Mission Statement - Read This First

When you have finished browsing this Blog why not post a comment here or, alternatively,visit
http://ourexeter.co.uk/ to see just how far the rot extends.


I have only included this mission statement because it seems to be essential when discussing really, really, very important matters! Thanks for 'dropping by' and, hopefully, participating in, this exposure of the self-seeking organisations and individuals that infest the City of Exeter, Devon. This Blog has been created to detail some of my experiences since I have become a resident of this City and involved in a wide variety of community issues.

Much of the focus here is on the actions of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and their representatives, specifically Christine Fraser's, disgraceful and unacceptable behaviour, and relates to this organisation taking control of the local Community Centre and, effectively, converting it into little more than a Business Centre. The Community Centre, currently valued at about £500,000, has been 'gifted' by Devon County Council to the newly formed Exeter Community Centre Trust, plus an additional £200,000 to renovate the 'shell' of the building. Funding of £1.2M is to be provided by the Community Builders funding provider for the refurbishment of the interior. Other costs have been incurred by Devon County Council (the Taxpayer) in relation to the Community Centre and these will be included in due course. (EDIT: Estimated costs to Devon County Council, the taxpayer, range from £30-50,000, possibly higher).

The actions/inactions of Exeter Parks Watch also get the occasional mention!

This is a 'no holds barred' site but, difficult though it may be, please try and refrain from the use of foul language. I will also be highlighting the 'Orwell Factor'.
I have derived the Blog name from 'Cerberus', the 3-headed dog that guards the gate to Hades and George Orwell's book '1984'. If you Google these references, individually, you will see the obvious relevance.I welcome any reponse, particularly from named individuals and organisations, and the poor unfortunates that have had the misfortune to try and deal with them.

If the experiences of myself, and the community in which I live, are not to be repeated elsewhere, it is essential that a procedure be implemented whereby concerns such as those detailed below can be dealt with effectively and efficiently. It is obvious that a serious review of co-operation between communities, councils and other involved organisations is also needed to establish a fairer and more evenly spread distribution across the City of services and funding. Focusing on 'flagship' projects, at the expense of those viewed as less 'worthy', is unacceptable.

There are many people in Exeter that work very hard to increase community involvement, both inside and outside official organisations, and these I salute for their continued dedication. It is regrettable that the attitudes of some others, and their preference to ignore anyone that raises concerns, in the hope that they will give up and go away, is both arrogant and counter-productive.

I hope that 2010 will be the year that their negativity will change. It's time to 'walk the walk' not just 'talk the talk' regarding greater community/council co-operation.

An apology. Unfortunately, Blogger.com have introduced a problematic pagination presentation within their systems. As a result you, the reader, are unable to scroll to the bottom of this page and progress up through the posts as they have been entered. To date there are about 70 posts. To gain a better 'overview' of my experiences it is recommended that you, a)use the Blog archive on the right of the page,click on 2009, or, b) start at the bottom post on this page, click the 'older posts' link to take you take you back to the very first post, and 'work your way up'. It may be necessary when you reach the top of each subsequent page to scroll down to the bottom again and click on the 'newer posts' link.
This will enable you to share in my 'joys' of community involvement.

Please feel free to share this site with anyone that you think may be interested.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

'A Friend'....

....has contacted me by mail from elsewhere in Exeter.
I would like to thank them for the brief information provided and will look a little deeper into the questions that it raises. Edited and further information added 23.55 today, highlighted in blue - You are correct re your comments relating to the person that you name. Given the company that this person is keeping I cannot help but view their involvement with cynicism, particularly as their current 'companys' actions are causing a great many problems to others.

For now -  Collecting 'Positions' and 'Important Sounding Job Titles' is viewed by some as an essential  part of community involvement, frequently creating/projecting a false impression of their true aims.  These roles and titles are displayed and compared like bizarre 'banners of success'.  "What? You didn't attend XYZ course/ seminar/pointless meeting that went absolutely b****y nowhere, again?  How can you possibly imagine that anyone will ever take you seriously if you don't attend a(nother) course, go to a(nother) meeting, get a(nother) certificate, pick up a(nother) environmentally friendly bag full of 'self-congratulatory, didn't we do well by our community' nonsense".  Not forgetting, of course, a(nother) crucial Title and/or Position! 
I've been there, done that and been given the Tshirts, mugs, pens, books, very expensive glossy handouts.  You name it and, within reason,  I've probably been given it, including all-expenses paid trips, funded by the taxpayers, to various parts of the UK ( the Seychelles would have been better, perhaps I should have 'hung on in there', I'm sure it's only a matter of time!).  Please forgive my rant, I have finally reached the point that it has been leading up to.

I  participated in this 'community circus', as many others have and do, naively believing that it would really make a difference in my community. These days I am much more selective which events I attend.  It soon became clear that there exists an unsavoury element of participants everywhere that use their so called 'community involvement' for personal gain and nothing more.  What is truly shocking (or is this yet more naivety on my part?) is the range of individuals and organisations for whom self-interest is their only focus, with the occasional 'crumb of largesse' served up to perpetuate the illusion that they really give a damn about the communities they profess to represent, and it is by no means limited to the voluntary sector. 
Rant definitely over :-).
Please note: You can contact me by leaving a comment on this Blog.   No comments are added to the Blog without my authorisation, nobody else can view them.  Your privacy is guaranteed and any information will be treated in the strictest confidence.  Alternatively, you may wish to write again or email me.  I understand your wish for anonymity and this will be respected.
Less ranting next time, I promise!

I Never Really Believed it

Extract from the Mission Statement -

"I hope that 2010 will be the year that their negativity will change. It's time to 'walk the walk' not just 'talk the talk' regarding greater community/council co-operation".

I hoped in vain, it's September now and still nothing changes.  Election on Thursday for City Councillors, I can barely contain my excitement.

Just popped in.......

.......to say Hi! and let you know that although there hasn't been a post here for quite some time, there is plenty stuff going on elsewhere and all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Regards

It Would Seem That The River....

