Not a lotta Allotments

There's been a lot of talk just recently about allotments, or rather the lack of them, in Glossopdale.

Tintwistle has it's own on the Arnfield Allotments site, Glossop's are just off Gladstone Street (and there used to be some along Shirebrook right next to Manor Park), and in Padfield along Platt Street and behind Post Street. For an area serving as many people as Hadfield now does it is a sad state of affairs that we have...erm...none as far as I know.

The waiting lists for Glossopdale sites are very long, stretching into years and this wont change soon unless more land is brought under community use.

The demand for allotment gardens is already high and is bound to increase as we feel the pinch in our pockets with the rise of the cost of living and the credit crunch, but also I think people are more savvy these days when it comes to the food they put in their mouths.

We all now know and worry about food miles, pesticides, the decline of nutritional values in foods, the rise of obesity levels and other health related issues, food safety and Genetic Modification, loss of biodiversity and climate change. Then there's the rapid expansion and take-over by the supermarkets and the decline of local shops and local food.

There are, of course, great benefits to tending an allotment; it gets us out of the house and into the community, it fosters relationships, it is both healthy and educational. It's time we called for Hadfield residents be provided with allotment gardens.

Thankfully there is a law which requires local councils to provide allotments to residents if asked:

"if a council considers there is a demand, it has a statutory duty to provide a sufficient quantity of plots and to lease them to people living in its area. If local people feel there is a demand for allotments that is not being met, they can get together any six residents who are registered on the electoral roll and put their case to the local authority to consider." (http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/ari/documents/plotholdersguide.pdf)

Glossop Wholefoods is carrying a petition at the moment asking for a greater provision of allotments in Glossopdale with well over 300 names already signed. It is worth signing it but I feel we need something that will ensure Hadfield doesn't get side-lined again - our own local campaign.

You can also phone Councillor Graham Oakley on 01457 866353 to chat about allotment provision.

Hopefully, if enough people are interested in pursuing this we can start the ball rolling for some Hadfield allotment spaces.

'Sustainable Communities' Anyone?

A new law was passed last year that should empower us, as residents and citizens, to ask for help from government to promote sustainable communities and fight back against the problems that we encounter locally. The government are then required by law to co-operate and to try to reach an agreement.

The Sustainable Communities Act has been put in place as an aid to combat community decline and by enabling 'bottom-up' decision making for the first time this Act could give our community more power over local issues. This Act defines promoting the sustainability of local communities as, "encouraging the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of an area" and social wellbeing is defined to include, "participation in political activity".

Local Works, who spear-headed the campaign to introduce the Bill 5 years ago, together with Unlock Democracy say:

"this is NOT the usual consultation everyone is so fed up with - government cannot just say 'no' to all the good proposals and ideas that local people have. This is new wording and precedent in law."

However, High Peak Borough Council must 'opt-in' to the Sustainable Communities Act when the government invite them to do so for it to be of any use to us. What's more, we have to ask them to opt-in or they might just choose to ignore their invite. If we would like our local community to be involved in this decision making process we must:

1. Write to our local council or councillors and ask them to opt-in to the process when they receive their government invites this September/October.

2. Get involved in the local panels the council will set up if it agrees to opt in either by taking part in the local panel or lobbying them.

If our council refuses to accept a government and community invite we will publicly challenge them and MAKE THEM ANSWERABLE LOCALLY.

One of the most pertinent subjects highlighted by Local Works/Unlock Democracy has been the threat of Post Office closures and the restriction of postal services but there are also many other wide ranging matters that are covered by this Act and to which Local Authorities must have regard.

Some examples of these are: local jobs, the provision of local services, measures to reduce levels of road traffic (including provisions of public transport), energy conservation, production and use of sustainable sources, the use of local waste materials for benefit of the community, planning policies (including affordable housing provision), product miles and using local goods and services, access to all for nutritional foods, and increases in social inclusion (which also includes an increase in involvement in local democracy).

