18th August 2017
You may have heard that the applications for Judicial Review have been refused. "They think it's all over - well it isn't yet!"
25th July 2017
Well, well, well. We told you that it could get interesting. A little bird has told us that the item about the threatening behaviour and attempted intimidation of councillors by a family member of another councillor has not been placed on tonight's agenda because the Clerk has allegedly decided that it should remain a private matter. That is despite the fact that there are a number of unresolved police complaints in existence on the subject. For the rules about parish council agendas – see HERE
We are not trying to pre-judge this issue, but it is one of such fundamental importance that it is clearly in the public interest to be discussed and resolved in public. To that end we think that it would be a good idea to call an Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting specifically discuss this matter in detail and in public. If it achieves nothing else, it should clear the air!
The agenda for next week's Parish Council Meeting has been published. The item asked for by Councillor Astley, see the last paragraph of his letter HERE, has not been included. We wonder why! Could it be that certain councillors are serving their own best interests by having a personally embarrassing item deliberately not included on the agenda? Watch this space!
Coercion, intimidation, blackmail, racist remarks and threats of violence. These are just some of the words used in a couple of letters that we have been sent by a councillor specifically for publication. For more, see HERE.
It has been suggested to us that APC are appearing to collude with a developer to build more houses, of a design that has already met with public disgust, on land being given back to that developer at £300,000 below the likely market value and with no social housing to be included in the project. For a more details see HERE.
In the early hours of Wednesday 28th June, Ian Asbury resigned as Councillor from Adderbury Parish Council. That might be regarded as the surprise of the year so far. At the moment the reasons for that action have not been made public and we are wondering if we will ever be able to tell you the full story.
We are told that there is a lot of mis-informed comment with regard to the ongoing legal action. It is important to remember that the issue of the wording is merely a symptom of the overall problems at the heart of APC. Read our summary HERE and see if you think that that is the way that you want your Parish Council to be run.
There it is. The YES campaign won by 479 votes to 339 for the NO campaign. A decisive victory but by no means a whitewash. An excellent turnout of 36%. Even the Returning Officer expressed his pleasure at the response. There was even a queue at the start at 4.00 pm, and generally there was a nice relaxed atmosphere, although there were a couple of unpleasant incidents, which we guess was only to be expected.
Let us all hope that this might signal the start of the return of democracy to Adderbury. It is sorely needed. As with all elections we must now try to ensure that the victors go on to fulfil the promises that they have made. Luckily, in this day and age, it is not difficult to have archives, copies and screen prints of everything that was said, so we do have a complete record.
Whether you want to vote NO or YES in the Parish Poll today, please do exercise your democratic right. Help bring some much needed Democracy back to Adderbury. Your opinion matters and should be counted!
APC actions are being subjected to a Judicial Review. When you vote, please be aware that the "Yes" campaign are relying on claims that are now being challenged in Court. The very fact that they present themselves as the "Parish Council" may well also be illegal, but it is the same people who have made the claims that a judge agrees need to be reviewed in Court.
There have been claims that there have been no discussions between Adderbury Park Football Club and Deddington Football Club regards the Milton Road land. See details of the discussion that did not take place HERE.
A leaflet promoting the APC football plan has now been published, and it gives the impression that it comes from the Parish Council. The question being asked now is about the legality of it, because the Parish Council have never even discussed the leaflet. Will there be future legal action? See HERE.
In the next few days, all houses in the village should receive another leaflet which gives details of imaginative alternative plans for the land north of Milton Road. See the leaflet HERE and see the ALTERNATIVE PLAN HERE. Whether or not any of these ideas are followed up should be your choice and that is the reason for the Parish Poll!
We have received a file detailing occasions when the APC plan for the land north of Milton Road has been mentioned. It starts in 2004! Yes that long ago. From the first entry you can see that a lot had been happening before that. The other thing of note is that the same names keep cropping up. Read it HERE.
Following last Tuesday's Parish Council Meeting, here are some questions that we would like to put to all Parish Councillors in the hope that they might address the disastrous legal situation that they apparently face. See the questions HERE.
Following last night's Parish Council Meeting, we have received a letter that has also been sent to the Banbury Guardian and adderbury.org. We have permission to publish it on this website and it is HERE.
We have noticed that questions are being asked about the costs of the Parish Poll. See HERE why we feel that those questions should be directed squarely at Adderbury Parish Council, or even Cherwell District Council who will be running the poll.