.... of discontent that runs through Exeter is deeper and murkier than even I had thought possible.
I believed that I had achieved a personal peak of cynicism, that I and many others, generally without their even realising it, have spent years cultivating. However, a brief chat with a few fellow peasants (residents) of this Devonian 'Jewel in the Crown', have empowered me to attain even greater heights of scepticism.

It has become clear that much of what ails this City can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of 'authority' and the self-seeking individuals and organisations that they have, and continue to, support, in the mistaken belief that 'they all knew what was best' for the people of this city. Yes, the people, remember them? Or have you all lost sight of the them as you climb your way up the greasy pole of self-interest?

A Voice In The Wilderness? Apparently, Not For Much Longer!

I have been contacted by a small group that describe themselves collectively, and with no small degree of understatement, as 'The Disenchanted', with a view to their using some of the posts included in this Blog. Not exactly a 'groundswell' but more a ripple, but then isn't that how a tsunami starts, with a ripple?

My experiences with a wide range of organisations and individuals across Exeter specifically, and the UK generally, have been a revelation, most of which haven't yet been touched upon by this Blog. Clearly, my own experiences are/have been mirrored elsewhere across the City and the UK. Perhaps now is the time to expand the remit.

More Christine Fraser Lies or, to be precise, Recycling of Old Ones

Recent Comment from Christine Fraser to Cornerstone tenant + my responses in blue.

"Your Housing Association (Cornerstone), by the way, is the same one which failed to act effectively over a similar situation in Looe Road a couple of years ago - the drugs family was finally evicted." The eviction referred to was not drugs related and was as a result of other anti-social behaviour. Still, not to worry Christine, you have never been one to let the true facts interfere with your perception of reality, have you.

"but people's lives had been made miserable for 2 years! When we found out, we started to look into it AND managed to get a meeting with Rick Williamson (Chief Executive of the housing association)". Christine, is there no end to the crap that you continue to spout to inflate your ego and feelings of self-importance? Your comments might gain a little credibility (but, given your penchant for lying, I doubt it) if you could at least manage to get the name of Cornerstone's CEO correct. Big deal, you had a meeting with the CEO of Cornerstone. For what it's worth, so have I but, unlike you, I don't feel the need to try and impress people with it. What you failed to mention is the fact that you were informed that the Looe Road eviction was none of your business and, effectively, 'keep your snout out of it'.

It took us (and I'm on Exeter Parks Watch, too) Odd point to make, this one. Given some of the other posts on this blog re Exeter Parks Watch, and your involvement with this 'organisation', you somehow believe that mentioning this is a positive, the council, the police (super) and eventually the housing association to resolve the matter. Presumably, constantly telling yourself, and others, this will somehow make it true. It isn't, you were not instrumental in this eviction. But this won't do. OK, so I managed to get a £1,000 community

award (Bless your generosity of spirit) for the resident who had taken a lead in that battle but that was no compensation for what everyone had been through. Tsk! Tsk! Christine, yet more recycled lies and misrepresentations of the real world and actual events. The £1,000 community award had nothing to do with this eviction. Of course, lying has become a natural part of your rather charmless persona. What you forget is the fact that you need , as is included in the Mythomania post, a good memory to satisfactorily perpetuate your distorted view of reality.

'Community' Meeting

I attended a community meeting at which Susan Lawrence, Chair of Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) and St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership p(m)uppet/automaton, focused on her main mission in life and, ignoring contributions from others present, attempted to raise the profile of herself and EPW.
Also present at this meeting were husband and wife committee members of a community centre based in a different part of the City to my own. This lovely couple, that have freely devoted many years of voluntary service to 'their' community centre, were expressing concerns re difficulties they may have in paying fuel bills that had arisen due to the prolonged Winter/cold weather. Despite the unanticipated 'cold snap', they had continued to provide the regular bingo etc. sessions for their elderly community and were worried about how they would pay the inevitable additional costs of heating provision.
Not to worry - I'm sure that that they were reassured to hear from Susan Lawrence that EPW had, in their infinite wisdom, raised and spent £50,000 of funding to purchase two (oak?) trees that were used in the creation of a shelter and bench, by the local youngsters, in Heavitree Park.
All very commendable, but....

Susan, your lack of tact and diplomacy is already well documented but, not to worry, I'm sure that you believe that informing this couple, struggling to make ends meet, were absolutely thrilled to hear of this £50,000 expenditure. Sadly, I think that you really believe that informing this genuinely caring couple of this use (waste, some would say) of money was something to be proud of. It isn't.
As per the norm for Exeter, it's more about personal ambition than sensible application.

The Gang of Three

Below is listed the Board of Trustees for Exeter Community Centre as registered with the Charity Commission.

MRS KATHARINE CHANT
MRS PENELOPE DODD
MRS SUSAN ERRINGTON
MS CHRISTINE FRASER*
MR KELVIN LACY*
MSHANNAH REYNOLDS FRSA*
MR ROBERT CORAM

How reassuring to note (not) that the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership 'Gang of Three *) are included. I see that Mr.Robert Coram is also listed. It is no doubt a pure coincidence that Mr.Coram is 'part of' Michelmores the solicitors that issued threats of legal action against me if I continued my exposure of the actions of SDNP and their representatives.
I understand that a Councillor is to be added to the Board of Trustees. Given the amount of support extended to SDNP by Phil and Stella Brock surely one, or both of these Councillors should be given first refusal?

Freedom of Information Request - The results are in

But I'm not posting them yet.

Beware Pestilence and Other Things Godly.

Planning response to provision of Community Facility is below.  I have added my own comments, in blue.

Council Automaton Response Begins -
Whilst the Planning Service would generally support the provision of new community facilities, I have a number of concerns regarding the proposals by Mr.XXX Wow! This is totally unexpected and comes as a complete shock

Government policy and the Council's Local Plan, against which planning
applications must be determined, both require that development achieve a
context with appropriate materials. A 'portacabin' style building will
not achieve this objective, no matter what the finish. Councils usually
only approve portacabin style buildings for temporary periods pending
more permanent arrangements (Clearly, using them at schools for many years, decades in some cases, doesn't count!) A portacabin is also unlikely to provide
high quality facilities in terms of toilets, services and disabled
access. (The proposed toilet facility fully complies with all Disability requirements. I'm sure that Portakabin would not be particularly impressed with the comment that their units are "unlikely to provide high quality facilities in terms of toilets, services and disabled
access." This is precisely what Portakabin produce.

