOR!) AS ALL POSTS INCLUDING THIS ONE ARE LIVE AND ARE REAL OPINIONS OF OUR MEMBERS.

THE BR EDITOR/ADMINISTRATOR OBVIOUSLY GOT A LITTLE FRIGHTENED AND CLOSED HIS SITE, IN MY OPINION HE WAS CLEARLY UNSURE AND HAD NO CONFIDENCE AND WHAT HAD BEEN SAID ON THE SITE, OTHERWISE THE SITE WOULD STILL BE ACTIVE TODAY.

 

ITS EASY TO VERBALLY ATTACK OTHER MEMBERS ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THESE MEMBERS HIDE BEHIND ALIASES, I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR YEARS ON MANY FORUMS, REAL HONEST PEOPLE WITH GOOD CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS AND CRITICISM

USE THEIR REAL NAMES, HENCE WHY ALIASES ARE OFTEN NOT TAKEN SERIOUS NAD USUALLY IGNORED.

 

THIS FORUM IS HERE TO STAY, AS FOR THE MEMBERS, THEY WILL COME AND GO FROM MY EXPERIENCE...

 

Nice one Col, I am glad that you have put the record straight, I was finding it a little frustrating with members claiming to know it all, when they obviously don't, I fully agree with everything you have said and yes aliases, aren't they just class :Laughing_32:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you could NOT be further from the truth, THIS WEBSITE IS NOT CLLR POWELLS!!!!!

 

I PERSONALLY SET UP THIS WEBSITE OF MY OWN FREE WILL AND TOTALLY AT MY OWN EXPENSE.

 

THIS SITE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLLR POWELL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! SO BEFORE YOU START MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT.

 

I HAVE RUN WEBSITE AND FORUMS FOR OVER 12 YEARS, SO I THINK THAT QUALIFIES ME.

 

THAT SAID, TO BE FAIR TO CLLR POWELL, SHE IS THE ONLY ACTIVE COUNCILLOR HERE! HENCE WHY SHE SEEMS TO GET ALL THE FLACK! I PERSONALLY THINK ITS DISGUSTING THAT NONE OF THE OTHER CLLRS ARE NOT REPRESENTING US ALL ON HERE, ARE THEY NOT PROFESSIONALS?

 

AS FOR THE BR WEBSITE, I DID NOT AGREE WITH THE WAY IN WHICH ALL POSTS AND EMAILS WERE EDITED TO SUIT THE EDITOR, "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" LIVES HERE! (THAT'S WHAT FORUMS ARE FOR!) AS ALL POSTS INCLUDING THIS ONE ARE LIVE AND ARE REAL OPINIONS OF OUR MEMBERS.

THE BR EDITOR/ADMINISTRATOR OBVIOUSLY GOT A LITTLE FRIGHTENED AND CLOSED HIS SITE, IN MY OPINION HE WAS CLEARLY UNSURE AND HAD NO CONFIDENCE AND WHAT HAD BEEN SAID ON THE SITE, OTHERWISE THE SITE WOULD STILL BE ACTIVE TODAY.

 

ITS EASY TO VERBALLY ATTACK OTHER MEMBERS ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THESE MEMBERS HIDE BEHIND ALIASES, I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR YEARS ON MANY FORUMS, REAL HONEST PEOPLE WITH GOOD CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS AND CRITICISM

USE THEIR REAL NAMES, HENCE WHY ALIASES ARE OFTEN NOT TAKEN SERIOUS NAD USUALLY IGNORED.

 

THIS FORUM IS HERE TO STAY, AS FOR THE MEMBERS, THEY WILL COME AND GO FROM MY EXPERIENCE...

 

I would think that the only reason other Councillors do not join this website, when Mavis Edwards was dying she and Cllr Edwards were being slagged off, Cllr Schoffer was slagged off, so I would think it be a good reason for Councillors not to joining this website. The other reason is that Glenda Powell is on hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the only reason other Councillors do not join this website, when Mavis Edwards was dying she and Cllr Edwards were being slagged off, Cllr Schoffer was slagged off, so I would think it be a good reason for Councillors not to joining this website. The other reason is that Glenda Powell is on hear.

 

 

Actually, they were not being slagged off, a member questioned payments made to M. Edwards, unfortunately Mrs Edwards suddenly passed away, the admin removed the post and left a rather nice condolence message out of respect if i remember.

 

It is clear that some councillors may have issues with other councillors but as Colin James has already stated, are they not professionals? imagine if we all refrained from doing our duty because of disagreements within office, how pathetic.

Nobody is perfect but in Cllr Powell's defence, she helps out on here on a regular basis which is more than can be said for the other voted councillors! I agree with the above comments "its a poor show" but the ballot box is our friend eh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, they were not being slagged off, a member questioned payments made to M. Edwards, unfortunately Mrs Edwards suddenly passed away, the admin removed the post and left a rather nice condolence message out of respect if i remember

 

Yes this is correct and I personally telephoned Councillor Phil Edwards to reiterate my sincere condolences to him, I removed the post immediately out of respect.

 

I met Phil Edwards in the City centre last week and again shook his hand and offered my condolences to him.

