Tag Archives: local plan

Residents in Castle Point wait to hear the Up Side of retaining the Local Plan In-House, rather than facing Government Intervention! Oh and how much Green Belt to be Released!

The latest public “announcement” on the Castle Point council Local Plan will be made during the cpbc cabinet meeting on Wednesday 19th September.

Residents will learn exactly what cpbc spokespeople actually meant when they stated they must keep the Local Plan within the council’s grasp, rather than face Government Intervention and all that that entailed!

In a report compiled by the ceo D Marchant, that may more aptly be delivered by wearing the cloak of the Grim Reaper, members will hear in clear terms the penalties that will befall residents of Castle Point, if they were not to fall in line and endorse whatever local plan messrs Smith, Marchant and Rogers enforce into publication.

Obviously there will be the intention to release more Green Belt land than was previously agreed, otherwise there would have been little need to delay progress of the 2016 local plan.

Instead Bureaucratic measures by this miserable triumvirate have taken over what should have been a democratic and public exercise!

“Intervention by Government in any area of local government business is a last resort and follows poor decision making and failure to follow Government direction and advice.

We have been reminded by Government that intervention is a sanction and should not be considered as an alternative mechanism to deliver a Local Plan.

We are aware that the Secretary of State is still considering whether to intervene in the local plan process.”

There then follows a further threat to Cabinet members, and other council members in attendance;

“In terms of decision-taking, the Government will wish to make certain after intervention that the statutory development plan and policies for the Borough will be implemented and will not allow the local plan once agreed to be frustrated by the Development Control process.

Consequently as the Borough Council had no role in the preparation of the plan, indications from the MHCLG are that the Secretary of State will exercise powers available to him to direct that any strategic planning applications submitted pursuant to the plan will be referred to the Planning Inspectorate directly rather than the Borough Council,”

“As one of the very few planning authorities under intense scrutiny by MHCLG* the Council remains at great risk of intervention and this will lead to considerable reputational damage on a national scale.”

*Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government

BUT what if, this likely release of Green Belt and denser Urbanisation of previously developed land, fails to see Developers and Builders deliver the required Housing Needs of London and Castle Point?

It would be naíve to think that developers would build at a rate that would jeopardise the Market Price of Housing. What if the Governor of the Bank of England’s worse projection, a 30% fall in house prices following a bad Brexit, comes to fruition?

Will more land be required to be released because other developers have put forward alternative proposals to those in the Local Plan, which they suggest they are more able to deliver?

Government and local authorities cannot manipulate the market. previous delivery rates ARE relevant, especially when you remember that only Glebelands and part of Jotmans Farm have seen applications lodged and rejected in Castle Point for, a Total of 405 dwellings since 2010!

A cpbc Local Plan that proposes to Release anymore than the 100 Dwellings per Annum agreed by the local council in the 2016 local plan, will not only see protests by residents but will also likely lead to Polling day reaction.

We were promised Localism as the way forward in Plan making.

Instead we will likely see a Bureaucratic plan delivered by the leader of cpbc intended to satisfy the national government.

A Local Plan padded out with aspirational and undeliverable infrastructure and Sea Defence improvements AND a Plan that is Sequentially corrupt!

A new Report by  Lichfields warns of difficulties for local authorities in satisfying the Housing Delivery Test.

Lichfields write;

The housing delivery test (HDT) will become increasingly difficult to satisfy

“The HDT is a monitoring tool the Government will use to demonstrate whether local areas are building enough homes to meet their housing need. Based on the outcome of this monitoring, councils may be required to undertake further action in the near future.”

“In November 2018, the test will compare housing delivery (net additional dwellings plus communal housing) to housing need (the lower of the three years in an up-to-date local plan or household projections plus unmet neighbours’ need).”

The full Lichfield report may be read via this LINK.
maco

Advertisements

Canvey Island Flood Event “Cover Up”? CPBC willing to withhold information, so as to develop Canvey Island!

A recent addition to the Castle Point Borough council’s Local Plan Evidence Base is the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2018 Update covering South Essex.

The document, apparently is too large to be downloaded from the cpbc Local Plan website, so we downloaded from the Rochford council website instead!