Headline. The word used is gifted. As we understand it, there was no gift. The landowner sold the land to Bloor Homes for £175,000. Hardly a gift! Cherwell District Council imposed a legal compulsion (known as an S106 agreement) for Bloor Homes to transfer that land for a nominal £1 to Adderbury Parish Council (i.e. us). That was not just a random gift, it was in mitigation for the effects of the development called Feldon Chase on the Aynho Road. Quite how a field on the Milton Road would mitigate against that particular development on the opposite side of the village, you will have ask CDC councillors and/or officials. We suspect that you will get different answers depending on who you ask.
The only full and transparent consultation on the subject of the land north of Milton Road that there has ever been was in TAP in 2013, and that was absolutely disastrous for football in Adderbury. Read about it HERE.
Despite what they say, APC has every intention of putting in football pitches. It has on numerous occasions talked about leasing the land to Adderbury Park Football Club, who, amongst other things, wants a 'match pitch'. That might be used for up to about 80 or 100 hours per year and would most certainly not be available for groups of children to go and have a kick-about, for example. Available for community uses - we don't think so!
Of course it is very convenient for those trying to push the plan through to portray the objectors as anti-football trouble makers. That is not fair and not true! We understand that all the members of the group say that if the village were to show, in a full and transparent consultation, a majority in favour of that particular plan then that is what should go ahead. However there must be a proper consultation, and there has not been one so far. That is what the Parish Poll is all about and attempting to provide.
Adderbury Parish Council and Cherwell District Council each represented to me that the Chair Person and the Vice Chair Person signed the TR1 and that it had been filed with HM Land Registry. Mrs Bratt and Mr Griffiths said it at the Council meeting on the 4 April and Mr Lane (Head of Law and Governance Cherwell District Council and South Northamptonshire Council) wrote to me stating it to be so in his e-mail to me dated 12 April 2017 timed 1214hrs.
Accordingly, I requested a copy of the TR1 filed with HM Land Registry and the copy arrived today, 19 April shortly before midday. Contrary to what each unequivocally has stated, as a matter of documentary fact the TR1 filed with HM Land Registry was evidently not even signed by the Chair Person and/or the Vice Chair Person of Adderbury Parish Council.
We understand that the two 'Statements' on this subject that have recently been posted on adderbury.org purporting to be from APC, were in fact posted without the knowledge of a significant number of councillors - let alone consulting them and allowing them to express their opinion or even vote on them. We also understand that there has been no discussion whatsoever about the clearly given promise (at the Annual Parish Meeting) to take legal advice from outside CDC, a promise that clearly has been abandoned.
A discussion yesterday evening elicited the opinion that in any normal organisation, following what has happened in the past two weeks, the three people named in that post would, by this morning, be gone.
We have been copied in to an email from Stephen Betts, who is the man who called for the Parish Poll that is to be held on the 11th May, to Adderbury News. We have permission to post it and we have reproduced it in full HERE. It is yet another opportunity for you to make up your own minds!
Most of you should have received (or be about to receive) a letter explaining the basic reasons for the Parish Poll on the 11th May. You can read the letter HERE. This is all about democracy and making sure that your opinion is heard and counted.
FACT: When the land was sold by Jeff Colegrave for £175,000 to the developers of Feldon Chase on the Aynho Road, the legal requirement (the S106 document HERE - see clause 9.1) stated that it was to be used only for ‘sports and community uses’.
FACT: The only football shortages in this area is for players who want to play club football. During the last so-called Leisure Survey, Charlton and District Football Club had fliers around Adderbury to try and entice junior players to their club. Obviously, there is real surplus of players in this area – NOT!
FACT: The entrance to the site of the land north of Milton Road is further (1.0 miles) from the centre of Adderbury (the Green), than the entrance to the new site on the A4260 for Banbury United Football Club which is 0.9 miles.
FACT: There has never been an accurate and democratically arrived at survey or opinion poll result that shows that the majority of the village want football pitches in preference to other options, let alone pitches that are specifically not for community use. See the history of those attempts HERE. Don't let them fool you!
FACT: The best estimate for the cost of the proposal that is being forced through is £805,000. That is not a misprint, the figures are from Sport England, who do have a bit of experience in these matters. See HERE.
FACT: Whatever is finally decided, the costs will, one way or another, be borne by us. In the case of the football pitches plan that will amount to about £450 per household. Not some households – ALL households!
