LATEST NEWS

14/8/24 Update
(Copied from Home Page)

14/8/24 - IT'S PUNISHMENT TIME !!

SEEMS THAT CONSTITUENCIES THAT DIDN'T SECURE A LABOUR MP ARE GOING TO BE PUNISHED BY BEARING AN INCREASED BURDEN OF THE NEWLY PROPOSED COMPULSORY DEVELOPMENT TARGETS

YES, THAT'S THE LIKES OF BARTON, FOLKS !!
(INTERESTINGLY, CABINET MINISTERS' AREA BUILDING TARGETS HAVE GENERALLY BEEN REDUCED....)

RAID CAN'T CLAIM TO BE IMPRESSED BY THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE OF OUR MP, NLC AND BARTON'S NLC COUNCILLORS (see shedloads of previous history on this site)
THEY WERE UNWILLING TO FIGHT AGAINST BANKS PROPERTIES RIPPING UP FARMLAND
AND THEY'LL PROBABLY CLAIM "WE TOLD YOU SO" ABOUT LABOUR BEING EAGER TO CONCRETE OVER FIELDS
(WARNING: A TWO FACED CLAIM LIKE THAT WILL BE GIVEN THE CONTEMPT IT DESERVES !)

THE NEW GOVERNMENT SEEMS INTENT ON WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF CURRENT PLANNING RULES, CONTROLS AND LOCAL DEMOCRACY
THE FULL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT ABOUT THIS IS COMPLEX AND LONG (106 QUESTIONS)
BUT THE GENERAL INTENT SEEMS TO BE "TO HELL WITH LOCAL VIEWS AND OBJECTIONS - WE'LL FORCE THROUGH WHATEVER WE WANT"

RAID HAS NEVER BEEN AGAINST JUSTIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ONLY AGAINST "INAPPROPRIATE" EXPANSION
EXPANSION THAT JUST SUITS THE DEVELOPER
EXPANSION THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY CAN'T SUSTAIN

AND BEAR IN MIND THAT THE BIG BOYS ALREADY PLENTY OF LAND SET ASIDE
ALREADY ENOUGH FOR UNTIL 2040, APPARENTLY
BUT THEY'RE GREEDY AND WANT LOTS MORE, OF COURSE
LAND THAT WILL BE SAT ON UNTIL IT CAN GENERATE MAXIMUM PROFIT
TRUE END-USER NEED AND AFFORDABILITY IS FAR DOWN THEIR HIT LIST
PROFIT AND PAYBACK IS AT THE TOP

SO WHAT NOW?

PERHAPS PARK THE ACCUSATIONS OF NLC HYPOCRISY FOR A WHILE
AND WHAT FOLLOWS MAY NOT CHANGE WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED
BUT IT MAY REDUCE THE CHANCE OF BARTON BECOMING EVEN MORE OF A DEVELOPMENT DUMPING GROUND

LAST FRIDAY'S (9/8/24) "NEWS DIRECT" EMAIL FROM ROB WALTHAM LINKS TO A NLC CONSULTATION
WILL OUR NLC COUNCILLORS BE SENDING A WARD LETTER TO EVERYBODY ABOUT THIS VITALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC?
(Be assured - we've asked them !)

THE SURVEY IS ABOUT THE PROPOSED RADICAL CHANGES TO THE PLANNING LAWS
THE NLC VERSION IS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD (14 QUESTIONS, NOT 106!)

FOR THE SAKE OF BARTON AND THE COMMUNITY WE URGE YOU TO TAKE THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY BEFORE 10th SEPTEMBER

HERE's THE LINK:
https://www.northlincs.gov.uk/news/have-your-say-on-government-major-proposed-changes-to-planning-rules

If the link doesn't work:
Google "north lincs council planning rules survey"
Open the "Have your say" page

THE GOVERNMENT HAS CHANGED
RAID'S OPPOSITION TO INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT !!

21/6/24 Update
Yes, we've been quiet for some time
Yet the site hits keep on coming
So here's a pre-election update:

We wrote a very detailed letter to Martin Vickers earlier in the year
We considered the Banks planning appeal to be a whitewash
It totally ignored local opinion in favour of the (non local) developer
It ignored the democratically derived local plan
But that didn't seem to bother Martin at all
Nor did NLC's lack of opposition to the appeal
Nor did NLC's lack of due diligence (e.g. failing to mention the reality of Barton town centre's woeful lack of parking)
And he totally dismissed the reality that NLC misled his constituents (despite previous NLC assurances)

Apparently, it was all down to the Planning Inspectorate (prop. M Gove, c/o HM Government)
A department that is totally independent (prop. M Gove, his boss: R Sunak)
The same Planning Inspectorate (prop. M Gove, ex-journalist) that was reported to be under intense political pressure to show results
Build targets were used to win the the appeal
Conveniently (for Banks) before the compulsory build targets were then made discretionary....

Tough, said Martin - it was only the rules during the appeal that counted
The gist of his message was very clear: "put up and shut up"
Oh, and don't bother to write to Gove - because he'll ignore you anyway
He obviously knows (and fears?) his colleague well
Because a previous RAID letter to Gove about policy was (wrongly) deflected into the sand
That didn't bother Martin either
He doesn't like to rock any boats or stray from the party line......

So imagine our surprise when we read Martin's "Election Communication" platitudes:

Here's an extract from it:
"LOCAL VOICES MUST BE HEARD IN PLANNING"
Not surprisingly, it goes on about stretched resources etc.
"....The sentiment among the community is clear - enough is enough. I was fortunate to have the opportunity of raising this directly with the PM who understands the strength of feeling on this subject"

Well Martin, those are really comforting words !
Words that mean absolutely nothing !
And you know it !

In fact, the PM voiced his stance about Local Opinion in Parliament on 28th June 2023 (see 29/6/23 Latest News, below)
And based on Barton's real-world experience, it was total BS and a lie
RAID wrote directly to the PM ages ago
See the copy of the letter sent on 22nd June 2023 (see 22/6/23 Latest News, below)
We never even got the courtesy of a reply
"Pah! Pesky Local Types - their opinions don't matter a jot......"

So yes, it's very clear to RAID how much the PM really cares about what anybody else thinks
And what he really wants (or wanted) to do about it
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!
And by any standards, his track record with "pledges" is hardly one to be proud of

But it was very gracious of the PM to grant Martin some of his time
"Oh, THOSE Pesky Local Types? They remember things and vote as well, do they? Oh dear"
"Bribe them with some more empty promises...."

So Martin and his foot soldiers will undoubtedly continue peddling this two-faced BS !!
Just like NLC did before the local election (when vote-seeking)
Only to look at their shoes afterwards

Who will win the General Election?
We'll find out in July
But it's clear that voter discontent and mistrust in politicians is sky high
Is there any wonder?

RAID has only existed during the last few years of the current Government
We're so angry about what we've encountered
Would an alternative Government would be any better?
Or could it be any worse?
These are questions for voters to decide
RAID has no interest in party politics
Just proper democracy via openness and local opinion

MARTIN's FOLLY?
So will Martin's cunning public relations ploy work?
Er, perhaps not......
Here's a 100% genuine example of what a RAID supporter said when they read Martin's platitudes:
"Unbelievable! I'm going to vote Labour - it will be a first"

Seems like that's hardly a unique stance for those who have been close to this saga
We've seen just how two-faced those who pull the levers really are....

Meanwhile, Gove seems to have run for the hills
Maybe he's seen the future?
He'll probably be a convenient scapegoat for planning and "Levelling Up" woes in the future
But that's unlikely to bother him at all......

Anyway, the reality seems to be that the Banks development will proceed in time
Regardless of who's in government

Perhaps the only key unknowns about it are:
When construction will start (answer: when the market improves and big profits are on offer)
How radically the developer that actually builds on the site will overturn the vague Outline Plan (common practice)
When the development will spread over the horizon (despite current assurances)
In the meantime, enjoy viewing the beautiful rolling countryside that is producing crops and supporting wildlife
And not stretching our overloaded infrastructure even more......

OH, AND ANOTHER THING:
By the way, have you heard anything about the Relief Road recently?
Construction should have commenced, but we were told there was a "slight procedural delay"
No sign of any activity
No word in the Bartonian
No update letter from our NLC Councillors
And - interestingly - Martin doesn't mention it or claim any credit (unlike other issues)

Why is this?

Apparently, woefully little "Levelling Up" funding has actually been released and spent
More smoke and mirrors?
More mushroom treatment?

Was the Relief Road just another empty promise for Barton........?

15/1/24 Update

We live in interesting times

Many will have seen this superb series on ITV:
Mr Bates vs The Post Office
If you haven't, we recommend that you do - it's on ITVX

It's the frightening saga about one of the greatest miscarriages in British legal history
About how sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were accused of crimes that they didn't commit
About how they were bullied into submission
About how it was almost impossible to challenge "the system"
Including technical, corporate, legal and governmental "systems"
Because blaming "the system" can be such a powerful way to prevent justice
How many ordinary people can afford to fight this?
Answer: Virtually none - unless you're very determined or very wealthy
Or in this particular case, your cause is helped by a courageous whistleblower

But the truth is that this particular battle was known about for years
For instance, the magazine Private Eye had been covering it since about the turn of the century
Yet the "blocking" tactics still continued
Any many people didn't really care too much
Busy getting on with daily life.....

It took "Mr Bates vs The Post Office" - a TV programme - to raise its profile
A disgraceful story of bullying, pain, suffering and even suicides
Viewers took it to heart and were truly shocked

And then - all of a sudden - The Government decided to take notice
Because the way "the system" works was so brilliantly exposed
And because the public were clearly outraged at the injustices

Canny politicians could see that there was a chance to turn this crisis around
And perhaps gain some good publicity and be seen to care

Years of stalling were suddenly replaced by promises to sort things out quickly
And many politicians (regardless of party) were/are fighting for attention and headlines
Claiming credit for this sudden race for justice
When, in reality, they'd known about the injustice for years
Previously, "the system" was slowly and effectively killing off any will to fight for justice

Until that wonderful programme came along......

So why is RAID focusing on this topic today?

Are we trying to make a left/centre/right political point?
Answer: No - we're not about politics - that's down to individual choice
The "Mr Bates" saga spans diverse political eras, parties and politicians
Although, perhaps it makes us more wary of politicians, regardless...?

And lets be clear - it's in a different league to what we're so angry about

But there is a common thread
It's about principles
And about people and organisations
About those who are supposed to be accountable to us blaming "the system" or "others"
And making challenges virtually impossible and offering no (genuine) support
The "nothing to do with me, blame the system" line of defence
Virtually impregnable and so easy to hide behind

We've gone on about this so many times before
And will continue to do so

We've written to Martin Vickers recently
The response was the expected "not my problem/fault" waffle
We intend to reveal more detail in due course
Whether or not we get some additional answers (or otherwise) from NLC

As we've said before, people are fed up with being trampled on
Instead of being listened to and their voices being heard

A TV programme seems to have awoken a big change in public mood
And justification for hiding behind "the system" seriously undermined

Massive credit to Mr Bates and his colleagues for never giving up
And to the journalists and programme makers who exposed the truth
Respect !!!!!

Yes, interesting times indeed.......

4/1/24 Update
Well the Link/Relief Road planning application surfaced on 2nd January
It's on the NLC Planning Portal - reference PA/2023/1981

Consultation closes on 8th February

Basically, it covers the connection between Barrow Road and Caistor Road

A logical connection that was (by far) the preferred route during extensive consultation

Is it a new idea?

No - Humberside County Council was looking at this concept decades ago

But lack of funding, local politics/blocking tactics killed it off

And Barton has paid a heavy price since then

Nobody is pretending that this link will instantly solve all of Barton's traffic problems
The reality is that cars are relatively free to use the routes they choose
So the link MUST be supported by other traffic control measures

And Wren's previous commitment to support the use of a bypass route by (at least) HGVs

The inward-looking Doomsayers are moaning that "it won't work"

The same sort of Doomsayers that dithered and blocked things previously

The Doomsayers that helped to create the traffic nightmare that we now have a chance to control better

They clearly didn't like being out-voted by about 3:1 during the extensive consultation process

But this was the "Peoples Choice"
As Barton Civic Society (reluctantly?) conceded....

RAID fully supports this planning application

Because there is no other pragmatic, cost effective or prompt alternative
And the sooner we get it, the better....

21/12/23 Update

"Yes folks, we really care and your votes really matter" (see 25/11/23 Update)
So what kind of sweeteners are being talked about as we head for an election?

Well, Mr Gove has finally (sort of) acknowledged what some of those pesky voters are saying
Apparently, lots of voters are a bit fed up with developers carving up the countryside
And a bit peeved about developers bullying local opposition into submission
Well there's a surprise.....

So on 19/12/23 he announced changes to the planning system
In his own words, campaigners "often have a good reason to say no"
He announced moves to let councils reject house-building targets
To retain control of how local development is managed
And turn down developments that significantly change the character of an area
And block unwarranted building on green belt land

Which is rather interesting with regard to the Banks Property wheeze
Because "No" was the unanimous response from the Town Council and NLC Planning
And a huge majority of individual objectors
But the (tame?) Planning Inspectorate (boss: M Gove) conveniently ignored local opinion
And Banks used house-building targets as a key weapon in their appeal
Our MP, NLC and NLC Councillors seemingly did nothing to fight
That is, fight to preserve land that wasn't even set aside for development
Until a developer from Durham sneaked into town.......

Yes folks, we'll certainly be writing to some (supposedly) key people in January:
What will be the real-world effect of Gove's latest announcement?
Is this another masterclass in hypocrisy and double-talk?
Will we get more bull***t and platitudes?
Stay tuned, gentle reader
We'll let you know.....

In the meantime, RAID wishes you a Very Merry Christmas
Thank you for visiting the site

6/12/23 Update

In the 25/11/23 Update we mentioned the Government's desire to keep the builders (read donors?) happy
Via further relaxation of the environmental rules
Allowing EVEN MORE sewage contamination of our waterways and beaches
(By the way, our MP voted AGAINST stopping this environmental vandalism previously)
"Let it happen, and the taxpayers will pick up the bill, not the builders or the water companies"
And let the taxpayers pick up the pollution and excrement too, it seems.......

We make no apology for repeating this

It's a fine example of what really happens

Behind all the talk of integrity, "systems" and environmental care
"Systems" that are meant to keep things under control
Well, as long as it keeps shareholders and stakeholders happy.......

So you may want to take a look at:

Panorama - The Water Pollution Cover-Up

BBC1 iPlayer

First broadcast on 4/12/23

It's absolutely shocking in its own right

But it also indicates how broken some key "systems" are
And how little that those who pull the strings really care
Despite hiding behind rhetoric and platitudes.

As we've already seen, haven't we.........?

25/11/23 Update:
RAID had deliberately decided to stay quiet for a while
Many of our previous predictions were shown to be accurate
But maybe some people didn't really care
Or were just busy getting on with life and not making a fuss
(Those who shape our lives prefer it that way)
Maybe there was no more for us to say.....?

But here's an interesting fact:
It's very clear that many people are still looking at this website
Despite nearly four months of silence
So we asked people what they thought

Responses included:
"RAID did a great job and told us stuff that others didn't want us to know"
"Seems like you're right - decisions are already sewn up, despite what we're told"
"Thank you for encouraging public debate and opinion"
"Reckon you hit the nail on the head - money, hidden deals and lobbying is what really talks"
"Our "leaders" are a bunch of self-serving ****s"
"Where was NLC's and our MP's active support when we needed to oppose Banks?"
"Bet you never got a response from Sunak or Gove - they only care about themselves, not real people"
(But we DID get some encouraging responses from Sir Keir Starmer's office......)
"Our MP is totally useless"

The recurring theme was:
"Please get back on the keyboard again"

Banks Property wants to dig up beautiful rolling countryside
To overturn OUR Local Plan
They won the Planning Appeal
Despite promises, it seems that NLC, their Councillors and our MP did zilch to fight this travesty
Seems that by sitting on their hands and keeping quiet about certain information they (in effect) helped the Banks cause
So Barton was shamefully betrayed by those who promised plenty but didn't really mean it (see 26/7/23, below)
Many people now realise that these people have no shame
They take little (genuine) notice until an election looms
Then it's time for some more promises and sweeteners
"Yes folks, we really care and your votes really matter"
When it's job retention time for those in politics.....

Fact is, there are clearly a lot of disgruntled people about
So by popular request, here's some updated information:

Planning Application PA/2003/1607
We mentioned that this was coming in a previous update
Unlike the Banks scheme, it is in an allocated development area (Local Plan)
This is for 173 homes in laid out in a remarkably unimaginative way
Adjacent to Falklands Way/Caistor Road
Where the Relief Road is intended to connect

Barton Town Council has objected, as have a number of individuals
Not surprisingly, the reasons include:
Drainage, flood risk, lack of town resources and traffic issues
Some familiar themes there, eh...?
Also, it seems that Barton Civic Society's intended design guidance has been given scant regard, if any

Based on previous events, we'd be very surprised if NLC doesn't approve it
Perhaps after a token push back
But, despite assurances, they didn't seem to lift a finger to get in the way of the Banks planning appeal
For instance, remember that central Barton doesn't even have any parking problems, according to NLC........

"Engagement Session"

Two public presentations were held Baysgarth School earlier this month
They covered:

The "Link" or "Relief" Road (NLC still can't seem to decide which title to give it...)
A1077 improvements

Barton Interchange

Barton Active Travel

Some initial comments:

Relief Road:

Will NLC stick to the script during the planning application phase?

As this route was "the peoples choice" (Barton Civic Society quote), we sincerely hope so
But due to past experience we remain wary of what NLC says and what it actually does (or doesn't) do......

Development Areas:
It was interesting how the hard copy plans were presented
They showed the Relief Road and the build area for Planning Application PA/2023/1607 (see above)
They didn't show the area off Falklands Way (established development area)
They didn't show the Banks intent to the South of Barton - in a previous no-build area
(so helpfully blessed by an amazingly helpful [biased?] Planning Inspectorate)
We wonder why the whole picture wasn't shown.......

A1077 Improvements
Nowadays, it seems that "additional expenditure" is often just a re-heat of an old announcement
Because it's good for publicity and headlines
The Relief Road must be supported by other traffic control measures, of course
So let's be fair - we welcome these A1077 modifications within the town
They seem to have been rebranded as "levelling-up" (new money) actions
But weren't similar proposals supposed to have been covered previously by a Section 106 levy for the Wren expansion?
So are we being told fibs?
Or was the Section 106 money spent elsewhere? (oh yes, it frequently happens !)
And was Barton left to suffer for longer than necessary?
Just wondering, that's all.........

Barton Interchange & Active Travel
Great news and long overdue !

Local Plan Examination
Those who submitted comments about the Local Plan should have received a letter or email
The appointed Local Plan Inspectors will meet with NLC
This will be at Church Square House on 23/1/24, commencing 10.00hrs
The public will be allowed to attend and observe but not speak
The contact for attendance is Ian Kemp (idkemp@icloud.com)
He must advised of your intent to attend by 15/12/23

We'll be looking into this in more detail
But it will be interesting to learn more about:
How the Planning Inspectorate seemingly ignored public opinion
How the Planning Inspectorate seemingly ignored the Local Plan (and previous NLC intent/justification/consultation)
And why NLC and our MP seemingly did nothing to fight this
Despite assurances from the PM himself that local opinion should be respected and acted upon
Will NLC continue to roll over meekly?
Let's see.....

And Another Thing...

Sorry folks - but there's a lot of info to catch up on !

Banks Property never seems to tire of flogging the words "much needed homes"
(Which is far better marketing than a company saying "much wanted profit")

And we recall Banks being proud of wanting a prestige development site (see Barton Planning Meeting page)

And that they were talking to their "Top 5" UK building company chums (for a mere 390 houses?)

Do you want to get a better (but perhaps frightening) idea of the current state of the housing market ?
And how it came about

Take a look at "Britain's Housing Crisis - What Went Wrong"

2 parts - BBC2 iPlayer

First broadcast on 17/10/23 and 24/10/23

It's a real eye-opener !

Apparently, enough land is already "banked" for about a million homes

Release is carefully managed by the big builders to maximise profit, not actual housing need
And wow - what massive profits the big firms have made !!
Made a real killing out of "help to buy", it seems

Development with care for the shareholders
Along with appalling build quality, in many cases

Apologies - we may have mentioned some of this before.....

Seems that the big developers are having a harder time right now, though
So many of us are struggling with crippling mortgage and cost of living increases
And the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has made some gloomy predictions (this very week)
House values virtually static next year
And expected to FALL by about 5% the year after
Interest rates are likely to remain high for the foreseeable future
Pitiful growth prediction for the UK as a whole

The Government wanted to keep the builders (read donors?) happy via further relaxation of the environmental rules
Allowing EVEN MORE sewage contamination of our waterways and beaches
(By the way, our MP voted AGAINST stopping this environmental vandalism previously)
"Let it happen, and the taxpayers will pick up the bill, not the builders or the water companies"
Fortunately, public backlash and the House of Lords squashed that disgraceful and desperate con
For now, at least....

At a leadership level, shame now seems to be virtually extinct
The result? Looks like trust is going that way at voter level too
That's not being political, it just seems to be the way things are
Perhaps it's not too hard to see why......

How things have changed since Banks first crept into Barton......

26/7/23 - PORKY PIES, AGENDAS & EVASION
FEATURING THE PM, OUR MP, NLC & Barton's NLC COUNCILLORS
A tale of deception from top to bottom
Barton has been betrayed by those who were voted in to work for us
See 26/7/23 Update (below) for more details
See NEW PAGE (PORKY PIES, AGENDAS & EVASION)

26/7/23 Update:
RAID's been quiet, you're probably thinking
Have they given up?
You must be joking!
Let's update you......

A certain Kate Culverhouse has joined Banks as a Community Relations Manager
Kate has written to our NLC Councillors about Banks digging trial pits and drilling boreholes
There's nothing sinister about that

Banks need to know what they are brokering
When the builder bids for the land, it will want to know what it is buying
Profit optimisation by all parties

Kate included this gem of an understatement:
"I know there isn't universal support for this new development...."

You're damn right about that Kate !!
The reality is that Barton has been betrayed

But let's think about this a bit more......

This is what Banks are good at:
Find some prime land with an owner that wants to sell
With a Local Authority that is supportive of developing it (openly or covertly?)
And/or a Local Authority and/or MP with no stomach for a fight
Then throw all your considerable resources at it
Secure outline Planning Approval (via Appeal if necessary)
Flip the land to builder (who may well seek to change the cute Outline Approval plans and renegotiate planning "conditions")
Take the money and run (it's the developer's baby now - so don't blame us)
The "Section 106" money? - it's up to NLC where they spend it (it's not all guaranteed to go to Barton)

Is the Banks strategy a crime?
NO
In fact, it's a very effective business model
It seems to work very well for them and their builder chums
Because they keep doing it

So who or what really betrayed Barton and its community?

The answer is a trail of Porky Pies, Agendas and Evasion
It snakes all the way down from Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove
It includes our MP, North Lincs Council (NLC) and our NLC Councillors
The very people who were voted in to serve us
But have, in effect, served a big prize to Banks instead
And duped the local community in the process

THAT'S A LEGACY THAT SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN - OR FORGIVEN
REMEMBER IT WELL !!

Yup, you may think we've been quiet
But we've written to Sunak, Gove, Martin Vickers and Rob Waltham
Asking key questions
And getting either:

No reply
An evasive reply
Or what many would consider to be a dishonest reply

At RAID, we've always tried to give you information
Information that others don't give freely
So that you can make up your own minds

There's plenty of historical and reference information on this website
And a lot of what we predicted has come to pass
But we're summarising the current situation on a NEW PAGE !
"PORKY PIES, AGENDAS & EVASION"

RAID IS NOT GOING TO STOP SHOUTING AND ASKING QUESTIONS
RAID IS NOT GOING TO IGNORE THIS TOP-TO-BOTTOM DECEIT
WE WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO BE HONEST AND PRACTICE WHAT IT PREACHES
TO ACT WITH INTEGRITY AND RESPECT LOCAL OPINION
LOCAL OPINION THAT CLEARLY DIDN'T WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT

IT'S YOUR TOWN & COMMUNITY
DON'T JUST SHRUG - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!!

SEE THE "PORKY PIES, AGENDAS & EVASION" PAGE FOR MORE DETAILS

(P.S. Thanks for visiting the site - numbers climbing nicely....!)

12/7/23 Update:

RAID met with NLC on 7th July
This is the meeting that was meant to take place ages ago
While the Banks appeal was still under review
Meeting delayed?
"How convenient for NLC" is what many are saying
"NLC - not to be trusted" and "Told you so" are other frequent comments
The other comments we hear are a lot less polite
Maybe this doesn't bother NLC or our MP......

So what did NLC do to defend the appeal?
A defence that had a strong case, NLC previously claimed
Just about nothing, it seems
On the contrary, NLC seemed to be eager to help:
Plenty of other agricultural land about
No problem with parking in Barton town centre

We asked about the blatant "parking" inaccuracy

The relevant NLC Head of Department (Lesley Potts) said "it wasn't my case"
Which begs the questions:
Doesn't Lesley check her Team's work?
Why wasn't she involved with this (supposedly) high profile appeal?

