Niall Connolly and I (barefootreporter) have exchanged a few emails: he has expressed an opinion about the protest which I feel unqualified to comment on in any depth. While I share the concerns and motivations of the Morlands Crew, I'd prefer to assist the debate rather than participate in it.
Niall has given permission to publish the following. Responses for publication to rchisnallATgmailDOTcom. Please mark responses "for publication".
9th January 2009
I've read some of the coverage of the current Morlands situation and, speaking as an outsider, there seems to be more heat than light around the subject.
Surely SWRDA's responsibilities with regard to the development of the site will be defined by the Planning Consent for the development. The consent will have attached the various conditions with regard to what SWRDA were and were not legally obliged to do.
Does anyone have a copy of the planning consent documentation? A review of the planning consent will clarify the situation with regard to SWRDA's obligations. If SWRDA have fulfilled all aspects of the planning consent then there is no problem. If they have failed to fulfill the conditions of the consent then surely the Local Authority is obliged to impose the terms of the consent upon SWRDA.
If the current protest is based upon SWRDA's failure to fulfill the conditions and obligations of the Planning Consent then SWRDA have a case to answer. If the current protest is based upon some agenda other than that defined by the terms and conditions of the Planning Consent then the protesters may be the ones who must be held to account.
Only a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of the planning consent will clarify the situation.
Regards and best wishes.
Niall Connolly
So what do YOU think?
As I understand it the planning consent does not specify what business can go into the site, and even if it did it would still not explain why the SWRDA have repeatedly refused applications from already local comapnies employing local people and hoping to expand. The oficial reason behind the SWRDA dis-allowing Cosyfeet's entry to the site was that they did not consider the company would increase it's employee numbers and were not 'IT based' enough. Well, in the two years since this decision Cosyfeet has doubled it's work forse and 50% of their trade is web-based. Does that not say there is something dodgy about the 'guidelines' for tenenats? The SWRDA want to attract 'technology based' industry, but to entice new business into an area two things MUST be available, a local, available, skilled work force and fantastic motorway access (business studies/human geography 101). I'd like to know which of the three, narrow, pot holed roads leading into Glastonbury are considered 'fabulous motorway link' and where the SWRDA are hiding the hundreds of Glasonbury Technophiles wanting a job.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Niall's comments above, I have been unable to find a copy of the consent documents, but in October 2005 the following decision was made by two Mendip Councillors;
ReplyDelete(from here http://www.mendip.gov.uk/Article.asp?id=SX9452-A7812DE2&cat=107)
"Granting of an Option to purchase approximately 3.2 hectares of land constituting the former Baily tannery and waste heap, to the South West of England RDA . It will enable it to progress plans to develop a CHP (combined heat and power plant) as a second phase to the redevelopment of the Morland site, of which this site forms part."
It is not clear from here what the exact terms of the 'Option' were/are and there is no timescale given, but it also states;
"If the proposed CHP does not proceed, the land will revert to MDC." .... so there may be a tiny chance of getting the land back into Mendips ownership.