The whole village needs to read THIS. It is a call to action! Something must be done before it is too late! A very small number of people are trying to force unwanted facilities with very high expenditure onto Adderbury.
Enough is enough We feel that sometimes it is necessary to try to ignore the lack of democracy in Adderbury and the attempts to foist unwanted facilities onto the village and to try and look at the underlying reasons why we are in the place that we now find ourselves. HERE is an excerpt from a very readable 'blog' that encapsulates the current urban planning environment. It is worth noting that it paints a very negative picture without even mentioning the adverse effects of apparent 'connections' (business and financial) between landowners, developers and consultants and various councils and councillors. It would appear that conflicts of interest only apply to certain people, and that does not include us!
Is there censorship on adderbury.org? After a report on the result of the election, a comment, that might have been considered to be adverse, was left. Perhaps unsurprisingly the comment, together with the report, were removed.
What is of greater concern is whether nor not adderbury.org is open, impartial and fair. We would suggest that if it is to continue to receive grants (£500 in 2016) from APC (i.e. us!) then it most certainly should be. The question has been asked if the election result might have been different (only 4 votes would have changed things) if they had been less biased. Further examples of concern HERE.
It is a great shame that, predictably, the old chestnut about ACAG being a pressure group is being trotted out yet again. The whole concept of members of political parties accusing other organisations of being pressure groups is, to us, laughable. Are they not the largest pressure groups in the country?
HERE is the full ACAG Constitution. We think that within those pages (particularly the Objects and Functions) ACAG provide a standard that all councillors should aspire to. It is a shame that so many do not achieve it. Have a look and decide for yourselves. We do not think that there is anything that anybody could object to.
The ANP says that Cherwell District Council acknowledge that there is no need for Adderbury to accept more houses to meet the District’s needs, so we would invite Mr. Mitchell to reverse his views and to join the rest of the community and oppose the greed of developers who would ruin our village.
Keith Mitchell is standing for election to the Adderbury Parish Council against Peter Burrows, the Chairman of the Adderbury Conservation Action Group, on Thursday 26th, January. Please make sure you excercise your vote and give at least one councillor some democratic legitimacy.
A parish councillor has written to APC and Cherwell District Council to ask why the new housing development on Milton Road is being built in red brick when it stands next to stone built listed buildings in a conservation area. Read the email HERE. The once picturesque approach to the village stands to be ruined by the inappropriate use of building materials, not in keeping with the surrounding area and we must agree that the planners need to justify their decision or admit that this was a mistake and put it right.
It seems that Mr. Mitchell cannot have been aware of the wholly inappropriate choice of building material, which certainly isn't "in keeping with our fine architecture" when he spoke. Maybe he sides with the developers on this matter!
So Mr. Mitchell, will you be true to your words? Will you publicly condemn what many in the community are already calling an atrocious decision? Will you back the call to see the choice of building material replaced with something more suitable?
Adderbury has had too much development, too quickly in recent years, and as this current situation shows, not all of the development is of the high quality that Mr Mitchell claims it to be. We would urge you, the voter, to think about this when you vote on Thursday.
An article has appeared on another website making much of the fact that one of the candidates in the forthcoming election for parish councillor, Peter Burrows, made no response to a list of questions allegedly given to him by a self-styled “journalist”. Indeed, making the point six times in one article that no response was received might seem excessive to some. It might even seem like bullying!
We do not know why Mr. Burrows chose not to answer the questions. Perhaps he did not feel the need to respond to a “news” website whose previous articles on the election have all the appearance of thinly veiled campaign literature for his opponent.
"BLUNT, outspoken, and unashamedly politically incorrect, Keith Mitchell has never shied away from making enemies. Even yesterday, he refused to speak to the Oxford Mail after yesterday’s front page summarised his decision to quit with the headline “I Quit”.
Second, the cost of the election will pale into insignificance compared to the approximate £450 per household that could be the cost of the football pitches and changing facilities that are intended for the land north of Milton Road.
In the past this situation has been dealt with by co-opting applicants. There has been increasing dissatisfaction with the co-opt process. It often seems to have been used merely to strengthen various voting blocks. The decisions are made purely by the voting of the sitting councillors, usually without any reference at all to the parish or the parishioners. This process also seems to be skewed by the extra vote that the Chair frequently uses.
