Here’s my account of events

‘I have just read your column in the Courier with dismay. I could not believe this was the same meeting I attended and spoke as an objector. I do not like to resort to bantering in public but when something as important as the Local Plan is being reported incorrectly it cannot be allowed to go unanswered. Now I have to challenge your recollection of the meeting at the town hall on the February 20.

I beg to inform you and the readers of the Courier that this is not exactly a true statement of the exchange between the ‘interested parties’ and yourself and WDC officers. Also the agenda was not agreed with the audience prior to the meeting. The most important issues according to the objectors were omitted from the agenda.

I sent you my report immediately following the meeting. That should have left you in no doubt the reaction from the objectors. Now for the benefit of allowing the public who read the Courier I will give my account in reply to your comments in the Monthly Update that are in italics. My comment follows each quote.

l “We have a robust plan in place” - WDC does not have a robust plan in place because the public were never consulted at an early stage as required by the NPPF before detailed numbers of houses and sites were established. The public were only aware of the Local Plan after WDC had agreed sites in the south of the district. Local people should have been able to input their ideas as part of the process.

l “and only last week I chaired a very well attended meeting at the town hall where we were able to answer questions from interested parties, and also outline the direction that we are proceeding with.” - The meeting was so well attended because there are so many local people representing the areas totally opposed to the Local Plan.

l “able to answer questions” - yes but not the answers the objectors were expecting following the massive barrage of emails and campaign that preceded this meeting.

l “from interested parties” - you referred to were certainly interested but as objectors.

l “I believe that this meeting confirmed to the majority of the audience that we are heading in the right direction regarding this matter” - That is the reverse impression of the majority who attended the meeting. In fact I do not know of anyone who is involved south of the three towns of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington who would agree with that. There was no declared support for the Local Plan whatsoever.

l Had you mentioned that the meeting was preceded by a warning to councillors of ‘pre-determination’ in anything they say, it may explain why you mistook this as approval by no comment.

l “I welcome all the constructive contributions stated on the night.” - The constructive comments were all against Local Plan.

l Not discussed - the ‘guesstimated’ 12,900 houses claimed to needed by WDC should be something like five to 6,000 over 18 years. This was not mentioned yet is a major objection.

l The siting of 70 per cent of the houses is to be ‘south of the three towns’. This is the other major objection and is seen as WDC unfairly dumping the majority of the problem on the people in the south of the district. This was also not mentioned.

In reporting events it is important to be aware of what you do not say if a true picture is to be presented.

Ray Steele, Whitnash