In practical terms we can use these measures to address worries such as the closure of local shops, pubs, doctors, dentists and hospitals; reducing pollution and climate change; quiet streets being wrecked by traffic; older peoples needs; alleviation of poverty; devolution and the promotion of proportional representation.

If you have an idea for something you'd like to see change then use the links below to see how the Act could help you take action. In what Local Democracy call the '4 limbs of sustainability'- economic, social, environmental and participation- there is plenty of scope for suggestions.

Hadfield and Tintwistle seem, to me, to be suffering a myriad of problems caused by myopic councillors and government at large many of which can be addressed by government listening to and putting in place suggestions made by local people. After all, we know better than them what our communities need.

We have practically exhausted all the usual avenues for change dictated to us from the top and things are getting worse not better. I don't know whether this Act will enable a different style of decision making and my cynical head remains fixed firmly on. However to let this opportunity pass us by could prove to be a grave error of judgement.

For more ideas on how the Act could help our local community see the rather excellent information sheet produced by the Campaign For Sustainable Communities here or visit their websites here and here .

Residents Meeting - Monday 1st September, The New Lamp, Bankbottom, Hadfield 8.00pm

Next Monday is the 1st September. It also happens to be the first Monday in the month which means our monthly meeting will take place at the New Lamp, Bankbottom, Hadfield on Monday 1st September at 8.00pm. Here follows the Agenda but anyone wishing to add an item can e-mail it for inclusion and we will do our best to accomodate. All welcome.

AGENDA - RESIDENTS MEETING - MONDAY 1ST SEPT 2008 - THE NEW LAMP

1. Apologies.
2. Matters arising from last meeting.
3. Correspondence.
4. Update on Sorting Office Dispute.
5. Update on Lambgates situation.
6. Sustainable Communities Act - what it is and how we can use it.
7. Allotments.
8. Chapel Lane Park threat?
9. A.O.B.

'New' Skateboard Park At Newshaw Lane

The news that HPBC's Development & Control Committee approved the recommendation to site a skateboard park within recreation ground on Newshaw Lane is good or bad news according to your age and where you happen to live but in principle seems to be a good news story for Hadfield.

It was passed by eight votes to nil with one abstention on 11th August, at the same meeting as the Brookside Bungalow application was turned down. The equipment is not new but has been transferred from Manor Park.

Now whilst the likes of yours truly may experience some additional 'noise pollution' from the park, it is to be hoped that the screening to be provided will adequately compensate residents on Shawfield Road and Lower Bank Close.

The existing fencing which belongs to the council and is their responsibility to repair, has been in a serious state of disrepair for years but they have steadfastly refused to contribute anything towards its maintainence. The other benefit which will arise is the laying of a footpath from the skatepark to Newshaw Lane in place of a mudbath.

There have been attempts in the past to get some sort of crossing or traffic calming put in place on Newshaw Lane, to help slow down vehicles as they approach the chicane but in the past such demands have fallen on deaf ears. With the expected increase in pedestrian traffic as a result of the skatepark, future attempts may meet with more success, which may prove to be another positive by-product of the skatepark.

For full details of the application and a diagram of the plans, click here: here

HADFIELD SORTING OFFICE CLOSURE THREAT - Official Response From Royal Mail

CLICK ON IMAGES BELOW TO INCREASE TO READABLE SIZE

Many Hadfield residents have by now received official replies from Royal Mail (RM) who attempt to address concerns regarding the proposed closure of the Sorting Office. Our thanks to readers of this blog who forwarded copies of the said item which can be read above.

The matter hinges (according to the RM spokesperson) around the question of suitability of the Station Road premises which they state are "no longer fit for purpose" under Health and Safety guidelines.

The building was assessed by council H&S officer Mark Carlisle but during a meeting of residents last month, a Health and Safety Officer from the Communication Workers Union who represent postal workers stated that Hadfield is one of the safest Sorting Offices in the country.

So, what is the problem? If it is down to "lack of space" then surely, it will have always been so, the building hasn't suddenly decreased in size.

Does Hadfield post office need the latest design in sorting frames? Or, would we prefer to have our local posties happy in their jobs without the extra inconvenience of daily travel into Hyde and back out again twice a day?

