It is rather sad that Full Sutton and Skirpenbeck Parish Council are making false accusations against Stamford Bridge Parish Council in relation to the proposed boundary change.
I have read comments on Facebook which begins by falsely claiming:
“Stamford Bridge Parish Council is trying to annex part of the historic parish of Skirpenbeck”. (the rest continues in a downward direction)
Nothing is further from the truth.
The process was started by me on 20 February 2017 was I was the Independent ERYC Ward Councillor for Pocklington Provincial Ward that includes Stamford Bridge. ERYC will confirm this.
Please read In But Out In Stamford Bridge.
In early 2017 there were numerous issues at the Stamford Bridge end of the Avant site (Godwin Vale) in relation to collapsed sewers that resulted in traffic congestion on the A166.
Despite the fact that this was in Skirpenbeck Parish it was Stamford Bridge Parish Council and me, not Full Sutton and Skirpenbeck Parish Council and Wolds Weighton ERYC Councillors who dealt with the situation.
Please read Stamford Bridge Lights Issue.
Hopefully, this demonstrates that Stamford Bridge Parish Council is not “trying to annex part of the historic parish of Skirpenbeck” as it was me who instigated the boundary change which is merely for administration purposes.
In addition, Stamford Bridge Parish Council assisted Godwin Vale residents when Full Sutton and Skirpenbeck Parish Council should have but were notable by their absence.
I politely suggest that Full Sutton and Skirpenbeck Parish Council need to reflect on their unpleasant and untruthful campaign. History cannot be rewritten.
You must be logged in to post a comment.