The co-opting process has been used even when there were more candidates than vacancies. It was just the choice of the sitting councillors. It did not matter what you, the parishioners, might want or need. As far as we are aware, you were never consulted.
A number of concerned residents, including some existing councillors, recently signed a letter requesting that in the event of there being more than one candidate for the current vacancy that a proper election should be held. On this occasion there were enough signatories to make an election a legal necessity.
Therefore there will be an election on the 26th January between two candidates. They are Peter Burrows, Chairman of A.C.A.G. (Adderbury Conservation Action Group), and Keith Mitchell, a former local politician.
Whilst we do have a preference between the two candidates, we urge everybody to vote for the candidate that they prefer. Wouldn't it be wonderful if, for a change, we could give democratic legitimacy to a parish councillor?
We need to hope that we can get a larger turn out than the pitiful 15% that voted for our current district councillor, and certainly hope to get more than the miserable response to that farcical so-called leisure consultation last year.
Previously we said that we were not commenting at that time on the consultation and questionnaire about leisure facilities in the village. We have now had the time to consider the issues and consult with various authorities and we are now happy to give our reservations. We did state most of these reservations at the APC meeting. HERE is our statement and you can also hear it at 11 minutes and 20 seconds on the voice recording HERE. You will also hear some responses from the Chair of APC. They boil down to the fact that she thinks that we should trust them! The behaviour over the past year or so does not give us the confidence to do that, and in this particular case if the whole business had been conducted with less confidentiality and secrecy, then her pleas might have been more acceptable. Trust must be earned and we do not think that they have earned it.
Notwithstanding all this, still think that it is very important that as many Adderbury villagers as possible complete the questionnaire. It is vital that it is not left to people from outside the village to influence the decisions. This is an Adderbury thing!!
HERE is a link to a page that gives more details of our reservations. You may have heard that we gave notice at the APC meeting that we were considering doing our own questionnaire. We are still considering that. We are also considering writing to the Inspectorate to inform him about the way things have been conducted in order to check that the procedures adopted are acceptable to them. Our information is that in other parts of the country some of the things that have happened here would be regarded as completely unacceptable.
At last we have got hold of a copy of the questionnaire. It is HERE. At this stage we do not wish to comment on its validity, but it is vital that as many residents of Adderbury as possible complete and return this questionnaire. Whilst it is possible to complete it on adderbury.org, there will be many who do not like giving their details to independent servers. There will also be those who do not use the internet or are unfamiliar with its use. If you know anybody who is in that situation or who has those reservations, then please print out the questionnaire, give it to them and let them fill it in. If we can assist with this, then please let us know. We understand that there is also an adequate supply of the questionnaire available at the village library in Church House.
We must all make sure that the ANP reflects the preferences of the majority of Adderbury residents. Do not let people with other agendas, or even people from outside the village, force their wishes on to Adderbury!
We were hoping to write a short review of the APC meeting on Tuesday 13th, but there seem to be a lot of people on Facebook accusing us of things that we have not done and they need to be addressed. You can see our response to those comments HERE. Hopefully, tomorrow we can put up the details of the APC meeting
Following the APC meeting, there were a number of discussions which included a couple about the leaflet in the previous item. Just to make the situation clear. This campaign did NOT write the leaflet and neither did we distribute it. We were asked to provide an online reference point for the points that were made in the leaflet and we agreed to do this. It is, after all, just providing information. In order for it to make sense and be usable we also posted the leaflet itself. Because we did not have same constraints as the writer(s), we took the opportunity to make some very minor changes like spacing it out a bit more. As far as the distribution is concerned, one of our team is part (note the word part!) of a distribution network that covers the whole village. And, as usual, he did his bit! He thinks that he distributed about 130 leaflets out of a total of over 1000. But hey, as we have now said elsewhere, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
The unseemly rush to get the latest version of the Adderbury Neighbourhood Plan (ANP) approved and submitted is under way. As we thought, you are not really going to be told all that is going on and you are certainly not going to be given enough time to come to a valued judgement as to how you want the ANP to look, or how you can satisfactorily express your views. Shortly a leaflet will be distributed around the village which will, we hope, indicate what the real issues are and should help you to ask the relevant questions that will assist you in making your own judgement. That leaflet is HERE and there will also be links to the evidence base that will back up our comments. We are not trying to lead you to a decision in the same way that the so-called Working Group are doing, but just to give you as much information as we can so that you can make up your own minds.