A location on the Looe Road play area would also be likely to conflict
with local plan policies regarding the loss of open space. In view of
these concerns , it would be difficult to overcome these objections.
While the small site on Looe Road by the sub station is more prominent
in the street scene so I would be more concerned about design, it would
not lead to an objection regarding loss of open space.

The Council would require a flood risk assessment to accompany any
application. This area is likely to be at greater than 1 in 100 per
annum risk of flooding. (Not only a possible 1 in 100 risk of flooding, but have Planning seriously considered possible invasion of locusts, boils, frogs, death of all first-born, darkness etc. It wasn't all pyramids and palm trees in Egypt!). A community centre would be a sensitive use.
The Environment Agency would normally expect a 'sequential approach'
based upon finding a site that is not subject to a 1 in 100 flood risk. (Note the not so subtle shift/sharing of responsibility here?)
A portacabin may be more susceptible to flood risk than a permanent
building. I would normally urge Members to be very cautious about
overriding any Environment Agency objection. (The proposed Portakabin shell is of metal construction and, as a result, would suffer considerably less damage from flooding than a conventional brick/block structure. Perhaps if Planning had taken a few minutes to read the specification that I sent to them they would have been aware of this.)

In conclusion, I would not feel able to recommend planning permission be
granted for a project as Mr XXXXX currently envisages. It remains open
to Mr XXXXX to make a planning application if he wishes and,(swell the coffers of ECC's Planning Department) if there
is any Member support, those Members are entitled to ask that the
application be considered by Planning Committee and not be determined
under delegated powers.
It would seem that ECC Planning Department's view of the 'unsuitability of Portakabin type structures' doesn't extend to the proliferation of 'timber frame' type student accommodation that is overwhelming parts of Exeter. Effectively, these student 'battery houses' are little more than Portakabins type structures constructed/stacked on top of each other.
It is also difficult to grasp Planning's concept/interpretation of "local plan policies regarding the loss of open space". Whilst being used as an argument against my proposal, the much larger 'loss of open space' relating to a recent planning consultation, regarding the construction of houses/flats to the rear of homes in Newport Road, Countess Wear (and no doubt other sites) , seems not to be an issue.
It would appear that ECC's Planning Department are happy to apply the rules as best suits their own agenda.

Urban Myth? You Decide

Extract from ‘Communities and Local Government Website'

I have added my own comment at the end of this post.

About Communities and Neighbourhoods

We are working to help people and local organisations create strong, attractive and economically thriving communities and neighbourhoods.

Our aim is to ensure that they are given all the support they need to make the best of their communities and overcome their own difficulties. These are problems like community conflict, extremism, deprivation and disadvantage. We want to make sure communities are equipped to respond to challenging economic, social and cultural trends.

We have a number of initiatives to help us achieve this. In this section you can find out more about:

• Neighbourhood Renewal which aims to improve the quality of life of people in the most deprived areas to ensure that no-one is disadvantaged by where they live
• Creating Cleaner, Safer and Greener communities by improving the way we plan, design, manage and maintain our public open spaces and buildings
• Community Empowerment which is about giving people and communities more of a say on the services they receive and where they live

Bulls**t.

Special Thanks to Peter.....

....for making my day. Peter works for a large organisation and, shock horror, has a sense of humour.
I won't name the organisation that Peter works for otherwise he too may become the focus of legal bullying/intimidation and anonymous attempts to discredit him.

I Think That It's Time To 'Up the Ante'....

....a little. More info re this in the next 7-10 day.

Another Freedom of Information Request....

.... is to be issued in the next 7/10 days. It will be interesting to see what response there is to this request.

The Phantom of the Doctora.... with apologies to Andrew Lloyd Webber

I have been informed this past week that the inclusion of a Doctor's Surgery in the 'Community' Centre is, well, umm... excluded for now.......... but will be given 'serious consideration in due course'. Odd, this comment, if it's true. It was my and others understanding, that the presence of a local GP facility always formed part of the main argument for funding acquisition and, presumably, was an important part of the 'robust business plan'
Of course, St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership/Exeter Community Centre Trust are best placed to confirm or deny this statement and I will be happy to post their response/clarification.

My Response to the Legal Eagles

Below is copied my email sent to Community Builders that have agreed to the provision of £1.2M of funding to Exeter Community Centre Trust. I have included some information already published on this Blog to put my response (6th Paragraph) in context.

Dear Mr.Sheath,

Copied below are extracts from documentation sent to me by solicitors representing St.David’s Neighbourhood Partnership and Exeter Community Centre Trust.

"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to Community Builders on the 26th November 2009".

"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."

"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact Community Builders immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."

"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".

As requested in the third paragraph above I am contacting you to inform you that I have no intention of ‘withdrawing these statements’ or offering SDNP an ‘unqualified apology’.
In fact, further documentation has recently come into my possession that reinforces what I have already stated.

Also, for your information, I am involved in voluntary work for Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them. To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have offered my resignation and it has been refused. I appreciate their vote of confidence.
I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. It is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.

In conclusion, the roles included at the end of this message are merely to express my commitment to community matters and do not imply these organisations support for the contents of this communication.

Kindest Regards –

Chair – Lower St.David’s Community Association
Member – Devon & Cornwall Constabulary’s Police Volunteer Programme
Home Office Community Crime Fighter
Neighbourhood Watch Office Manager for Exeter.

An Offer You Can't Refuse....Can You?

If CF/SDNP have an issue with what is posted on this Blog (and clearly they do, having threatened legal action) can I propose that we meet and discuss them further? Perhaps the Express & Echo would like to observe? Other Community Association Representatives? Who knows, such a discussion may even attract the attention of a wider media audience?

Please, disregard the first paragraph of this post. I'd momentarily forgotten that I have already given CF the opportunity to explain her actions, but she failed to attend. Sometimes it's what isn't said that speaks volumes.

Yet Another Document.....

......has come to my attention.

For now, at least, I will not be posting it on this Blog. Suffice to say, it is again breathtaking in it's lies and misrepresentation of the true facts.