We suspect this reinforces just how eager NLC was to just roll over
The Local authority that is meant to be working for US
Not the developer

Irrespective of the finer detail, there are some simple but important key points
Fundamental principles, in fact
Rishi Sunak has publicly said the following at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs):

That building targets are no longer a primary driver (PMQs - 14/6/23)
That local opinions and issues should be recognised (PMQ - 14&28/6/23)

Yet Banks used building numbers as a key reason for their appeal
And we see ZERO evidence of local opinion being recognised at ANY level
The Planning Inspector conveniently sidestepped "significant" objections
And both the current and proposed local plans have been cherry-picked to suit
Sometime convenient to refer to, at other times derided
If your're the Planning Inspector (or Banks), it seems....

So we've written to Rob Waltham (copied into Martin Vickers)
How does this appeal decision align with what Rishi Sunak is saying to Parliament and the UK?
Because many people are struggling to see this
A new era of integrity, Rishi?
Really?

Oh, and we also asked about the Relief Road
To be continued......

29/6/23 Update:

See 28/6/23 FIB OF THE DAY

We did think about writing to Martin Vickers again

"How does Rishi's latest assurance fit in with the Banks Appeal Decision?" we wondered
Because local opinion and democracy meant zilch, it seems

But, instantly, we decided that writing to him would be a total waste of time

All we'd get back is more waffle (and perhaps some more misleading information)
"Nothing to see here, voters - move along" (aka "shut up and put up")

He doubtless wants RAID (and others) to leave him and his bosses alone
Sorry Martin, no can do

This ISN'T about politics
But it IS about the (lack of?) integrity of those who are currently in charge
And we'd be questioning this WHOEVER that might be
Nobody else can be held to account, can they?
Yet they are always so eager to blame others

So can Rishi's words be trusted?
Can he make such assurances, when Martin tells us the Planning Inspectorate (PI) is fireproof?
That the PI doesn't really answer to Mr Gove or the PM? (hey - just look at those pigs flying overhead!)
Here's somebody else's opinion:

"If there's one thing that Sunak does better than condescension, it's hypocrisy" (John Crace, The Guardian)
Could he be right...?

27/6/23 pm Update:

This morning, we told you the amazing tale of The Magic Goggles and The Magic Hedge
(please see 27/6/23 am Update, first)

This tale is about The Magic Goggles and The Landscape Categorisation Mystery

Now before we start, RAID must make it absolutely clear that we love the countryside around Deepdale
So please be 100% clear that what we're confused about is formal land categorisation
That's not defined by the community - it's defined by "others"

Here are some pics of Deepdale area:

Overhead power lines are often an unattractive reality

But we suspect that nobody would deny that Deepdale deserves its Land Categorisation
"Area of High Landscape Value"

OK, let's compare this with the land where Banks want to build:

So RAID asks the following questions:

Is it any less agricultural?
Is it any less rolling and elegant?
"Surely not?" we reckon most people would say.....

Yet, according to NLC and the local plan it must be inferior

It's not classified as an area of "High Landscape Value"

We asked NLC - in writing and many times - about this
We raised it (yet again) during the local plan consultation
"Why is this land considered any different to adjoining Deepdale?"
We never received an answer
We were told by Cllr Paul Vickers that it was too complicated to explain in writing
That it would have to wait until we met NLC (which we haven't yet, and there's now little point anyway)
Was it lack of due diligence that NLC repeatedly sidestepped this question?
Or was it an "inconvenient" question for NLC to answer?

Anyway, seems like it's too late now
Unsurprisingly, Banks will have made the most of this difference
We suspect they're unlikely to try building at Deepdale in the near future
But you never know, eh...?

Anyway, it seems that the PI was happy to agree that the Barton land was of "medium" landscape value
And that planting about 400 houses there (to start with, at least?) would only have a "minor adverse" visual effect
We suspect that the PI was still wearing The Magic Googles at this time
Maybe didn't even bother to look any further than The Magic Hedge
And consider the adjacent (and visually similar) countryside that is Deepdale
Or take much notice of the local plan
But never mind, it would make the developer very happy
And maybe please the non-bosses that the PI didn't really have

Job done
Thank you Magic Goggles and NLC indifference......
The locals won't be able to challenge the decision anyway

Because Local Opinion doesn't matter
Despite Rishi's assurances in Parliament

Perhaps, he's got some Magic Goggles too......?

27/6/23 am Update:
Seems that developers repeatedly complain that building land isn't available
Claiming that this is limiting the building of new houses
So it's interesting to read that the major developers already have enough land for over 1 million new homes, in total
That's well in excess of "target numbers" that are bandied about
You may recall that Banks boasted about talking to the "Top 5" UK builders.....
(see Barton Planning Meeting page)
But developers like to "land bank" and wait until land value and profits will increase
So is it all about "much needed homes" or "much wanted profit" ?
Seem to recall telling you the answer long ago.......

Anyway, time for the tale of The Magic Hedge and The Magic Goggles:

Legend has it that the Department that Rules the UK (aka The Planning Inspectorate or "PI") was on an important mission
Despite not being under the control of the Prime Minister or his Cabinet it seemed like the PI was eager to help and please others
The PI was thought to be clever, enjoy the work and maybe didn't like the thought of doing something else
The PI seemed to be very wise about some details but maybe not some of the simpler and more obvious ones
So there were times when The Magic Goggles came in very helpful
These allowed some of the important and obvious issues to be invisible

So, one day in dreary February, the PI went to Barton
The PI looked about and saw something that many locals have never even noticed before
The tree and hedge-lined Southern boundary was "harsh"
There were houses there, and a few were not hidden behind trees and foliage
What could be done?
Plant a few more trees?
No, that would be too eco-friendly, quick and cheap
Time to put on The Magic Goggles!

Suddenly, all became clear!
No, the answer was to rip up rolling arable land and put almost 400 houses on it
That would be really eco-friendly and soften the boundary line
And local wildlife had clearly had it too easy for too long
But what about the local community?
Well, they'd just have to cope and their opinions didn't matter anyway
Anyway, it would make the developer very happy
And maybe please the non-bosses that the PI didn't really have

But wait, what about the hedge that borders the main road as it leads down into Barton?
By putting The Magic Goggles back on, the answer was obvious
Suddenly, it seemed that the hedge was magic too!
The Magic Hedge had wonderful powers of its own
Seemingly, it could hide the view of the new houses
But it couldn't hide the view of the existing "harsh" boundary
And it didn't really matter that some of it would be ripped up to create a new access road

And nor did it matter that the PI visited in February when almost everything looks bare and harsh
It's known as winter time to some people, apparently
But not if your wear The Magic Goggles!

But what about the countryside that would be dug up?
Once again, The Magic Goggles would give the answer
Assisted by The Landscape Categorisation Mystery (see 27/6/23 pm Update, above)

22/6/23 Update:
Well we wrote to Rishi and copied in Mr Gove and Martin Vickers

We were impressed by the automatic barriers that instantly sprang up
Rishi's a hard man to contact - that's for sure

Anyway, we got a very nice and prompt email from Martin

It explained how "the system" works

It seems that the PM has no ultimate control over planning decisions
So we're a bit puzzled why the PM said that local opinion would be respected (see 19/6/23 update)
Despite having no real power to enforce this promise, it seems

Neither has the Secretary of State (SoS), we were told
(That's Mr Gove, at the moment)
So we're a bit surprised that the SoS has no real-world sway over a department that's his direct responsibility
Despite reading allegations that he is bullying Councils to get the results, numbers and headlines he wants

Martin kindly went on to explain that the Planning Inspectorate's decision is final

We could pursue a Judical Review, of course
Trouble is, we can't get taxpayer funding to cover the legal costs
Unlike a millionaire ex-PM, for instance (not politics - just common knowledge)

In reality, the Planning Inspectorate is pretty much fireproof, we're told
Their word is gospel

Can't be challenged by their boss or even the PM
Apparently

So how strange to find this:

But despite indications to the contrary, Martin says that nothing can be done
Behave RAID, and just roll over
Come to one my surgeries and help us change the world for the better
That's probably easier than getting an appointment at Central Surgery, though.....

However, what REALLY troubles us is that the PM is telling ALL OF US porkies
That he could say at Prime Minister's Question Time that local opinion matters
That it wasn't all about housing targets
Items that this appeal decision has either ignored or used selectively

So could the PM who promised a new era of integrity be lying, perhaps?
Surely not?
Will Rishi, Michael and Martin continue to hide behind and blame "others"?
Are they afraid of upsetting Banks Properties?
Should the Planning Inspectorate move into No. 10?

So many questions......

Seems that those at the top are trying their very best to deflect us "Local Types"

Perhaps somebody else should ask Rishi about this?
We must remain apolitical
Sir Kier Starmer comes to mind
Maybe he could ask Rishi at Prime Minister's Question Time....?

21/6/23 Update:

Yes, we've written to Rishi

Copied in to Mr Gove and Martin Vickers

Just shrugging simply isn't good enough for RAID

Actually getting an email through to the PM is quite a task

Lots of automatic barriers

Understandable really, perhaps

So we've asked Martin Vickers to ensure that the PM's receives our letter

And we'll send a registered hard copy in the post too

"If only the PM had received your letter" is not acceptable evasion

And for sure, we've seen no shortage of masterclass evasion tactics along the way!

Out of respect, we won't put a copy of our letter on the website just yet

Let's see what comes back - and how soon

And how it aligns with Mr Sunak's promises of 14/6/23
Will he "Walk the Walk" as well as "Talking the Talk"....?

PS: Thanks for visiting this website and your support and encouragement. Hits are zooming up !!

20/6/23 Update:
In other news:
Well that's the "Partygate" vote sorted then
Just out of interest, 354 were "for" (supported) the report and 7 were against

118 of the Government's MPs voted in favour

225 abstained (maybe busy watching TV or something....?)

Maybe our leaders can get on with some other stuff now...?

Perhaps more relevant (or telling?) to RAID's cause are the following votes:

Rishi Sunak - Abstained

Michael Gove - Abstained

Martin Vickers - "For"

So is Martin Vickers finally sticking his head above the parapet a bit?
The reality is that it's probably too little, too late

Because there are claims that the Planning Inspector's decision is final

Not true - we are told Michael Gove has a final say if he so chooses

Is Martin just posturing, then.....?

Last Thursday, he said this in Parliament:

RAID's TRANSLATION:

Thanks for raising this important point (aka yawn, heard it before, whatever.....)
I dare not pester Mr Gove about how his Planning Inspectorate is ignoring local opinion (despite what Rishi says)
Because we're so desperate for headlines to say that we're building houses
For people who are finding it impossible to get or pay a mortgage

So, nice try Martin, but we won't have a debate

I'll deftly kick the question into the long grass and divert it to the Health Secretary
He can look at some data and say that everything's OK (like, in effect, NLC did about the parking in Barton)
And he'll find a magic way of ensuring that it's no problem getting prompt NHS treatment
Or say it's not his fault and that the NHS must get a grip to meet the challenge
That will buy us time and (as usual) it will be somebody else's fault
And, hopefully, we'll get away with it - as usual

Still, you've been seen to ask the question
And that's all you needed to do really - well done!
(Top Tip: Please do not bother Mr Gove - he gets upset)

19/6/23 Update:

It's been whispered in RAID's ear that perhaps we shouldn't kick up such a fuss

TRANSLATION:
Those who shape our lives don't like the lies, shoddy work and stitch-ups being publicised
They'd rather we just quietly toe the line......

Fact is, we're sick of the deception and double talk that comes right from the top
And that spreads down - right through "the system"
False promises, evasion, lies, hiding behind others ("sorry, out of my hands")
Backroom "deals" too........??

Many Bartonians are so angry about this
It's not intended to be a political battle
RAID would feel the same whoever was in power

WE DON'T LIKE BEING TAKEN FOR FOOLS
WE DON'T LIKE LOCAL OPINION BEING AIRBRUSHED OUT

So it's RAID's duty to shout even louder
Until somebody at the top of this Government bothers to listen and get off the pot
And "Walks the Walk" as well as "Talks the Talk"

Rishi's the one making the promises (see 17/6/23)
This shouldn't be down to a Planning Inspector in Bristol
Or a Planning Appeal result at Messingham
Or an aquisitive developer who's not even based in this county

WRITE TO RISHI !!

We'll be taking about boundaries and hedges very soon

In the meantime, here are some more posters......

So is RAID being a bit paranoid about "Smoke & Mirrors" then?

Decide for yourself:

Here's an extract from Barton Civic Society's (BCS) latest newsletter
"kept in the dark by the Council" are BCS's words, not ours
But aren't they are supposed to be "close" to NLC ??
Not that close, it seems.....

RAID's genuinely sorry to read this
Because we DO acknowledge that BCS has done some great things

17/6/23 Update:

So many people are disgusted by the way the Banks application is being forced upon Barton
The Town Council said NO - Unanimously
NLC Planning said NO - Unanimously
Many many individuals said NO

Shows the power of sharp legal advice, lobbying and money, eh?

Anyway, here are some posters that show how two-faced the situation really is:

Two that quote from Prime Minister's Question Time, this very week
And one extract from the Planning Inspectorate's Report

Do feel free to write to Michael Gove and Rishi to ask why we are being told massive porkies
Because NLC and Martin Vickers won't, we've been told.....

16/6/23 Update:
RAID is apolitical
But the fact is that THIS is the man in charge at the moment - Mr Gove
Who is supposed to work for US
Who can overrule the Planning Inspectorate if he so chooses

We hereby challenge him to listen and take notice
We challenge him to review this (biased?) Appeal Decision
Which appears to contain some very dubious and blatantly incorrect justification

This Appeal Decision should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the recent "Levelling Up" package
That funding was to address (some of) our CURRENT problems
That award is duly appreciated (albeit long overdue)

Will he say "not our fault", like NLC and Martin Vickers?
Will his silence be deafening....?
Let's see......

Update 15/6/23 am:
The planning appeal report (APP/Y2003/W/22/3307310, if you're interested) is fairly heavy reading

But perhaps Paragraph 39 gives a beautifully simple and shining example of NLC's REAL intent

Here's part of it:

"......nor is there any evidence from the Council that parking provision in the town centre is insufficient to support the increase in population"

WARNING - PIGS SPOTTED FLYING OVERHEAD!!!

This is one of the biggest and most recurring gripes that residents raise

Has been for years

Plentiful evidence of this (including Town Council records)
Plentiful real-world evidence too

But what do residents know? We only live here

So we must be positive and thank NLC and its Councillors for:
(a) Seemingly performing a miracle and
(b) Making such strenuous efforts to sit on their hands and make life so much easier for developers

We're sure they'll appreciate your personal thanks for this community-centred selflessnes

But if you're not so thrilled, you may be wondering:
(1) Why isn't this whitewash being subject to a Judicial Review?
(2) Is there any truth in the rumour that NLC Planning & Development has been the subject of "Special Measures"?

What are "Special Measures" then?
Well it seems that Mr Gove is whipping Local Authorities that aren't giving enough good headlines

Not too many about right now

And an election coming - donors to get on board?
So there's intense pressure for LA's to give results (or have powers removed)
Maybe it explains NLC (apparent) change of stance and making little effort to fight the appeal
Maybe it explains Mr Gove sidestepping RAID's letter to him
(or maybe he was busy at a disco, or something.....)

Many angry comments about the Appeal Decision that we are hearing include:
"Was this written by the developer?"
"All that's missing is a File Note that says "get this through or pick up your P45 on the way out...."

Yup, we've been stitched up good and proper, it seems
But blame "The Blob"

Politics and money eh...?

14/6/23 - OUR QUESTIONS TO NLC

1) IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR TOWN & COMMUNITY NOW DECIDED IN DURHAM (Banks Properties)?
ANSWER: WE'RE NOT HAPPY. BUT IT'S NOT OUR FAULT

2) IS NLC GOING TO FIGHT THIS APPEAL DECISION?
NLC ANSWER: NO
MARTIN VICKERS ANSWER: NO

SO OUR QUESTIONS ARE NOW TO MR GOVE

1) WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE STATED INTENT THAT LOCAL OPINION WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
(BECAUSE, IN EFFECT, IT'S BEEN DISMISSED BY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE)

2) WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE STATED INTENT TO PROTECT THE COUNTRYSIDE?

Michael's email address is: michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk
perhaps you'd like to drop him a line.....?

Or perhaps Rishi, who's address is: rishi.sunak.mp@parliament.uk
(but to be fair, he's a bit busy trying to sort out the legacy of other broken promises.....)

Update 13/6/23 pm:
Despite receiving repeated assurances that NLC had a robust case, it now seems apparent it didn't
Is this incompetence?
Or is it indifference?
Maybe NLC never really wanted to win anyway...?
But Hey Ho - the Local Election's over now
Box ticked
Just the General Election to follow.....

An (unsuitable, unfortunately) date for a short meeting between RAID and NLC was offered in January
Repeated requests for a reschedule were "in hand", we were told
It still is, apparently - but it's too late to be of much use now, of course
The horse has bolted
Deliberate evasion tactics by NLC?
Surely not, we hear you say.....

Despite Martin Vickers saying that NLC should robustly fight the appeal, we don't see much clear evidence of that in the Appeal Decision
But he's probably not too bothered, bearing in mind the mood of the electorate
Martin's never one to rock the boat too much
So we don't expect that habit to change
Retirement probably beckons soon
Enforced or otherwise......

Martin Vickers had previously written to Michael Gove about planning refusals being appealed
We heard no more about this
RAID also raised this directly with Michael Gove
The letter included questions about Government policy
He probably never even saw it
Or couldn't be bothered to answer
It was (totally inappropriately) bounced the Planning Inspectorate to render it irrelevant
Incompetence or a cunning evasion tactic.....?

Here are some RAID takeaways from the Appeal Decision of 9th June 2023 (RAID interpretation in brackets):
The town is well served by existing facilities (so we're told)
NLC can only justify 4.07 years worth of housing instead of 5 due to an appeal in Messingham (is this a suburb of Barton?)
The NLC Local Plan submission carried very little weight (despite extensive consultation and rework - incredible!)
Horkstow Road is guilty of providing a stark urban edge (so is a great reason build on those hills to soften the view)
The landscape value of the land is "medium" (although similar to Deepdale, which is high. NLC avoided that repeated key question. Wonder why...?)
The *objections raised by residents and interested parties are not underestimated (yet mean nothing, it seems)
It will have a negligible effect on the local highway network, apparently (so take comfort from that "rat-run" reassurance and remember it well)
There's no evidence from the Council that town centre parking is insufficient (which truly beggars belief - shame on you NLC!)
The pressures faced by existing health facilities are noted (but that's not the developer's problem - so never mind folks)
The additional land is purely under the "control of the apellant" (so no real-world expectation that this application is just a foot in the door, then...?)

Some other RAID comments:
Whatever happened to Government assurances that Local Opinion mattered, regarding development?
Because Town Council, NLC and Individual objections have been stamped on, in effect
Is that democracy?
Whatever happened to the Government assurances that Local Housing Targets were no longer obligatory? (many Councils have dropped them)
Why was land on the (alleged?) route of the relief road deliberately removed from the Local Plan, previously?
After all, it offered the possibility of a decent Medical Centre, as well..........
Oh, and the cut off date for appeal comments in December was compromised by inaccurate ward letter content and a postal strike
The Planning Inspectorate flatly refused a mitigating extension, saying that they already had enough evidence (see *, above).
Which, in hindsight, seems to have been ignored anyway......
The words "Judicial Review" come to mind.....

Banks:
RAID has always thought that the Banks strategy has origins at a very high level
A done deal and foregone conclusion, perhaps...?
Total confidence (along with a big dose of arrogance) seemed evident right from the word go
Trebles all round, eh Chaps....??

NLC, our MP and NLC Councillors:
Just playing a longer game?
Same end result that was wanted, but with the added camouflage of a token objection?
We still recall hearing about a comment allegedly made by a NLC employee quite some time ago
Apparently, the comment was that the housing and NLC (Option 2) relief road route was all sewn up long ago
So perhaps don't be too surprised if Option 1 is suddenly found to be unsuitable
A route based on about 75% of local opinion? Pah...!
Of course, we'd be delighted to be proved wrong
But we ain't holding our breaths.....

RAID's MISSION?
We've done our best to keep you informed of things that "Others" haven't
The lamentable actions (or lack of actions) by those who shape (or try to shape) our daily lives has been a real eye opener
We've asked questions and challenged
And, sad to say, it seems that our predictions have been right so many times
We're NOT against development in the right place and for the right reasons
(i.e. a Local Plan developed via NLC and local consultation and buy-in)
It's all been about developments that will affect ALL OF US in this town and community
ABOUT ALL OF OUR VOICES BEING HEARD
AND LISTENED TO - AS WELL

It's a big worry if this makes no real difference
And if we just shrug
And get used to just taking what were given, without question

We now suspect that the only people who might take any genuine notice or action will be Michael Gove or his boss....
Why not drop them a line?

But do be prepared to be ignored or offered a hefty dose of standard platitudes and bullplop.....

Update 23/1/23 pm:
HIDDEN STRATA ??

RAID aims to provide residents with helpful information
Sometimes, that information may have restricted circulation
Perhaps kept low-key because it may suit someone else's agenda.....?

We've only just received a copy of the information that follows
"Public Consultation" information that didn't seem to be that easy to get hold of
And not much success with getting useful information when we asked some questions

Anyway, here's on overview:

The label on the Developer's blurb says "strata"
The actual company appears to be Quod North - a Leeds address
Looks like Quod's HQ is in London

They are proposing to submit a Planning Application
For "approximately 169 new high-density homes"
Location: South of Barrow Road, opposite Falklands Way
It will accommodate a new roundabout and the first part of the Link/Relief Road
A mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom terraced, semi-detached and detached houses
No bungalows? (unlike on the existing adjoining development)

So what's RAID's take on this?

Well it's on land designated for housing in the Local Plan
A plan developed by NLC that has involved widespread public consultation
So it's hard (and unreasonable) to find an argument against such a proposal, in principle

The £20M "Levelling-Up" award will make differences and improvements to Barton
But the community will still be asking questions like:
Will it make it easier to get a Doctor or Dentist appointment, for example?
Will it make the sewerage system work better?
Issues like this are affected by ANY additional housing

We'd like to hope that any development is well laid out
We'd like to hope it gives due consideration to the existing residents in that area
Maybe we'll see some positive results from Barton Civic Society's work on such topics.....?

RAID is a Planning Consultee and you can be sure that we'll have our say when the time comes
And we'll provide you with more information and links when the Planning Application is submitted
So that you can send your comments directly to NLC Planning

What we don't care for is the way this initial "consultation" seems to have been kept under the radar
The closure date is Friday 27th January
That doesn't give much time to have a say before the Planning Application is submitted

Maybe that suits "strata" ?
Keep the consultation window relatively short/low key/small?
"Initial consultation box ticked - not many negative replies"?

Here's the email address that is on "strata" handout:
hellonorth@quad.com

Update 21/1/23 am:

We're still awaiting finer details, but the shot below is from NLC's website
Due credit and thanks for NLC's hard work in putting in a successful bid for these long-overdue improvements !

RAID's mission has always been to make people aware of what's happening
To encourage discussion and debate
To encourage people to have a say in the future direction of this town and community

NLC agrees that the "increased profile" of the consultation about the Link/Relief Road and Local Plan had a real effect
People used the opportunity to highlight all sorts of issues and to give their opinions

And it seems that NLC - and now the Government - has listened and taken action
And that has to be a Good Thing......

Update 19/1/23 am:

Well today's great news is that Barton has secured just under £20M of "Levelling-Up" funding!
We await details, but the Government-issue script is as follows:

"Barton will receive almost £20 million for transport improvements around the town. The changes include improvements to the A1077 to alleviate congestion in the town centre, 14km of new cycle lanes, and mass improvements to the railway station including new cycle parking, an extension of the car park, and bus shelter upgrades"

We'll let you know when we've got some more information.........

Update 22/12/22 am:
Well today's the last day for submitting representations to the Planning Inspectorate

For many people, there hasn't been much time to do this
It's a busy time of year and there are many other challenging problems to deal with
Distractions which may suit Banks very nicely
Perhaps they'll count a shrug as good as a blessing?

But we do know that many objections have been submitted
By those who don't care for what Banks is trying to do
By those who don't like bully boy tactics
By those that don't want too see our town and community crushed further

And we do know that some of those objections have come from far away
From those who see Barton as the jewel it is and care about its future

Anyway, let's move on to some news about Martin Vickers MP
Martin has already voiced his objection to this Banks wheeze

Here's an extract from his comments that have been formally submitted to Michael Gove:

"Local plans are the foundation of our planning system.

In Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency, a major housing development is proposed,
but North Lincolnshire Council has rejected it because it's not in the local plan.

Despite that, the applicant is appealing.

Bearing in mind the importance of local plans to our system,
it is surely quite wrong that the applicant should be able to appeal
when the local plan specifically states that the land is not for residential development"

Well said Martin !!
And please note, Mr Gove......

But that's how Banks likes to do operate, it seems
There are shareholders to keep happy and there's money to be made
And resistance to be crushed
This is a developer with deep pockets
That doesn't like to hear the word "NO", apparently.......

This is the Season of Goodwill
So we'll say this again, and politely

BANKS?
NO THANKS !!

But we very much doubt that Banks will take any notice
So the fight goes on........

