Anyone reading Chris Brewis’ “special extra newsletter” of Autumn 2014, delivered recently to the residents of Sutton Bridge, might easily be forgiven for thinking he had single-handedly defended the citizens of Sutton Bridge against the ‘recent controversial planning applications in our parish’.
Such arrogance demands a rebuff.
At no time has he openly supported the efforts of many people in the village campaigning against the developments, unlike John Hayes, our MP.
Indeed he made himself conspicuous by his absence on every occasion when a public protest has been made, which may explain why he thought the demonstration on July 23, which he asserts ‘clogged up the village’, was entirely about EDFB when it was in fact against the combination of two extra power stations being sited alongside the existing gas-fired power station and the potential fire, flooding and dangerous emission risks that would, in all probability, result.
There was no mention of the gasifier application in his ‘newsletter’.
I have attended two planning meetings where Mr Brewis could have spoken on behalf of the residents of Sutton Bridge, and the wider locality, but he chose not to do so.
His contributions to the so-called ‘debate’ were based on relating an account of a night spent in a garden in Sutton Bridge with an academic from Leicester University seeking to establish ‘ambient noise levels’ (which I’ve heard three times now), and mitigation of the effects of the developments, rather than on opposition.
These included fitting chimney filters and air quality measuring devices. Had he spoken up for the residents like Michael Booth did on the last occasion, I might have more respect for him.
He waffles repeatedly about ‘predetermination issues’, which do not seem to worry other politicians, local and national.
Surely expressing the views of the people he purports to represent is part of his role?
At least this was what Mr Gambba-Jones told me when he suggested I asked my district councillor to speak on my behalf as a resident at an earlier planning committee meeting, which he declined to do.
So who does Mr Brewis represent apart from himself, an Independent?
Cynics are already saying that he has an eye on the May elections.
The repetitive use of the first person pronoun throughout his ‘grey paper’ would support this allegation.
Perhaps the parishioners should ask who encouraged the parish council to renege on their commitment to spend up £10,000 on legal advice which resulted in Mrs Giles’ courageous stand?
Do they remember that one councillor resigned on the spot over this?