Mythomaniacs

Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.

Some characteristics
1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.
2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how well-intentioned you might be, this will probably not be effective. It is threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.
3. They "construct" a reality around themselves and don't value the truth. If you question them on a lie and they are backed into a corner they will act very defensively.
4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whoever is in their favour at the moment.
5. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).

Clayton Road

The residents of a property in Clayton Road have been evicted today as a consequence of the sheer hard work and determination of the Lower St.David's Community and Devon & Cornwall Constabulary.
I was a little bemused at the presence of Christine Fraser/SDNP in the Magistrate's Court during the proceedings.
Not wishing to make any assumptions, of course, but it will be interesting to see (as we inevitably will) CF/SDNP's 'slant' on things.
Pure conjecture on my part, but will this be yet another 'success' attributed to CFs/SDNPs 'input' into something that, well, umm.. their input was actually nil?
Heaven forbid that the considerable hard work of our community could reach a satisfactory conclusion without the 'last minute' (as usual) intervention of CF/SDNP.

Street Representatives

Due to the wide variety of issues that need addressing within our community Lower St.David's Community Association are forming a local group of 'Street Reps' to act as the voice of the residents within their own street/road.
The concept is that each street will have its own representatives(s) that will have the opportunity to express their views and concerns, and those of their neighbours, to LSDCA and relevant organisations.
It is anticipated that the valuable contribution made by street reps will enable our community to push forward some much needed changes and improvements.

How Low Can 'Someone' Go?

Very low, apparently.
I am involved in voluntary work for a very large organisation and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them.
To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have, this week, offered my resignation and, thankfully, it has not been accepted. I appreciate their vote of confidence.

I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. However, it is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.

What Next? Pistols at Dawn?

Because of 'incidents' that have occurred this week I have decided that today, 27th January, 2010, I would set out a few details of SDNP's attempt to gag my exposure of their disgraceful behaviour. It is clear, both from what is detailed in this Post, and (possibly) other more recent events, that there really are no depths to which SDNP will not stoop in trying to intimidate and discredit me and salvage some degree of credibility for themselves. It perhaps should be noted that SDNP have acquired £1.2 million of funding from the provider referred to below in this Post and this may go some way towards explaining SDNP's 'lack of enthusiasm' for any exposure.

Firstly - an email that I sent to a prospective SDNP funding provider on 26th November,2009.

I am contacting you to express my, and others, ongoing concerns regarding the suitability of SDNP’s involvement in the control of this community facility.
SDNP representatives as potential, if not already existing, ‘trustees’, have shown themselves to be both devious and untrustworthy in the way that they operate and misrepresent themselves as a ‘community’ association.

Whilst I have no doubt that the Community Centre is a valuable local asset, the actions of SDNP and their associates raises serious doubts re their motives.

If required, documentary evidence and personal testimony from other residents can be provided to support my argument.

Secondly - Extracts from a letter sent to me by legal representatives of SDNP. I have ommitted some of the usual verbal diarrhoea normally associated with such documents but would like to reassure you, the reader, that this in no way detracts from its contents.

"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to (Funding Providers) on the 26th November 2009" (copied above in this Post).

"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."

"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact (Funding Provider) immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."

"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".

You can draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why SDNP have chosen to take this course of action. If, as I recommended in the Mission Statement at the top of this Blog, you have read the previous posts starting at the bottom, you will perhaps understand why I have taken my course of action.
"Substantial damages"? What about the damages to recompense our community as a result of your clients actions? It would be an interesting exchange of opinions.

'Communities First'

Exeter Parks Watch and SDNP represented at Exeter City Council’s Communities First Day (2nd meeting) at St.James's Park (Exeter City Football Club HQ).
Leader of Council asks for update and progress report and congratulates community and Parks Department for their efforts (Mmm.. Interesting comment. At one stage the Communities First Day (2nd Meeting) seemed to be more like the ‘EPW/SDNP Roadshow’.

Christine Fraser invited me to attend this event. My understanding was that this event would provide an opportunity for me to participate in a various 'skill-building' workshops, which is why I attended, and also to 'compare notes/battle scars!' with other community groups.
I attended a workshop, run by Exeter Community Initiative, that offered specific information that I believed would be particularly beneficial to my own community.
I had missed the obvious fact, apparently, that my presence had been "expected to contribute to the promotion of EPW and SDNP". I received considerable criticism from CF for “failing to support EPW and SDNP”.
I can only aplogise to all concerned for my total stupidity in believing that my participation in this event was for the benefit my own immediate community, and not merely to promote and massage the egos of EPW and SDNP.

Bridge and Bell Courts - Exe Street - St.David's

I have been approached, as Chair of LSDCA, by Devon and Cornwall Housing Association (DCHA), enquiring if our community association would be prepared to be involved in various proposed improvements to Bridge and Bell Courts.
Previously, DCHA had attended several SDNP meetings endeavouring to enlist their support in this project, and each time SDNP had refused to be involved. DCHA gave up trying because, as one DCHA representative commented, ”With SDNP, it’s not what they can do for you, but what you can do for them”. SDNP are always complaining re various drink and drug incidents relating to Bridge and Bell Courts but, despite SDNP ‘HQ’ being only yards from these flats, refuse to offer any support to DCHA. Clearly, SDNP’s concept of ‘community’ differs to that of Lower St.David's Community Association.

Jubilee Court Funday

I contributed to the organisation of a ‘Funday’ at Jubilee and Richmond Courts in May, 2008, these are flats are within the SDNP catchment area. I, and two of the Jubilee Court residents, organised this ‘Funday’ as part of Emma Hall’s (Exeter Community Voluntary Service) ‘Speaking Up in Your Community’ project. Since the ‘Funday’, SDNP have extended their remit to include Jubilee and Richmond Courts, which is, of course, a positive step. It unfortunate that it appears to have taken my involvement with Jubilee Court to bring about something that Exeter City Council staff had been trying to do for a considerable time, but had constantly been refused by SDNP.

Oh Dear, Kelvin, and You Believed That YOUR Contribution REALLY Counted!

Hi Kelvin - You attended a meeting with Christine Fraser relating to SDNP's proposed take-over of the Community Centre. My understanding is that this meeting was with Devon County Council representatives.