Update 17/12/22 am:
RAID has always been committed to providing information that "others" have not given to you
Like information that "others" don't provide in a clear way because that may suit their agenda
Like information that "others" may provide too late to have much of an effect (although the defense "we did tell you" is likely to follow)

What people do with such information is their own choice - but they do deserve to be informed
So that they can have a say and help to shape the future

Yes, we've gone on about this many times before
But have any lessons been learned?
The current situation makes us wonder........

On 23/11/22, this website advised that the Banks planning appeal had been lodged (see Latest News, 23/11/22)
That's on the very same day that NLC advised people who had previously submitted comments about the planning application

But NLC's letter of 23/11/22 revealed that the ACTUAL appeal start date was about a week before (17/11/22)
(Did our Ward Councillors know about this, earlier than 23/11/22, we wonder...?)

Any further comments ("representations") had to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by 22/12/22

So let's get this into perspective:
One month between the appeal being lodged and the cut-off date
One week of this month lost before NLC told anybody about it (limited audience only)
Unsurprisingly, it seems that Banks aren't shouting about their intent
After all, why draw unwelcome attention if keeping quiet is a better tool?
And beneficial to Banks if any opposition is slow off the mark.....

RAID contacted NLC on 23/11/22, asking how the community would be told about what's going on
On that day we were told there would be a "Ward Letter" sent out

Creating this letter seems to have been a challenge
It was released over TWO WEEKS later on 9/12/22
It was then caught up in the postal delay - that's not NLC's fault, of course
It arrived yesterday (16/12/22)
That gives LESS THAN ONE WEEK for people to contact the Planning Inspectorate
When there are postal hold-ups (not everybody uses e-comms)
And people are a bit busy with preparing for Christmas.......

But hang on a minute, we hear you say
"NLC and Martin Vickers have asked for an extended cut-off date"
So some people will say "oh well, no rush - it can wait until after Christmas......"

But RAID has been told by NLC (yesterday) that the Planning Inspectorate WON'T change the 22/12/22 cut-off date
How will NLC advise everybody about this in a timely and effective way?
We don't see how this is possible

So the REAL picture is:
The Banks proposal has far reaching implications (thin end of the wedge) for ALL OF US in this community
There are widespread objections to it (NLC, Barton Town Council, our MP, individuals)
Banks is probably delighted that the whole community has not been advised on the situation a timely manner
NLC has not kept the whole community properly informed (i.e. late release and potentially misleading)

Will Barton Civic Society be taking any tangible steps to fight against something that would further crush the heart of this community?
We're not currently aware of their members being advised or canvassed about this subject
Still, it's not an old building or chair and it's not part of the inward-focus agenda.....

So, as usual, RAID is giving you the latest known facts:
You have until 22/12/22 to get your representations to the Planning Inspectorate
Despite NLC's letter of 9/12/22, this deadline appears to be fixed
This is best done via email or website (as you'll probably miss the postal deadline)
See Banks Appeal Objections page for more details

Update 24/11/22 pm:
Those who have commented on the Banks Outline Planning Application before should have been sent a letter by NLC
This letter from "Development Management" provides an overview of the Appeal process
It says that "representations" must be received by 22/12/22
It provides information on where to send comments (via website, email or post)

Website:
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk
(Google: "acp.planning" if the link doesn't work!)

Email:
north2@planninginspectorate.gov.uk

Postal Address:
Kate Moody
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3N
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol BS1 6PN

The letter also says where you can get more guidance information, if required:
(Google: "A guide to taking part in planning appeals gov.uk")

This document will give you a "search facility" link in Section 5.7
That will take you to the "acp.planning" site mentioned above

Section 5.4 of the guidance document says that the following information MUST be provided
1) Your name & address (note: you can request that this is withheld, but your submission may carry less weight if you do this)
2) Planning Inspectorate appeal reference (APP/Y2003/W/22/3307310)
3) The address of the site (Land to west of Brigg Road and south of Horkstow Road, Barton upon Humber DN18 5DZ)
4) Objectors should say "I am against the proposals" and explain if its for the same reason as NLC Planning's refusal or other reasons (specify these)

You may well have objected before, but you may want to consider opinions and comments that include:

Developer-led Application (Banks agenda)
Unanimous Objection by Barton Town Council Planning Committee
Unanimous Refusal by NLC Planning Committee
Martin Vickers MP has stated that any appeal should be strongly defended
Irreversible eco and pollution damage due construction phase and ongoing use (*& further potential development? - see below*)
Outside of the democratically-derived 2038 Local Plan submission
Over and above 2038 Local Plan submission housing targets
Additional burden on a community that already has serious and acknowledged service and infrastructure problems
Additional burden on a community that has already taken more that its fair share of additional housing demand
Additional burden on a community that can't simply "take the slack" due to shortfalls elsewhere
Widespread and strong community objection
The Government's previously-stated intent that Local Opinion should be listened to and taken into proper consideration
Contrary to the Government's previously stated intent to focus on brownfield development
Contrary to the Government's stated intent to protect greenbelt land
Contrary to the real-world need to maximise UK-sourced food and control living costs
A Planning Application with "appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for subsequent consideration" (= meaningless pretty picture?)
*A previously-declared interest by Banks (planning application stage) in additional adjacent land (= just a foot in the door?)
A previously-stated comment (Banks video presentation to Barton Town Council) about discussions with "Top 5 UK House Builders" (*for 390 houses?!)
A previously-stated comment (Banks video presentation to Barton Town Council) that this would be a better site and more desirable than elsewhere
*A previously-stated comment (Banks video presentation to Barton Town Council) that alternative sites weren't feasible
*(= all about profit, scope for future expansion, rather than local need?)

We'll be producing a sample letter as soon as possible....!

Yes, you may have objected before
And yes, the Planning Inspector is supposed to review historical data

But seeing the list above we don't think it's too hard to justify genuine objections to what Banks seems determined to force on this town and community
Regardless of Local Authority and Local Opinion, it seems
Is that what they mean by "Development with Care"?
"But who for?" we've always asked
As we anticipated, it seems like the answer has now become a whole lot clearer.......

What IS important is to provide the key information requested by the Planning Inspectorate (see above)
But please be aware that anything "inflammatory, discriminatory or abusive" won't get past go

ALSO PLEASE REMEMBER THAT ALL ADULTS IN A HOUSEHOLD CAN COMMENT
THE MORE INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS THE BETTER !!

THIS IS OUR TOWN AND COMMUNITY !!
IT'S VITAL THAT OUR VOICE IS HEARD !!

Update 23/11/22 pm:

Just as RAID predicted, those caring folk at Banks have submitted their Planning Appeal
Seems like the Outline Planning Application refusal and widespread public objection doesn't bother them too much
Perhaps that shouldn't be too surprising, based on previous form...?

We've only just heard about this, although the formal Appeal start date is 17/11/22

All representations must be submitted by 22/12/22
We'll be telling you more about this, very soon
So please keep visiting !

The Appeal has been submitted to The Secretary of State
That's Michael Gove (again!)
It's now in the Planning Inspectorate's in tray

This is the same Michael Gove that:

Objected to a development in his own constituency

Previously stated that the focus should be on prioritising brown field development

Previously stated that local opinion should be listened to

RAID has no political agenda
But the countless reshuffles, u-turns and conflicting policy statements are hardly confidence inspiring, are they?
And what happens at the top drives what happens in our daily lives

So it was interesting to see (in today's "i" newspaper) that some rebel Government MP's have been kicking off
This time, it's about building and planning issues
They seem to want to reduce the focus on housing targets being set by central (not local) government (i.e. how many/what/where)
And to reduce the focus on "nice to have" (for Developer shareholder?) schemes, rather than "genuine need" ones

Is Martin Vickers one of these MP's, we wonder?
After all, he's previously stated his opposition to the Banks proposal....

What the rebels didn't like was the indication that The Secretary of State would be free to make executive decisions
Without heeding local opinion
Without the right of appeal

The rebel MPs saw it as a massive and unjustified power grab by Central Government
Maybe the word "Dictatorship" came to mind?
At the moment, it appears that this risk has faded.......

Perhaps Boris's "Builders Charter" never really went away? (see Project Speed & Money Talks pages)
Perhaps it was just being repackaged?

Perhaps cynical (or real world?) folk remain suspicious?
Suspicious that some political donors (e.g. Builders, Developers?) would relish legislation like this?

We've always held the opinion that this Banks Application has some roots at a higher level
And it now looks like that's where the outcome will be decided
But a lot of things have changed in the meantime........

And both a Local and General Election loom
So it will be interesting to see how much Local Opinion really matters

The Local Opinion of those who are expected to vote........

Update 23/11/22 am:
Planning Application PA/2021/2100 ( The creation of a lagoon for the storage of liquid organic waste - see 26/10/22) was refused. Again
Associated attempts have been: PA/2020/2054 (withdrawn), PA/2017/1241 (refused) & PA/2017/785 (refused)

Not surprisingly, there was widespread concern about unpleasant odour potential
Also concerns about the potential contamination of ground should the lagoon leak
Like ground that supplies Barton's (borehole) water supplies
Common sense and public opinion has prevailed, it would appear
But that doesn't stop some Developers from trying to ignore public opinion, it would seem.......

Update 27/10/22 am:

OUR FRIENDS IN THE NORTH? (continued....)
One of our eagle-eyed supporters saw this interesting link from The Sun newspaper:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/20183302/scared-kids-play-outside-house-rubbish-waste-metal/

(or Google: "the sun bellway stannington")

It's about alleged "BROKEN PROMISES" involving a builder at Stannington, Northumberland

The company is called Bellway
It's not hard to find major complaints about the big building companies on the web

So what point are we trying to make here?
Well, a quick check suggests that Bellway is one of the UK's biggest house builders
Banks were very keen to tell Barton Town Council that they were talking to the Top 5 UK builders
And Banks appear to have had ties with Bellway before (e.g. Hurworth, Darlington?)
We're not suggesting that this particular story has any Banks/Bellway connection whatsoever

But we will repeat that when the initial developer "flips" the land to the builder, it's a whole new ballgame
So beware of meaningless promises when the initial dream is being sold to you
Once that foot's in the door the builder will then play the "shareholders profit" tune......

Yes, RAID has said all this sort of thing before
Sorry for the repetition, folks !
But real-world events indicate (yet again) that our comments are often realistic

You may say: "So what? - the Banks Outline Application was refused by NLC - Unanimously"

RAID is certain that Banks won't give up that easily
We believe that they'll be (quietly?) trying to pull levers at EVERY level that they can
Maybe they'll try to sneak under the radar (again) nearer to Christmas....?

Update 26/10/22 pm:
Well the short days are here and it's time to hit the keyboard again !
WELCOME BACK !!!
The viewing figures show you've been waiting for more of the info that "Others" would rather we didn't shout about!

We've all been busy getting on with our daily lives and there have been some major events happening:
Worldwide sadness at the loss of our wonderful Queen Elizabeth II
Covid restrictions lifted, but many people have been infected along the way
The ongoing and terrible war in Ukraine
Energy prices going through the roof
Roaring inflation and soaring mortgage rates
A Government that's been in turmoil

So the reality is that local issues have not been the main focus of peoples attention

But be warned, Gentle Reader !!
It's a well established ploy to "bury" news and use stealth whilst attention is focused elsewhere
Like Banks slipping in their Outline Planning Application just before last Christmas and making good use of Covid restrictions, maybe....?

Anyway, here's a topic that been under the radar and warrants attention:

Planning Application PA/2021/2100
"The creation of a lagoon for the storage of liquid organic waste"
"Organic waste" is sometimes known as "s**t" by some people, apparently
The location is just the South of Barton, to the East of Brigg Road
(Looks like a previous application attempt was refused)

Just like the Banks Outline Planning Application, the Town Council has objected and raised concerns
And so did many Residents
And so did RAID
Not surprisingly, there were plentiful concerns about storing smelly liquid waste so close to housing
And not that far from Baysgarth Park (as the stench flies)

But unlike the Banks Application, it seems that the Town Council's and Residents opinions don't matter that much
Seems that the NLC Planning Officer is recommending approval

So remember that recommendation if you encounter the stench of rotting waste coming from the site
NLC and the Developer seem to think there won't be a problem - so that's OK then
But remember, once that "foot's in the door" it's almost impossible to stop unwelcome developments
Or to stop them getting even bigger

Perhaps NLC has forgotten how listen to local opinion and needs a reminder....?
What is our NLC Councillors stance is on this matter....?

The Planning Meeting is on Wednesday 2nd November at 2pm
Objectors will have received notice of this and we hope some will speak at this meeting

Update 14/7/22 pm:

OK - let's have a look at demolishing the claims that the Road Consultation was unfair
That's not a hard task, RAID reckons !

Here are some of those claims:

1) "..... consultation with some of the people of Barton....."

Response:

Some? NLC made great (and repeated) efforts to seek full and open consultation feedback

There's plentiful real-world evidence of this fact

2) "....the consultation which allowed 2 self interest groups to be involved...."

Response:

RAID's only interest is providing the community with information so that people can make their OWN decisions
How people choose use such information is totally out of our control
Maybe some people don't like that sort of democracy and/or prefer closed-shop decisions....?
(By the way, Option 3 was nothing to do with RAID)

3) "....no public invitation for people to be involved...."

Response:

Unbelievable! - see (1)

For instance, Barton Civic Society (BCS) submitted their views
Seems that those views didn't reflect the "Peoples Choice"
Should the community be concerned about this, perhaps?
(By the way, BCS were not receptive to listening to that upstart RAID)

4) ".....we never seemed to have the support of our politicians for the Council's proposal......

Response:

Politicians are supposed to serve the community and listen to widespread opinion (i.e. not just a select few)

In fact, the way that NLC encouraged and respected a democratic outcome is to be truly admired

To his great credit, Rob Waltham said that NLC would support the outcome of the consultation - and he stuck to this

Our NLC Councillors remained admirably (and totally) impartial throughout the consultation process

5) Relief Road issues

Some people seem unable to accept the reality that controlling exactly where private vehicles can go is not easy
Routes are often down to personal preference and freedom of choice

Most people acknowledge that Wren traffic has exponentially increased traffic in the town

Also that the most pragmatic main route to the A15/A1077 roundabout is through town

So the main points here are that:

a) Controlling HGV's is the easiest early win

b) Any alternative route will have to be longer - so will likely require a combination of enforcement, encouragement and changes of habit

RAID thought that the latest Technical Note was rather shoddy (and said so to NLC)
We'll be happy to demolish some key points in the next few days

We'll also be making some comments about the Neighbourhood Plan
A document involving BCS stewardship, we believe.....

Update 14/7/22 am:
Banks Refusal

For those who like detail, below is a cut-and-paste (literally!) copy of the Banks Outline Planning Application refusal
No text has been edited out - we just put it on one page, that's all
Interesting reading, we think....

Relief Road
As RAID has repeatedly pointed out before, the recent NLC Southern Boundary "Link/Relief Road" proposals prioritised infill building
Not easing traffic problems !
RAID fought for the release of information that revealed this
INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT IN MID 2021 (or earlier?)
Did anybody else bother to establish the facts?
Did the Barton Civic Society (BCS) Executive do this before supporting a (close-to) Southern Boundary solution?
We think not......

But things changed and NLC listened to (and seemingly accepted) what the majority (about 75% of respondents) wanted
Via an extensive consultation window that was OPEN TO ALL
The "Peoples Choice" (BCS quote)
THE COMMUNITY RESPECTS AND APPRECIATES THAT FACT
And most of us seem happy to let NLC get on with things accordingly

However, it seems that somebody seems to be more interested in:
Reigniting the endless dithering that stopped us getting a relief road decades ago
Digging up more countryside than is necessary
Facilitating covering it with concrete (housing and roads)
Overloading the town even more
Worrying about Wren's finances

Someone who really cares about the town, countryside and community, eh?
One suggestion we heard was that it could be down to a Bruised Personal Ego Thing

When the future direction of Barton is at stake?
Surely not.....?

More to follow shortly..........

Update 12/7/22 pm:

Well, we've been quiet as there's lots of heavy stuff going on in the world
We didn't want to distract and bore you when there was little more to say

But here's the latest news:

Banks
Banks are saying that they're considering NLC's grounds for refusing their application
We think this may indicate "do you really think we care that Barton Town Council and NLC Planning have (unanimously) said no?"
We suspect we'll soon come to realise how much public opinion really matters regarding their plan to rip up the countryside in the name of profit.....
But that's a battle for another day......

Relief Road - Barton Civic Society (BCS):
BCS have stated the following in their Newsletter:
"The last proposals with 3 options, we left to individuals to respond and, as of now, North Lincs are proposing the "peoples choice" as their preferred route"

"Peoples Choice" - says it all !!

RAID says:
All credit to BCS for (seemingly) conceding that the majority of those consulted didn't want Southern Barton encircling with a close-to ring road
BCS had supported that solution, seemingly not bothering recognise that it was primarily about even more housing infill (RAID FOI request!)
And how it would have strangled this overloaded town and community even more
Irrespective of unwarranted destruction of the countryside (perhaps we should be worried if BCS aren't too troubled by this...?)

BCS Lawless Element?
(Lawless (adv): characterised by a lack of civic [society?] order)
So it's interesting to hear whispers that a BCS stalwart maybe doesn't seem to be accepting the (above stated) BCS Party Line
Or doesn't seem to respect the fact that about 75% of those who responded to the open consultation wanted the route that NLC is now working on
We're not sure how BCS formally feels about this (seemingly renegade) action
Or how it reflects respect for the outcome of the widespread consultation that NLC held
A consultation that closed long ago.....

RAID is receiving vibes that this "after-the-horse-has-bolted action" is receiving the contempt it deserves
It would be rude to repeat some people's derisory comments about the info they've been given........

8/6/22 pm - STOP PRESS !!!!!!

NLC Planning Meeting for Banks Outline Application
PERMISSION REFUSED - UNANIMOUSLY !!

Here's some feedback from those who were there:
There were three Objectors who were allowed to speak for 5 minutes each
Banks fielded their Planning Expert who was allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes
Councillor Paul Vickers stated that many Residents were concerned about this application

The Banks guy trotted out the anticipated spiel about what a great scheme he thought it was
Conveniently neglecting to mention the glaringly obvious fact that that it was outside of the Local Plan....
He mentioned that there were 27 letters of support - a figure dwarfed by the number of objection letters
And not a single one of these supporters had turned up to speak.......

The Committee then deliberated
They praised the Objectors for "eloquent" presentations
They made some further comments, but it didn't take long

DECISION: APPLICATION REFUSED - UNANIMOUSLY !!

Oh, and by the way - it seems that Natural England don't much care for the Banks proposal either.......
Will Banks retire gracefully? We'll see.........

But in the meantime, this is another milestone victory in the battle against a Developer that seemed so self-assured previously

THIS IS OUR TOWN AND COMMUNITY
LET US DECIDE WHAT WE WANT AND NEED !!
Sincere thanks and gratitude from RAID for all those helping to fight this battle !!

Update 1/6/22 pm:

The Local Plan has resurfaced for another consultation round
If you want to read 396 pages of information, grab a coffee and a find comfy chair......
The link is as before (see 2038 Local Plan page), but now scroll down to "Stage 5"

The consultation period is from 30/5/22 until 11/7/22
As before, there will be a public event at Baysgarth on 20/6/22 (about 4pm until 7.15pm)
NLC has previously advised that this is primarily a "final tidy-up" (as opposed to "let's reinvent the wheel") exercise

Key points relating to Barton include:
The proposed Link Road scheme (the outcome of extensive consultation!) is covered
The planned growth until 2038 is 583 homes (= 8%)
This is intended to be in previously-proposed development areas
The planned growth limit to remain in place until the Link Road is operational, at least
This reflects the fact that the town's capacity is already overstretched

The land that Banks is so keen to rip up for profit does not feature in this Local Plan
Will Banks still try to overturn the Local Plan....?
With a recommendation by the Planning Officer of "Refuse Permission"?

It seems that Banks have been rather proud of getting their own way in the past, despite objections
Development with Care, eh...?

The usual question from RAID is: "For Whom?"

*Update 28/5/22:

Banks' desire to rip up greenbelt countryside is scheduled for review at a NLC Planning Committe meeting
8/6/22, 14.00hrs - Church Square House, Scunthorpe
Public attendance will be (understandably) restricted due to Covid-19 considerations

RAID is keen to offer praise just as readily as criticism, when relevant
So we're delighted to offer our heartfelt appreciation to the Planning Officer handling the Banks Application
The Summary Recommendation to the Committee?
"Refuse Permission"

That's what so many people feel about a perceived assault on Barton for sheer commercial gain
Over to you now, NLC Planning Committee......

*Update 23/5/22:
So Banks have now filled up the holes and are maybe thinking "out of sight, out of mind - let's get on with a targeted charm offensive"

Sorry to disappoint you Banks - RAID hasn't forgotten about your cunning plan to rip up the countryside and will have more to say in the next few days

Since our last update, more thousands have been added to the site visit/page view figures

Watch this space..........

*Update: 20/4/22 pm:
The ever-increasing visitor numbers show that you look at the information that we provide
So here's an update with some thoughts and observations:

The Application is still with NLC for consideration (see Planning Officer comments - 31/3/22 Update)
Banks are busy digging away - maybe they hope nobody will tell them to stop ?
(only joking, Banks !! - and we know you're experts in your field)
They'll be busy bees, justifying their application
E.g. maybe by claiming that traffic predictions based on lockdown conditions are still realistic?

RAID doesn't support the unjustified concreting of greenbelt, just to keep Developers happy
That's why we supported Road Option 1
Minimum of new road, majority of route is existing
Deepdale left undisturbed - and we fully support that !!

But what we've previously asked NLC - and never got an answer - is this:
The Local Plan, Section 9.4.8 assigns the Deeepdale general area as one of "high landscape value"
We totally agree - but we asked NLC why the no-less-beautiful Barton Southern Gateway was not given this rating
We never got a reply from NLC
Which we think is rather strange.......

This beautiful Gateway is what Banks would like to turn into prime development land
Because Prime Land = Prime Profit
If you think the agenda is pure benevolence for the "Benefit of Barton" , we respectfully suggest that your trust is somewhat misplaced.....
(Should the pet phrase "badly needed homes" read "highly desirable profit", perhaps?)

One revealing thing about the current archaeological excavations is that it shows the true extent of the Banks vision
Well, it shows the first part, anyway.......

Many people are saying that it's truly deplorable - and the word "frightening" is frequently heard
Hopefully, they've taken the time to tell that to NLC Planning (and/or their NLC Councillor)
It's no good just sighing and shrugging (but we suspect that Banks would prefer it if you do !)

Seems that the Planning Application required a declaration of other areas of interest
These are shown on maps elsewhere (or on the NLC Planning Portal - see Banks Application Objections page for details)
It's a reasonable guess that they'll not stop at "up to 390 homes" and then grow spuds instead....
We reckon "up to 390 homes" is true Trojan Horse - a "foot in the door" on an epic scale
Two, Three, Four or more times more?
We suspect that Banks would vehemently deny this at this stage, of course ("...just a concept for our portfolio - years away - if at all..." ?)
And we wouldn't be surprised if they even reduce the initial build number to try to reduce objections ("...we listened..." ?)

In RAID's (and many other) opinion(s), Banks showed their cards during their initial presentation - see Barton Planning Meeting (Banks) page
We believe they'll pull every lever possible to secure this massive prize
Then sell it on to the Builder(s) and move on to the next target
It's called "Flipping"
Flipping nightmare, we reckon....

The Builder(s) will have a different agenda - "Outline Planing Permission noted, but we now want to make changes"
This happens all the time - changes to layouts and details, more houses, different types
Once that foot's in the door, it can be very difficult for Planning to say no to repeated expansion by stealth ("just a bit more")
DON'T BE FOOLED: Outline Planning Permission (with lots of "Reserved Matters") is primarily a "Now Pass Go" ticket

This is NOT just about protecting the countryside - it will affect EVERYBODY, in one form or another
Regardless of any town/countryside preference you may have
Barton, the community and the (already overloaded) infrastructure will live with the irreversible legacy for decade after decade......
And repent at leisure
Or maybe whilst trying to get a Doctor or Dentist appointment, or doing the school run......

Recently, a Western fan mentioned that the situation reminded him of a Snake Oil Salesman
Brilliant at selling alleged solutions to all sorts of problems
And smart enough to pocket the money and do runner before they were found out
"History repeats itself", he said
"But Banks say they care" came the reply
He just laughed and rode off
On his bike, not a horse....

Please be clear - RAID is NOT against justified development
We support a democratically-derived Local Plan that controls growth type/volume and where that growth is located
We're not aware of Banks being interested in this current version
We believe that Banks will continue to push their agenda
We think it represents commercial greed and eco vandalism on a massive scale
Banks have already indicated an intent to challenge the Local Plan (Planning Application docs refer - NLC Portal)
Bully the locals into submission? Is that "Care"?
We believe it's happened in similar scenarios......

JUST SHRUGGING AND BEING SORRY LATER ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH, IN RAID's BOOK !!

Anyway, here are a few more RAID thoughts:

*Update 14/4/22 pm:
Banks have been busy digging up the countryside, seemingly hoping for a bumper (cash) harvest to follow
Fortunately, the adjacent land they'd declared an interest in (but are not shouting about!) has crops growing in it
Their Outline Planning Application still rests with NLC....