It has been brought to our attention that there have been some mutterings about the letter (see NEWS: 30th July,2016 below) that was written by some councillors to the Planning Committee at Cherwell District Council that was critical of the actions of other councillors. See our further analysis HERE.
At last we have time to reflect on the last APC meeting of the 26th July 2016. So, with our apologies for the delay, our reflections are HERE. Links to the sound recording that were made of the meeting are included.
We have just heard that one of our District Councillors, Nigel Randall, has resigned from Cherwell District Council and from the Conservative Party. His email that gives his reasons, is HERE. The reasons given in that email are not quite the same as he gave on adderbury.org HERE. The gist was the same but a little less pointed.
At last! HERE is a copy of a letter that has been sent by a group of Parish Councillors to the Cherwell District Council (CDC), the Chair of CDC Planning Committee and every member of that Planning Committee. They are distancing themselves from the actions of a few other Councillors. Put into the public domain last week, and posted here for you to make up your own minds. Remember, the planning application (HERE) referred to in this letter was all about undermining the Settlement Boundary!
Do not be fooled! You may have noticed recently a fair bit of talk about Sports and Leisure Facilities for the land north of Milton Road that is due to be transferred to Adderbury Parish Council. The real intention is for football pitches and for football pitches only. There is no intention to provide what you and I might call sports facilities and the people trying to push this agenda are being deliberately disingenuous. They cannot get village support for more football pitches. They have tried three times in the past ten years and every single time they were unable to get enough support. Watch out for an attempt to slip this into the so-called Neighbourhood Plan, hoping that you will not notice!
Now that we are fast approaching the next APC meeting on Tuesday 26th July, we would like to look back at the extraordinary and outrageous happenings and behaviour of the last meeting on the 28th June and make a few comments.
Twyford - be afraid, be very afraid! Common sense tells us that building on land north of Twyford Road, which was opposed by 87% of the respondents to the village questionnaire (TAP), will still be under consideration. The wishes of the residents of Adderbury increasingly have little or no relevance, even when they have expressed clear wishes on a number of occasions. Beware secrecy and/or confidentiality! That is the way that personal and business agendas can and will be surreptitiously inserted into the Neighbourhood Plan. We suspect that that is already happening NOW! Without any positive Village Separation Policy being firmly put into the Neighbourhood Plan there are still plans to join Twyford (Adderbury) to Bodicote. Remember that once the Banbury Football Club is built on the field to the south of the Rugby Club there will only be one field on that side of the road remaining between the two villages. Now that the Banner/Bratt combo has got its planning permission for their second development at Cotefield Farm, there will only be two fields between the villages on the western side of the A4206 Of course the long term aim is probably to extend Banbury. You may, or may not, be aware of the fact that Longford Park was recently told that it was no longer in Bodicote but was now in Banbury. We wonder how many people who bought on Longford Park were made aware of that in advance of their purchase. Another portion of Bodicote was 'moved' into Banbury at the same time. Here is a question for you. How many affected residents do you think were asked about these changes? No prizes for the correct answer!
You may have noticed recent references to a Grievance Process. We were indirectly involved in this and were asked (twice!) not to report the proceedings to you because the matter should be treated in secret. And we did not. The process is now over and we have decided that because it was a matter that involved behaviour in a public meeting, and one that we consider has been handled in a very unjust and unfair manner, we are now going to publish our opinions. Everything that the Adderbury Parish Council does is in your name. It should be representing the Parish and not individuals and/or their interests and personal agendas. We would add that if anybody thinks that we have got this wrong, or has any evidence that contradicts what we have said, then please get in touch, and if necessary we will make a correction. Our report is HERE. That link has now been enabled again. We have waited three weeks to get confirmation of the basis for the objection to our piece, but it has not been forthcoming!
What is happening on adderbury.org? A few days ago there was an item about a meeting of the Parish Council Staffing Group, which was to have been held last night, that the public were not going to be allowed to watch. We tried a number of times to make a comment about even more secrecy surrounding APC, but the site would not accept them. Now - this morning the whole item has been deleted!
What could this meeting have been about? Surely the Clerk is the only member of staff that we currently have? Who is on the Staffing Group? There is no mention of it on the APC website. Could this be connected with the 'grievance' that we have heard so much about?