Of note, and the Canvey Green Belt Campaign did make it known to councillors, Canvey Island had no Historic Flood Events, up until 2011, recorded by Castle Point council except the 1953 Tidal Flood. This despite local knowledge confirmed that there is a Surface Water Drainage issue across Canvey Island!

This information we made available whilst the cpbc cabinet discussed and adopted the Surface Water Management Plan during 2012. Little wonder then that cpbc and their partners, were totally unprepared for the Canvey Island Floods of 2013 and, worse still, 2014!

Those living on Canvey Island at the time would have been well aware of a serious Surface Water Flooding Event during 1968. Previous localised Flooding causing more regular problems had also taken place on the Island on more frequent occasions.

None of this was recorded, nor recollections sought, when cpbc gave information to URS Scott Wilson as they compiled the 2011 Surface Water Management Plan for South Essex.

Now it is evident that cpbc have allowed, one can only think for convenience sake, the South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to be published and adopted for inclusion in the cpbc 2018 Local Plan evidence base, with the same Flooding Event omitted!

The South Essex SWMP (2012) states that there are 26 recorded flood events from Castle Point Borough Council, the Essex Fire and Rescue Service, Parish Councils and the Highways Agency. The source of flooding is unknown and these records are shown in Appendix A Figure 5.3. Where available, updated flood incident records held by the project stakeholders, including Castle Point Borough Council, ECC, the Environment Agency and AWS, have been provided to support this Level 1 SFRA update.

Records of Flooding included within the document indicate:

1968 “Fluvial flooding from the Benfleet Sewer” Following this event, structural flood mitigation measures were undertaken along the watercourse to improve the standard of protection against flooding including the construction of the bunded washlands area.

Again in 1987 Flood recorded in Hadleigh

For Canvey Island, during these decades, Nothing Recorded!

So despite the Canvey Green Belt Campaign making it known to cpbc that Canvey Island had suffered Flooding incidents and that the 2011 Surface Water Management Plan incorrectly omitted a record of these events, Castle Point Borough council have allowed a new Assessment to be undertaken without correcting these errors!

Not only that, but the Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage Study, undertaken following Government departmental advice, was not used as an informative for the South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, despite being signed off in April 2018!

5.4.2 Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage Study
The Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage Study (IUD) has been undertaken setting out how surface water drainage should be managed and maintained on the island. The study was not available for inclusion in the Level 1 SFRA; however, the study should be used to inform the Level 2 SFRA and site specific FRAs.

We can only conclude that these omissions and flaws can only be explained by them being deliberate to support the desires of  Castle Point Borough Council to distribute a large level of Housing Development onto the Flood Risk Zone and Critical Drainage Area of Canvey Island within their latest 2018 Local Plan process!

The 1968 Canvey Island flooding was not an insignificant event as much as cpbc may wish it was. These photographs act as proof:

Sandra Davis Photo

copyright: Sandra Davis

Jacksons Photos

Copyright: Jacksons Photos

More information on the 1968 Flooding has been collected, along with many interesting photographs that can be found on the Canvey Island Community Archive. Their website can be found via this LINK.

 

 

Predetermination – Interference and Planning Matters, Castle Point Council style. The Need Outweighs the Inappropriateness in our Green Belt?

Castle Point council appear to have been rattled into some inconsistency where the Local Plan and Planning matters are concerned.

Intervention over the Local Plan appears a realistic possibility, whilst Housing Need and Green Belt concerns dominate decisions.

A follower of this Blog and of Local Issues sent in this comment;

“The Government has used the Localism Act to clarify the rules on ‘predetermination’.
These rules were developed to ensure that councillors came to council discussions – on, for example, planning applications – with an open mind.
In practice, however, these rules had been interpreted in such a way as to reduce the quality of local debate and stifle valid discussion.
In some cases councillors were warned off doing such things as campaigning, talking with constituents, or publicly expressing views on local issues, for fear of being accused of bias or facing legal challenge.
The Localism Act makes it clear that it is proper for councillors to play an active part in local discussions, and that they should not be liable to legal challenge as a result.
This will help them better represent their constituents and enrich local democratic debate. People can elect their councillor confident in the knowledge that they will be able to act on the issues they care about and have campaigned on”.
I am not so sure that the Governments intention has become a reality, there is very little evidence that democratic debate is exercised at CPBC, particularly where planning on Canvey Island is concerned.