So in the meantime, let's consider the Link/Relief Road consultation results (now released)
Here are some key points:
Over 95% of responses saw a priority to get HGV traffic out of town
Over 96% of responses wanted a reduction of in-town traffic
(maybe the remaining 4-5% are hauliers or like heavy traffic?)
Over 97% of responses wanted to prioritise the town and community sustainability
(interpreted as opposite to "how much traffic and development can we cram into the area?")
Over 94% of responses wanted minimum impact on the environment
(this matters a great deal to so many people nowadays - and rightly so)

Option 1 secured 62.6% support
Option 2 secured 28% support
Option 3 secured 9.4% support

Options 1 and 3 proposed the same road route and, in total, secured 72% support
They didn't involve carving up large swathes of the countryside for (extended duration) road building
The key difference between them was that Option 3 added other buildings/development (outside of the Local Plan Development Area)

We're not sure why NLC calls 28% for Option 2 "almost 1/3" (when it's nearer to 1/4), but Hey Ho.....
The reality is that nearly 3 out of 4 people DIDN'T favour it
Seems like the Barton Civic Society (BCS) "Executive Committee" preference was out of step with far wider opinion (see Latest News 28/1/22)
Cue seriously bruised BCS "Executive Committee" pride/credibility and resultant moans of "foul" ?

There was ample notice, information and voting opportunity given about this consultation
We applaud NLC for listening, supporting open debate and respecting the democratic outcome
Everybody had an ample chance to have their say BEFORE AND DURING the process (as opposed to complaining afterwards)
NLC remarked that it was a very high turnout, with a very clear outcome
NLC say they simply want to get on with delivering the solution
Hurrah for that, say a very clear majority - let's move on.....

But we believe that the consultation event gave a message about far more than the Link/Relief Road alone
For those who care to listen, at least

WHAT THE TOWN/COMMUNITY WANTS:
Reduced traffic and infrastructure load
Care for the countryside and environment

WHAT THE TOWN/COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT:
A development free-for-all
Close encirclement by a link/relief road

In the meantime, Banks are busy having a first-pass at digging up arable land in order to try to justify a development that THEY are pushing for
And that's outside of OUR Local Plan's Development Area
Hoping that we'll just shrug, be bullied into submission and bought off by Section 106 levies and community sweetners...?

Money talks - but this Community has just spoken very clearly too
We suspect that Our Friends in the North won't care about this simple fact at all
"Care" means different things to different people......

P.S. Thanks for your ever-increasing visits to this site (despite this relatively quiet period !!)
We're just waiting on NLC's ruling and the Banks response......

HAVE A GREAT EASTER !!

*Update 7/4/22 am:

Last night, a comprehensive update on current issues was given to Barton Town Council by Rob Waltham
Feedback received is that:
Many topics were discussed and questions raised
It was a calm and productive meeting
Headline issues included:

The Option 1 road proposal is being progressed, following a clear and informative consultation outcome
The Barton Interchange proposal is being progressed along with other improvement initiatives for the area
Budget applications are scheduled for July, with funding decisions anticipated in November
This would form apart of the "Levelling-Up" agenda

Local resource issues were discussed and Rob stressed the importance of adherence to a robust Local Plan

RAID SAYS:
That's the LOCAL Plan (as opposed to a Durham-based plan) that Banks seem eager to overturn

So does the Banks strategy represent:
1) Respect for local views, resources and development strategy?
2) A great excuse to rip up arable land (and cause eco damage) when food shortages and cost hikes are increasingly rife?
3) Development with care, as opposed to PR waffle?
or
4) Sheer arrogance based on commercial gain?

Seems that the most common opinion we're hearing (by far!!) is (4)
But Hey Ho - that's unlikely to deter Banks !!
It will be interesting to see what happens, if it becomes more evident how much they REALLY care
We await NLC Planning's decision with great interest
That's when true colours will become clear......

*Update 6/4/22 am:

We genuinely appreciate the Martin Vickers objection statement (albeit very last-minute!!) to the Banks proposal (see 31/3/22)

Unfortunately, it seems that Martin is currently receiving some attention regarding donations
(Google: "gi media news Cleethorpes MP receives russian donations")
According to the article, the gist appears to be that:
Donations (£1.1M?) to the Government, MPs and Ministers by Offshore Group Newcastle Ltd

As always, RAID is just trying to keep you informed of events
Whether you read (or how you choose to interpret) the article is your call, of course
We are NOT suggesting that Martin Vickers has erred - political donations are public domain information
But it helps illustrate (yet again) how much high level lobbying goes on behind the scenes (see Money Talks page)

QUESTION, QUESTIONS.....
RAID continues to question why Banks homed in on Barton
A greenfield site - outside of the Local Plan Development Area
And why, despite objections and justification, they appear confident that they will get their way
Could it be due to high level lobbying or Developer (including non-Banks?) donations?
Were there high level (informal) suggestions that their success would be likely?
Is that still the case, perhaps?
Are there beans to be spilled?
Will anybody have the courage to spill them, if so?
The reality is that a lot has happened since Banks first crept into town.....

By the way, we're certainly NOT suggesting that there is/was any connection between Banks, Able and Offshore Newcastle Ltd
The connection to the North East and some similar areas of development interest is doubtless a mere coincidence

In the meantime, Banks are busy digging up land where crops could be growing for future generations
Development with Care......

*Update 31/3/22 pm:
The Archaeological site study has started
Remember that this is an Outline Planning Application
Matters are "Reserved" apart from "up to 390 homes" and the road accesses
What happens when the site is sold on to the Builder(s) could change radically - Banks will have moved on
Simple fact: Empty land does not maximise profit - optimised building density does !
So we believe the main objective of the study will be to obtain historical records before excavation
As opposed to preserving any heritage site and/or minimising building work

As usual with any Planning Application, Statutory Review comments are landing back at NLC Planning
Full details are on the NLC Planning Portal and we'll not bore you with too much fine detail !

In general, no real surprises:
It's not unusual to see comments comments along the lines of:
"more info required"
"need to review further"
"Section 106 costs will be levied, if this plan proceeded"

Some general points include:
Traffic: Seemingly underestimated (surprising?)
Natural England: "....insufficient information...." "...potential impacts on best and most versatile agricultural land...."

So the usual box-ticking, caveats and ping-pong is progressing like with many other applications

But the Elephant in the Room is what RAID has shouted about for months !!

So what does the Planning Officer's report have to say?
Nothing that surprising, in reality:

"The site is outside of the development limit of Barton upon Humber in the open countryside therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy CS3"
"The proposal for housing is not essential to the functioning of the countryside"
"The application for residential development is contrary to Policy CS7 and Policy CS8"
"The proposal is contrary to Policy RD2 Development in the Open Countryside"
"The proposal for residential development is in the open countryside and contrary to the councils adopted development plans"

These criteria are already in place - they haven't just been invented !
Barton Town Council objected - unanimously !
And the Government's stated intent is to focus on Brownfield development

So RAID asks (yet again), why Banks seem so determined to push for this development?
And why they seem to be confident to do so?
Is there something we're not being told?

Many Residents have objected to this proposal
That doesn't appear to trouble Banks, either
And it doesn't seemed to have bothered them in other areas
Development with Care? Really?

Anyway, let's hear what Martin Vickers MP has to say
Unfortunately it was right of the end of the consultation period and too late to encourage further objections, but here it is:

"This planning application should be refused on good planning grounds the most significant of which is that this site is not designated for residential development in the North Lincolnshire Local Plan - the plan which is the foundation on which all decisions are based

The Council must take into consideration the strain further housing will place on the area's public services which are already struggling to meet the demands of the local community

If planning permission is refused and the developer appeals then the Council must defend its decision vigorously. Local residents deserve nothing less

Regards,

Martin Vickers"
(21/01/22)

Does Banks care about these fundamental issues?
RAID suspects the answer is no
And we're intrigued to know why......

*Update 18/3/22 am:

Now that NLC's busy working on a way forward with the Relief Road, let's refocus on Banks

Bet they've missed us...!!

The Outline Application is with NLC Planning and Statutory Consultee comments continue to land:

This includes feedback about drainage and sewerage overload - no surprise there !

(Banks were told about this ages ago - See Barton Planning Meeting page)

Seems that they need to revisit their traffic studies

As stated before, Developers are (unsurprisingly) keen to show how little disruption they will cause

Focus is given to peak-hours junction modelling

We gather that Banks did baseline traffic surveys during the lockdown period

If so, hardly a fair representation of "normal" traffic conditions, surely?

Development with Care......?

Data to follow about the Relief Road consultation shows how high a priority eco matters have now become to many people - and rightly so !!

And the terrible events in Ukraine have demonstrated how dependent we are on other countries for essential food and goods

The UK now produces less than 60% of its food (it was about 80% 40 years ago)

We are now seeing massive price increases and inflation

We are also seeing just how dependent on imports we actually are

The UK is now (belatedly) realising that we must be more self-sufficient
However, Banks still seem to believe that ripping up arable land is a Good Thing
Well perhaps it is if profit is your motivation - as opposed the environment and UK food production

We've been advised that - as part of the Planning Application process - there will be some archaeological work carried out soon
Only be alarmed if you see masses of excavators and concrete mixers on the site
This may indicate that Banks have got carried away with the assumption that they usually get what they want...!
Old habits are hard to break, we're told....

But the World is changing very quickly
And the Relief Road consultation has showed just how much difference public opinion can make.....

*Update 10/3/22 am:

NLC ANNOUNCES THAT RELIEF ROAD OPTION 1 WAS THE CLEAR PREFERENCE IN THE CONSULTATION RESULT !!

Thank you to those who kept visiting the site, despite us having little to say after the consultation closed
The waiting is now over and NLC has announced the outcome
We cannot provide you with totally accurate data at the moment
But the total number of consultation surveys submitted was almost 700
This makes it a "meaningful" consultation feedback (very large, in reality) that reflects public opinion

https://www.northlincs.gov.uk/news/residents-preferred-route-for-barton-link-road-revealed/

OPTION 1 (RAID's proposal) secured the highest support by a very considerable margin
This reflects the support that was clearly evident at the two public meetings
This is the route that NLC will seek to secure funding for, develop in feasibility/detail and implement

We'll keep you up to date when we know more, but an indicative programme may be:
Apply for funding (in the next month or so?)
Secure funding in (Q4/2022?)
Construct (2023?)

RAID's part in this was merely to INFORM YOU and push for YOUR RIGHT to have YOUR SAY
To their credit - NLC listened, worked with RAID and BEECHGROVE FARMS to support this aim
They wrote to THOUSANDS of people, arranged for TWO public meetings and provided paper feedback facilities
The Community should (and RAID certainly does) - thank them sincerely for that
It's a fine example of true democracy and all parties working together to get results

But the biggest thanks are due to those who truly care about how Barton develops and its future

YOUR OPTION REALLY MATTERS - AND YOU SHOULD BE VERY PROUD TO HAVE SHOWN THIS !!

*Update 23/10/22 am:
You may be wondering "Why so quiet, RAID?"
Well, voting closed for the Relief Road option on 18/2/22 and we now await feedback from NLC
The Banks Outline Planning Application is also in NLC's court.....

For both the Banks and Relief Road issues, it will be interesting to see how much notice NLC takes of strong Local Opinion

Oh, and by the way - another couple of milestones for the website today (i.e. another THOUSAND new visitors and another TEN THOUSAND of visitor/session/page hits over the last month)

Thanks for visiting - we'll let you know when we hear from NLC !!

*Update 10/2/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 16
8 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

RAID has kept you informed and was quietly leaving Residents to decide Barton's future
But there are a couple of things worth mentioning:

ROAD RECLASSIFICATION
A key tool (as well as others) in controlling traffic behaviour
Difficult?
NO ! - Local Authorities have had this power for about 10 years!
It's a myth that it needs debating in Parliament etc, etc.....

PRIVATE VEHICLES & "GOOD NEIGHBOUR" POLICY
As we've said many times, private vehicles are difficult to control - FACT
But many major employers have a "good neighbour" policy
This actively encourages minimum-disruption employee travel
This could include staggered arrival/departure/shift times, park and ride etc
A lot depends on whether the employer signs up to helping the Community
Will WREN?
They have said that they want to help - so let's see.......
An unrealistic expectation?
NO !!
For instance, we gather that the two local oil refineries actively discourage car travel via certain routes

Enhanced traffic control is made up of many tools and encourages changes in behaviour
A good start is having a section of new road to enable this
0.7 mile of tarmac will suffice.....
Endless dithering and debate won't
It's why we didn't get a Relief Road decades ago......

VOTE OPTION 1 !!

*Update 9/2/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 15
9 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

We've done our very best to give you the information needed to make an informed decision
The Letter to Residents page explains why we've done this
The Relief Road page provides the detail behind what we are saying
The Latest News pages give a history of things that have happened along the way

Now it's down to Residents to decide the way ahead for Barton
And RAID has no problem with that, at all........

*Update 7/2/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 13
11 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

It's maybe worth commenting about the two consultation events:
25/1/22 at Baysgarth School & 5/2/22 at Baysgarth Hub
Both of these were arranged and hosted by NLC

It seems that some people have referred to Baysgarth Hub as the "RAID event" - it wasn't !
Stands for Option 1 (RAID) and Option 3 (BEECHGROVE FARMS) were there by kind NLC invitation
This was a truly open and democratic event - and we thank NLC for arranging it

RAID has always tried hard to give you the best information we can
Backed up by documentation (on this site!) that supports what we are saying (see Relief Road page)
We did our best to present this information clearly and openly at the two public meetings
There were a lot of people to talk with and listen to, in a short time !!
Many Residents kindly commented that they have never been so well informed
That's how it should be - and RAID is pleased to have done this

RAID's actions have allowed YOU to have a say in the future of Barton
We hope that warrants your trust and support
But RAID cannot control how you choose to vote - that's your call
True democracy - and that's how it should be

RAID'S VIEW?
OPTION 1 has logic on its side (just like the 1992 Humberside County Council proposal - but it avoids Deepdale)

It prioritises heavy traffic reduction
THAT'S what we need so badly and asap !!

We already have about 900 new houses in the pipeline
Option 2 would dwarf this figure - and crush the town even more
It will affect EVERYBODY in the town and all the services
Most people seem to think that Barton's already struggling.....

RAID has worked hard to give YOU a choice
WE HOPE THAT CHOICE IS OPTION 1 !!

Thank you for your support !!

*Update 5/2/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 11
13 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

Well today saw the second consultation event
This time it was at Baysgarth Community Hub (10am - 12noon)
As before - a great atmosphere - people eager to talk and listen freely
It was really well attended and manned by four RAID volunteers (thank you for your time!)
Once again, they were struggling to keep up with demand !
MANY RESIDENTS WERE EAGER TO VOTE FOR OPTION 1 ON THE SPOT !!
With very few exceptions, Residents could see the logic behind our proposal
Many expressed regret that the 1992 Humberside County Council proposal stalled
In fact, the RAID proposal is a similar concept - but not routed via Deepdale

Rob Waltham was there and confirmed that he just wants a democratic decision - and to secure funding and get the work done !
He confirmed that Options 1 & 3 votes would be combined, regarding the Relief Road (after all, it's the same route!)

What does need repeating is that additional tarmac on its own is not enough
There must be other traffic control measures as well as this
And that would apply to ANY solution !
Details like this are addressed at detail design stage - not this concept stage

Comments that did get heard MANY TIMES during the event were along the lines of:
"We've never been so well informed and it's good to have our say"
"The traffic is a nightmare"

What we didn't hear is:
"What we really need is a road that will bring lots more housing and services that are stretched even more"

Which is why so many Residents seem to like Option 1......

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE RAID PROPOSAL !!
KEEP VOTING FOR OPTION 1 !!
EVERY VOTE COUNTS !!

*Update 4/2/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 10
14 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

CONSULTATION EVENT - BAYSGARTH COMMUNITY HUB
SATURDAY 5/2/22: 10am - 12noon
RAID WILL BE THERE !!
COME AND SEE WHY OPTION 1 IS THE LOGICAL CHOICE

Other News - See 3/2/22 Update, below:
RAID "Letter to Residents"

New flyer:

"THERE'S LESS THAN A MILE OF NEW ROAD BETWEEN NOW AND THE FUTURE OF BARTON"

VOTE FOR OPTION 1 - NOW !!

3/2/22 pm:
A LETTER TO RESIDENTS:
(here's the text - letter below)

Dear Fellow Resident,

BARTON RELIEF ROAD & RAID

With Relief Road option voting underway (ends 18/2/22), RAID thinks this is the right time to provide you with a summary of where we are now and how we got to this point.

RAID was formed in August 2021, due to the Banks proposal. Barton Town Council has (and many others have) since objected to their Outline Planning Application. The matter is now in the hands of NLC Planning.

Ironically, that proposal made us look harder at the (just earlier) mid-2021 NLC Relief Road “consultation”. We thought that the route was aimed more at creating a new boundary/building line rather than quickly relieving traffic loads in the town. We still believe it’s the true primary agenda for the current NLC proposal.

RAID recommends an alternative route (Option 1) that prioritises improved traffic management.

There’s a mass of detail on the RAID website about this should you require more information.

We haven’t been afraid to investigate, challenge, ask questions and rock many boats. We’ve tried to back up what we we’re saying via evidence. We’ve offered our opinion and, in many cases, our views and predictions were found to be accurate. If we’ve made mistakes, we’d like think we’ve admitted it. We’ve acted quickly and decisively because there’s rarely time for endless debate.

Are we against all development? NO!! It’s a necessary and accepted fact of life. However, the key word is “inappropriate” and a good starting point is respecting the Local Plan and Permitted Development areas

We’ve gained credibility with NLC and appreciate being made a Planning Consultee. Communications between NLC and RAID have not always been frictionless, but we hope there is mutual respect.

We’re not political. We just want things to be done fairly and openly. Whoever’s running the show.

We’ve tried to give you facts, so that you can make informed decisions. It became very clear how little information that’s in the public domain is shared and read widely. It’s out there perhaps, but you have to know where to look. That’s not always easy and people are very busy with their everyday lives. Events suddenly happen and then it’s too late to change anything. Some players make good use of this advantage!

That’s why we asked NLC to advise you by letter about the Banks and Relief Road issues. Old technology, but it’s totally fair and still effective. Not everybody is familiar with IT and social media.

The Relief Road vote gives YOU a major say in the future of YOUR Barton. We hope you support Option 1. It offers a prompt and relatively eco-friendly reduction of heavy traffic in the town. It’s long overdue.

RAID will respect the outcome, assuming it’s evident that the voting system is run fairly and openly.

We want people to be properly and widely informed and to have a real (and timely) say about their own community. That’s true democracy. Key decisions like this should not be decided primarily via small (closed shop and/or remote?) committees or individuals who may not have to live with the outcome on a daily basis.

If nothing else, we’ve opened up debate and discussion. Thank you for encouraging us to do that.

RAID

www.bartonraid.net

3rd February 2022

*Update 2/2/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 8
16 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

What's this?

Has RAID lost the plot?

Yesterday it was 10 days left - now it's 16 !

Seem's it's due to RAID kicking up a fuss about NLC's lack of provision of timely info
The consultation cutoff is now a week later - 18/2/22
Apparently, a NLC letter explaining things more clearly is on the way
CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE - THANK YOU FOR LISTENING NLC !!

Meanwhile, later that day:

Our man Sherlock popped into Baysgarth Hub to see the "improved" NLC display (see 30/1/22, below)
Table now added with survey leaflets (but no signage/info)
The survey forms (wrong cutoff date) are a paper version of the electronic survey
One slight catch, though
Nothing on the form (or anywhere else) to tell you where to leave/send the forms
No postbox, address or drop-off details
And the ever helpful Receptionists didn't know either
On the funny side: what a farce!
On the serious side: how well controlled and audited will the ballot be? (see 1/2/22, below)
We asked last week - reply still awaited
NLC will be judge and jury
And that's worrying........

*Update 1/2/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 7
10 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

Well the shoddy "presentation" at Baysgarth Hub was still there as the daylight faded yesterday
Nobody came back to us during the day to confirm how/when this will be rectified
So that made it another day without effective public information on display
About a week on from the Baysgarth "consultation" evening on 25/1/22
The promised NLC follow-on letter to tell everybody (who wasn't there on 25/1/22) about the voting process has yet to appear on the mat......
Will NLC tell you about the voting or the 5/2/22 consultation at Baysgarth Hub by letter?
Or will NLC expect you to use psychic powers and word-of-mouth to know what's going on? (they seem to prefer that when it suits!)

So let's use this enforced "silence" (well NLC's silence, at least) to talk about data and voting systems:
Without access to any internal NLC data, and with only very limited scrutiny, we identified concerns about the NLC Planning Portal (ref. Banks)
Like objections to a Belton Planning Application under the Banks Application
Or the RAID objection, that mystified (very helpful and polite) NLC staff
Several other objections were submitted at exactly the same time and published on the portal quickly
Yet RAID's objection had been received and then went awol, it seems
After several emails and phone calls it was finally unearthed and published on the final day (21/1/22)
Strange indeed.....
And it seems that NLC has encountered some other problems with sensitive personal data being sent out in error
Far more sensitive than Planning data, apparently.....

So your point is, RAID?
NLC will be handling the Relief Road survey data and scoring it - judge and jury
NLC appears to be less than enthusiastic about ensuring a true level playing field for the Relief Road survey
(e.g. late/restricted release of information)
NLC doesn't seem to be that brilliant at data handing and processing
These things concern RAID
And they should be of concern YOU !!

Yes of course RAID has asked how the voting data will be processed and audited
We await a response.....

(P.S. Another thousand on the tally of people who have visited the site! Many re-visits! THANK YOU !)

*Update 31/1/22 am:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 6
11 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

FIRST - A SINCERE APOLOGY !!!
Yesterday, we were astounded by the pathetic "consultation" display at Baysgarth Hub (see yesterday's post)
So, not surprisingly, we ripped into Cllr Paul Vickers !!
Now don't get us wrong - we have plenty of time and respect for Paul
But he's the contact that Martin Vickers and NLC tend to steer us to
What we said didn't pull any punches
We said the way NLC is (deliberately?) playing this "consultation" is a disgrace

We got a very calm and polite reply from Paul
In fact, he had been busy with other Relief Road stuff (emails and setting up the 5/2/22 public meeting)
Seems he had no input to the "information" "displayed" at the Hub
And he had to remind NLC to do something, when he noticed nothing was there

So hats off to Paul for doing his best - and a big THANK YOU from RAID !!

But SHAME on YOU NLC, for showing - YET AGAIN - how keen you seem to be to suppress/skew true consultation
We believe you're doing everything you can to (stealthily) give Option 2 an advantage
Maybe because it's what you've already tempted Developers with?
Trouble is, people are now asking question - and it seems they're rather angry about things !!
This is about the whole town's future - not individuals
We want CONSULTATION not CON

We've written to Paul and NLC
Let's see what happens next.....

Keep visiting - and keep voting for Option 1 !!

*Update 30/1/22 pm:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 5
12 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

Beautiful day - so a walk to the Baysgarth Community Hub to try to find the NLC Relief Road options map

Our man Sherlock had been told it was there somewhere
He looked around the main entrance hall - Nothing
In despair, he asked at the very helpful Reception desk
"Oh, it's taped on the side wall in the entrance porch - I missed it too" (despite working there!)
And yes - there was the treasure !

The display primarily aimed at those not on the internet:
A map with a QR code next to it
With no other explanation whatsoever
And nothing in the NLC 18/1/22 letter that said it would be there (so how would you know?)
No mention of the "consultation" cutoff
No mention of a survey (we're still waiting for that letter !)
No mention of a public meeting there on 5/2/22
No invitation for RAID (Option 1) and Beechgrove Farms (Option 3) to display there too

RAID was fine with the 11/1/22 cutoff - on the assumption that full and timely data was made available to all
The reality is that it hasn't been
Judicial Review territory, some say....

NLC are doing their very best to stack the cards in their favour
Their classic "we told you, didn't you know?" ploy

Trouble is, more and more people can see through this now
Because RAID has given you the FACTS

VOTE FOR OPTION 1 - TAKE BACK CONTROL OF YOUR TOWN & COMMUNITY !!

Anyway, here's the map that Sherlock missed
And that YOU were meant to miss too, we believe

QUESTIONS:
Why is taking RAID to shout about this skewed shambles?
Where are you Barton Town Council?
Party Loyalty over Community Loyalty?

Coming soon:
Can we trust NLC database management?
(e.g. Vote scoring, Planning Portal)

*Update 29/1/22 pm:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 4
13 DAYS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!

https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

Weekend off?
No such luck - no time for that !! The clock is ticking....
Those opinionated RAIDERS, eh?
Spouting off, talking about conspiracies, closed-shop decisions and hidden agendas. Pah !!
Well folks, if you take the time to look at the mass of detail on this site there is information to back up our opinions
The Relief Road page is very relevant right now !
We don't want to bore you with various (revealing?) chunks of email traffic along the way, but maybe we should.....