If RM do, as the letter says, "consider the well-being of our staff to be of paramount importance" why did our local postal delivery workers feel that they had no option but to strike over these issues?

Whilst RM may well 'intend' to continue to offer the option for customers to collect mail from the Hadfield office we have absolutely no guarantee that this will happen or for how long. Indeed, the letter goes on to give a not-so-subtle get-out clause with the words, "however...a post office can close for any number of reasons" and, "we cannot guarantee that any post office will remain open indefinitely".

It should be heartening to be told that the sub-postmistress will continue to be paid for allowing customers to collect parcels from the post office but the reality is that renumeration for this will not be anything like what she receives for the Sorting Office side of the business. There is no doubt that the business will struggle to pay it's way without the substantial annual income derived from this aspect of the business.

Contrary to the claims in the letter, I suggest, Post Office Ltd., that you do have some control over whether the sub postmistress resigns/retires or not!

On a wider issue, what worries me is the unrelenting continuation of the trend to centralise everything at huge costs to jobs, the environment and people's lives when what we, as customers, residents, neighbours, and workers really need is for these services to WORK for US in our community.

VICTORY OVER BROOKSIDE BUNGALOW PROPOSALS

A large but very sweet and delicious slice of humble pie was served up to yours truly at last night's planning meeting where proposals to build 20 two bedroom flats on Back Lambgates, the current site of a single bungalow (see picure above) were discussed.

In yesterdays post I was very downbeat about the prospects of the Development and Control Committee overturning Adrian Fisher's recommendation to give plans the green light. The prognosis was based on previous high profile cases of major developments in the area, most notably S.C.C. and the Rossington sheds, which had zero local support, indeed massive opposition but were rubber stamped by the Committee regardless.

What was particularly pleasing is that not only was it defeated but it was rejected unanimously, a decision which dovetailed neatly with the outcome of our own vote to object at this month's meeting. So what were the factors involved in this massive defeat inflicted on Adrian Fisher and his planning cohorts who supported the application and recommended its approval?

Without doubt the efforts of Jo Osborn and other local residents who objected in strength and further raised the profile of the campaign through numerous letters to the Press, was a significant, probably the most significant factor. It highlighted the fact that this ought not to be a simple straight forward rubber stamping job and that there were lots issues surrounding the case. Many of these were detailed in our own letter of objection, which can be read in the previous blog here but suffice to say that it gave the Committee food for thought and plenty of grounds on which to hang their concerns.

The other important ingredient was a hired brief in the name on Andrew Moorhouse who made good use of his three minutes to summarise the detailed objections. He noted that the plans flouted no less than three policies of the local plan and that the density of the flats worked out at a huge 160 dwellings per hectare, meaning that levels of amenity would be very low and asked why these residents should have less amenity than anyone else?

He also made the point well, which though obvious needed to be said, that the proposed structure had no local distinctiveness and showed no sympathy to the area. Indeed the whole question of design and sensitivity had been brutally ignored. In essence this was an urban structure in a semi-rural setting, inappropriate and out of character - echoes of Rossington Park - a point that Cllr. Kay went on to make, stating that it would be a scar on the landscape.

The area is actually within the boundary of Cllr. Kay's constituency and he was first to speak in the ensuing debate. During his comments it emerged that Committee members had earlier been on a perilous site visit which entailed a minibus journey along Back Lambgates. It revealed to them the truth that this was indeed a track and not a road, illustrating not only the poor vehicular access but also that it was well used by pedestrians.

He made further incisive points, particularly with regard to the alleged need for these type of affordable homes, noting that there were similar existing properties, currently unoccupied because local people want houses not flats. Also that there were two mills in Glossop full of available flats! After asserting the fact that there is a shortage of public space in Hadfield and that the loss of parkland would reduce that still further, he put forward a motion to reject the application.

A worried look came over Fisher's face and he visibly blanched. He was right to. For Chris Pearson (Chinley) picked up on the loss of amenity and open spaces, suggesting that any problems of anti-social behaviour should be dealt with in a positive way rather than simply taking away green spaces.