 

I have asked him to join us on Belmont Voice and he told me that he was considering it once the site became more established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Col, I am glad that you have put the record straight, I was finding it a little frustrating with members claiming to know it all, when they obviously don't, I fully agree with everything you have said and yes aliases, aren't they just class :Laughing_32:

 

 

Ditto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you could NOT be further from the truth, THIS WEBSITE IS NOT CLLR POWELLS!!!!!

 

I PERSONALLY SET UP THIS WEBSITE OF MY OWN FREE WILL AND TOTALLY AT MY OWN EXPENSE.

 

THIS SITE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLLR POWELL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! SO BEFORE YOU START MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT.

 

I HAVE RUN WEBSITE AND FORUMS FOR OVER 12 YEARS, SO I THINK THAT QUALIFIES ME.

 

THAT SAID, TO BE FAIR TO CLLR POWELL, SHE IS THE ONLY ACTIVE COUNCILLOR HERE! HENCE WHY SHE SEEMS TO GET ALL THE FLACK! I PERSONALLY THINK ITS DISGUSTING THAT NONE OF THE OTHER CLLRS ARE NOT REPRESENTING US ALL ON HERE, ARE THEY NOT PROFESSIONALS?

 

AS FOR THE BR WEBSITE, I DID NOT AGREE WITH THE WAY IN WHICH ALL POSTS AND EMAILS WERE EDITED TO SUIT THE EDITOR, "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" LIVES HERE! (THAT'S WHAT FORUMS ARE FOR!) AS ALL POSTS INCLUDING THIS ONE ARE LIVE AND ARE REAL OPINIONS OF OUR MEMBERS.

THE BR EDITOR/ADMINISTRATOR OBVIOUSLY GOT A LITTLE FRIGHTENED AND CLOSED HIS SITE, IN MY OPINION HE WAS CLEARLY UNSURE AND HAD NO CONFIDENCE AND WHAT HAD BEEN SAID ON THE SITE, OTHERWISE THE SITE WOULD STILL BE ACTIVE TODAY.

 

ITS EASY TO VERBALLY ATTACK OTHER MEMBERS ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THESE MEMBERS HIDE BEHIND ALIASES, I HAVE SEEN THIS FOR YEARS ON MANY FORUMS, REAL HONEST PEOPLE WITH GOOD CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS AND CRITICISM

USE THEIR REAL NAMES, HENCE WHY ALIASES ARE OFTEN NOT TAKEN SERIOUS AND USUALLY IGNORED.

 

THIS FORUM IS HERE TO STAY, AS FOR THE MEMBERS, THEY WILL COME AND GO FROM MY EXPERIENCE...

 

 

I am pleased that you have informed us who owns the website, but I feel that you may have had no choice in the matter due to constant moans and misinformed information being posted.

 

The BR website was very biased and messages and emails were usually always altered as someone has already pointed out. What i like about this site is 'what you see is what you get' so to speak..

 

Belmont, now there is a username, NOT! people who hide behind fake names always have plenty to say, after all, nobody knows who they are, or at leasts that's what they believe to be the case.

 

Cllr Powell has been a great help to many members here and she does her best to keep all informed, which i might add is 100% more than the other 'so called councillors' so its beyond me why certain members choose to support them, even though they are not supporting us in return, strange...

 

Anyway, just wanted to offer my support to a great site here, keep up the good work folks, I for one will continue to be as active as possible. :Thumbs-Up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the only reason other Councillors do not join this website, when Mavis Edwards was dying she and Cllr Edwards were being slagged off, Cllr Schoffer was slagged off, so I would think it be a good reason for Councillors not to joining this website. The other reason is that Glenda Powell is on hear.

That's a poor excuse, that was only weeks ago, this site has been here for over a year now, nobody was slagging anyone off, they merely raised some questions about some expenses of our public finances, which we have a right to know about, as soon as we all heard of this sad news, the whole topic was removed, which in my opinion was the most respectful thing to do under the circumstances.

 

I don't understand why a few are having a digg at the one councillor that tries to help, i think we should start having a gripe at the absent ones instead. :Angry_32:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-2-13302954565951_thumb.jpg

 

People may remember that a meeting was called four years ago (February 2006) to highlight the threat to open space at Argyll Rise by development from Herefordshire Housing. At that time it was agreed to pursue an application to turn this piece of land into a town green and protect it for future generations.

 

Newton Farm Town Green Action Group made an initial application to create this green and following a public inquiry in July 2007, it transpired that we met all the criteria (4 points), except one, which was that the residents were using the land "by right" and not “as of right". Herefordshire Housing was delighted with this result and urged Herefordshire Council to refuse the application for town green status.

 

Surprisingly, ignoring the inquiry inspector's report, Herefordshire Council's lawyer recommended that the Council registered it as a town green. However, Hereford Housing's QC at the council meeting (November 2007) argued that Herefordshire Council would be wrong in going against the inspector's report. The Council followed the inspector's advice and rejected the application.

 

It would appear that the saving of this piece of land would be lost, except that NFTGAG had a second application in hand, due to a change in the law, and this was submitted to Herefordshire Council for consideration (October 2007). Herefordshire Housing is again opposing the second application and NFTGAG are submitting new evidence that we hope will overturn the original decision to not create the green.