It will be imperative, or it should be, that a consistent approach is followed through Planning Policy, especially while the Government Chief Planner is taking a close interest in cpbc Local Plan affairs. One would expect this consistency to come from the top down.

Recently there have been two planning applications received that may hint at a less than consistent approach.

Firstly the proposal for the 57 bedroom Care Home at Canvey Way, Approved against Officer advice. Officers stated that amongst other reasons “the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt” and that “The application is presented to the Development Control Committee as the applicant is related to a Member of this Council”.

Unusually just ahead of the development committee meeting to consider the application, the Castle Point council leader, cllr Smith was quoted in the Echo as saying;

“The committee may think the need is enough for the plans to be passed.”

And that

“The people will only lose out if the plans are refused.”

There is a recorded need for facilities of this type in the Borough, however there is also a recorded Housing Need in the Borough.

It appears that the desire locally is to develop on Previously Developed land. This is where the cpbc leader may be indicating some inconsistency.

Residents on the mainland appear concerned with the possibility of 12 Apartments, being built on the Wheelers restaurant site at Bread and Cheese Hill. This is also Green Belt and previously developed with a far more permanent structure than that exists at the Garden Centre site at Canvey Road.

As yet there has been no officer advice issued, however cpbc leader cllr Smith has himself “called in” the application, on the Grounds of Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt, so that the Development Committee can make the final decision whether to approve.

This might appear contradictory in that having publicly stated “The people will only lose out if the plans are refused.”, on the Canvey Road application, to then personally call in another application, that maybe far less likely to be considered as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, just may be viewed as suggesting to his colleagues on the development committee that they should Refuse the Bread and Cheese Hill proposal.

Surely the evidence suggests that in both the case of Care Home facilities AND Housing, the need may well be “enough for the Plans to be passed.”

Policy makers may do well to set a better example if they kept their views private at crucial times for the cpbc Local Plan, and the Echo Newspaper may do well to go back to their more investigative style of journalism to add clarity to these topics.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Images Copyright: Google Earth

Tonight’s the Night – for Canvey Island’s new 57 Bedroomed Residential Care Home? “However”!

The Castle Point borough council Development Committee will tonight consider the proposal for the development of a 57 bedroomed Care Home at the junction of Canvey Road and Northwick Road.

Screenshot (11)

This proposal, within Canvey Island’s depleted Green Belt may present a few contradictory issues during debate.

“Consideration of the proposal under the provisions of the NPPF and adopted Local Plan identifies that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which could only be justified if Very Special Circumstances could be identified,”

“The need for specialist residential accommodation has been identified as a circumstance to which consideration should be given; however, there has been no demonstration that this need can only be met on the application site. In the absence of a clear demonstration that the identified need could not be met elsewhere it is not considered that this circumstance….would justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

The un-identified Need for the Care Home may be difficult to establish, given that the business already has an establishment on a Brownfield site, that it could be argued, may be suitable for renovation to provide the care offered in this new proposal.

“it is considered that the specific scale of development proposed is excessive, resulting in a building of mean and cramped appearance”

“The proposal is therefore contrary to Government guidance as contained in the NPPF.”

The site, currently contains a Garden Centre consisting of basically a large “Green House” style building and wooden canopies to shelter plants. Council officers argue, presumably using imagination, that these they consider “permanent” buildings, in support of the new proposal!

Directly connected to the proposed site is “To the north the site is adjoined by a detached two storey dwelling beyond which is a bungalow and some 112m further to the north, the Dutch Cottage, a Grade II Listed building. 

To the west the site is bounded by open land designated an Ancient Landscape and Wildlife site (West Canvey Marshes Nature Reserve) and used, in part, for the grazing of horses.” 

Given the Approach to development within Castle Point’s Green Belt of late by the local authority on both a Policy level and at Development Committee  level, this proposal may provide some extra confusion to the mix!

Only recently ex-councillor J. King was granted permission for Equestrian facilities consisting of bricks and mortar stables and offices, within the Green Belt.

Contrastingly the need for Housing both market priced and affordable, is proven to exist within the Borough, yet this is denied Approval.

Care MUST be taken in the decision making to establish consistency.

Further, the suitability for a Residential Care Home, within such a small Borough, within an area at Risk of Flooding, should be a serious “consideration”!