Anyway, today let's talk about TIMING, WHAT WE'RE TOLD (OR NOT) and THE RISKS

A great example is Banks:
They did low-key scheming and plotting first (about a year beforehand, at least?)
They offered an idyllic new estate
They developed plans to "sell" the dream (which only really pins down the roads and "up to 390 homes", it seems)
Then they slipped in the Outline Application (which quietly indicated a long-term land-grab agenda)
Submitted just before Christmas (people preoccupied, Covid problems)
And they were probably hoping for the original/quick 30/12/21 consultation closure
If nobody notices and challenges, that sort of strategy is brilliantly effective
Trouble is, if somebody does notice and shout (like RAID), the attention created is exactly what they don't want !
Then things don't get sneaked under the radar - they get lots of (unwelcome by Banks?!) attention instead

Another fine example is NLC:
They did low-key scheming and plotting first (various road studies - not released, but primarily focused on housing, it seems)
They offered the dream of a new Relief Road
They developed plans to "sell" the dream
(er, with no mention of housing whatsoever)
Then they announced the May 2021 "consultation" (people preoccupied, Covid problems, Baysgarth meeting cancelled)
And they were probably hoping for a quick consultation closure
If nobody notices and challenges, that sort of strategy is brilliantly effective
But then came the Banks proposal - and RAID questioned the real road agenda
Then RAID started asking questions
The attention created was counter productive to NLC
They had tried to sneak things under the radar, it seems - but they got lots of (RAID) attention instead
The consultation was rightly extended and here we are now

Banks and NLC seem to be working from the same book
Maybe they are even on the same page?
(we really do wonder about this - we tried a FOI request to find out, but seemed to get pure waffle back)

But OK then, surely NLC would learn from this?
Er, no - apparently not
We're now in the next Relief Road "consultation" stage
When RAID met NLC on 2/11/21, the agreement was to meet again before this next consultation
The Baysgarth meeting was set (at that meeting) for 25/1/22 (yet subsequently not broadcast by anybody but RAID?!)
We would mutually-agree the NLC letter contents and survey questions up front (i.e. one-hit letter, pre-consultation)
This letter would be sent to all the Electoral Roll in advance of the Baysgarth meeting
(RAID wanted NLC to let EVERYBODY to know, for a change!)
We kept asking when this up-front meeting would happen
Then, at short notice we were told
The meeting would be a mere week before the Baysgarth event
This was a cunning ploy to get RAID on the back foot, we believe

But we had already anticipated this (lessons learned!) so had a flyer ready in advance
We were certain that NLC would not change their plan to encircle Barton (we kept asking - no reply ever came)
Seems like somebody on high - above NLC? Developer? - really wants Option 2 (all the way to the A15)!
To hell with those pesky Residents?
NLC showed us their plan and we were requested not to reveal it until 25/1/22
We didn't - but we did put our flyer on the website the next day
And said that the NLC plan was similar to before
NLC was not well pleased (and that's a very big understatement !)
Our flyer map showed the previous NLC proposal - all the way to the A15
The NLC map we saw on 18/1/22 showed the new road stopping at the B1218 (Brigg Road)
THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO TRY AND "SELL" YOU, we believe
But, in our view, the RAID flyer showed the real intent and forced NLC to be more transparent

So the irony here is that if NLC had not stalled with suspected intent to get RAID on the back foot, NLC could have hidden their intentions
Only to announce Phase 2 (not shown on their 18/1/22 map!) later?
When it would be too late to argue?
Then the final connection? (paid for by Banks maybe?)
And the mass-infill housing
Job done !! Trebles all round !! (Developer's bar tab)
(BTW: any truth in some alleged bar room chatter [NLC employee loose tongue?] that this housing/road agenda was sewn up long ago, we wonder?)

Anyway, now NLC has been forced to show their cards, it seems
Ummm - how could NLC still try to gain the upper hand?
Well, maybe reduce the effective opposition time by:
Keeping the "consultation" window short (NLC suggested 1 week initially! RAID spluttered in disbelief!)
Sending out the follow-on "survey" notification letter well after the "consultation"? (has yours arrived yet?)
(See Timeline - Relief Road page)
Oh, and don't mention the housing agenda at all (still)

Trouble is, many people seem to like Option 1 or Option 3......

One way or another, NLC are determined to get their way, RAID believes
(We'd love to be proved wrong - so vote for Option 1 !)

By the way, there's a NLC display - somewhere
We weren't old where in the 18/1/22 letter (only about Baysgarth on 25/1/22)
Nor were we told about the forthcoming vote in that letter (has yours arrived yet?)
It shows the Route Options
Was RAID offered any display space?
Level playing field....?
No way - but that's what NLC wants

We've said all along that RAID is not political - and that's the truth
The reality is that the Government, Local Authority and Town Council were democratically elected
It's reasonably likely that many RAIDERS voted for those in power (well this time, anyway....)

But:
(1) Politics aside, nobody can deny what a shambles things are at Government level
(2) We have a MP that had to be prodded into action to provide (overdue) visible evidence of opposition to Banks
(3) We don't think the Local Authority and our NLC Councillors are being straight with us (some history there?)
(4) And we have a Conservative-heavy Town Council (who will probably expected to toe the party line in any vote)

So it's not about politics, but:
RAID has always believed that what's happening (e.g. Banks, Road) is being driven from the top
Like it or not, the same political allegience runs right through this saga
Does that explain what's happening?
Is this what we voted for?
Maybe the quote at the top of the Summary Page says it all? (take a look)

We think the town and community is being treated like fools

And at long last residents are being given a real chance to have a say what THEY want - not the Planners and Developers

SO USE THIS UNIQUE CHANCE - AND USE IT WISELY

VOTE OPTION 1 - NOW !!

Take back control of YOUR town - not NLC's town

(and if NLC bans us from the next "consultation", you'll now understand why!)

*Update 28/1/22 pm:

BATTLE OF BARTON - DAY 3
2 WEEKS LEFT - VOTE FOR OPTION 1 NOW !!
https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

Not a short read, but lots to say:

The thing about RAID's OPTION 1 is that it has logic on its side
Maybe that explains these extracts from an email written by a "competitor" (could it be Option 2 or 3?!) about the 25/1/22 consultation:
"I don't think I have seen any meeting re planning or link roads so well attended"
"I blame it on RAID - they have connected with the public and RAID has got people interested"
"...add Route 1 and Route 3 together to get a fair score"

There is now talk of another "consultation"
Bring it on, says RAID !!
We connected with the public because Option 1 makes sense
And so it has Resident buy-in

We're now hearing about some people crying "foul"
Regrettably, we believe that may include Barton Civic Society (BCS)

Is that the same BCS that:
RAID met with in November? (see 10/11/21 Update)
Told RAID its mind was already made up?
Apparently, hadn't checked or challenged the facts?
Seemingly, didn't involve its membership base in this decision ("Executive Committee says...?")
Would not accept RAID's offer to work with them for a better Barton?
Seems to think that any Relief Road will magic-away private vehicles?

Please don't get us wrong
We genuinely admire the great work that BCS has done for this town

We're not on a mission to undermine BCS
But we're at a truly critical point in Barton's future
There's no time left for endless debate and dithering
We should have had this road in the last century !

We need it as quickly as possible
We did support NLC's 11/2/22 cutoff date
(Update 29/1/22: Well we did until they were so slow to send out the survey letter !!)

By the way, RAID's offer to work with (but not for) BCS remains open
We doubt it will ever be accepted
But never mind....

In October, we made a presentation the Town Council to voice our concerns about the Relief Road (see 7/10/21 Update)
Did the Town Council relay these concerns to Residents?

We said - on this site in November - that the Relief Road "consultation" was coming in January

It's not RAID's fault if nobody else cared enough to shout about it

Perhaps it suited others to keep things low key?

After all, there has been no shortage of "smoke and mirrors" during the Banks and Relief Road sagas........

The fact is that people are engaging with us because we're informing them like never before
And the regrettable thing is that we shouldn't have to do that
BUT WE DO, BECAUSE IT MATTERS TO THE WHOLE TOWN

What about our relationship with NLC?
Well they listened to us, offered to work with us and made us a Planning Consultee
They supported our presence at the 25/1/22 Baysgarth event
They don't seem to underestimate our determination
Both sides have their own objectives and opinions - that's life

So there have been some fairly heated comments along the way - from both sides !
However, we do want to place our thanks on record and say that we value this relationship

Oh, and by the way - we've just written to WREN as well

TRYING HARD TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ? - YOU BET WE ARE !!

Anyway, lets go back to those Relief Road Options:

[OPTION 1 - RAID] A 0.7 mile stretch of new road - with no added buildings

[OPTION 3 - BEECHGROVE FARMS] A 0.7 mile stretch of new road (same as OPTION 1) - with added buildings

"Ha! - OK then RAID, what are your views on Option 3?"
Well we can't fault the road proposal - it's the same as ours!
And we can't dispute a need for better Medical Centre facilities
The Landowner's offer to "gift" land for road and Medical Centre use has to be admired
But the challenging issue is that at least some of the (greenbelt) land is outside of the Local Plan building development area
It will be interesting to see how NLC will handle this if Option 3 wins the vote
It would be two-faced of RAID to criticise Banks for wanting to develop greenbelt land and say it's fine for Beechgrove Farms
So we won't

"But what about Option 2?" you ask

[OPTION 2 - NLC] A 1.5 mile stretch of new road - (initially) - with lots of added buildings (ultimately thousands?) to follow

RAID thinks there are are several angles to Option 2:

WHY?
This solution requires at least double the length of new-build road
It carves up countryside and so is hardly eco-friendly
It will take longer to build
It's the start of fully-encircling Barton and the pollution bowl it will create (noise and fumes)
TRUST
If you look at the Relief Road pages, there's plentiful NLC evidence about the primary intent of such a route
It took a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from RAID to help to release the NLC study information
The Local Plan (final public Consultation copy) indicated what NLC really wanted
In principle, little has changed to the route since the mid-2021 "consultation" - when no mention of housing was made (strange, eh?)
Housing is not mentioned at all in the current "consultation" either (even stranger?)
Or is NLC wanting to build over twice the length of new road required just for the hell of it?
SO PERHAPS YOU SHOULD QUESTION IF NLC IS BEING STRAIGHT WITH US
Unfortunately, RAID is not convinced
Nor are many other people who came to our stand on Tuesday
NLC
We believe they really want this route and will fight hard to justify it (whichever route wins the vote?)("Government funding is only available if....."?)
Has (verbally) indicated agreement that Option 1 & 3 votes should be combined - but will they formally commit to doing this?

RAID SAYS:
Vote for Option 1
If you want a quick and pragmatic solution

Vote for Option 2 if you:
Want to support the (perhaps stealthy?) NLC agenda
Want at least twice as much greenbelt land digging up
Want a solution to take longer and cost more to build (can we have the money saved for something else?)
Want Barton encircling with housing and pollution asap
Want yet more private vehicle traffic in the town even sooner
Want 2038 Local Plan housing limits (currently about 900 more by 2038) to be thrown in the bin before the ink dries
Are happy that your NLC Councillors have told you the full story up-front

Vote for Option 3
If you want Option 1, with added building

DECISIONS, DECISIONS, EH.....?!

Oh, and we did get a formal "support" quote from Martin Vickers
On the day of the Banks application gate closed
But we won't put it on the site yet
Too much other stuff going on !
The Banks issue is fully in NLC Planning's court now.....

*Update 26/1/22:

"THE BATTLE OF BARTON" HAS WELL AND TRULY STARTED !!

First of all, we would like to thank NLC for hosting the Baysgarth consultation event and supporting RAID's presence there
Secondly, a big thank you to the four RAIDERS who manned the stand - they were rushed off their feet !

When we started the site, the homepage said "Barton is Under Attack"
It still does - and rightly so !

Please make no mistake - the very future of how Barton evolves is in the balance
AND IT WILL BE DECIDED - BY YOU - by Friday 11th February 2022

Here's the link for the Relief Road survey (ends 11/2/22, 5pm):
https://qr.northlincs.gov.uk/MyPUNi

(YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED [OR WILL RECEIVE] ANOTHER LETTER ABOUT THIS FROM NLC)

On first view, this would seem to be just about a relief or link road - but it's not !
Its about the words that come after "road"
[OPTION 1 - RAID] A 0.7 mile stretch of new road - with no added buildings
[OPTION 2 - NLC] A 1.5 mile stretch of new road - (initially) - with lots of added buildings to follow
[OPTION 3 - BEECHGROVE FARMS] A 0.7 mile stretch of new road - with added buildings

There's so much to say and a lot of detail to take in
So here's the short version - and if you care to look at the Relief Road page there details will be added asap that support RAID's proposal

OPTION 1:
SIMPLE
LOGICAL
QUICK

So keep visiting this page for the LATEST NEWS folks !!
VOTING & LATEST ROUTE DETAILS BELOW !!

Anyway, more about last night:
Very well attended - queues at the door !
Great atmosphere - people eager to listen and talk freely
Very enthusiastic support for Option 1
NLC Councillor Paul Vickers re-stated (as has Rob Waltham) that he just wants a democratic decision
Paul's opinion was that it would only be fair that Options 1 & 3 votes are combined, regarding the road (after all, it's the same route!)

Obviously, we don't know exactly what was happening on other stands, but two worrying comments came back via NLC stand visits:
(1) That Options 1 & 3 are routed through Deepdale (in fairness, probably due to lack of local knowledge)
No they are not !!
(2) That Wren has stated that it would only use the NLC route
That's more worrying and we'd like NLC (& Wren?) to comment about this
Would Wren would try to influence and outweigh the outcome of the Barton-residents vote?
We don't believe so - we hope and think they would work with the town

But RAID would say this:
FACT: The quickest route from Falklands Way to the A15 is via the A1077 – i.e. through town (about 1.6 miles)
FACT: Making cars use a “preferred” route is difficult – people tend to use the easiest route they can (Company Travel Plans can help, though)

FACT: HGVs will use the cheapest/quickest route if they can – but are easier to control

FACT: HGV's can be made and/or persuaded to take another route, even though they might not prefer this
FACT: Controls include weight/access restrictions, road classification, “Good Neighbour” and Transport Planning
FACT: Large companies and hauliers do not own the roads or towns they drive through

FACT: Many “bypasses” are not the shortest A-to-B route. Like the M25, for instance !

These facts would be the same for ANY road solution - it's not just all about tarmac !

So there are several pieces to this jigsaw

RAID is not picking on WREN - they are a major employer and that's very welcome
But the reality is that their arrival is a major reason for the massive increase in traffic through Barton - and complaints about this

So what we think entirely reasonable is that WREN supports ANY new road initiative AND THIS COMMUNITY
There will eventually be a more neighbour-friendly HGV route between Barton and Scunthorpe than the A1077

We want WREN (and other HGVs !) to show that they care - and commit to using it
Because they can - if they want to

WREN (and other Hauliers) - please care about OUR Nest
Is that too much to ask?

There will be quite a few updates over the next few days - so keep visiting Latest News and Relief Road pages
There isn't much time to get some of the details as presentable as usual - but you need and deserve information ASAP
So please forgive some handwritten mark-ups - but needs must !

*LATEST FLYER & QR/NLC WEBSITE DETAILS BELOW*

*Update 25/1/22 am:

IMPORTANT !!

TONIGHT !! - RELIEF ROAD CONSULTATION

RAID WILL BE THERE
Baysgarth School
(Right hand end of the building complex, as before?)
4pm - 7 pm

Nothing more to say at the moment, but please come back tomorrow......

KEEP VISITING THE SITE - THANK YOU !!

*Update 20/1/22:

Sometimes, what people don't do or say can be far more revealing than what they actually do or say

Did Banks shout about their (apparent) bigger/real agenda? NO (Planning Application indicated this)
Did NLC mention other developments in the mid-2021 Road "consultation" shambles? NO (This was buried in other documents, quietly released far later)
Did NLC give plentiful warning of the imminent Road "consultation" NO (but RAID told you in November)
Did The Bartonian announce the Road "consultation"? NO (yet it was no secret)

Did NLC provide most of the data/answers that RAID asked for? NO (virtually none, in fact)
Were Barton Town Council given early notice of the Road "consultation" NO (are they happy about this?!)

So - yet again - those making key decisions that will affect all of us seem very reluctant to tell the full story
RAID bets a suitcase full of wine that it often suits them very nicely not to !

Eventually you find out why - but maybe when it's too late ("Oh, didn't you know? If only you'd said something earlier")
Why is this?
Maybe the Money Talks page gives some answers...?

Anyway, RAID is proud to have shouted, ask questions, challenged - and kept YOU informed

Has anybody else done this? NO? WHY NOT?
What YOU do with this information is entirely YOUR choice

The Road "consultation" is now being run in a far more open and proper manner, thanks to RAID
The options will be there for all to see - and YOUR VOTE WILL COUNT
AND THAT REALLY MATTERS
That's proper democracy (if run fairly and it's auditable!)
It will make a refreshing change
And that's what we deserve and expect, surely?
Oh, and can we have the true story up front in the future please.....?
Or is that just an impossible dream?

By the way, another Route Option will be on the table next week (25/1/22)
This third route is absolutely nothing to do with RAID or NLC at all !

Banks Planning Application Cutoff
The Banks Application "consultation" finishes tomorrow - so get your objections in!
RAID is a Planning Consultee and did this over a week ago
Yet unlike other objections that were delivered at exactly the same time (we got confirmation of receipt) NLC has yet to add RAID's to the portal
An admin error?
That's a worry, if the portal is meant to reflect all views......

Where's Martin when you need him?
Still no visible support from Martin Vickers MP - despite his assurances, prompts by Cllrs Paul Vickers, Rob Waltham and Constituents

Too little (read zero), too late
The Banks Planning Application gate shuts tomorrow
Constituents would have appreciated his views (i.e. his previously-stated opposition to the Banks proposal) well before now
We've no doubt that (like Banks) he cares

We're not too sure about what, though
And - perhaps worryingly - quite a few people are asking that
It's not about politics - it's about doing what you say you will, when it matters
And being seen to be listening - and acting accordingly and promptly

*Update 19/1/22:

LINK/RELIEF ROAD
RAID met with North Lincs Council (including Rob Waltham) last night
The 16/1/22 Update (below) gives some history about this topic
Despite previously asking (several times), NLC wouldn't say what their revised plan would be, if any
NOW WE KNOW !!
We've been asked to keep the revised NLC map confidential until 25/1/22 - so we will
BUT WHAT WE WILL SAY IS THAT IT'S SIMILAR TO THEIR PREVIOUS PROPOSAL
THE BIT NOW ABSENT IS THE DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE A15
But just like with Banks, we're convinced this is just a stealthy foot-in-the-door exercise
The future? "Well, it was only a concept drawing"
"We've changed things a bit due to design/land issues"
"Oh, and we're now going to continue on to the A15"

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Well, first of all, we'll show you this: (NOW REMOVED/UPDATED - SEE 26/11/22 !)
(Then please read what follows it)

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? (CONTINUED)

NLC has written to the whole town to tell people about the Baysgarth consultation meeting for the road options

(RAID comment: short notice, or what?!)
NLC will then hold an on-line poll, with a cutoff of 11/2/22

(RAID comment: very short for such an important topic, or what?!)
NLC has asked RAID what questions we would like in the consultation

Here they are (similar to the above flyer):

Our proposed questions are:

Do you want:

To get most of the HGV traffic (at least) out of the town asap?
A solution that prioritises the needs of our town and its community?
Reduced in-town traffic prioritised over excessive housebuilding?
To do this with the minimum of environmental damage?
To avoid Southern Barton being almost encircled by a new-build road?

So it will be interesting to see what NLC comes back with to "sell" their proposal (and - RAID believes - the same old hidden agenda, but disguised)

RAID HAS KEPT YOU INFORMED (UNLIKE OTHERS !)
RAID's PREDICTIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHT SO MANY TIMES (THAT'S NOT BRAGGING, IT'S FACT !)
RAID ALWAYS BELIEVED NLC'S ROAD PROPOSAL WAS REALLY ALL ABOUT MASSIVE INFILL HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT
RAID BELIEVES THAT THIS IS THE CASE - MORE THAN EVER !
SO YOU CAN SEE WHY BANKS WANT TO GET THEIR WAY (MAYBE NLC WOULD LIKE THAT, IN TRUTH?)
THIS WILL KILL THIS OVERSTRETCHED TOWN EVEN MORE !!
BARTON RESIDENTS WILL SOON HAVE THE CHANCE TO DECIDE THE FUTURE
LESS THAN THAN A MILE OF NEW ROAD?
OR THE PREMATURE CONCRETING OF BARTON'S SOUTHERN BOUNDARY?

WHEN THE TIME COMES - HAVE YOUR SAY !!
IT'S YOUR TOWN - NOT NLC's

*Update 16/1/22 pm:

Here's a bit of a refresher course on the Link or Relief Road:
Rather than repeat lots of information that's already on the Relief Road page, please visit that section of the site for details

But here are some key points:
(A) Two failed attempts, last century
Northern (East/West) Route - blocked due to other developments
Humberside County Council (Southern) Route - blocked due to funding (and other squabbles?)

(B) Studies and proposals in recent years
The latest proposal we've seen was released in mid-2021 (note: without ANY mention of housing developments whatsoever!)
The came the Banks housing proposal and this (many believe) blew the cover on what NLC was really up to
Ironically, Banks did us a real favour with the timing of their initial announcement
Without that, the road "consultation" would have been a stand-alone done deal, we reckon
The next step? Maybe "Well, there's a new road/boundary now agreed - so get ready to fill in the gaps boys - just challenge the Local Plan"
Requests to NLC (including FOI) about whether Banks were told about about this road resulted in the answer "No"
We find that rather difficult to believe and we'd still love to know if that's a truly accurate answer......

Right at the end of the Local Plan's original cutoff date, NLC extended the "consultation" by about a week
NLC quietly published a (redacted) study document about various road options (dated May 2021)
Apparently, this (late) release was due to "Openness and FOI requests" (so it wasn't just RAID requesting FOI information from NLC, it seems....)
(By the way, the FOI response was long overdue, didn't answer the question and several prompts for an answer were ignored)
Anyway, route options and a summary table form part of those (public domain) May 2021 documents (see Relief Road page)

So what are we trying to say?
Well, the May 2021 document is very revealing in two main ways:
(1) The priority is all about development, not trying to reduce Barton's traffic nightmare
(2) The solutions would take years to build and would be expensive

But you may say:
So what? They are old proposals and the mid-2021 proposal is different (see various RAID maps on this site)

RAID SAYS:
Housing is the TOP priority listed in every one of the May 2021 route proposals
Yet housing never got a ANY mention in the mid-2021 route "consultation" - we think that was devious and cunning!
And if the May 2021 proposals would take years to build, the more complex mid-2021 proposal would probably take even longer!
So that indicates that NLC is far more bothered about developing an already-overburdened town than reducing our horrendous traffic problems
Even though we are already predicted to exceed the 2038 housing target !

CAN WE TRUST NLC?
RAID is convinced that unless we had challenged NLC, the mid-2021 proposal would have been slipped under the net
But to its credit NLC listened to RAID and said they would work with us and involve us in the next "consultation"
RAID has asked FOUR TIMES whether NLC will be submitting a new route proposal at this "consultation"
Just like repeated FOI reminders and repeated requests for traffic information, we have had no answer as yet.......
The public meeting is just over a week away
Maybe NLC wants RAID on the back foot.....?!

Much as we wanted (and had anticipated) otherwise, this continues to makes us very wary of NLC's true agenda and openness.......

RAID has a proposal that would quickly and relatively easily eliminate (at least) most of our HGV nightmare
And sensible traffic control measures would help to reduce private vehicle problems
With about 1 Km of new road and without carving up masses of countryside

It will be interesting to see what NLC is (really) trying to sell us next
Thanks to RAID challenging NLC, we will now have a better understanding of how they are thinking
And, hopefully, not be taken for a ride

"Levelling Up" does not mean "Concreting Up"

Anyway that sets the scene
Let's see what happens..........

We'll keep you posted (unlike others), so keep visiting !

P.S. Still no word from Martin. Maybe he's waiting until the Planning Application gate has shut to discourage more Objections....?

*Update 14/1/22 pm:
Thanks for continuing to visit this site

The objections to the Banks Application continue to hit the NLC website - keep them coming....!

Sleepy Hollow Section: We still await some visible support from Martin Vickers
But he's probably rather busy deflecting some other flak at the moment......

RELIEF ROAD
It's time to refocus attention to the Relief Road
This is due for a "consultation" session at the end of this month (Public Meeting: 25/1/22, 4-7pm, Baysgarth School)
RAID mentioned the date back in November, but we're not aware of anybody else (NLC, Bartonian) shouting about it - why is this?
Perhaps they don't want you to know or to ask inconvenient questions? (there's a well established history of that)
Anyway, more details to follow.....

RAID gives credit where it's due and we applaud Barton Civic Society's (BCS) objection to the Banks proposal (See Update: 11/1/22)
Seems that they don't consult their members, but decide such things via "Executive Committees"
Hold that thought.....

Mindful of our Update of 10/11/21 (BARTON CIVIC SOCIETY):

BCS has already formally backed the current (mid-2021) NLC Relief Road proposal. Is this because:
It's out-of-town, out-of-mind? (yet it WOULD adversely affect the town)
It's not a historic building? (no - but it would be a monumental disaster)
It's going to drastically reduce private vehicle traffic through the town? (answer: no)
Excessive carving up of countryside is a Good Thing? (er, no - and think COP26 etc...)
Taking far longer to provide an OTT solution is a Good Thing? (we need at least a HGV solution ASAP!)
It didn't anticipate the negative public feedback at the Baysgarth Local Plan meeting? (see Update - 4/11/21 am)

Sometimes, we have to be big enough to change our view in the light of new information:
At the RAID meeting with NLC on 2/11/21, it was stated that the current NLC Relief Road proposal was driven by a need to secure a funding opportunity And very quickly ! (but it failed, so they are trying again)
It was claimed by NLC that the route was based upon a quick sketch. Maybe a NLC Councillor's comment "Just Lines on a Map" was true?!
(But maybe somebody out there knows differently? - do tell...!)