In response to the suggestion that we are being censored, our reply is that in this modern media age it is not called censoring, it is called blocking. We understand that we are blocked from a number of local sites, which is proof that 'they' are running scared. As Cpl.Jones was wont to say in 'Dad's Army'; "They don't like it up'em!"
Please take a moment to reflect on the fact that all 180 houses that have been granted planning permission in Adderbury are on agricultural greenfield land. Here is a link to a recent Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) leaflet that explains why the planning system as operated at the moment is 'not fit for purpose'! HERE. Please take a few minutes to read this as it gives a good idea as to how and why there are such opportunities for what we would consider to be dodgy connections and deals. If you want examples of this, then just look around this site.
Full A.C.A.G. Constitution HERE. See if there is anything in there that could cause any problems for anybody. Of course it might cause a problem for those amongst us who do not like the idea of representation of the wishes of the parishioners.
At the Cherwell District Council Planning Committee meeting the latest application to build a house on land west of Horn Hill Road (16/00619/F) was rejected as was the extremely similar application last year. See the details HERE. Some seriously interesting things happened.
Due to valuable work by NNGO, the final date for replies to the public consultation on the county's forced economic plan has been extended until the 27th May. The reason for the postponement was the fact that OxLEP (unaccountable, unelected, private limited company) had made important unannounced changes to their documentation. See details HERE.
We really need everybody to give their opinions so that we can hopefully end up with an Oxfordshire that is the way that the majority want. The more people who give their answers and opinions, the greater the chance of affecting the outcome.
The first meeting of the new revised Adderbury Parish Council was held last night and we feel that the signs are very encouraging. Read our impressions HERE. We also have some comments about a couple of issues that came up during the meeting HERE.
We have just noticed a new Adderbury website. www.adderburynews.co.uk. We would like to welcome them to the local scene. They seem to be much more news based than we are, but they obviously intend covering the same things that we do although their spin on things seems a bit different to ours. Good luck to them.
We must, however, point out to them that the planning application referred to below, 16/00619/F, is due to be considered by Cherwell on the 9th June. That information was known a while ago and so there was no need to call an Extraordinary Council Meeting to rush through an APC decision. See below.
Excellent coverage of the ROAR Rally last Saturday in the Oxford Times. See a picture of the coverage HERE. We are not sure that you will be able to read much of it, but you will certainly be able to see how succesfull we all were in Woodstock that day.
An Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting was held today. Called with the minimum required notice and held the day before the Council was due to change. We can only speculate on the reasons for the undue haste. See our report on the meeting HERE.
Unanimous rejection at Cherwell Disctrict Council Planning Committee for the Rosconn/Stilgoe planned development south of Milton Road 15/02359/OUT Their last development (Adderbury Field) was rejected but eventually passed on appeal, so we can expect this also to go to appeal. In our favour is that at long last CDC got their 5-year Land Plan in place, so the main reason for allowing the last appeal no longer exists. Fingers crossed!
The Oxford Times. There was good coverage on the front page of the Oxford Times about Alan Wenban-Smith's 'local needs' research on the SHMA, and also a leader column. Here is a link to the online version. It is not quite the same as the published version because it includes a lot about the campaign against a development in Woodstock. The link is HERE
HERE is a letter from NNGO written by Peter Jay and Alan Lodwick that has been sent to the Oxford Times. We will send the letter to the Banbury Guardian. It will be interesting to see if either papers are prepared to print it. It sums up the situation perfectly and is a subject that we think everybody should be extremely angry about.
Within 24 hrs of us posting on adderbury.org, the thread about the potential development south of Milton Road by Rosconn/Stilgoe has been removed. Just in case the reason was something that we said the post is HERE. You can make up your own minds. Of course the problem might have been the comments by David Griffiths, the Deputy Chairman of the Adderbury Parish Council, to which we were responding!
Also at the APC meeting was a unanimous rejection of the Adderbury Field 2 proposed development south of Milton Road. The amazing thing about the rejection was that for once, each and every one of the councillors cited the fact that the proposed development was outside the Settlement Boundary (SB). That was their main reason for rejecting the application. Amazingly, that included councillors who consistently refuse to support the inclusion of the Settlement Boundary in the Neighbourhood Plan and who consistently vote to allow APC to be able to remove it from the Plan if it (APC) feels that it wants to. Considering the amount of pressure that had been put on to the ANP Team over the past few years to either remove or change the SB, that was staggering.