Apparently, according to Christine, your contribution was 'f*****g useless'. Neeedless to say, Christine's comment was followed with appropriate apology of , "Excuse my French"! It would appear that your 'contribution' to this meeting did not fulfill the required SDNP mantra and was therefore viewed as um... 'disappointing'.

If it is any comfort, although I doubt it, I too have proved to be a 'disappointment' to the self-seeking/promotion of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership, view the 'Communities First' Post above for more information re my 'failure to please'.

To Sue Lawrence - Your valued Contribution as Perceived By Christine Fraser/SDNP

Extract from email sent to me by Christine Fraser/SDNP. This message was sent to me in response to Susan's continued failure to respond satisfactorily to my requests for specific information relating to an event within our community. I contacted Christine in order that some progress could be made, and in the hope that Christine's contact would prove more positive than my own.

“I will try to get Sue (Lawrence) to butt out - a third and unnecessary event manager!”

It would seem that even Christine Fraser's/SDNP's ‘ally’, Susan Lawrence, is not immune to CF's criticism and controlling remit.

Graffiti Wall

CF/SDNP/SL/EPW pressed very strongly for a ‘Graffiti Wall’ in our community. In spite of strong opposition from the residents (believing it could add to existing graffiti problems), it took many months to convince CF and SL that the community didn’t want it. Despite objections being raised, by various community reps and the community, it was very much a case of having to force this issue. Residents had always vigorously expressed their concerns re inclusion of a graffiti wall, but CF and SL continued discussing it as though it would be implemented. They eventually, and very reluctantly, conceded that our community didn’t want this and it was excluded from the ‘Action Plan’. Yet again CF and SL pushed ‘what was best for our community’ despite clear evidence to the contrary.

It Would Appear That,....

.... despite Exeter City Council's and Central Government's continuing 'mantra' of greater 'community participation', the reality paints a different picture. Lower St.David's Community Association have made various proposals that would make considerable positive changes/improvements to our community and every time these are rejected, based upon existing 'rules and regulations'. Wake up Exeter City Council and listen to your public, what we have to contribute is important and should be valued. Indications, so far, are not encouraging.

Community Facility - The Sequel

Given the 'knee jerk' rejection of our original proposal by ECC Planningfor the siting of a community facility in Looe Road, on land offered for free use by Cornerstone Housing, and the possibility of their providing suitable insurance cover, an alternative proposal was suggested by Lower St.David's Community Association.

Our second option was to site a mobile classroom within Looe Road Park itself, on an unused area at the Tavistock Road end of the park. These plans were considerably more ambitious than our original proposals and included a disabled toilet facility. As a Community Association we believe that the inclusion of a toilet would encourage greater community involvement, from all areas of Exeter, including St.David's Primary School.

Lower St.David's Community Association have formed a community Gardening Club and part of our remit was to create a 'veggie patch' adjacent to the proposed community facility in which the youngsters would grow their own vegetables. Water from the roof of the mobile classroom would be collected and used to water the produce. It was also our intention for the children to 'soft landscape' their new Kabin with various plants to reduce the impact on the park.

Yet again our proposals were rejected on the basis of "loss of valuable green space", by Parks, and by Planning based on , "impact on the properties that overlook the park".

Both Parks and Planning are unable, or unwilling, to accept that a survey, carried out by Lower St.David's Community Association, made it clear that 99% of the residents support our proposals, including those residents that overlook the park.

Again, LSDCA's proposals were rejected by Parks and Planning, despite the obvious benefits that the provision of a community-based facility would contribute to the future well-being of the residents within Lower St.David's.

Lower St.David's Community Facility

Mobile Classroom (The Kabin) for Community Use – Approx 7M x 3M (22ft x 10ft) - A resident has requested LSDCA to explore the possibility of a Mobile Classroom as a community facility to provide somewhere for year round indoor activities and storage for play equipment for use in the park. The Kabin would enable events to be organised throughout the Winter months.

As a result of this request we have been engaged in consultation with Cornerstone Housing, owners of social housing within our community, and they have generously offered the free use of a small piece of land that they own in Looe Road on which to site this unit, subject to further discussions. This small plot of land is currently little more than a dog's toilet and frequently used for fly-tipping. Cornerstone has also agreed to consider the possibility of including insurance cover for the Kabin within their existing arrangements.
Western Power have provided a quotation for the electricity supply.
We have also met on-site with the Crime Prevention Officer for input and their comments have been noted.
A water supply has been excluded at this stage because it is thought that the ‘ongoing’ costs cannot be justified. This decision will be open to review in the future if this project goes ahead.
Various sources of funding are being/will be explored. There is a strong possibility of Section 106 money being available to part fund this community amenity. (Section 106 funding is a financial contribution, towards local amenities, provided by a developer. In this instance, the developers of the Apollo site in Looe Road).
Preparation of suitable concrete base for the Kabin will be sought free of charge from various construction companies, Rok, Cowlin Construction etc. Alternatively, provision of materials FOC from builders’ merchants, to allow the community themselves to prepare the base, will be explored.

A community survey, carried out by LSDCA, resulted in 99% positive support for this project. The 1% that disagreed expressed concerns regarding the loss of parking spaces and the possibility of excessive noise during the evenings. A meeting with Cornerstone has confirmed that the Kabin can be installed with minimal (or probably zero) reduction in parking. Also, LSDCA will implement controls/use of the Kabin during any evening events to ensure that it has minimal/no impact on the nearby residents.


Possible uses of Mobile Classroom Include –
Childrens Toy/Book Library
Model-making
Storytelling
Film shows
Meetings
Art and Craft Workshops
Gardening Club
Environmental issues
Nature/Woodland WorkshopsBirthday Parties .
Basically, anything the community wants, within reason, we will try to organise it.

All a very worthy proposal, you may think. Unfortunately, the Planning Department disagree on the basis that it would have a 'detrimental impact on the street scene'. Mmm...I see, dogs toilet and rubbish tip replaced by a 'soft landscaped' community facility. No contest really!

