I READ with interest Coun. Hirst’s comments a couple of weeks ago about the Standen housing development, as I’m sure a lot of readers did.
On close inspection it seemed he was saying at one point the building of a new school was part of the plans and at another point it would only be land set aside for someone else to build it.
I am grateful to Mr Rush for clarifying this matter last week as we now all know the new school will not be built by the developers, but left for local government or the LEA to build. Considering where they both stand financially, we therefore have to assume this will never happen, that the land will eventually have more houses on it and the local school system will be stretched past breaking point.
Now I finally get to my point! What I don’t understand is this; in my business experience when tendering for contracts, my customers have made these kinds of supply issues part of the contract with penalty clauses if I fail to deliver.
In other words why doesn’t the council tell the developers they have to build the school and as part of the necessary local infrastructure, they have to do this first? This may actually go some way to appease local objections to this development. However, I doubt the council have the strength to do this and hold these people to account.
As far as his comments on UKIP’s political agenda goes I see no-one from the other parties, other than the Councillors Knox, putting their heads over the parapet on our behalf and this includes our MP.
After all this area is Conservative isn’t it and none of those councillors would want to rock their parties’ boat would they? Er, is that not political Mr Hirst?