The site is opposite an industrial estate with adjoining and nearby roads, Roscommon Way and Northwick Road, the subject of local residents complaints over Noise.

The proposal is also of some considerable size, especially compared to the existing “buildings” on site.

Confusion will be added to debate when the “position” of our previous Local Plans are touched upon. The Adopted 1998 Local Plan is out of date, the Core Strategy is “dead”, the 2014 and 2016 Local Plans are both “withdrawn”, whilst the 2018 hasn’t yet finalised consideration of the Consultation stage!

Most recent development committee decisions have attempted to comply with the proposed non development of so called “virgin Green Belt”, despite the decision in favour of ex-councillor J. King.

The site for the Care Home proposal has been proposed to be included in the most recent draft Local Plan’s. However the 2018 Local Plan is at a development stage, likely to be criticised by an Inspector well ahead of any decision.

Given that the 2 large Green Belt sites in the borough, Jotmans Farm and Glebelands, were both Refused permission  by cpbc officers and committee, and on Appeal also Refused by the Secretary of State on grounds that a decision would be Premature whilst a Local Plan was being produced by the local authority, it may appear “confusing” for a site proposed for inclusion in the 2018 Local Plan, to be decided upon ahead of the new Local Plan’s publication.

A new Local Plan, under close scrutiny from the Government’s Chief Planner, may be better used for Housing or indeed returned to the Green Belt. An interesting proposal indeed.

Whilst this proposal is not exactly the same as either the Jotmans and Glebelands cases we can expect to hear a few “However’s” from the cpbc Case Officer during tonight’s discussion!

Illustration Copyright: Brian Davison estates

Canvey Residents – Ignore the Castle Point Local Plan Consultation at your Peril! Changes – Development – Pipe Dreams and Promises are Afoot!

Whether you Bother to Answer, and How you Answer, the CPBC consultation questions, will have a direct bearing on how much Canvey Island changes in the immediate Future! Council Leaders and officers will have appeasement from the Government threat of Intervention in the cpbc Local Plan, uppermost in Mind!

Paddocks

The Paddocks community centre, Canvey Island

Make no Mistake, Development, both Housing and Business, on the most easily accessible large Green Field sites is the likely outcome of Castle Point’s Local Plan consultation!

Once the Local Plan consultation period is over the “Tricks of the Trade” of those charged with “interpreting” the responses come into play.

Previous consultations have seen many objections against cpbc proposed Local Plans, this has led to cpbc council Leaders suggesting that the “non responders” views mirrored those of the council Leaders, despite them having no evidence to suggest they did!

It is for this reason that Canvey Island residents should not only take part in the Local Plan consultation, but also be very careful how the questions are responded to!

Your responses may well be construed to mean something very much different in the hands of cpbc!

An eagerness for infrastructure, may be construed to indicate that residents are in favour of more large developments on Canvey Island. Whilst the Infrastructure improvements amount to pipe dreams, be sure that, the developments will be forthcoming!

Consultation Question 9, for example asks;

Which approach described below in providing new development is most suitable for the borough?

A Intensify existing built up areas with new development and increased density
B Create new settlements in the borough
C Disperse developments to the edge of the built up areas

Before you Answer A, we should remember that Canvey Island is already the most densely Urbanised part of the Borough!
Answer C flies in the face of the Purposes of the Green Belt, that is, “to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas”
Answer B would appear to have implications for residents elsewhere in the Borough.

Answer Question 11 without an explanation and you will be considered to support large site development on Canvey Island!

11. What type of housing do you feel is best suited to your area? (tick all that apply)
Affordable rents, Buy-to-let, Elderly care homes etc, etc.

None of which can be provided without Private Investment, likely off the back of large scale, market price, private development!

Housing allocations
“The new Local Plan 2018 will revisit all potential sites considered within the 2014 and 2016 Plans and assess their future suitability through technical studies,”

No they will not! All Canvey sites, with the exception of the “Triangle Site”, behind the Dutch Cottage Canvey Road, for some reason, were considered to be developable whether Green Belt or Brownfield, or in a Flood Risk zone or Critical Drainage Area, which incidentally the whole of Canvey is!

