© 2008 Save Yeovil Rec

SYR thanks all its members and supporters who came to all the   meetings over the last few weeks. Especially those who made their views known to the Council by speaking.

SYR are not opposed to improving sporting facilities for the area. But unlike SSDC feel that Mudford Rec is the wrong location.

Unfortunately it just goes to show how the Lib Dem councillors regard the residents who they are supposed to represent by ignoring their wishes yet again, when time has clearly shown that rec users  want it to remain as a free open space for all.

The Lib Dem Cllrs approving the proposals to develop the site will change it forever, they will certainly be remembered as the Council that had an aversion to Green Space and sought to destroy it at every opportunity. Not just the Rec as opposition is now mounting to the East Coker housing proposals.

Now that the planning process is complete and SSDC have achieved their aim of obtaining their own planning approval for the new AGP.

This week they have commenced the first steps to divert the north\south footpath across the Rec which will be blocked by the new AGP.

Notices have now been sent to all the preliminary objectors by SSDC. When they made initial enquiries to selected members of the public in the summer of 2011 to test the depth of feeling about this.

SYR and other members of the public replied to SSDC stating their objections to the proposal. As usual SSDC covertly called this a cosmetic move to tidy the footpath route saying it was not used and that their footpath running north to south under the trees on the boundary of  pitch & putt course was now used by the public, no mention was made of the real reason to move it, in that it would be blocked by the AGP fencing.

SSDC have stated in the notice to those protestors that a report will be considered at the Councils Area South Committee on 4th January  2012 in the council chamber at 2.00pm. Of their proposals  report, to divert footpaths that run across Yeovil Rec. We are informed this contains information on all views received of the informal consultation carried out in the summer of 2011.

SSDC have a habit as has been shown in the past of  enhancing these informal consultations with the public into a seal of  approval to achieve their aims, like the AGP consultation which was an informal comment at the 2010 Rec Forum meeting by the chair, where sketchy details were given and the true relevance was  was not recognised by the small number of attendees at the time in the meeting. It is important that as many of SYR supporters attend the meeting to express their views.

When SSDC entered into section 106 agreements with Barratt Homes in Jan 2008 for a pitch the sum of £450k was allocated.

No consultation had taken place with the full council and those involved very confident that they could carry out development on the Mudford Rec without any consultation of the public or full council at that time.

This gesture of behind closed doors has now resulted in a  situation where the money can only be spent at Mudford Rec and no where else in the District.

This is typical of SSDC decision making by the Lib Dem controlled council.  Ignoring all the risk factor associated with this development.