So here we have BCS seemingly backing this horse (and cart) in the absence of adequate and latest information
Or maybe BCS is unwilling reconsider due to pride? Does this pride come before the town and community?
Or maybe BCS is uncomfortable with agreeing with and/or working with this cheeky upstart RAID?

RAID questions BCS's grip on reality !
They supported the (mid-2021) road proposal that would:
Vandalise the countryside and environment (obvious)
Cost a fortune and take years to build (NLC data confirms this)
And, ironically, encourage the very sort of sprawling Greenfield development (e.g. Banks) they have just objected to !!
How forward-looking, heritage-based and logical is that ?!!

Is this an example of joined-up "Executive Committee" wisdom from an organisation that claims to care about (all of?) the town?
If so, RAID thinks that's a real worry.........

Maybe the BCS Members should as worry well?
However, RAID suspects that challenging the "chosen few" is probably not encouraged
Maybe it's a case of "Don't rock the boat - that's not how we do things around here" ?

*Update 12/1/22 am:

No apologies for repeating the great news about Barton Town Council Planning Committee's decision on 10/1/22:

OBJECTION TO THE BANKS APPLICATION WAS UNANIMOUS !!

And no apologies for asking you to keep sending those OBJECTIONS to NLC !!

Based on past form, RAID is expecting a shedload of (standard-format) Banks "SUPPORT" letters to appear on the scene
Previously, these letters appear to have been triggered by folks who ticked the one-click support box (before knowing the full picture?)
Or are generated via Banks "supporters" from other areas
Yup, a standard: "Dear Planning Officer, Banks are great because...." style of letter with the sender's name/address added (See Update: 22/10/21)
Anyway, apart from saying what a wonderful and caring lot Banks are, such letters cover:

XX direct jobs during construction
£xxxk additional Council Tax for services each year
New informal open spaces and walkways
Increased connectivity to local cycle routes

Sounds wonderful, eh?
But what such "one click" letters are thought very unlikely to mention is:

The effect on infrastructure and services (already overstretched, in Barton's case) (See Update: 24/9/21)
A sewerage system with limited capacity (See Barton Planning Meeting page and Environment Agency comments - NLC Planning site)
Additional traffic (See Update: 11/11/21)
That more Council Tax does not guarantee better services for everybody (reality: it may spread them even thinner!)
That Section 106 levies may not even be spent in the development area (See Update: 21/10/21)
The negative effects on the environment and eco structure (See Update: 12/10/21)
Additional pollution (a given: both during construction and long term) (COP26)
That charity should begin at home (See Update: 10/11/21)
Any "foot in the door" strategy (See Banks Applications Objections page)
That the Application is Outline - nailing the road accesses and "up to 390" homes is the key initial intent (see Banks Planning Application)
The other details are "reserved matters" and could later be subject to (radical?) change if Outline is granted (see Banks Planning Application)
That the Builder(s) are likely to change the plans even more when they buy the site (relatively common practice: more houses = more £££)
That this is outside of the Local Plan Development area (See Banks Applications Objections page)
That Banks would like to overturn this Local Plan (See Banks Planning Application)
That a key driver for this Developer-led proposal is prestige (read profit?) (See Barton Planning Meeting page)
That housing targets are already predicted to be exceeded (NLC data)
That the Government is now saying that it wants to discourage unwarranted building on Greenfield sites (M Gove)
Years of ongoing disruption (See Banks Applications Objection page - 7 years [for starters?])
Banks history? (See Update: 19/10/21)

So, potentially, this is what the "one-tick" approval could mean !!
Perhaps you may want to change your mind now?
If so, do let Banks know - it will be interesting to see how eager they are to "un-tick" you (ask for confirmation)
Do let us know if the answer is "not very".....!

Remember that this is the company that prides itself on "Development with Care" (See Update: 14/12/21)
That slipped in the Application just before Christmas and was probably hoping for the original 30/12/21 consultation cutoff (See Update: 9/12/21)

RAID SAYS: "BANKS - NOT TO BE TRUSTED OR UNDERESTIMATED"

WE THINK THIS GOING TO BE A LONG FIGHT
HISTORY INDICATES THAT "CARING" BANKS WILL PULL EVERY LEVER IT CAN

OBJECTION CUTOFF: 20/1/22
SO GET BUSY - EVERY OBJECTION MATTERS !!

(P.S. Still waiting to hear from Martin Vickers - who many of us have written to - about getting his "visible" backing for this Objection....)

*Update 11/1/22 am:

Barton Town Council Planning Committee met last night

OBJECTION TO THE BANKS APPLICATION WAS UNANIMOUS !!

RAID's Viewpoint:

The Planning Committee's duty is to consider the best interests of Barton and its Community as a whole

We believe it has done exactly that - and we applaud this decision
Barton Civic Society (BCS) objects to the Application - and we applaud this decision also

As a Planning Consultee, RAID submitted an objection document which was read out on our behalf

RAID did not take part in the meeting

No Councillors are RAID Members

So what does this mean?

The (democratically elected) Town Council - i.e. for where the actual development would be - objects to it

The Local Plan (created via local and democratic input) places this proposal outside of the established Development Area

The Government has stated an intent to avoid building on Greenfield land unless justified otherwise

COP26 was supposed to mark a new era of avoiding unwarranted eco-damage and pollution (e.g. like this Application?)

It highlights the VITALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION: "do local and community opinions REALLY carry any weight?"

What next?

It's now down to NLC Planning to grapple with the Application

Widespread opinion suggests that NLC would have ample reasons to reject this Application (or variations of it)

BUT WHAT ABOUT BANKS?

They want this prestigious and profitable (foot in the door) prize

The Government's revised stated intent doesn't seem to matter
History suggests they don't seem to like the word "NO"

They seem eager to overturn the Local Plan

Fights and Appeals seem to be familiar territory to them

They seem to be well-connected and have deep pockets

If NLC says "NO", what will "Development with Care" REALLY mean?

What might the Banks stance be?

(a) WE CARE about what the Town Council and NLC has said and we will gracefully retire

(b) WE CARE more about profit - and will keep fighting for what WE want, whether they like it or not !

RAID BELIEVES THE TRUE PICTURE WILL BECOME CLEAR SOON

Benevolent Banks or Bully-Boy Banks?

We'll see - and we think it will be very revealing....!

IN THE MEANTIME, RAID SAYS A BIG THANK YOU TO BARTON TOWN COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE !!

ER, WE'RE STILL WAITING TO SEE ANY VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE SUPPORT PROMISED BY MARTIN VICKERS THOUGH.......

KEEP SUBMITTING THOSE OBJECTIONS FOLKS !! (20/1/22 CUTOFF)

*Update 6/1/22 pm:
Welcome back !! We hope you enjoyed the Festive Season and are well

The Banks Outline Planning Application consultation cut-off appears to have been extended to 20/1/22
So get your objections sent in NOW ! One per adult per household !
Even if you've written before, object on the NLC Planning website ! (see Banks Application Objections page for details)
We are aware of some objections that don't seem to have been registered, despite being sent - we'll keep an eye on this....

There is no shortage of real-world opinion about why the Banks proposal would not benefit this town

A simple key fact is that the proposal is outside of the NLC Local Plan's Development Area

But it seems that Banks want to overturn the Local Plan
That's OUR Local Plan. Developed via OUR Communities. For OUR future
As opposed to a plan hatched in Durham to maximise profit.....
Development with care (for shareholders)

THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO MAKE YOUR OBJECTIONS KNOWN - DON'T SHRUG AND LEAVE IT TO OTHERS

To his credit, Martin Vickers has stated he will support opposition to this proposal
We are waiting to hear what form this will take.....

*Update 21/12/21 pm:

As we approach Christmas, maybe it's a good time to take stock of some of the things RAID has achieved in just a few months

Things we informed you about include:
(1) "Project Speed" - aka the "Builders' Charter": Vote-loser - since watered down
(2) Tory Party Donations: Lots of £££ from Developers (see (1))
(3) The Relief Road (and its previously hidden agenda - not mentioned at the last "consultation"!)
(4) Banks and how they seem to work (including lobbying, "foot-in-door", Planning Application "other land")
(5) The 2038 Local Plan (selectively publicised by NLC) (& being challenged by Banks!)

RAID - TELLING YOU ABOUT THINGS THAT AFFECT YOUR COMMUNITY !!

Things we believe we achieved include:
(1) Establishing formal recognition by NLC
(2) Preventing a skewed "consultation" for the Relief Road
(3) Offering a Relief Road proposal that could quickly (and cheaply) reduce our HGV nightmare

(4) Successfully pushing for an extension of the Banks (deliberately timed/short?) Planning Application comments window
(5) Successfully pushing for the NLC Councillors to DIRECTLY inform you about what's happening (16/12/21 letter)

RAID - PERSUADING OTHERS TO ACCEPT THAT THE COMMUNITY VOICE MATTERS !!

RAID - WORKING HARD TO KEEP YOU INFORMED SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SAY - BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE !!

*Update 17/12/21 pm:

RAID is NOT about politics
It's about giving the Community information that others should (but don't) provide so we can have a say in its future

But the North Shropshire by-election tells an interesting story:

People are fed up with lies, sleaze and cosy deals
They are fed up with being taken for fools

Wherever they live - including Barton upon Humber !

A week ago RAID asked Martin Vickers what his official stance was on the Banks application

Update: Answer received 23/12/21. He is opposed to the Banks planning application

*Update 14/12/21 am:

Development with Care?
Seems that one Resident doesn't think that Banks had been too careful !
See below:

Oh, by the way - website visits are soaring !!
Seems that the Community likes to be informed what's really going on - YOUR COMMUNITY !!
Many are saying "it makes a nice change to be told"
But maybe not Banks........

Get your Objection in to NLC NOW !! Our Local Plan and Barton does not belong to Banks !!

*Update 13/12/21:

We reckon the Banks (& "Top 5" Builder Chums) "Vision" for Barton looks something like the map below
We doubt they have "control" (as stated on their very own drawing!) of the other land with a view to growing turnips
Seem to think we told you that the first application was just a foot in the door.......
And yet some people said "Surely not.....?"

Seems like Banks thought they'd catch RAID on the back foot - but we've done our homework and we believe they'll try every trick they can
Could Development with Care involve lobbying, cunning, pressure and greed as well as charm, we wonder?

Unfortunately, it seems that Banks had been remarkably CARELESS about some planning data it had published - we'll tell you about this soon....

RAID SAYS: "BANKS - NOT TO BE TRUSTED !!"

*Update 11/12/21 am:

We suspect that Banks may be busy sniggering about their masterstroke of sneaking in the application just before Christmas

But RAID is not troubled by that and has been very busy, of course

Some very positive initial feedback - details to follow...... !

Banks have been forced to show their (true) cards by declaring the land they have their sights on (at the moment, anyway)
Who knows - maybe they've got other irons in the fire? (wouldn't be surprising)

The current 2038 Local Plan (LP) proposal would increase Barton's size by about 12%
That seems reasonable to us

But Durham-based Banks seem to think that North Lincolnshire's LP is wrong
And it's not even their County ! Arrogant or what !

They've been lobbying to change it already and say they will continue to do so (it's in the planning docs)

We suspect Banks have not actually bought any land yet, in case they are defeated - a good move!

But if they DO get this land, we (conservatively) estimate that Barton would grow by about 33%

Oh, and by the way we gather that Banks answer Central Surgery restrictions is that new residents could go to Brigg or Winterton
So that's OK then - if you like travelling further or don't live in Brigg or Winterton....
Development with Care indeed.....

THE BANKS DREAM - BARTON A THIRD BIGGER THAN NOW

IS THAT YOUR DREAM OR NIGHTMARE?

SEE BANKS APPLICATION OBJECTIONS PAGE

RAID SAYS: BANKS - NOT TO BE TRUSTED !!

IMPORTANT !! - SEE BANKS APPLICATION OBJECTIONS (NEW PAGE !!)

*Update 10/12/21:

Not surprisingly, there's a mass of detail behind the Banks application that has been submitted

Google: "apps.northlincs.gov.uk"

In the Location box, enter PA/2021/2151
Click "Search"
All the details are there, below the location map
THE ELECTRONIC "SUBMIT A COMMENT" FORM IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE

DEADLINE IS 30/12/21

Some initial RAID thoughts and comments:
Don't be fooled by the pretty pictures, the devil is in the small detail !
Note that key layout drawings are "Indicative" - i.e. not to be trusted !

FOOT IN THE DOOR
Seems that all they are trying to nail down initially is "up to 390 homes" and the two access roads
The rests falls under "Reserved Matters" and that gives them plenty of time to change layouts and details later on (not uncommon practice)

But RAID thinks the most revealing drawing is one that shows just a few lines on it
(See document "Other land in Applicants Control", on first page)
THAT'S THE ONE THAT SHOWS THE REAL LONGER TERM INTENT
THAT'S WHY BANKS AND THE ("TOP 5 UK") BUILDERS WANT THIS PRIZE
Land to the South of the "Application Pot"
Two large plots of land to the West of the A15
Is that the real thinking behind the current NLC Relief Road plan? (no buildings were mentioned by our Councillors on 27/5/21 !)
Other key details:
7 years of construction dust and pollution (for the initial 390 homes, anyway)
They are treading carefully with this initial application regarding the visual effect on the countryside
But once the detail (Builder) plans are approved they can just say "well, there's housing there already"
And then fill every gap possible - no defence !
Banks has lobbied to change the 2038 Local Plan and they will probably continue to do so (Appeals etc)
They seem to believe that our existing infrastructure will cope (for 390 homes, anyway)
On 11/11/21 we said "about 200" total additional vehicles on Tofts/Brigg Road at peak hours
Banks are predicting about 218 average (for 390 homes)

RAID takes no pleasure is saying "we told you so" yet again - but we were right !!
This isn't just about a cute little estate - it's about a long term agenda that will overload Barton even more
And we'll be left with having to manage, yet again
390 homes? Think double or treble this figure - and maybe more schemes we don't know about
Think about the real-world effects
Banks will make a killing in more ways than just the money - it will help to kill this town even more
But they'll sell up and move on
"Development with Care" for Shareholders and Builder Chums....
AND ASK NLC WHY THIS MAJOR APPLICATION HAS BEEN DROPPED ON US ON THE VERGE OF CHRISTMAS AND THE CUT-OFF IS 30/12/21

BARTON IS BEING STITCHED UP !!
IT'S NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS - THIS WILL AFFECT THE WHOLE TOWN AND SURROUNDING AREA

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT ??

IF NOT:
SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT ON THE NLC PLANNING SITE (SEE TOP OF PAGE)

SEE BANKS APPLICATIONS OBJECTIONS PAGE !!

WRITE TO YOUR MP
WRITE TO THE HEAD OF NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL
CONTACT YOUR NLC COUNCILLORS
NOW !!!!

IMPORTANT !! - SEE BANKS APPLICATION OBJECTIONS (NEW PAGE !!)

*Update 9/12/21 pm:

Well, as we predicted, Banks has slipped in the Outline Planning Application !
Nicely timed for a consultation cut-off on 30/12/21 - so that people are preoccupied with the Christmas break
RAID WAS RIGHT YET AGAIN !!
SNEAKY, EH? - BUT THAT'S BANKS FOR YOU, RAID RECKONS !!
More to follow tomorrow - and some interesting observations.....

*Update 6/12/21 pm:

Local Plan consultation gate now closed

Receipt of RAID comment LP comments confirmed (if you would like confirmation that your own comments were received, email NLC)

People are increasingly asking questions and making comments about Wren - so we've added an "About Wren" page to the site

All quiet on the Banks front. We predict they'll quietly slip in the application just before Christmas and hope that people are distracted

RAID won't be, though.......!

*Update 5/12/21 am:

By the way, the Independent (see yesterday's update) stated that Wren made £75M pre-tax profit to the end of December 2020
But only £65M the year before
Still, at least that keeps the fuel tanks of the lorries that are choking our roads and our lungs full of fuel.....

So the bit of extra bit of fuel they may have to use if using the RAID Relief Road route may be just about affordable
But the improvement it would give to Barton would be invaluable

What matters most? Barton's Nest or Wren's Nest?

It will be interesting and revealing to see......

*Update 4/12/21 pm:

RAID strives to provide accurate information and tell you what's going on
Sometimes we may get it wrong
In the 1/12/21 Update (below) we said that Wren's Mr Healey had seemingly donated £2M to the Tory Party since Boris came to No. 10

According to The Independent, this is incorrect
Apparently it's £2.3M since 2017, according to Electoral Commission records

(Google: "independent tory furlough wren")
We apologise for this error

Unfortunately, we can't give you accurate data about the Wren traffic (current and predicted) - although we keep asking NLC about this

However, the RAID proposal for the Relief Road does offer a relatively easy and quick solution to the current Wren HGV traffic nightmare

But (whisper it) will our leaders dare to push a solution that may not be 100% perfect for Wren - but good for the town and community?

Perhaps the saying "he who pays the piper calls the tune" comes to some minds

Or perhaps not.......

*Update 2/12/21 pm:

The Updates about the Relief Road over the last couple of days are very important - please take the time to read them

But it's also important for RAID to thank you for your visits to this website
RAID appreciates your interest in what we are saying - whether you agree or not (and it's increasingly clear that many people do !!)
What sort of numbers are we talking about?

A handful? A few hundred? Maybe a thousand?
Er no. How about units of Ten Thousand followed by an s
Seems that we must be doing something right......

Unlike some others, we'll do our best to keep you up to date with what's happening and what it could mean to Barton - Keep on visiting !!

RAID - Keeping YOU informed so that YOU can help to shape the future of YOUR town and YOUR community

DON'T BE KEPT IN THE DARK AND BE TRAMPLED ON !!
DON'T SHRUG AND BE SORRY LATER !!
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD !!

LET MARTIN VICKERS, ROB WALTHAM & YOUR COUNCILLORS KNOW YOUR VIEWS - NOW !!
(Who knows, they may even take notice.....?)

*Update 1/12/21 am:
Also, the Relief Road page has been updated today - PLEASE TAKE A LOOK !
There's a lot we could say about the release of the Link/Relief Road document
(by the way Link or Relief is the same thing - we call it the Barton Relief Road (BRR))

NLC claims it was released due to "openness". RAID believes it was released due to FOI pressure (but we still await a formal reply - two months on!)

NLC claims that this is a draft document and that they are still looking at options

RIGHT FROM THE OUTSET, RAID SAID THE RELIEF ROAD WAS A BADLY HIDDEN AGENDA (NEW BOUNDARY/BUILDING LINE)
THIS DOCUMENT INDICATES THAT WE WERE RIGHT !!

It makes little or no mention of:
The horrendous traffic problems we already have - and that will get worse
Wren (apart from some Section 106 payments)
THE NEED TO DO SOMETHING QUICKLY AND (AT LEAST) GET HGVs OUT OF TOWN

What's worrying is:
What NLC and our Councillors have been aware of - but not shared it with the community
A perceived disrespect for greenbelt land ("let's build roads across it")
In a previous FOI request, we were told that Banks was unaware of the Relief Road study
Does RAID believe that? No - but Hey Ho....

RAID IS SO ANGRY THAT BARTON IS BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE, JUST TO SUIT DEVELOPERS
The land across from Falkland Way is now on the market
The owner of the next site is thought to be willing to sell
This would enable a connection to Caistor Road
Caistor Road would need upgrading - but it connects to an existing HGV route (A15-New Holland etc.)
THE RAID BRR PROPOSAL OFFERS A QUICK & PRAGMATIC SOLUTION TO (AT LEAST) THE HORRENDOUS & GROWING HGV PROBLEM
Minimal cost, delay and eco damage - and an improvement we need NOW

RAID KEEPS ASKING NLC IF IT WILL FOCUS ON MAKING THE RAID PROPOSAL WORK OR JUST TRY TO TORPEDO IT
WE DO NOT GET AN ANSWER TO THIS SIMPLE QUESTION

Which takes us back to RAID's opinion (demonstrated to be reasonable - several times) that levers are pulled at the Top Level

We've absolutely no desire to battle with Wren, but we have to ask why:

This document barely mentions Wren and the huge impact their traffic has
We're not getting answers from NLC about Wren traffic predictions (which NLC asked Wren about in 2019)
The Wren traffic problem seems to be deemed "invisible" - unless you happen to be on the street and suffering the real-world effects
Unless we're advised otherwise, it appears to be a case of Wren saying something like "we'll look at traffic management when we open the new site"

This could be interpreted as "Barton will just have to live with it"
If so, that's a scenario that many Developers and Businesses could only dream about !

The RAID BRR PROPOSAL TICKS SO MANY BOXES
It would get HGV traffic out of town directly and without pollution-encirclement
It may require Wren HGVs to travel a bit further than ideal, but that's the only major compromise
The likes of Wren HGVs travel billions of miles a year and the implications would be relatively minor
Wren could consider rail transport (track nearby) or flat-packing to reduce their huge carbon footprint
Or they could just say "tough luck, Barton"

So RAID now has the following questions:

Is Wren's business strategy influencing NLC's strategy?
Is this "Wren upon Humber" or Barton upon Humber - and which is NLC's biggest priority?

We are told that donations to the Tory Party make no difference whatsoever

Which is very comforting to know when we read that Wren's owner (Malcolm Healey) has donated £2M since Boris entered No. 10
Google: "Conservative donations healey independent"

RAID is not, of course, suggesting that Mr Healey would expect any return for his donations - some people are very altruistic by nature

Wren is clearly a very successful company and their strap line is "Welcome to The Nest"
And it seems to be a well-feathered one

Shame about the traffic problems that it creates though......

THAT'S WHY WE NEED A PROMPT AND COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION !!
GET A GRIP AND TRY TO EARN SOME TRUST NLC !!

AS RAID HAS SAID BEFORE, IT WILL COST VOTES IF YOU DON'T

*Update 30/11/21 am:

LAND FOR SALE !
The land opposite Falklands Way has been put on the market - believed to be a single landowner
This would open up land for (Local Plan) development and the commencement of the Relief Road
Are you wondering if Banks will put in a bid?
If so, see the Barton Planning Meeting (Banks) web page:
1) One of the claimed reasons for their current proposal was to avoid multi-landowner issues (so that would tick that box)
2) Oh, and that it was a more prestigious site - i.e. more profitable to sell to a "Top 5" builder
Development with care for (2) is what really matters to Banks, RAID believes......

LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION EXTENDED to 3/12/21 ! IMPORTANT !!!
Well this one was slipped under the radar (no change there.....)
We heard about it by word of mouth from a landowner - not from a Councillor or NLC
Check out (again!): https://localplan.northlincs.gov.uk/stages/
Then scroll down and click on "Stage 4"
Then go to menu and click on "Evidence Base"
Scroll down to Section Section I and click on "Barton Link Road Technical Note"
You'll see a very lengthy document about Relief Road options to the South of the town
It's too heavy to break down into detail here but:
It's focused on building development (not mentioned in earlier link/relief road "consultation" stages)
It admits that many aspects of the proposals will do little to reduce traffic problems in the town
It admits that many of the proposals would cost a shed load of money and take ages to build

RAID SAYS THIS:
THIS IS A DOCUMENT DATED MAY 2021 - WHY HAS IT BEEN SNEAKED OUT AFTER THE ORIGINAL LOCAL PLAN CUT-OFF DATE ?
WHY IS IT INCOMPLETE? (e.g. APPENDIX 1 DETAILS)
WHY HAS NLC MADE NO MENTION OF RAID's PROPOSED ROUTE? (e.g. AS AN ADDENDUM NOTE TO THE RELEASE)

THE RAID RELIEF ROAD PROPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE A RAPID AND RELATIVELY LOW COST SOLUTION TO (AT LEAST) OUR HGV PROBLEMS
YET AS FAR AS NLC IS CONCERNED, IT DOESN'T EVEN GET ACKNOWLEDGED !
NLC TOLD US THEY WERE LISTENING AND PREPARED TO WORK WITH RAID
AND WE BELIEVED IT........

RAID WILL BE WRITING TO NLC TO ASK WHY RAID's RELIEF ROAD PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED
IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT RAID BY WRITING INDIVIDUALLY, PLEASE DO SO BY 3/12/21 !!

SEE SAMPLE LETTER PAGE !!

*Update 23/11/21 am:

Names at high level, continued....

(See 18/11/21 updates also):

It seems there was/is a connection between Banks and Matt Ridley (House of Lords)

Matt Ridley's brother-in-law is Owen Paterson - of recent "sleaze" allegations fame

(By the way, seems that both Matt and Owen are Climate Change sceptics)
Banks appear to have used PR (lobbying?) Companies such as Bellenden (other clients included Barratt Developments) and Newington Communications

So is RAID suggesting that there is anything untoward or unusual about any this?
No, certainly not!