Exeter City Council Parks and Planning

Below is copied an email sent by me to Paul Faulkner (Parks) and other ECC departments and individuals on 14th September, 2009. This email was distributed in response to Paul Faulkners answer to various complaints raised by a community rep re their (Parks and Plannings) lack of serious involvement in ongoing plans for the Lower St.David's community and Looe Road Park specifically. The reps email also expressed concerns re childrens safety and damage to vehicles arising from the kids cycling in the adajcent streets.
This, in my opinion, reinforces my belief that the threat of the Parks Department's withdrawal, as a consequence of CF/SDNP/SL/EPWs 'exit' from the Lower St.David's Community if I failed to 'toe the line', have become a reality.

Lower St.David's Community Association is a very proactive organisation that works very hard to improve the quality of life for all that live and work in our community.
I have included the Paul Faulkner's email below, with my additional comments in blue, to highlight LSDCA's commitment and enthusiasm for change that is clearly not shared by those that should be embracing our contribution. It appears that no matter what LSDCA do to facilitate changes and to reduce the financial impact on service providers it would appear that this counts for nothing. Despite my request for clarification of 'key ommissions', as mentioned in the email below, I have received no response to my message which merely adds weight to my argument re the lack of even basic communication and co-operation.

Further details of the 'community facility' referred to in the email below are outlined in the next Post above.

Email begins -
Hello Vince,

You sent your email to a wide audience but as manager of the Council's Parks and Open Spaces (POS) perhaps it would be useful for me to re-affirm points already made by myself and other Council officers. You commented on a number of issues, and I will try to provide a comprehensive answer to these.
Your ‘comprehensive’, if somewhat ‘politic’ responses, are noted and responded to below.
I believe that I am, literally, in a better position to comment on Looe Road Park usage than anyone. Vince’s, and many other resident’s obvious frustrations are understandable, given the frequent use of Looe/Tavistock/Clayton Roads for cycling/scooter activities and subsequent damage to vehicles and the obvious risks to the safety of local children. Perhaps if the footpaths in Looe Road Park had been improved, as has been requested for many years, this situation would not have arisen. There have already been injuries to some of the children as a result of the poor state of the park’s footpaths. It is perhaps fortunate that so far, if only from an ECC perspective, their parents have decided not to progress their complaints other than to express their dissatisfaction to LSDCA. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that parents believe that their children are safer riding cycles on the road/pavements of our community rather than using the footpaths in the park.

The football pitch and play area are both well used. Understandably, further frustration arises from the continued, and considerable, expenditure on many other parks in Exeter, something that ECC and POS are more than happy to publicise, whilst claiming ‘lack of resources’ for Looe Road Park. LSDCA’s request for ‘white lining’ of the football pitch being a prime example ( see below). LSDCA are currently exploring the possibility of a ‘Road Safety Awareness’ event for the children and hope to that our Neighbourhood Policing Team will be involved in this project.
I appreciate that Looe Road Park probably will never achieve ‘Green Flag’ status but, hey…, just for once, let’s put the well-being of our community before ‘Council Kudos’.

If Looe Road Park is not a well used park, then I have to ask what has happened following all the work put in by residents, Councillors, the police, Parkswatch and the Council (amongst others) ? Assurances were given by residents that in return for some investment, the community would be able to turn around many of the problems in the area, and the park would be the catalyst for this. This small open space was seen as a very important recreational asset for the children of the area.
Ask away! Our community are more than happy to respond. Looe Road Park always was, and continues to be, a very important asset to Lower St.David’s. LSDCA’s proposal for a community facility, albeit small, would tremendously increase the scope for further involvement by the community and also a wide variety of external/outreach organisations that have already expressed an interest. The objections raised by POS and Planning re the provision of a community facility are viewed as nothing more than both departments failure to take into account the obvious benefits and are based on outdated ideas. Yes, LSDCA’s concept for this community facility may be viewed by some as ‘radical’, but the welfare of the community has to take priority, doesn’t it? Our experiences so far re the provision of a community facility and other matters would indicate otherwise.

From your comments, it seems that unless others bodies fund and arrange events (eg Ward Cllrs, Parks, police [Chris] ), nothing happens.
I’m not entirely sure how you arrive at this conclusion from Vince’s email. However it ‘seems’, these conclusions are incorrect. Whilst funding has been provided by others, (surely this is precisely why the funding is in place?) contributions have also been made by some local businesses and members of our community, both ‘in kind’ and financially. It would be a much more positive approach if POS and Planning were to adopt a similar ‘can do’ attitude instead of rejecting our proposal based on your/their existing criteria. Here is an ideal opportunity for community and council to work together towards a positive conclusion. Your concerns expressed re ‘setting a precedent’ fails on all counts. It may also be worth pointing out that ‘considerable’ resources was available through Section 106 funding from redevelopment in St.Davids. The decision, by Planning, to allocate the full amount of £60,000 of S106 money to Bury Meadow Park in the St.James’s ward, rather than using some of this funding to improve Looe Road Park, in St.David’s, does raise questions re the decision making of how S106 money is allocated. It would seem that Exeter Parks Watch’s reassurances that Looe Road Park would receive at least part of this £60,000 was yet another ‘urban myth’.

Since Parks Watch’s withdrawal, that occurred without any community consultation, all of the ‘organisation’, has been arranged by LSDCA, despite my (since) being informed that a requirement of some of the funding granted was on the basis that the applicant (not LSDCA) were responsible for organising the specific event for which the funding was provided. The LSD community have invested considerable time and, personally, I have contributed no small amount of my own money to improving the quality of life for the youngsters within our area. It may be as well to also to remember the considerable contribution of our community when Parks Watch were involved.
The fact that some members of Parks Watch clearly had their own personal agendas, that put their own interests before that of our community, is something you and others were made aware of but chose to ignore. Perhaps this also needs to be remembered.