The Constraints on development revealed in the Technical Studies are all dismissed by cpbc where Canvey Island is concerned!

13a. Do you support the potential residential development at land at Thorney Bay Caravan Park, Canvey Island?

Absolutely irrelevant Consultation question. The owners have permissions in place for a Park Home site and are successfully developing one. CPBC have no jurisdiction over the likely loss of the Roscommon Way final phase land.

14a. Do you support the potential residential development at land at Point Road, Canvey Island?

The Business site was first proposed as a housing development, then returned with a vastly inflated figure of Housing, drawing many, many objections from local residents not least because of the reliance on the tiny roundabout access area and the Flats proposed. And, where would all of the current businesses be re-housed, well no doubt onto more Canvey Green field land around the Roscommon Way area!

20a. Do you support the potential residential development at land west of Benfleet?

Ask ourselves, can we really take more traffic on Canvey Way? And by the way, this is Jotmans Farm if you didn’t recognise the site name.

22a. Do you support the potential residential development at land east of Canvey Road?

Do they really need to ask? This is the Dutch Village Green Belt site, the one that out of the 6,534 Referendum Votes cast, just 56 Canvey Islanders said they were comfortable with persimmons developing!

23a. Do you support the potential residential development at land fronting Canvey Road?

This is beside the Dutch Cottage, Green Belt site, I am sure the extra traffic filing down from Sadlers Farm to Thorney Bay Road every evening, is something we could do without.

26a. Do you support the extension to Roscommon Way?

Given that there is no funding, and that Essex Highways do not wish to burden themselves with future maintenance costs, and that the Thorney Bay part of the land required may not be available for development anyway, this appears simply an unlikely aspiration.

27a. Do you support widening of Sommes Avenue?

Of course we do, but wouldn’t the installation of the cycle way along the North side of Somnes Avenue by ECC, mean that there is no space for the widening of Somnes Avenue by ECC?

29a. Do you support dualling of the northern section of the A130 Canvey Way in the vicinity of Sadlers Farm?

Or put another way, do you support development of Jotmans Farm with access an access onto Canvey Way.
Really?

32a. Do you support improved access to Canvey Island?

Well of course we do, but it will be at the likely expense of much more land released for development. Thurrock Council opposition will not remove their objection and cpbc will have to overturn their own Local Plan Evidence findings that; “it is not obvious that a new road access to Canvey Island could enable the area to benefit to a much greater extent from the major port and distribution development at London Gateway in Thurrock. The cost of such infrastructure would also need to be weighed against the scale of economic benefits likely to accrue to Canvey Island, and the extent of these do not appear likely to be major.”

And Finally, as they say:

34. Do you have any additional comments on the new Local Plan 2018?

Not unless you feel the fact that Canvey Island, the whole of which, is a Critical Drainage Area, is also a tidal Flood Zone 3a area, and has 2 Top Tier Comah sites, meaning should there ever be a need to evacuate the Island, the Emergency Services would be unable to cope with the current levels of Canvey’s population, has some bearing on the Consultation that castle point officers appear to be overlooking or ignoring!

Canvey Island due to be the Scapegoat yet again, following the Local Plan consultation? Mainlanders getting their Act Together!

The Castle Point Local Plan consultation, will mean different things to different people.

A pain in the rrr’s to most, a waste of public funds or a tick box exercise to others.

But to Benfleet mainlanders it is definitely a means of registering disapproval with their council representatives. Previously these consultations have resulted in changes of the Local Plan content in favour of, in particular development of their Green Belt, concerns.

local plan.jpg-pwrt3

Like a bad Smell, this just will not Go Away!

It is evident that there is hope that a concerted effort may achieve more of the same for them, as unlikely as it may seem, in the efforts employed by cpbc to avoid Intervention.

A mainland campaigner has circulated some encouragement to respond to the consultation and advice on how to answer certain questions.

How will your (Canvey Islanders) responses be interpreted by cpbc, I wonder! 

Dear Mainlanders,

A reminder please (hope u don’t mind) regarding the importance of resident’s responding to the CPBC LP consultation.

Apart from the traffic congestion and infrastructure issues and pressures that will be put on our schools, doctors etc………..

It maybe worth noting in your consultation returns such items as:

The SOS has defended the principle of saving green belt sites.