But perhaps it helps to illustrate just how well "connected" Banks appears to be at high level

And why it reinforces RAID's suspicion that support for this potential planning application has roots in London, not just Durham

Not that Martin Vickers MP would agree, of course

As our maverick MP (who has met with Banks) told RAID right from the outset "it's all down to NLC"

Please remember that, if the appeal lands on a Whitehall desk........

And perhaps don't be too surprised it it does, as Banks really don't seem to like the word "No"

"Development with Care" But - as said before - maybe the words "for Shareholders" is missing?

Coming soon: Knighthoods for sale? (aka Return on Investment?)

*Update 18/11/21 pm:

As promised, here are some snippets about names at high level - Banks and Matt Ridley (House of Lords)

https://www.desmog.com/2015/05/11/banks-family-mining-millions-profit-climate-sceptic-matt-ridley-s-coal/

*Update 18/11/21 am:

The "Money Talks" page hasn't been updated since this site was created - maybe it's long overdue.....

A lot of people were delighted when Robert Jenrick was booted out as Housing Minister following allegations of "cozy" agreements with developers
(Google: "jenrick desmond" and "jenrick bloor")
As you'll have seen, "SLEAZE" is very much back in the spotlight - thanks to MP Owen Paterson and Boris's bungled attempt to change the rules
There was a U-Turn due to media outcry - but only AFTER many MPs (including Martin Vickers) had voted for Boris's cunning plan

Boris is now hastily backtracking and saying that MP's shouldn't have paid "Consultancy" roles that may affect impartiality.....
We'll see - this will probably get watered down as it's a nice little (or rather big) earner for some....

However, it's also swinging the spotlight onto All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG)
There's an investigation into these by Labour's Chris Bryant

It's thought that these are being used as a "back door" for the interests of private businesses

Seems that about £30M has been funnelled into APPGs in the last 5 years. There are currently 744 of them. Bryant says:

"many now seem to have become the parliamentary arm of lobbying and PR companies"

He suggests that there are concerns about "transparency and propriety"

He wants to make it easier to find out who's funding them and why

Apparently, most APPGs do not produce, or make readily available, a detailed breakdown in funding and spending

Some donation are "benefits in kind" (e.g. a funding company provides the secretariat, pays for reports and organises events)
Maybe Chris Kelsey (Banks Communication Manager - see 7/10/21 & 12/10/21) would know about this sort of thing?
(Google; "bbc appg")

Right from the start, RAID has believed that Banks (and/or their builder chums) have an agenda that has its roots in Westminster
Unfortunately for them "Project Speed" (see website page) aka the "Developers Charter" was getting a lot of flack from voters
The result: Jenrick sacked, replaced by Michael Gove. New focus on brownfield rather than greenfield
Banks were already on the case before the Government U-turn. Money was already spent (surveys, PR etc)
What are their options?:
1) Back off? - Doesn't seem to be the Banks Way !
2) Still go for outline planning? - A gamble maybe, but probably easily affordable
3) Application rejected? - Appeal? (Banks seem to be used to doing this!). Will cost NLC and taxpayers money? Tough
4) Appeal rejected? - Over to you Mr Gove
5) Rejected by Mr Gove? - Probably unlikely to concede gracefully ("we'll keep it in our portfolio" - aka "we'll try again later")
OR/
Are they still confident that they'll get outline planning straight away for reasons that we don't know..........
Who knows what agreements are made behind closed doors at high level...?

Anyway, here's a "Contributors Top Tip" from somebody who used to work (2006-2009) at a London PR company called Finsbury
It's in a book called "Lobbying - The Power of Political Persuasion"
The wise words relate to the Greater London Authority and the Mayor (a Boris previous day job):
"When lobbying.....all roads lead to the Mayor". "Get to know the relevant advisors as they are key"
"Also don't forget the Boroughs and London Councils......they can influence the Mayor too"

Who wrote this "Top Tip" about lobbying? Could it be the same Chris Kelsey who now works for Banks? Surely not...?

Coming soon:
Some names at high level
Banks, Ridley, Paterson, Bellenden, Newington.....

*Update 16/11/21 pm:

Freedom of Information (FOI)?

Part 1:

In the quest for some answers, RAID had submitted two FOI requests to NLC - quite some time ago

The first one included a request about what pre planning application advice Banks received from NLC. This was rejected and so we appealed

It was rejected again. NLC advised:

Pre planning advice is "....to find out whether the council is likely to support the proposal, before the applicant commits to further expense"

"Release of the pre planning advice would be likely to be used in a manner that would make a successful planning application less likely"

Hmmmm. Banks still seems to be preparing the application (= further expense)

That could make one wonder what advice they have been given and why they still seem keen to progress the application......?
On greenbelt land and outside of the current development area

But due to FOI restrictions, maybe we'll never know
Business before Community? Surely not...?

Part 2:

Also via FOI, RAID asked NLC (about 7 weeks ago) how the current NLC Relief Road concept was defined

We've heard an anecdotal comment from NLC - but no formal response
It's long overdue.....

Part 3:
Not via FOI, but we've asked NLC Highways questions about current traffic flows and current/anticipated Wren traffic
This was about 3 weeks ago. Response awaited
Surely NLC must have this information if they are planning and maintaining our road systems? If not, it's worrying....

And Finally:
Keen readers of Private Eye may have seen an article called "Whistle Stop" about FOI in the last edition (#1559)
It alleges that Boris & Co are trying to row back on FOI due to various embarrassments (Covid-19, PPE contracts etc etc....)
Seems that newly set up official agencies will be outside of the FOI
The strength of ministers and bureaucrats to censor will be strengthened
The long term intent: "no one minds new agencies operating in secret - so why not extend this to the whole public sector"
Open government? Really?

RAID is struggling to get the relatively straightforward answers we want from NLC...!

(P.S. We wondered if Private Eye would be interested in this saga....)

*Update 12/11/21 am:
So where are we at right now? :

RAID has told you what's going on and why - and will continue to do this!
RAID has challenged convention, not just shrugged. That's what it takes to change things and protect heritage

RAID website visits continue to climb strongly - keep visiting folks!
It's increasingly clear that many people agree with what we're saying
Or perhaps worried that we're telling you more than they wanted you to know?

RAID has let you know who to write to and what you might want to say

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S YOUR LETTERS AND VOTES THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE
OUR MP AND NLC KNOW THAT - IT'S A POWERFUL WEAPON - SO USE IT !!

(RAID is apolitical, but more than a few people have said that THE RAID PARTY should be formed to shake things up. Interesting thought.......)

LOCAL PLAN COMMENTS BY 26/11/21
RELIEF ROAD CONSULTATION - YOU CAN COMMENT NOW, BUT MEETING AT BAYSGARTH IN JAN '22
BANKS - GET READY FOR THEIR PLANNING APPLICATION
(BUT YOU CAN OBJECT TO THEM WANTING TO BUILD ON GREENBELT LAND NOW)

DON'T JUST SHRUG - GET WRITING TO MARTIN VICKERS & NLC NOW !!

(see Sample Letters page)

STOP PRESS !! pm:
Great to hear that a Planning Application nearby has been refused on grounds including:

"The proposed development would be an unsustainable form of development as the majority of the site is within open countryside outside of detailed development limits....."
Will this deter "development with care" Banks hounding Barton? Their history suggests not
Maybe Gordon Gekko is their inspiration? The film: Wall Street (1987). The quote: "Greed is Good"
But credit where credit is due: Well done NLC for saying NO to developers wanting to concrete over greenbelt land !!

*Update 11/11/21 pm:
TRAFFIC NEWS PART 1 (Banks Development):

We told you we were looking at traffic data (see Latest News, 28/10/21)
We're still chasing NLC for current (real-world) data, but here's a RAID prediction about the Banks development
It's based on a previous large planning application in the town
The figures for that were a forecast, based on computer models. What are the real-world figures now? Maybe NLC can tell us....?
Developers would rather avoid pessimistic outcomes, so they'll take account of people walking, cycling, using cars, trains, rickshaws etc...
There are approved programs and rules used for this - it's not cheating
So based on previous (probably optimistic?) forecasts and the Banks "up to 400 homes" script, it would seem reasonable to expect the following:

PEAK HOURS (8am - 9am) & (5pm - 6pm)
About 200 vehicles per hour (equates to 1 vehicle per 18 seconds - but there would be +/- variations, of course)
Real-world data from traffic monitoring in Barton suggests that up to 10% will be speeding (34 mph plus)

A comforting thought, when your children are going to school via Brigg Road or Tofts Road.....?
All because Banks seem determined to try to force us to have the development we never asked for - for THEIR profit
Make's you think, eh? Well at least, maybe it should do.....

Will we get the relatively up to date information we're requesting from NLC, RAID wonders.......?

But here's some old data:
Barrow Road, June 2020 (17 months ago!): about 70,000 vehicles (50/50 direction). 255 speeding per day (34 mph +)
Ferriby Road, April 2020 (19 months ago!): Over 95,000 vehicles (48% going East, 52% going West. 817 speeding per day (34 mph +)
Holydyke, July 2018 (40 months ago!): Over 83,000 vehicles (52% going East, 48% going West. 140 speeding per day (34 mph +)
We received data for Falklands Way, but at 67 months old it was totally pointless. But the 10.3% speeding was interesting (46 mph +)

And it's very obvious that the traffic is increasing at a massive rate. And that's before the Wren expansion opens.....

TRAFFIC NEWS PART 2 (Wren):

Planning Application PA/2019/1147 (the current expansion) makes interesting reading
The original facility has 1,159 car parking spaces and 184 HGV parking spaces and just over 1500 staff
The Framework Travel Plan seems to be remarkably vague: Mentions just over 600 staff vehicle parking places
Didn't notice a mention of HGV numbers (plenty of lorry spaces on the drawings, though!) or total additional staff numbers
It seems reasonable to assume that there will be at least 50% more traffic when the facility opens

But what does seem strange (unless RAID is missing something), is that the Traffic Management plan seems to be along the lines of "we'll sort it out when we get it operational"
If that is correct, some of us may well interpret that as meaning "Barton will just have to put up with it"

We've asked NLC Highways a series of questions about this and other current traffic data and predictions. Answers awaited.......

Do we need a Relief Road? YES !!
But one that gives a quick reduction in (at least) HGV traffic and that suits the town's needs - not just NLC's or Wren's

RAID's Relief Road proposal offers that

Stay safe !!

*Update 11/11/21 am:
The gentle sound of the letterbox clicking yesterday
Yes, old-tech maybe, but still a rather good way to get people to read important stuff (if the sender really wants that to happen.....)
Anyway, it was The Bartonian - always a welcome and good read

Interesting to read about the Local Plan
It helpfully tells you that you've already missed the 3/11/21 meeting at Baysgarth
Which was a nightmare to park at and had no signs telling you where to go.....
But never mind, you can increase your carbon footprint and go to Ulceby or Winterton "later in the month" (no dates given)
You can access the Local Plan electronically (see 2038 LOCAL PLAN page) or even write a letter to the World's longest address
THE FINAL DAY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION IS 26/11/21 - SO HAVE YOUR SAY !!

QUESTION: SO WHY WASN'T THIS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS BARTONIAN?

Also in the Bartonian was an article about Barton's Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
It's all about "how to achieve your vision for the town"
The Steering Group wants your thoughts "before doing the detailed work on how to achieve the vision for the town"
A genuine and laudable intent for sure
But the words "horse & bolted" and "Nero, fiddle, Rome & burn" come to mind.....
Vision? - It's already being destroyed more and more every day and is under increasing attack
So that's RAID's "thoughts" - and clearly the "thoughts" of many people in the community
Now can we get on with getting our MP and NLC to take some notice please? WRITE TO THEM !! NOW !!
THE STEERING GROUP'S STALL IS AT THE CHRISTMAS FESTIVAL. THE DAY AFTER THE LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION CLOSES.....

So what point is RAID trying to make?

1) It reinforces our view that we're told stuff on a selective and low key basis ("Oh, didn't you know - too late now....")
2) It's not made easy to access information and/or state your views ("well, you could/should have said...")
3) While we're talking and debating, real-world events are overtaking us (doctor, dentist, parking, traffic, pollution, "Road to Ruin", Banks, etc etc.....)
4) Wouldn't it be great if we had a REAL SAY in what happens to this town INSTEAD OF BEING TOLD BY NLC AND DEVELOPERS...?

STOP PRESS !!
COMING SOON TO A ROAD NEAR YOU - TRAFFIC NEWS !!

*Update 10/11/21 pm:
BANKS
As expected, it seems that Banks are still beavering away preparing the Outline Planning application
Maybe they're working to "The Alphabet Guide to Community Sweetners & Buying Support"? (perhaps available at Developer Bookshops?)
At the recent (poorly attended) "Design Workshop" they mentioned an Amphitheatre, apparently !
Now they're investigating Allotments, we're told !
Maybe the page "G is for Greenbelt" has been ripped out? Doh...!

Many of us personally support good causes - e.g. the excellent EcoSerenity Project - who Banks are talking to about an orchard scheme
Barton hosts a massive single employer (= Council Tax income, Section 106 levies, local initiatives etc...)
It's a sorry state of affairs if we're dependent on a Developer - that's not even from this area - to provide adequate support to good causes
Benevolent Banks? Really? (see: 22/10/21 Latest News)
Charity begins at home, not Durham (unless you're Banks Shareholder, perhaps)
Please would you remember that Wren and NLC.....?

BARTON CIVIC SOCIETY
Last night a couple of RAID members had an INFORMAL meeting with some members of the Barton Civic Society (BCS - sorry, yet another acronym...)
SOME FACTS:
RAID readily applauds and appreciates the fine work that BCS does for this town and the dedication of its members
Both RAID and BCS care about this town and community - Its Heritage, Present and Future
NLC seems willing to work with RAID and help to build a Better Barton
RAID has advised BCS that it is willing to work with them and help to build a Better Barton
RAID and BCS are both Planning Consultees

BCS has been doing good work for over 50 years. This "Upstart" RAID is merely a few months old
But hang on a minute. In those few months RAID has:
Hit the ground running
Told people what's going on
Encouraged the community to ask questions that needed asking
Challenged our MP, NLC and Town Council
Submitted Freedom of Information requests
Requested traffic information from NLC
Obtained formal recognition by NLC
Secured a website audience (multi thousand) just that keeps on growing
And more besides....

Some may think that's a good ally to have. So what's the catch?

Well, BCS has already formally backed the current NLC Relief Road proposal. Is this because:
It's out-of-town, out-of-mind? (yet it WOULD adversely affect the town)
It's going to drastically reduce private vehicle traffic through the town? (answer: no)
Excessive carving up of countryside is a Good Thing? (er, no - think COP26 etc...)
Taking far longer to provide an OTT solution is a Good Thing? (we need a solution ASAP!)
It didn't anticipate the negative public feedback at Baysgarth? (see Update - 4/11/21 am)

Sometimes, we have to be big enough to change our view in the light of new information:
At the RAID meeting with NLC, it was stated that the current NLC Relief Road proposal was driven by a need to secure a funding opportunity. Quickly !
It was claimed that the route was based upon a quick sketch. Maybe "Just Lines on a Map" was true?!
That funding opportunity was lost. It's back next year

So perhaps BCS are backing this horse in the absence of adequate and latest information?
Or maybe BCS won't reconsider due to pride? Does that come before the town and community?
But if you change your mind BCS, do please let RAID know and we'll work with you to combine our efforts to build a Better Barton
Over to you, BCS.....

Just a few more words about the RAID Relief Road proposal:
Like any road scheme, detail design would be required by NLC Highways to make it work as well as possible
Some people may say that it would take vehicles to the East before going onward.
RAID says:
That's the price for (rightly) avoiding Deepdale
It depends where to/from the traffic is heading
Hills and bends? A fact of life on most of our roads....
The route could be "smoothed" at the South end (B1206)
The likes of Wren lorries travel billions of miles a year - any additional mileage % is miniscule
(By the way - have Wren ever thought about using the nearby railway line?: 76% less emissions)
(Or have Wren thought about the radical concept of flat-pack delivery?: less lorries)

NLC pointed out to us on 2/11/21 that a lot of road use is down to human behaviour and traffic control measures
Solutions are sometimes a compromise
RAID believes that its proposal is the best one. For many reasons

Come the Relief Road consultation in January, NLC has agreed to:
Write letters to all individuals in the town (RAID request: accepted)
Agree - with RAID - the content of the consultation letter and information provided (RAID request: accepted)
Guarantee and support RAID's presence at the January consultation (RAID request: accepted)

"Upstarts" indeed. But RAID get things done......

AND FINALLY....
So far, we've just concentrated on providing you with information
RAID isn't about individuals - it's about the town and community
We listened to BCS. They asked why we didn't publish an email address

We love a challenge - so here it is:
raidbarton@gmail.com

*Update 8/11/21 pm:
Reminder: See 4/11/21 Update - Apologies, but we'll keep shouting about this - IT'S SO IMPORTANT - GET WRITING NOW !!!

Relief Road page updated today - take a look !!

The story so far:

Two failed attempts.....
The current NLC proposal (aka the Road to Ruining Barton)
The RAID proposal - ticks so many boxes

Final consultation coming in January 2022 - what do YOU think makes sense ?

RAID had a productive meeting with NLC last week
We have a meeting scheduled with a different group tomorrow. We'll let you know how it goes.....

*Update 5/11/21 am:
Reminder: See 4/11/21 Update - Apologies, but we'll keep shouting about this - IT'S SO IMPORTANT - GET WRITING NOW !!!
2038 LOCAL PLAN PAGE ADDED
SAMPLE LETTERS PAGE UPDATED (LOCAL PLAN)

"Anyway, what about those RAID Upstarts. What do they know, eh?"

They came out of nowhere, shouting about:
Government Planning reforms (Oops - vote-loser: now being watered down)
Developer Donations and the effects (Oops - now under very close scrutiny by the media. Michael Gove has replaced Jenrick)
Developers focusing on green belt land (Oops - vote-loser: Government is now saying brownfield. Maybe Banks haven't heard.....?)
Stifling local debate and true consultation (Oops - vote-loser: see (1))
Selective/scattered release of information (Banks initial "consultation", Relief Road agenda, Local Plan review etc)
Banks tactics

Well, it seems that rather a lot of RAID is shouting about was and is correct. Shocking eh?!
And, unlike some others, we're sharing it with the whole town and community via this website (many thousands of hits!) and flyers
We're INFORMING YOU of what's going on so YOU can make decisions and have YOUR say before it's too late
Perhaps some people don't like that? Perhaps they don't like their "we know best" status being challenged......?

But we won’t shut up and we'll continue to inform you - and help to strive for a Better Barton

"Yeah, but NLC won't take RAID seriously...."

But it seems that NLC:
Recognises and understands what RAID is all about
Acknowledges that RAID is willing to work constructively with other parties, if deemed appropriate
Accepts that RAID will continue to challenge, as deemed appropriate

So RAID is now a Consultee in the planning system

"RAID Upstarts, eh....?"

Enjoy the fireworks and stay safe folks

*Update 4/11/21 am:

Well yesterday saw the Local Plan consultation event at Baysgarth School, hosted by NLC
Anecdotal feedback was volunteered by some NLC personnel at that time. Various Residents who visited gave feedback to RAID afterwards
It would seem that no shortage of attendees had expressed the opinion:
(a) Yes, we DO need a Relief Road (RAID totally agrees with that !)
(b) We're not keen on the proposed route, why not use an East route? (i.e. the very basis of RAID's BRR proposal !)
Let's be absolutely clear about this:
1) RAID DID NOT "stage manage" any visits to that event
2) RAID's key objectives include providing information to the community to allow INFORMED DECISION. Seems to be working..... !

THAT'S GREAT NEWS - COMMON SENSE & LOGIC SEEM TO BE PREVAILING !!

But the Baysgarth meeting was just a local event
What REALLY MATTERS now are the formal Local Plan review comments that are sent to NLC

THIS IS YOUR LAST OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SAY IN THE LOCAL PLAN, WHICH RUNS UNTIL 2038
USE IT WISELY !!!!

ABOUT THE LOCAL PLAN (LP)

It's nearing final public consultation and we're told that any comments will now be processed by The Planning Inspectorate

There are THREE key milestones:

1. Public meeting at Baysgarth, 3/11/21 (now history)

2. Written comments to be submitted by 26/11/21

3. Consultation at Barton Christmas Fair (Barton Civic Society - Wilderspin School, 27/11/21)

Milestone (1): Has gone. If you went, you probably only gave verbal comments at the time and will (hopefully!) now send written comments

Milestone (2): Adequate time for this - BUT WHY NOT DO IT NOW ?!!!!

Milestone (3): A bit too "Maybe I would have gone tonight, but it's raining and cold. Oh well - somebody else probably will have told them....."?

So RAID says: Focus on written comments by 26/11/21:

The local plan is at:
https://localplan.northlincs.gov.uk/stages/4

RAID has already published a list of pages we have focused on - see "Latest News - 28/10/21"

RAID believes the main points to highlight are:

(A) Banks proposal not acceptable. On greenbelt land, developer-driven, over and above housing targets
(maybe not 100% relevant to the LP document, but still worth reinforcing - have your say !)

(B) Absolutely no offence meant to Deepdale, but why is it regarded an "Area of High Landscape Value", whereas Barton's Southern Gateway isn't? (we put that question to NLC, 3/11/21). Is there something wrong with our rolling landscape....?

Page 210-211, Section 9.4.8 refers. Current text:
“8. Areas of High Landscape Value are considered to be of high landscape quality with strong distinctive characteristics which make them particularly sensitive to development. A review of Areas of High Landscape Value has been undertaken in the latest North Lincolnshire Landscape Character Assessment. In light of this review, it is proposed that the following Areas of High Landscape Value should be protected: a. Lincoln Edge Woodland and Heathland areas east of Scunthorpe, extending south to Kirton in Lindsey; b. Lincoln Edge Cliff between Whitton and Flixborough; c. Flat Valley Bottom Farmland, Vale of Ancholme; d. Heathy Woodland near Wrawby Moor; e. Wolds Villages Scarp Slope; and f. Deepdale."

9.4.8 RAID's Proposed Additional Text:

g. Barton Southern Gateway (B1218 approach)

(C) Oops, NLC !! - The Relief Road is supposed to be still under consultation !

Clause 14.47 (Page 316) gives a NLC opinion that could potentially stifle open debate and discussion. Current text:

"To support the growth of the manufacturing sector in Barton upon Humber and unlock land for future housing, a new road is recommended to the immediate south of the town. This will link the A1077/Falkland Way to the A15 via the B1218, reducing traffic flows, particularly HGVs, through the town centre"

14.47 RAID's Proposed Revised Text:

To support the growth of the manufacturing sector in Barton upon Humber and unlock land for future development, a new road is recommended. This should commence at the A1077/Falkland Way junction, connect to the existing Caistor Road route and ultimately enable traffic flow to/from the A15 via a cost effective route that minimises unnecessary construction, disruption and ecological damage. In conjunction with other traffic management measures, this is anticipated to reduce traffic flows, particularly HGV,s, through the town centre. Route options to be subject to full and proper consultation.

Your own and/or these proposed amendments should be sent to:

localplan@northlincs.gov.uk

Or:

Local Plan

Place Planning and Housing

Economy and Growth

Business Development

North Lincolnshire Council

Church Square House

30-40 High Street

Scunthorpe

DN15 6DL

Unlike Banks, we're not that keen on creating one-click emails (but maybe you could use a screen shot?)

Here's a suggested email/letter content:

Dear NLC,

I have reviewed the North Lincolnshire Local Plan (Regulation 19) document and would make the following comments, with regard to Barton upon Humber:

(1) I object to Banks Property pursuing a developer-led Outline Planning Application for “up to 400 homes” on greenbelt land between the B1218 and the A15. Reasons include that it is outside of the current development line, current housing targets are already forecast to be exceeded and it will cause unwarranted ecological damage.

(2) Section 9.4.8, (Item f) refers to Deepdale as an area of High Landscape Value. I see no reason why the adjacent Barton Southern Gateway should be considered any differently and I request that this is added as Item g

(3) The current text of Item 14.47 offers a NLC opinion that that could potentially stifle open debate and discussion. This item is still under consultation and I request that the text be revised to:

“To support the growth of the manufacturing sector in Barton upon Humber and unlock land for future development, a new road is recommended . This should commence at the A1077/Falkland Way junction, connect to the existing Caistor Road route and ultimately enable traffic flow to/from the A15 via a cost effective route that minimises unnecessary construction, disruption and ecological damage. In conjunction with other traffic management measures, this is anticipated to reduce traffic flows, particularly HGV,s, through the town centre. Route options to be subject to full and proper consultation.”

Yours etc

(Please include your address !)

(Please Note: A letter from each adult household occupant would be fantastic!)

SO HERE IT IS - A REAL CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR SAY ON THIS TOWN AND COMMUNITY'S FUTURE !!
MAKE THE MOST OF IT - WRITE TO NLC NOW !!
DON'T BE SORRY LATER ON......

That's what RAID is about: Trying to provide information that others may not - so that YOU can make choices !!

*Update 31/10/21:

Sorry, Banks. We're not giving you the attention you deserve. Bit preoccupied at the moment. But don't worry, we'll have more to say soon
You're probably very busy redesigning your proposal to maximise the chances of securing Outline Planning permission
Four bungalows, deer park (yes, they're there) and nature reserve perhaps?
"Foot in the Door"
Then sell-on and move out.....