Whilst he thought it was the right kind of development, he shared the opinion that it was in the wrong place, speaking about fire hazards with regard to getting emergency vehicles down the unadopted track, along with a lack of parking for tradesmen and visitors. He added that the money would be better spent on brownfield sites and went on to second Cllr. Kay's motion to reject the application.

From this point onwards Fisher started to hedge his bets and was quickly back peddling. As Cllr. after Cllr. started to wade in with different reasons to overthrow the application...overbearing development, traffic safety, safe route to school, inadequate parking, should not fulfill quotas at any cost..etc he conceded that were some good grounds on which refusal could be hung.

Local Cllrs. Cynthia Mitchell and Bob Mc Keown also chipped in to good effect and by the end of the debate it was a question of, on which grounds to quash the application, rather than any doubt as to the outcome of the vote. In the end there were unanimous votes to turn it down due it being an overbearing development and an unacceptable loss of amenity.

Chris Pearson wanted to go further and add inadequate access but there was a fear that doing so might aid any appeal from Johnny Johnson who are now as popular as Dr Shipman in these parts.

In summary, an excellent, if unexpected outcome. The flannel of Fisher and the seeming inability to question or overrule anything that comes with his recommendation, has finally been overcome.

Hopefully the DCC committee have found their feet and their confidence. Let's hope this is the first defeat of many for Fisher and his ridiculous recommendations. That is the only thing that will stop the Planning Dept. supporting everything that comes their way regardless of its suitability for the area or local sensitivity.

TAHRA OBJECTION TO BROOKSIDE BUNGALOW

This evening will almost certainly see the rubber stamping of the Planning Department's recommendation to build 20 two bedroom flats in the space currently occupied by a single bungalow. The application was discussed at length, at both the July and August meetings of the Association, following which a unanimous decision was taken to formally object to these damaging proposals.

We have no faith or expectation whatsoever that the Development Control Committtee will take the slightest heed of local opinion. Were that the case then the Rossington Park and Bridge Mills outrages could never have happened.

Even on the rare occasions when proposals meet with such determined opposition that permission is deferred or refused, applicants simply re-submit a slightly amended plan a couple of months later, ad finitum, until they succeed. So skewed in favour of developers are the wheels of planning and so limited is 'democracy' at a local level.

You may be able vote for your councillors from time to time but you can never vote to keep the bulldozers at bay. Thanks goodness it's always in the name of progress and heavens above, never anything to do with money!

Nevertheless, just for the record and for what it's worth, here is the full text our submission:
===========================================================
OBJECTION TO BROOKSIDE BUNGALOW, LAMBGATES LANE, HADFIELD, GLOSSOP - FROM TINTWISTLE & HADFIELD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION - REF NO. HKP/2008/0369

We object to this planning application for all of the following reasons:

Lambgates Lane is currently just a rough path, not a road. It gives access only to the few homes that lie within it. As such, it provides and has always provided a safe route for its many pedestrians on their way to and from the shops on Station Road and for children en route to school.

Indeed, it is one of the few places in the village that pedestrians do not feel threatened or intimidated by vehicles and can amble safely at all times. We wish to keep it that way. The proposed development will effectively create a road that will bring new traffic to the lane and remove the safety element of this well used track.

New traffic is also the last thing that Hadfield needs. Driving around the village is a precarious business, parking is at a premium and can now be said to be out of control, with vehicles routinely mounting footpaths and parking on junctions. These sort of issues are now the most common ones raised at our meetings and are the direct result of excessive and unsustainable development within the area.

The problem has been acknowledged by Councillors, the Police and the Highways Dept. of Derbyshire County Council and has at various times created access problems for Emergency Services and Waste Collection services etc.

This development provides for another 20 unwanted, unwelcome vehicles. The reality though, is that if the flats were ever to be sold, they would generate far more than 20 vehicles, spilling more cars onto congested roads and requiring more parking spaces than the number allocated.

