|
3 Counties Group Press Release EG residents’ representations to WSCC councillors Correspondence exchange, and an ‘Open Letter’ to On 17 July, 3CG, along with Imberhorne Residents’ Association, The East Grinstead Society, PARO, and Crawley Down Residents’ Association sent a “collective letter” (“A Letter (to WSCC Cllrs) on behalf of the Residents of East Grinstead” – see below) to all 71 WSCC Cllrs due to attend the Full Council Meeting to be held at distant Chichester on 25 July. One of the matters to be considered was the County Structure Plan. The “collective letter” (a copy of which appeared on the Letters Page of the Courier, 24 July under the heading “Look Again at Homes Issue Before Deciding”) directed Cllrs’ attention to East Grinstead housing proposals in the Plan, and called on them to “re-address” the whole issue in the light of the 96.3% NO Vote at the recent Referendum. WSCC Cllr Bill Acraman (Member for Mid-Sussex North, which includes Copthorne where he lives, and the site of the proposed “East of M23”, 2500+ Housing location) replied to 3CGs Michael Vickers, one of the signatories of the collective letter – see below: “Response to Collective Letter—From WSCC Cllr Bill Acraman”. Dr. Vickers in turn responded to Cllr Acraman’s letter – see below: “Open Letter to WSCC Cllr Bill Acraman”. A Letter (to WSCC Cllrs) on behalf of the Re—West Sussex County Council Structure Plan 17 July 2003 Dear Councillor, We understand that on the 25th of this month the County Council will again consider the draft structure plan, but before you do so we are anxious to ensure that you are fully aware of the implications of the referendum recently held here in East Grinstead. From the outset the impression has been given, by Councillors and others, that we favour the construction of 2500+ houses at East Grinstead. That, emphatically, is not so. At the referendum conducted on the 19th June 2003, 3485 residents voted against such a proposal with 134 being in support, a 96.3% majority. If those who live in the immediately adjoining parishes had been allowed to vote, the NO vote would have been significantly higher. We believe that the referendum confirmed the unanimous views of the local population as expressed at various well-attended meetings held over many months by some of the signatories to this letter. We are alarmed that so far those views have been largely ignored by our elected representatives. It has been said that the question posed at the referendum was too simplistic. We are confident, however, that a carefully constructed resolution which acknowledged all the various and related factors, would still have produced the same answer, namely that we want East Grinstead to remain a pleasant country town. At the same time we acknowledge the need for progress and we cannot ignore the County’s obligation to construct significant extra housing. However, we do not accept a housing development of such magnitude in East Grinstead, which would destroy the character of our town. This whole issue needs to be re-addressed before any binding decisions are reached and we call upon the County to do so. Yours sincerely, Richard Kiley, Association of Imberhorne Residents | Top | Response To “Collective Letter” – from Wscc Cllr Bill Acraman 18 July 2003 Dr. Vickers, You do your cause no good by sending out letters claiming to be from "East Grinstead & District". (See Courier letters, 24 July, “Look Again at Homes Issue Before Deciding”). Your letter has no return address and is signed with 5 signatures of which yours is the only legible one. It is only because I have your e-mail address that I can reply. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the housing issue, you can say that you speak for 3485 residents and, probably, more who were not at the referendum meeting (sic). That is to speak for a sizeable number, but not the whole district. Neither I, nor other county councillors that I am aware of, of either party, have (sic) sought to give the impression that the district favours 2500+ houses. There are significant numbers pro and significant numbers anti. Nor have your views been ignored. How could they have been with the communication you have sent out, the meetings you have had with Col Pemberton and others, and the press coverage you have received? To disagree is not to ignore. I disagree with Tony Blair going to war in Iraq, but I am not accusing him of ignoring my view. On a point of fact that you may not yet be aware of. Because of the announcement by Alistair Darling about the non construction of better roads in West Sussex, specifically the A27, the Structure plan item has been withdrawn from next Friday's Council agenda. Bill Acraman | Top | “Open Letter” to Cllr Bill Acraman – from 3CG’s Michael Vickers 1 August 2003 Dear Bill, Apologies for this tardy response. Been off on a Norfolk break the past 10 days. A most welcome breather… Sorry about the non-addressed "joint letter". (See Courier letters, 24 July, “Look Again at Homes Issue Before Deciding”). I will check up. I am of course aware of the understandable sensitivity to the "East of M23" location in your Copthorne back-yard. But does this excuse the puzzling failure to provide rational consideration of its pros and cons? Certainly it does not help when "authoritative views" from the various concerned Authorities change from week to week. And why the emphasis on EG, the least likely runner? There are currently many lines of inquiry. Bit by bit, the truth is starting to emerge. And very interesting it is. Why is it that people who are publicly accountable are prepared to take such risks? As for the Referendum vote; all politicians so inclined, play about with the figures and do their best to rubbish them and the issue. Your predecessors did the same to Baldwin and Brock in the early 90s. But the fact of the matter is that the figures cannot be evaded. They eventually carried weight in the SofSs 91-93 SP deliberations. And these 2003 figures carry similar weight now; and indeed will in future, at later junctures, at such times as they may be required. On this point, I would refer to an item in Notes of a recent Meeting with TCs James Baldwin:
And Bill, if proper consideration had in fact been given to the EG issue in the first instance, things would not be in the mess they are now. There would have been no need to shout. You know this well. The people of EG are not interested in a "new town". Never have been. And yet ignoring all the precedent that is stacked against it; and, as I have learned, ignoring too the fact that many of your fellow Cllrs remain deeply puzzled why it ever went forward in the first place; despite all this you and Brock and Coote continue to force it forward. You will be aware that now only 2, perhaps 3 LG auths support the EG location; while another 15, from Govt Agencies, to LG auths oppose it with varying degrees of vehemence; their arguments based on logic and commonsense. ...Strange, tiresome and wasteful business, yet again. Were one a sceptic, one might be persuaded to the view held by some, that WSCC is pressing forward the EG location in the certain knowledge that it will fail; and in so doing frustrate Govt re the surplus housing requirement it has forced on the County. Why else press the location (EG) most likely to fail; and evade/ignore the location ("East of M23") capable of making an immediate start on full delivery of the allocated SP quota? As for Govts recent rejection re the A27 Arundel scheme (one notes also the rejection of additional A27 road schemes proposed for Chichester and for Worthing) on "environmental grounds"; these, together with Govts re-stated "presumption against road-building", and particularly "through AONBs or other sensitive sites"; and all this with renewed emphasis on "sustainability" and preferred "alternative measures"; it all, I agree, raises all kinds of interesting questions directly relevant to the EG and "East of M23" locations. Enough. Should you have further observations/questions, please let me know. It is important they be discussed. Many people are interested. It is important we all know what our local representatives think; the reasons for these thoughts; and what their priorities are. It's what democracy is all about. Your frankness is most welcome and much appreciated. Best regards, Press Liaison: Peter Haskell 01342 322622 | Top | | Close | |
||
 |
|
|