In response to a comment received re the Section 106 Agreement monies (see page):  whilst the £40000+ might not have been spent on Checkley Lane (although with some persuasion it might have been) it could have been spent on affordable housing in Wrinehill/Betley given that this was a stated need in the Betley neighbourhood plan.   The suggestion that information on this blog are 'potentially misleading' are some what mischievous, in my view.   I have found reading the Minutes of the Parish Council meetings can also be misleading - although they claim to be true.  This does not necessarily mean that they are accurate.  It seems that there is not only one version of the truth these days, but several.  Read everything with care.  Preferably attend meetings and get your information first hand, then make up your own mind rather than have someone else make up your mind for you and tell you what to think.     

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poppies and Cut-outs

  People might have noticed the poppies and the cut out metal figures placed in the village for Armistice Day in November.   It was suggested by Councillor Owen that metal figures be purchased and   placed on the Village Green. Poppies would be displayed through the parish on lamp posts etc. These were paid for from the Parish Council Funds (£350 for the cutouts plus 20 plastic poppies at £5 each).   At the November meeting I asked if there was a reason that no poppies had been placed in Wrinehill since the account had been paid from Parish Council funds.   I did not receive a satisfactory answer but I was accused of making a ‘complaint’ (the only person not to praise the display, it seems).   But it was not a ‘complaint’ only a question based on an observation. The upshot is that an email was sent to all Members of the Council   suggesting that as a result poppies and cut out figures would be purchased -3 sets of figures and 40 more poppies).  ...
Read more

Clarification

 It has been noted in the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2024 Minute 5 a statement made about this blog 'by a member of the parish council'- 'that  any comments submitted to the author of the blog which questioned the factual accuracy of the contents of its reports were ignored and not published'.  This is an assumption (yet another) not a fact.   It also seems to be yet another example of attempts to undermine the integrity of the blog (and its author). The blog, it has been noted, presents another view point which often differs from the 'standard'/'official' view presented via the Minutes particularly, where statements are made and treated as if they were universal truths rather than just  'a view' of a group of people. It needs to be pointed out here, therefore, that all comments received are read and considered, even though they come from a very small pool of anonymous, in the main, individuals, some with obvious agendas and with mali...
Read more

Business as Usual?

 At the last meeting of the Parish Council in February,  the Chair directed Councillor Head to report back on the issue of the S106  agreement monies for the former Wrinehill garage site.  The contribution of £11,500 has been deposited with the Borough Council.  Residents feel that this money should be spent primarily in Wrinehill, given that the S 106 proceeds of the last two developments were not.  (£45,000 the Commuted sum for the Bluebell development went to Knutton, also a sum (not known) from the Saw Mill development  was allocated for Laudy Croft, but it is not known if that happened, we are told). It is unclear why a councillor for Betley village is reporting on this matter unless ....  It had been mooted way back that the S106 money should be spent on resurfacing the Village Hall  car park.   Needed it is true but the Village Hall could raise funds from other sources not to mention its own reserves, which are not insubstant...
Read more