 

Due to the protracted delay in dealing with this second application, a complaint was made against Herefordshire Council through the Local Government Ombudsman. This has resulted in the Council ensuring it gets advice on the law of town and village greens from one of the country's most experienced barristers in this field, Mr Vivian Chapman QC.

 

The hearing is to be held before the Regulatory Committee at Brockington, Hafod Road on Tuesday 2nd November 2010 at 2.00pm. Mr Vivian Chapman QC will advise the Committee with Miss Morag Ellis QC for Herefordshire Housing and Christopher Whitmey for Newton Farm Town Green Action Group.

 

Any public support for this cause on the day would be extremely welcome.

Returned from the Herefordshire Council Regulatory Committee this afternoon where councillors were to consider changing the open space at Argyll Rise into a Town Green. However the meeting has been deferred, as the question of whether Cllr Phil Cutter (vice chairman) could take part in the proceedings, brought the meeting to an immediate halt! It was brought to the council's attention by Mr Whitmey acting for NFTGAG that Cllr Cutter was up until recently a director of Hereford Housing and because the proceedings would be of legal nature it would be prudent for Cllr Cutter to not take part. This was endorsed by Herefordshire Housing's Morag Ellis QC and Committee's legal adviser Vivian Chapman QC. The committee went into private session and after 45 mins decided that the meeting be deferred for a later date. Possibly late November, December or early next year. The saga continues.

Edited by megilleland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regulatory Committee of Herefordshire Council met to hear The Newton Farm Town Green proposal yesterday 2nd November, unfortunately it was found necessary to defere the hearing, due to insufficent time was alotted to permit this difficult and high-profile matter to be dealth with.

A new date for the hearing will be in either early December or January next year. This will be an all day meeting with a break for lunch to continue in the afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regulatory Committee of Herefordshire Council met to hear The Newton Farm Town Green proposal yesterday 2nd November, unfortunately it was found necessary to defere the hearing, due to insufficent time was alotted to permit this difficult and high-profile matter to be dealth with.

A new date for the hearing will be in either early December or January next year. This will be an all day meeting with a break for lunch to continue in the afternoon.

Thank you for your update but we were already informed yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regulatory Committee of Herefordshire Council met to hear The Newton Farm Town Green proposal yesterday 2nd November, unfortunately it was found necessary to defere the hearing, due to insufficent time was alotted to permit this difficult and high-profile matter to be dealth with.

A new date for the hearing will be in either early December or January next year. This will be an all day meeting with a break for lunch to continue in the afternoon.

 

The Regulatory Committee and the council have known for a few weeks that a whole day was needed to hear this.So why did they waste everyones time and money and not rearrange the hearing for the full day. :Angry_32:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regulatory Committee and the council have known for a few weeks that a whole day was needed to hear this.So why did they waste everyones time and money and not rearrange the hearing for the full day. :Angry_32:

I had the same thoughts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megilleland A slight correction to your post it was initially about Cllr Cutter, but when we went into closed session of the Regulatory committee members other things came to light, essential paperwork was only given to committee members five minutes before the meeting commenced, also we were supposed to have received correspondence advising us that the meeting would go on to 9pm, no member received that correspondence and the majority of members had evening meetings to attend leaving at 5:30pm that would not have made the committee corate.

Morag Ellis QC thought that we could either take the meeting to 5:30pm and then come back another day for verdict, or push the meeting that it would end by that time. I and fellow members felt that it was to important to try and cram in everything, and I advised it was not fair to either party to do that. Another Independent Cllr ask for a deferrement and everyone agreed.

 

Please read my other post as I feel the correct message should be given to the public, the committee was advised that if we deferred there would be a cost to pay, but we felt that in the circumstances we had no option but to defere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your update but we were already informed yesterday

M Preece and other site members please see my reply below to Megilleland. As member of the committee I was in closed session!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regulatory Committee and the council have known for a few weeks that a whole day was needed to hear this.So why did they waste everyones time and money and not rearrange the hearing for the full day. :Angry_32:

:Angry_32:

Ipussycat - The officers set aside the time for the Town Green hearing what we the members were not told was that we were expected to stay until 9pm, The Chairman advised everyone in the gallery why the meeting was deffered, see my other post, the committee felt it was not fair to rush such an important hearing in the interest of both parties. Everybody time was wasted,the committee had been there since 10am at another Regulatory meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:Angry_32:

Ipussycat - The officers set aside the time for the Town Green hearing what we the members were not told was that we were expected to stay until 9pm, The Chairman advised everyone in the gallery why the meeting was deferred, see my other post, the committee felt it was not fair to rush such an important hearing in the interest of both parties. Everybody time was wasted,the committee had been there since 10am at another Regulatory meeting.

 

 

I do consider that to expect any one to work from 2 pm to 9 pm is unreasonable unless refreshment break and refreshments are provided. Considering the Regulatory Committee was there since 10 am. What about the solicitors were they consulted?

 

All I can say it is a poor show by the council's legal department, I just wonder if they know what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...