In essence this is an unsustainable development in an already overcrowded village. The evidence is visible all around in the grid-locked streets that are double parked, junction parked and pavement parked and should be rejected on these grounds alone.

We object to the loss of mature trees and are at a loss to understand why the Tree Officer does not object either. Perhaps he is in the wrong job! The trees and shrubbery present a lovely little oasis of greenery that have survived a tidal wave of development but even this small pocket of nature is no longer safe from the hands of HPBC and Johnny Johnson, who cannot afford Hadfield residents even a modicum of respite from their incessant housing demands.

The proposed destruction of publicly owned parkland robs us of another piece of what remains of Hadfield’s Green Field areas. The copse, in particular, would be a sad loss, as it affords a safe haven, away from traffic, where children can play close to their homes. It has been used safely by generations of children in the past and should remain so in the future.

We feel that the design and appearance of the planned flats are out of character and out of scale for the area. They are too tall, overlooking neighbours and are not appropriate for the setting. They are too dense, to the point that they undermine and change the character of the area.

Essentially this is a building that wouldn’t look out of place in a city, which is being slapped by a small brook 13 miles out of town, on the edge of open countryside, close to the Peak Park boundary.

There are parallels here with Rossington Park, whereby the Planning Dept. is attempting to impose urban designs in a semi-rural area, in what appears to be a delilberate attempt to urbanise the area for unfathomable reasons. The net result is an unwanted and unacceptable change in the character of the area that is undoubtedly for the worse.

The point is even acknowledged by the case officer “the scheme provides a dense urban form and can be considered to represent the limits of acceptability”.

The upshot of this for local residents is a detrimental impact on property values. For most residents, their home is their most valuable asset. Many homes on the Roughfields estate, for example, and beyond have a pleasant aspect due to the presence of the copse and the green space it affords:
Turning this into yet more housing will devalue these properties at a time when those looking to sell already face tough times. How much more onerous will their task be and their losses become if this beautiful spot that provides a pleasing aspect is replaced with a 3 storey tower block with accompanying parking lots?

We would now like to address some of the comments that have been made in support of the application:

To begin with the spurious allegation that Lambgates Lane is dark and unsafe. We would like to ask what evidence this assertion is based on? Have there been any reported incidents here? If so, then how do the numbers compare with say Station Rd or other streets in the area? Favourably one should imagine. Unless evidence in the form of statistics can be provided then this argument should be discounted.

As for it being dark, if this is perceived as a problem then might we suggest street lamps rather than 20 flats to be a more appropriate solution, not to mention a much cheaper option! Far from improving the character of the area, this development is detrimental as I have argued. The area of Lambgates Lane that is unkempt is the former site of Quinns garage. This is certainly a spot where the Council could step in and do something about but it is irrelevant to this application.

Our final point of objection concerns the grey area of ‘affordable’ housing which is a tactic used again and again by would-be developers and the Planning Dept. to justify the unjustifiable and to evade moratoriums where housing is oversupplied. So what exactly is meant by ‘affordability’?

Adrian Fisher recently defined this at an Area Forum as “housing that is available at below the market price.” It can be either built for rent at below market rents, or it can be built for sale on a shared ownership basis”. Affordability is a key argument being put forward to justify these proposals. We are told that the development will provide very welcome affordable housing, which is urgently needed.

So who is going to be able to afford it and who says it is very welcome? Residents have made it quite clear that they do not welcome it. As for the urgent need, where is the evidence?

Empty properties on Bank St. only 100 yards away suggest that this type of housing is either not needed or is not affordable. They remain empty years after completion, even after reverting to shared ownership, after failing to sell on a full mortgage.

If HPBC and/or Johnny Johnson are really concerned about providing housing that is ‘affordable’ then there are existing properties aplenty that are available for purchase, right now, at knock down prices. Why don’t they simply buy some up and either offer them up for ‘affordable’ rents and/or ‘affordable’ mortgages?

That way empty properties could be put to use with immediate effect for those in need, whilst at the same time the parklands and green spaces that people use, cherish and enjoy could be spared from the constant threat of development.