The planter that was installed earlier this year for local children to plant up is untended and full of weeds,
A disingenuous comment this – You may recall, but have apparently forgotten, that during our ‘informal’ discussions re this planter it was agreed that it would, as much as possible, extend to the existing footpaths to enable access by the disabled/wheel-chair bound. This was possible on three sides, the fourth side being problematic because of the presence of BT access chambers and a telegraph pole. I even provided you with a plan, including all of the dimensions to, hopefully, simplify/reduce the financial impact of, the installation process from a POS point of view. It was also agreed, between you and I, that any plant contribution by POS would allow for a 1-1.2 M ‘empty border’ within the planter for use of the children of the community. Unfortunately the planter was considerably smaller than had been ‘informally’ agreed and was subsequently filled with plants by POS, leaving insufficient space for any meaningful use by the children. It was clear that the ‘informal’ agreement was not followed and the planter was reduced in size, presumably to reduce the financial cost to POS, whilst appearing to fulfill the agreed provision of a planter. Creation of flowerbeds around the outside of the planter entirely defeated our object of enabling access/participation by anyone that may be disabled or confined to a wheelchair. Whilst the final size of the planter was not as agreed, LSDCA are grateful for this contribution. More re this (inevitably) below.

Whilst I appreciate that the planter is in need of weeding again, it should also be noted that it was weeded some weeks ago by LSDCA and some of the children of our community. Your enthusiasm to ‘nitpick’ over a few weeds in the planter, whilst footpaths are over-run with weeds, says considerably more about your attitude than that of our community. The youngsters have participated in the trimming of the grass verges where they border the footpaths. Yes, this is not yet completed but our contribution is ongoing, in fact we are in the process of organising a ‘Tidy Your Park’ event for later this month when it is hoped that trimming of the verges, and the removal of considerable quantities of weeds from the footpaths and at the base of the fencing will hopefully be completed. Also, prior to the planter being constructed, it was agreed that POS only supply the plants for planting. LSDCA were to organise the planting as part of a community event. I even offered to collect the plants myself from Bell Isle, (both of these suggestions being made to minimise the costs to ECC and as a sign of our appreciation) , and the only other contribution required from POS would be to provide some guidance re ‘spacing’. This request, like so many others, was ignored by POS and your own staff carried out the planting. The promised consultation with the community re positioning of trees also never materialised. Despite this, the trees are a welcome addition to the park. I believed at that time it would be churlish to ‘complain’ about these valued contributions by POS even though they did not fulfill the verbal/informal agreements.
It should also be noted that, despite the ‘continued monitoring’ so freely publicised by Exeter Parks Watch (and presumably POS) it has been the responsibility of LSDCA to identify and remove poisonous Belladonna plants from Looe Road Park.

the only plants in there being those the council planted as a framework. It should be noted that you, Paul, after the construction of the planter, stated that an area around the outside of the planter had been ‘left’ for the community to use as flowerbeds ( despite your previous reassurances that the planter would extend to the footpaths where possible). You also suggested the possibility of additional flowerbed(s) at the Tavistock Road end of the park and offered to advise accordingly, and this offer was appreciated. Unfortunately, due to other commitments the anticipated, and unnecessary creation of flowerbeds had your department fulfilled their agreement, have not yet materialised. A ‘seed planting’ event did take place in the park and a considerable number of local children participated and produced flowers from the seeds that they had planted. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time to prepare flowerbeds around the planter for transfer of the youngsters seedlings. Preparation of flowerbeds would , as previously stated, have been unnecessary if POS had constructed the planter to the originally agreed dimensions. If POS had fulfilled their aspect of the agreement there would have been sufficient space available within the planter for the youngsters to transfer their seedlings to.

The noticeboard (albeit a temporary one) is unused.
The notice-board has been used but, due to the lack of security (lockable access/cover), posters have frequently been removed by some of the local youths and, for this reason, LSDCA have had to depend on costly and time consuming mail shots to keep the community informed. This ‘temporary’ notice board appears to have become a ‘permanent’ fixture ( I make this assumption, perhaps incorrectly, based on the fact that POS have never contacted LSDCA re a permanent replacement. LSDCA accept some responsibility for this, having failed to contact POS re the installation of a permanent noticeboard). POS have not indicated in any way there would ever be a permanent replacement of the notice board since the departure of Parks Watch. Equally noticeable, by its absence, is the sign promised by POS for the planter. This addition to the planter was designed by one of the local children at a community event and is yet another example of community expectations being raised and subsequently ignored.

There have been a number of reports of stones and glass on the football area. Each one has been followed up and each time there has been no evidence of stones that would cause injury, and certainly no glass.
This concern was raised based on frequent comments made by qualified Football Association Coach Chris Webster re the general state of the pitch and, specifically, the area where, for many years there had been a bonfire. Given his many years of experience as a professional football coach, Chris was worried about the possibility of injury to anyone using the football area, as was LSDCA. The fact that POS found ‘no cause for concern’ would possibly be because it would have been removed by our community prior to use of the pitch. You also conveniently seem to have forgotten the contribution of our community on the day of ECC’s 2008 Bulk Collection to avoid further bonfires in the park. LSDCA produced and distributed mail shots informing our community of POS’s position on bonfires. LSDCA also organised the transfer of potential bonfire materials to the Cleansing Departments collection point in Looe Road on Bulk Collection day (an exercise that is being repeated again in 2009). As a direct result of co-operation between LSDCA’s and ECC’s Cleansing Department there have been no subsequent bonfires in Looe Road Park. It would seem that POS’s concept of ‘shared responsibility’ for Looe Road Park, as discussed between a senior officer of ECC and LSDCA, differ.

Most soils naturally contain some stone, and as grass surfaces erode these will become exposed.
We are not referring to ‘erosion of grass surfaces’, but to the area where the November 5th bonfires used to be and little or no grass grows or ever has. We were informed that this bare patch would be repaired and the simple fact is that it hasn’t been. If it had been repaired, as promised, then there would be no/minimal ongoing cause for concern.

Your comment that an unnamed source suggested the park could be closed due to a health and safety risk is another of the unfounded urban myths that seem to surround Looe Road Park. The grass is cut to the same standards as elsewhere in the City, and we have received no complaints this year apart from that in your email below. If there was an issue I would have hoped the LSDRA would know how to contact us to report this.
“we have received no complaints this year”. An interesting point this. I have been informed by another Community Association, elsewhere in Exeter, that POS made their displeasure all too clear because they (the CA) had cut the grass themselves, in preparation for a community event, after frequent requests to POS, by the CA, were refused. The CA had expressed concerns re the length of the grass in relation to possible Health and Safety issues and their (the CA’s) provision of ‘hot drinks’ at an event.