Anyway, let's talk about Barton's place in the scheme of things:

BRIGG:
Market town
"Gateway" approaches: Decent from all directions
Town centre: Very pleasant, highly pedestrianised
Shops: Diverse and plentiful
Parking: Ample
No massive single employer (i.e. Council Tax generator)

BARTON:

Market Town
East "Gateway": Wren, primarily

West "Gateway": Industrial estate planned (oh, didn't you know?)
Southern "Gateway": Currently unspoilt
- So let's carve that up with an OTT relief road, link it to new industrial estates, infill with houses
- Oh, and the exotic A15 interchange - perfect for something like an Amazon distribution centre in the future?
Town Centre: Shabby and tired, in general
Shops: Trying hard but, unfortunately, not in the same league as Brigg (not helped by parking/traffic situation)
Parking: Dire
Massive single employer (i.e. Council Tax income)

Our MP and NLC seem only interested in using Barton as a cash cow, turning it into an industrial estate and soulless dormitory town

LEVEL PLAYING FIELD - REALLY?

RAID IS SO ANGRY ABOUT THIS !!

WHAT DO THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT OUR TOWN, COMMUNITY AND HERITAGE THINK ?

*Update 29/10/21:

Here's a summary of RAID's BRR Proposal
A low cost, high value, more eco-friendly HGV solution that we desperately need (and could be built) quickly
It would tick many boxes
But maybe not NLC or Developer boxes
Could a Developer already be offering to deliver the exotic option, perhaps?
Interesting question....

*Update 28/10/21 pm

IMPORTANT !!!!!

Perhaps unlike some others, RAID is very eager to tell you about the LOCAL PLAN - because it's YOUR COMMUNITY
It's available on https://localplan.northlincs.gov.uk/stages/4

The "consultation" meeting is at Baysgarth School (School Hall) on Wednesday 3/11/21, from 3.45pm until 7.15pm

Yes - NEXT WEDNESDAY

It's a long read, but below is a summary of the details we think you'll want to take a close look at

NLC Local Plan October 2021 – Key Reference Pages

Page 2 1.4 & 1.7

Page 5/6 Neighbourhood Planning 1.27

Page 8/9 Planning Representation Questions 1.41

Page 13 2.12

Page 14 2.14

Page 15 2.18 – 2.20

Page 19 2.33

Page 21 2.48

Page 22 2.50

Page 23 2.52

Page 24 2.61

Page 26 2.66

Page 33/34 Spatial Vision para 6,7 & 9

Page 35 Spatial Objective 6

Page 39 4.7 & Policy SS2 - 2a

Page 40 3C

Page 42 4.11

Page 43 Policy SS3 - C

Page 44 4.18, 4.19 & 4.25

Page 46/47 4.34 - 4.37 & 4.39

Page 48 Policy SS5

Page 49 Policy SS6

Page 66 4.101 & Policy SS11 2d, 3 & 4

Page 68/71 5.7, Table 5.1 & Policy H1

Page 97 101

Page 145 5.16

Page 146 Policy H2 3 – Principal Towns

Page 148 Rural Exception Sites 5.175 – 5.181

Page 150 Rural Exception Sites – 7-9

Page 183 Policy EC1-6 1g

Page 203 Policy TC2 1 & 2c & 2j

Page 209 Landscape Protection

Page 210 5

Page 211 Area Natural Beauty Extension/High Landscape Value

Page 233/34 Local Green Space

Page 259/260 Policy CSC2, 2 & 7

Page 314 Policy T3

Page 319 14.47

Page 336 16.1-16.3

Page 337 Policy ID1

Page 361 Appendix

RAID URGES YOU TO ATTEND AND HAVE YOUR SAY - IT'S NO GOOD BEING SORRY LATER !!

*Update 28/10/21 am:

RAID's busy looking at traffic data and asking NLC Highways some more questions

Traffic studies and predictions are a complex subject, but there's some interesting information to be had

There are established rules and clever programs covering traffic predictions

But bear in mind that Developers would always be likely to welcome an optimistic prediction

Is the eventual reality their problem?

FACT: NO !

Plan approved. Box ticked. Maybe a Section 106 payment to make. Not their call if it's spent on something else entirely (and that does happen)

A key requirement is that traffic loads at junctions are considered at peak times - e.g. 8am to 9am & 5pm to 6pm

Apparently, various junctions in Barton are found to be satisfactory, based on some studies we've seen

Probably assisted by the fact that large volumes of peak traffic occur three times a day outside of these core periods !

Will an over-long, complex and expensive Barton Relief Road (BRR) drastically reduce the quantity of private vehicle traffic through the town?

ANSWER: NO !

It's likely to increase substantially, regardless of it

Why? Because the only major traffic that MAY be forced to use BRR is likely to be Wren commercial vehicles

Private vehicles can (within reason!) go where they choose

FACT: RAID's proposal for a simple and effective BRR could be implemented quickly and at relatively low cost
That would handle (at least) the Wren commercial traffic
An easy win that would make a big difference - and quickly !

Maybe some of the £MM saved on the current OTT proposal could be spent on the town?

Dream on - RAID believes NLC really wants this exotic solution so that it can create a new town boundary/building line

Result - this will overload the heart of the town and infrastructure even more

Consultation still open? "Just lines on a map"? (NLC Councillor - see 7/10/21, below)

Interesting that the Local Plan that has been stealthily slipped out (not even mentioned in the Bartonian !) already gives a strong (read less than impartial) indication of what NLC is wanting to achieve with the final version of the BRR. That includes "housing" that was never mentioned in the last consultation

We've asked NLC, via the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, how the current BRR "just lines on a map" scheme came about. We still await a response

It seems that some parties don't like RAID asking inconvenient questions

But the future of this town should be in the hands of ALL OF THE COMMUNITY
We believe in the right to know the truth and be heard

P.S. It's great to know that many people look forward to the this site's updates
Comments received include:
"we had no idea that was happening before we saw the site"
"it's a real eye-opener"
"seems like there are far too many shady dealings going on"
"it's time we asked more questions and had a voice about what's really happening"

So was RAID right about:

Developer donations?
The Government ignoring public opinion at it's peril?
The Banks agenda and strategy?
The NLC BRR agenda and strategy?

The comment "well, we did tell you" comes to mind.....

*Update 27/10/21 am:

Quite a lot going on in the background. RAID is fighting hard and we'll keep you updated - keep visiting !!
We're now looking at traffic data supplied by NLC (have others with "an opinion" bothered to do that? - we seriously doubt it !!)

Also, here's an observation:
When NLC wants Council Tax or tells you about bin collection days, they send you a letter or leaflet
When something key to our future is released for "consultation" (aka "this is what you're getting"?), that seems to be less important
The Local Plan has been released for review and comment. Did you know? How were we told? Newspaper? Facebook? (many use neither of these)
Seems like it's that same old tactic: "well, we did tell you....."
But not in letter form, like Council Tax or the bins. Not as important?
Perhaps convenient, if NLC is trying to keep future developments under the radar as much as possible?

Yes, RAID is reviewing the Local Plan document. To be continued.....

*Update 22/10/21 am:

RAID is taking a closer look at opposition to Banks developments in other areas - seems that we're not unique !

Banks really doesn't like "No" for an answer, it appears
We've touched on this before, but one of their tools is a one-click-survey
Seems that this covers all the detail boxes they'd like you to click and then it automatically generates a letter that's sent to the Planning Officer
The letter covers a few site-specific details, but much of it seems to be pure Banks sales/PR patter. A "Banks is great because..." sort of theme

Don't believe it? Google "teesdale mercury" protestors rally

It's about a Banks proposal to build on agricultural land near Barnard Castle
Seems that more than 120 support letters (identical style/content apparently) flooded in from places far afield as Edinburgh
Ooops! - seems that only 12 were from Barnard Castle......

So the Barnard Castle Opposition Group set up its own equivalent letter (duly noted - thanks guys !)
Apparently this objection letter covers

Unacceptable development of the countryside
Increased pressure on local services and road network
Loss of agricultural land

Does that sound familiar?

So here's what we're up against folks:

A company that seems to be well-connected at high level (so Chris Kelsey indicates - see 7/10/21, below)
A company that seems to love greenfield developments (prestige and more/easier profit - See Barton Planning Meeting web page)
A company that seems to have attracted attention about its behaviour (see 19/10/21, below)
A company that seems keen to use remote lobbying to support a planning application (this update)

DO YOU TRUST BANKS?

RAID's DESIGN WORKSHOP FEEDBACK SHEET

Dear Banks,

Apologies for not attending the Design Workshop on 20th October. But as you're into one-hit responses, here's a collective one from RAID

P.S. Do you publish/forward negative responses as eagerly as positive ones, we wonder....?

*Update 21/10/21 am

Banks held a Design Workshop yesterday
That's curious, because at the last "consultation" we were told there would be no more roadshows before the outline planning application was submitted
Perhaps they're not quite so confident and smug now?
The general theme was - "we're listening - what would you like and where would you like it?"
RAID thinks this was pure window dressing and Public Relations waffle !

JUST REMEMBER:
Banks have stated that they will sell the land to their building chums if outline permission is granted. Foot in the door. Job done. Goodbye Banks
The builder(s) will then submit detail plans which may (read probably will) be radically different. Banks reassurances? History
The builder(s) will pay NLC a "Section 106" levy for infrastructure enhancements
The local infrastructure is already overloaded

The Section 106 levy is not even guaranteed to be spent on this town/community (many people are livid about this!)
If we just shrug, this is what the community will have to live with
In the future we'd be told: "Well, you could have objected at the time, but now it's too late"

Was the Design Workshop well attended?
Not according to what RAID heard and saw !

It seems that not too many people are keen on having greenfield land ripped up to please the Banks Shareholders and the Landowner
However, we don't expect Banks to admit that......

RAID WANTS THE TOWN (NOT JUST BIG BUSINESSES) TO HAVE A SAY ABOUT ITS FUTURE
WE'RE NOT CONVINCED THAT OUR MP & NLC ARE TOO HAPPY ABOUT THAT

(more to follow about this shortly.....)

*Update 19/10/21 am

A few days ago, somebody was asking "Can we trust Banks Group?"
"Development with care is the Banks Property motto" came the defensive reply
"Oh, OK then - so perhaps you shouldn't Google (use " " as shown)

"banks group" manipulation wildlife

"banks group" county durham campaigners northernecho

"banks group" intimidation

….because you might wonder if it’s true”

Please note: this is merely information that's in the public domain and it would be improper for RAID to add any comment or opinion.

So we won't......

*Update: 12/10/21

In our update of 7/10/21, we expressed our respect for Chris Kelsey (Banks Communication Manager)
RAID now believes a passing acknowledgement was not good enough and that we should take a closer look at Banks publicity

On Twitter, it appears that Chris re-tweeted an enthusiastic Banks statement indicating that the Barton development would be wonderful "whilst supporting local wildlife"

We're not too sure how the following may thrill and support the current local wildlife:

Ripping up arable land
Eliminating annual crop production
Building "up to 400 homes" (for now?)
Further overloading the infrastructure
Creating thousands of tons of C02 emissions (construction phase)
Creating post-build CO2 emissions (e.g. power, heating, vehicles)
Ignoring current NLC development designation
Ignoring the latest Government proclamations (brownfield focus)

Chris is clearly very well connected and capable (see 7/10/21 update)

Is he also able to "leverage support" from "local wildlife", we wonder?

Unfortunately, "local wildlife" is unable to comment - which may seem quite convenient for Banks

Looks like it's down to RAID and the Community to question the Banks publicity and sincerity

To be continued......

*Update: 7/10/21 am

Barton Town Council meeting last night. The Relief Road was on the agenda. A couple of RAIDERS were given time to speak before the meeting

RAID views were made clear about the current proposal:

Eco vandalism
OTT: complex, expensive, delay
Botched/skewed "consultation" (no mention of potential building development, limited landowner involvement)
Summary: Badly-hidden agenda. NLC is trying to fool Barton

Then the meeting started (RAID could only talk when invited to - and this happened). Here's RAID's take on the key Relief Road points:

A representative from NLC was supposed to make a presentation. This had been cancelled
RAID's comment: Maybe because NLC's cunning plan has been rumbled.....
NLC Councillor "A" was rather offhand and dismissive, stating that the route was "just lines on a map" and consultation will continue
RAID's comment: It sounded like a child had been told to scribble on scrap paper. There will have been a NLC (or other) steer behind this proposal - or does NLC waste our money telling Consultants to go away and doodle at will? We'd love to know the truth - but anticipate NLC will swerve any questions
NLC Councillor "B" spent a lot of time telling the meeting that the Community's views and interests were at the very heart of this consultation

RAID's comment: It was less than convincing and inadvertently indicated that NLC was (as RAID suspected) not looking for the quick and cost effective solution that this town desperately needs (and could have) - but is looking forward to the time when Barton is a sprawling dormitory town surrounded by industrial estates and distribution centres

RAID CONTINUES TO BELIEVE THAT:
THE RELIEF ROAD IS A BADLY HIDDEN NLC (& 3RD PARTY?) AGENDA
OUR NLC COUNCILLORS ARE MORE INTERESTED IN NLC's OBJECTIVES THAN THE COMMUNITY'S (CHALLENGE: SHOW US OTHERWISE !)
OUR MP ISN'T THAT BOTHERED (CHALLENGE: SHOW US OTHERWISE !)
NLC's CUNNING PLAN HAS BEEN SUSSED AND SOME TRACK-COVERING IS NOW UNDERWAY

OTHER NEWS - PARTY TIME OVER
Well the Conservative Party Conference is over and we've now got both Michael Gove and Boris Johnson pledging "no homes on green fields"
Will Banks have the decency to say "We say we care. So we'll accept Government intent and will go away gracefully"?

RAID doesn't think so. They've spent money on this proposal and it's a big prize
And even if they do, we think they'll threaten "We'll be back". They don't seem to care for the word "No"

Interestingly, RAID is now hearing tales of the difficulties being encountered by a local Developer trying to develop a brownfield site in the town. Is it a level playing field for Developers, in NLC's eyes? Interesting......

PS we suspect that the Banks Communications Manager - Chris Kelsey - may have been busy at the conference "....nurturing and managing long-term relationships with government officials, media, online influencers and strategic partners with the capacity to leverage support to achieve business and organisational goals...."
He seems keen to say that he's one well-connected guy. Unlike us mere residents. Respect !! (Info acknowledgement: Linkedin/Google)

*Update: 4/10/21 am
Some people were rather surprised by some of content of this website when it started. "Surely not?" "Does that really happen?" etc etc......
RAID supporters are far wiser now and it's very clear that RAIDERS are on the increase.

Things that have happened in the last few weeks include:
Jenrick has been sacked. Hurrah!!!!
Gove has replaced him. Interestingly, Gove actively and visibly supported opposition to unwelcome building developments in his own constituency (please note this, Martin). So he should know exactly how we feel about Banks, shouldn't he? Perhaps, but it seems he has received sponsorship from Developers in the past. But the great news is that we are repeatedly told that such donations make no difference whatsoever. OK?
Will Mr Gove level-up-by-bulldozer or listen to local Communities? We'll see......

RAID's "Money Talks" page gives you some idea what goes on at high level. Unbelievable? Take a look at Panorama's "Pandora Papers" programme. It's on tonight. Just like RAID, more and more people are questioning what's going on at high level

Seems that several emails to our MP took time to be answered and that some haven't been answered at all. One RAIDER happened to mention an individual with local interests who happens to be one of the top donors to the Conservative Party. Did that touch a nerve? Maybe - because it appears that a (defensive) email response came back within minutes......

"SMOKE & MIRRORS"
"NOTHING TO SEE HERE - MOVE ALONG"

What RAID is increasingly encountering now is (as expected) typical evasion/stalling tactics - from the very people that are supposed to serve and support the Community!
Delayed (or zero) responses (MP, NLC)
Information not available for "confidentiality" reasons (i.e. to hell with the Community that will be affected)
Key people not available for meetings (i.e. we might take some notice when we can be bothered)

This site was started because of the Banks proposal. However, what's becoming crystal clear is just how angry many people are about how real-world Community needs are being ignored. "Section 106" charges that Developers have to pay to NLC are supposed to address that sort of thing.

But read this NLC - it seems that there's a real hornet's nest of bad feeling out there about how that money is used (or not)........

This site has no political agenda. It just so happens that both the Government and NLC have the same political affiliation. As RAID predicted people at all levels are now questioning what's going on. And many think it stinks

What will the answer be?
Even more "Smoke & Mirrors"?
Respect for what Communities (not Developers) want and need and being straight with them?

So far, evidence suggests that "Smoke & Mirrors" is the answer......

IS THIS WHAT WE VOTED FOR?

*Update: 24/9/21 pm

Well the harvest is in and it's muck spreading time. This prompted somebody to say that the smell reminded them of various Banks assurances
Is that a heartless thing to say? You decide......

Seems that Banks first approached NLC well over a year ago

At the Barton Town Council Planning Meeting (see that page for more info), they seemed proud to say that they were talking to the Top 5 UK building companies
They were asked if they had talked to the local services - Doctor/Dentist/Optician

The reply was along the lines of - Er, no we haven't, but we will now you've mentioned it

RAID's current understanding is that:

Central Surgery contacted Banks the next day (i.e. not the other way round)
West Town Surgery: No contact by Banks
Dentist: No contact by Banks
Opticians: No contact by Banks

So the company that apparently prides itself on "Development With Care" seems to be eager to discuss this project with the Top 5 UK building companies, but seemingly can't even be bothered with early up-front discussions with the Health Providers that the community uses.

The common voice from ALL of them is that they are already struggling. This was indicated at the Planning Meeting. It has been confirmed since.

HOW CARING IS THAT BANKS?
IT SAYS RATHER A LOT, WE RECKON

Just remember that Banks will move on to other development targets once this one has been sold on to the building companies

Another person's comment was that "Development With Care" could maybe be changed to:

"STEALTH, SEIZE, SELL & SCARPER

*Update: 22/9/21 am
Meanwhile, as Banks are probably busy preparing for another charm (?!) offensive and the submission of a planning application for ripping up the countryside and providing a solution that their Shareholders and Developer Chums are likely to love - but that the Community (and Local Authority) didn't ask for - other things have been happening:

Robert Jenrick has been sacked as Housing Secretary and replaced by Michael Gove. The Government has finally woken up to the fact that Communities are not too happy about the "Developers Charter" idea and now realise it's a vote loser. As usual, The Press is focusing on the South, but the truth is that this unrest is increasingly UK-wide (as RAID predicted). Gove is pushing the "Levelling Up" agenda. Hopefully, this is not the same as "Concreting Up" and Local Democracy will be preserved. Let's see.......

Banks wasted no time in getting in first (now there's a surprise!), but RAID representatives have met with Martin Vickers MP. Many details were discussed, but some key points include:

Our MP does not support the Banks development, either on a personal or professional basis and he agrees that the town's services and infrastructure are already overloaded

He agrees that the Relief Road "consultation" should be extended/reopened and he will be advising NLC accordingly

He stated that RAID is running a very effective campaign and that his office regularly monitors the site (our visit and re-visit numbers are very healthy!)

RAID is also engaging with Local Councillors. Further meetings will be set up and our views have been sought

As RAID promised, we're rattling cages and asking the questions that needed asking. And we're getting results !

SO BANKS, THERE'S SOME MORE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FOR YOU TO REVIEW. MORE TO FOLLOW.......

*Update: 15/9/21 pm

A bit more information on that gold plated Relief Road proposal:
Over twice the length, four times the bends & junctions and double the number of roundabouts than necessary. And the A15 connection is massive work.
Oh, and it now seems that some landowners may not have been consulted in advance
So probably at least 3x more expensive than required for a more prompt and eco-friendly solution
Unbelievable!
We'd like to know what's really driving this waste of money. Or is it obvious?

Also, various assurances/sidesteps are coming back from our MP. Details to follow

*Update: 12/9/21 am

Updated Relief Road poster added
Signs that Central Government is finally waking up to the fact that communities don't share the Developers excitement about covering the countryside in concrete and that they want (and deserve) a real say in planning decisions
Will Banks take any notice? Many think the company that claims to care won't....
RAID IS MORE DETERMINED THAN EVER TO FIGHT !!!!
WRITE TO YOUR MP NOW !!!

*Update: 8/9/21 am:
Are you wondering if we can expect any meaningful support from Martin Vickers?
For his voting history Google: theyworkforyou martin vickers
Click on Voting Record. Scroll down to Constitutional Reform
"generally voted against more powers for local councils" That should ring some alarm bells....
As should his record of voting the same way as his fellow MPs in the vast majority of cases
His advice to just contact NLC? When the Government wants to rip up the Planning rules? PURE SMOKESCREEN !!
WRITE TO HIM NOW !!!

*Update: 5/9/21 am:
NLC Core Strategy Document added. See "Links"
Many thanks to all who have been busy emailing and distributing flyers - Great Work ! Great Feedback Too !

Some interesting updates:

NLC

Seems that Banks first contacted NLC on 10th July 2020. Therefore, potential building (whether likely or not) was known about at the time of the Relief Road consultation. Requests for the consultation to be kept open are with NLC. A formal response is awaited.

Not surprisingly - and understandably - most of the emails coming back from Rob Waltham at NLC have been been quite similar in content. Rob has indicated that on a personal basis, he does not support this development. But he doesn't decide the Planning Applications and, from a NLC viewpoint, personal views don't come into it. We'll request that the Planning Department is forwarded relevant emails by Rob.

MARTIN VICKERS MP
Far more worrying is what's (not) coming back from Martin Vickers MP. Seems to be generally along the lines of "nothing to do with me, contact NLC"
WE THINK THIS IS AVOIDING THE ISSUE & WE THINK IT'S SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!!
IF "PROJECT SPEED" IS SKEWED AGAINST LOCAL DEMOCRACY NLC WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW GOVERNMENT DIRECTION. THE END.
THAT'S WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE HOPING FOR !!!!!
WITH REGARD TO THE BANKS POTENTIAL PLANNING APPLICATION WE WOULD LIKE MARTIN TO (CLEARLY, PLEASE) TELL US:
1) HIS PERSONAL VIEW ON BUILDING OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AREA, ON COUNTRYSIDE
2) HIS PROFESSIONAL VIEW ON BUILDING OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AREAS, ON COUNTRYSIDE
3) WHY HE SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS LITTLE TO DO WITH HIM. AS AN MP, HE WILL VOTE ON PROJECT SPEED
4) WILL HE SUPPORT LOCAL DEMOCRACY OR CENTRAL CONTROL OF OVERALL POLICY?
ALSO
IT SEEMS MARTIN VICKERS HAS MET WITH BANKS RECENTLY. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW:
a) WHO ASKED FOR THIS MEETING. WAS IT BANKS (LOBBYING)?
b) IF WAS MARTIN VICKERS, WHY? (IF IT'S ALL DOWN TO NLC)
c) SURELY THIS IS PUBLIC DOMAIN INFORMATION?
d) IF (AS MANY ANTICIPATE) BANKS GO TO APPEAL, IS HE COMFORTABLE WITH TAXPAYERS MONEY DEFENDING THIS?

IN SUMMARY, WE'D LIKE MORE EVIDENCE THAT OUR MP IS PUTTING THE COMMUNITY FIRST......

*Update: 2/9/21 am:
GOOD NEWS !!
NLC 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement (August 2021) released. See "Links"
This covers April 2021 until March 2026
The NLC area is meant to build 2011 homes in this period. The likely figure is currently 2118
THAT'S WELL ABOVE THE TARGET
WILL IT STOP BANKS PUTTING IN AN OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR BUILDING OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AREA?
THEIR TRACK RECORD SUGGESTS NOT....
ALSO, THEY SEEM TO LOVE GOING FOR AN APPEAL IF THEY DON'T GET WHAT THEY (AS OPPOSED TO THE COMMUNITY?) WANT & NEED
THIS WOULD COST NLC (TAXPAYERS) MONEY THAT COULD BE SPENT ELSEWHERE. BULLYBOY TACTICS? HOW THOUGHTFUL IS THAT?
YES, BANKS TELL US THAT THEY REALLY CARE - PERHAPS THE MISSING WORDS ARE "ABOUT PROFIT & SHAREHOLDERS"?

*Update: 31/8/21 am:
"Meanwhile, back in the real world...." added to Pics & Posters

*Update: 29/8/21 am:
Bumper-to-Bumper Quiz added (See Pics & Posters) !! What would YOUR answer be?

*Update: 28/8/21 pm:
There's been a fantastic positive response to our flyer drop! So many people in the community totally agree with what RAID is saying!
PLEASE DON'T LEAVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO WRITE (see: WHO TO EMAIL page).
THIS IS ABOUT YOU HAVING YOUR SAY ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY. CONTACT YOUR MP & LEADER OF THE NLC NOW !!

*Update 28/8/21 am:
Taken from "About Banks":
(Google: "banks properties" campaigners chroniclelive)
Seems like one of the Banks tactics could include a very carefully worded "one click" survey......
(If there is an "add comments" section, please don't say "and I'd like to win the Lottery as well" because Banks might think that you're not taking their assurances seriously)

RAID - Residents Against Inappropriate Development

RAID's DESIGN WORKSHOP FEEDBACK SHEET