High Court judges have turned down developer’s green belt application appeals on more than one instance.

CPBC should look seriously at increasing density of development on brownfield sites.

Other councils should be approached to consider taking CPBC’s unmet housing need.

Please also read the questions carefully for possible double meanings i.e. ticking Yes to supporting road dualling and new junctions on the A130 may mean you are agreeing to building on green belt land adjacent to the A130.

Yours, T.S.

Direct Link to the Local Plan Consultation portal, where you will need to go through the simple registration process before gaining access to the questionnaire, can be found via this LINK.

Canvey Green Belt safe? Really? Probably as Safe from Development as Jotmans Farm, or Even Less So!

Canvey Islanders are right to be fearful of both Castle Point Council and the Government chief planner, as between them they concoct the next Local Plan for the Borough.

Why, because it appears previous promises and assurances that Canvey AND the mainland’s Green Belt is not in danger of being released for development, are worthless!

Anybody that has visited the cpbc Local Plan consultation Portal, will have noticed that all Green Belt sites considered and promoted for development in the daft 2014 Local Plan, including those rejected and omitted for the Local Plan2016, have now reappeared for consideration!

Directly below are just some of the sites that cpbc Leaders and officers are “considering” including in the list of sites released for development.

You will note that this will affect West, South and East Canvey Island, with knock on effects across the whole of the Island AND south Benfleet, when Traffic, Commuting, Doctors, Hospitals and Schooling are concerned!

Sites appearing in the LP 2018 consultation questionnaire include:

 Do you support the potential residential development at land east of Canvey Road?  Otherwise known as the Dutch Village fields or Corn fields.

Do you support the potential residential development at land fronting Canvey Road? Land alongside the Dutch Cottage

Do you support the potential residential development at land at Thorney Bay Caravan Park, Canvey Island?

Do you support the potential residential development at land at Point Road, Canvey Island?   The Canvey Supply and surrounding Business area.

Do you support the potential residential development at land west of Benfleet? (Jotmans Farm).

Plus other mainland Green Belt sites, making up the list. And of course the other sites we know about, such as the Paddocks, The Jellicoe etc are extra to these!

And yet we have been assured ahead of elections and announcements that the Borough’s Green Belt, at least those sites considered “Virgin” were all protected.

How very disappointing to hear and read the council leader and officers and Government chief planner are now making completely different noises.

We hear NO Dissenting Voices, and our local newspaper, the Echo, appears to be under some level of censorship from cpbc!

As an illustration of the change of direction, reproduced directly below is our Blog post dated 6th October 2017. In it is included a message from Cllr Sheldon, a councillor with good connections to have spoken knowledgeably on Castle Point’s Green Belt situation.

One must ask, “where did it all so horribly go wrong?”

“THE DECISION STANDS. JOTMANS WILL NOT BE BUILT ON.”

Following the Secretary of State’s decision following the Appeal inquiry into the proposed Jotmans Farm Green Belt Housing Development, the developer registered a High Court challenge over the decision of the SoS and Castle Point council.
CPBC Councillor A. Sheldon has issued this notice:

Dear Residents,
I have just received the news that the Developers have not been granted permission to appeal the Jotmans decision by the Secretary of State!!!
This means that no appeal hearing will take place.

They made an application for an appeal and it got refused!!!

THE DECISION STANDS. JOTMANS WILL NOT BE BUILT ON.

I have received word that they are looking to get this decision reviewed (the decision not to review the decision…..), but I am confident this will get thrown out. With every unsuccessful legal bid they make, the case they have grows weaker and weaker. As your local councillor I will keep on monitoring this and keep you updated.
Our message to the developers: “Democracy has won. Take your money and build homes on sites the community want, not ones that are easy”.

Well done again to all those who kept the faith and supported our cause. I also want to thank the Jotmans Farm Action Group who fought this application hard from day 1.

We can all rest that little bit easier now.

We are not completely out of the woods just yet, but we one last step away and I will be dammed if I am going to let anything make us stumble now.
I will be putting out a letter to let the rest of the estate know at the weekend and if anyone could volunteer to deliver their road I would be grateful.

Kind regards,
Councillor Andrew Sheldon

Jotmans Farm SAFE!

Jotmans Farm Safe!

Photo: Echo Newspaper.