LSDCA requested ‘white lining’ of the small football pitch in Looe Road Park and were informed, by POS, that there were ‘no resources available’ to do this, but admitted that the probable cost would be “about £20.00”. I offered to pay this myself (as did Councillor Phil Brock when he became aware of the POS’s refusal) or, alternatively, borrow or hire the equipment from POS. If the latter had been acceptable, I even offered to collect the necessary equipment from Bell Isle Nursery and return it after the lining was completed. My request was refused or, more to the point if I recall correctly, my email went unanswered, so yes, LSDCA does know how to contact POS.
It is my understanding that there are ECC guidelines in place relating to the ‘response times’ for the answering of emails and that email should be treated, by ECC, the same as the normal postal service (urban myth?). Frankly, I have more productive things to do with my time than waste it on emails to POS and Planning that are either ignored or take weeks/months to receive a response. Whilst on the subject of Planning. It took many, many months to arrange a site visit by Planning to discuss the possibility of a Community facility in Lower St.David’s. It was only due to the intervention of Councillor Phil Brock that a site visit with Planning happened at all.

I have attended numerous meetings that focus on ‘improved communications’ between community and Council departments and experience no subsequent improvements in some areas. This said, I ‘salute’ ECC’s Cleansing Department staff, for both their response times to emails and requests for removal of ‘unanticipated’ waste/fly-tipping. There are a number of other ECC staff that can also be relied upon to respond to requests for the provision of services/information within a reasonable time-frame.

It is disappointing that once again the facts surrounding issues have been overlooked. Of the three main original concerns of residents, dog fouling was the top one. It was for this reason that the Council fenced the remaining grass area.
I couldn’t agree more, “that it is disappointing that once again the facts surrounding issues have been overlooked”.
Yes, dog fouling was the main concern, closely followed by the condition of the footpaths and new play equipment.
I have been informed by two St.David’s School Governors that the only reason that the fencing had been installed in Looe Road Park was to facilitate the use of the pitch by the school’s pupils because their own was unavailable due to ongoing building work. The same governors also told me that considerable pressure had been applied to POS to install the fencing in Looe Road to enable use by the school. Possibly, of course, another ‘urban myth’? Obviously, if the school want to use the pitch it is not an issue, LSDCA endeavour to work in close co-operation with St.David’s School to encourage their participation in our community events. Whatever the reason, the fencing is a substantial improvement and appreciated. The lack of use by St.David’s School may be as a result of the lack of toilet facilities. I have been informed that St.David’s School have to ‘bus’ their pupils to a suitable ‘open space/playing field’ because of the absence of satisfactory local provision. LSDCA’s proposal for a community facility includes a disabled toilet facility for precisely this reason, plus other obvious benefits.

The request for consideration of a Community Hall was sent to ECC Planning, and Tom's reply briefly but adequately explains the council's position on this. Normally residents groups wishing to make changes to open spaces have informal discussions with the POS team first, so that the scope and benefits/disadvantages of any project can be defined at the outset. Your proposal has a number of key omissions,
These are? I would appreciate a specific response detailing our ‘key omissions’. Whilst it’s possible (very likely) that certain of your protocols may have not been observed, there is no reason why these could not be fulfilled now, or possibly would have been in the past were it not for the ‘tardiness’ of response times from both POS and Planning that, inevitably, result in a reluctance by LSDCA and probably other community organisations to enter into any meaningful? dialogue with these particular ECC departments.
LSDCA’s proposal for a community facility was rejected based on current ‘mindsets/guidelines’, without giving any serious consideration to the obvious benefits, or offering any sort of compromise or constructive comment.

and also appears a fundamental about-face on the part of the community regarding the value of the open space for children. Based on the information provided, the council has little option but to respond in the manner it has.
“Based on the information provided”. There is a certain irony in this comment. For years our community have ‘provided information’ and expressed their concerns re the reluctance of POS’s ongoing and positive involvement in Looe Road Park. Suddenly, based on one email, “the council has little option but to respond in the manner it has”. Quelle surprise!
However it may ‘appear’, and ‘based on the information provided’, this is also incorrect. LSDCA have devoted a considerable amount of time and resources canvassing community opinion on the future of the park and the provision of a community facility and the feedback has been very positive. It is continually disappointing that POS/Planning apparently do not share our community’s enthusiasm for change. External organisations have also expressed an interest in using a community facility although, yet again, this interest is not apparently shared by either POS’s or Planning.

I can assure you that the Council makes it's decisions in an impartial manner taking into account the facts, and this will continue to be the case.
Both from a personal point of view, and as Chair of LSDCA, I am reassured to be informed that Council decisions will, “continue to be made on an impartial basis”. It would be very disappointing indeed to think that any previous disagreements could possibly impact on your, or other ECC departments, impartiality re decisions that affect the well-being of the Lower St.David’s Community.

In conclusion – The ‘Tidy Your Park’ event went ahead as planned, on Saturday 26th September, and the verges were trimmed and the footpaths swept and cleared of considerable quantities of weeds. The planter was also cleared of weeds. This work is not quite finished but completion is anticipated in the next 7-10 days. It is unfortunate that your operatives, having cut the grass today, preferred to ‘mow’ straight over litter rather than clear it first. This has resulted in ‘minced’ litter that could have easily been cleared prior to their work. As a result, considerable amounts of mess remain to be cleared from the park. Also, the paths that our community devoted so much time to sweeping on Saturday are now covered in grass-cuttings that will also need to be swept up. The ‘Birds of Prey’ event took place on Sunday, 27th September, and was a huge success and, as a result, LSDCA have been requested to assist with the organisation of a ‘Halloween Street Party’ for our community, an event that we are more than happy to participate in.

I have had several very positive meetings over the past few weeks that have reassured LSDCA that some are taking the council/community co-operation seriously. Unfortunately, the attitude of POS and Planning, so far, offers no similar encouragement.
I have a meeting with Home Office representatives in November at which I will be raising this, and many other, concerns.

Yours sincerely

Paul Faulkner