Why do Johnny Johnson feel that their homes would sell when others have failed to do so and what evidence do they have to support their claims? The evidence of empty properties, we suggest, indicates a lack of demand in the area for the type of housing they are proposing.

Our closing statement is to note that in a press release just a couple of months ago, HPBC revealed that they had ‘secured funding’ from Johnny Johnson towards the refurbishment of Brosscroft play area, as part of the Hadfield Parks Improvement Area.

At the time it seemed like an altruistic gesture. Now one wonders. Some few weeks later, planning application HPK/2007/0899 was re-submitted as the current application HPK/2008/0369.

Crucially, as the case officer notes “the amenity space on which the scheme is dependent is almost entirely located within the area of land currently owned by the Council, without which the scheme could not be supported”.

We note the impeccable timing of the application together with the officer’s recommendation and draw our own conclusions, as will others.

We trust that our objection is duly noted and can only hope that it is given the weight that it merits. Considering the above facts, it seems to us the outcome is already pre-determined.

– on behalf of Tintwistle & Hadfield Residents Association.

- Thumbs down to Lambgates Lane Development -

Residents who attended last nights meeting voted unanimously that the Association should put in a written objection to the proposed development of 20 residential units on the current site of Brookside Bungalow on Lambgates Lane, Hadfield. Planning officers are of course recommending approval when it comes up before the Development and Control Committee next Monday 11th August.

(Ref No. HPK/2008/0369 click here to see planning application)

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to residents of the area who are used to being on the wrong end of atrocious decisions made by this committee to the severe detriment of the area.

In it's report to the committee, officers note that the large number of responses, the vast majority of which are against the proposal, come mainly from the local Hadfield area of Lambgates, Valemount, Rhodeswood, Wilmans Walk and Maguire Avenue.

Once again they choose to ignore local opinion in order to cash in on grants and to oversubscribe their housing quotas in an area that is awash with unsold properties.

For further details surrounding this case click here . The link to the plannng application itself on HPBC's own website is here .

It is still possible to comment on the plans until close of business on Friday8th August. This can be done by e-mailing the planning officer Anne Jordan at annej@highpeak.gov.uk or writing to her at:

Planning and Development Services
Municipal Buildings
Glossop
SK13 8AF

Raise any questions you have about the application by calling 0845 129 7777 and asking for her extension on 3714. Otherwise yet another piece of Hadfield will be surrendered to the bulldozers.

RESIDENTS MONTHLY MEETING - Agenda for Monday 4/8/08 -

A reminder that Tintwistle and Hadfield Residents Association meet the first Monday in the month (excepting Bank Holidays) so we will be having our regular meeting tomorrow (Monday 4th August) at the New Lamp, Bankbottom, Hadfield at 8.00pm prompt. Here is the Agenda along with any relevant links:

1. Apologies.

2. Matters arising from previous meeting
- update on 4000 postcards campaign and Sorting Office dispute: http://tintwistleandhadfieldresassoc.blogspot.com/2008/07/update-on-hadfield-dlo-dispute.html

- update on Brookside Bungalow planning application (20 flats proposed off Lambgates): http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=103676

3. Correspondence

4. River pollution Tinsle Bridge and Dinting Road.

5. Keep High Peak Green - awareness raising of this new borough wide group: http://keephighpeakgreen.wordpress.com/

6. Safer Neighbourhood meeting 23/07/08 - report back. http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/local/125.html

7. Blog items, participation, contributions etc. http://www.tintwistleandhadfieldresassoc.blogspot.com/

8. Announcements.

9. Any other business.

All welcome. We try to ensure business is complete by 9.30pm but feel free to stay and have a drink and a chat afterwards.


-

- SAVE WOODHEAD TUNNEL RALLY - Saturday 2nd August 2.00pm prompt

Save The Woodhead Tunnel Group are having a rally at the tunnel head this coming Saturday (2nd August) to raise awareness of the group and its aims. They also want to make the public aware of plans by National Grid to use the modern 50's tunnel to route power cables. A full Press Statement and map of the venue are available on their blog: here

The group feel the future of the tunnel should be to run freight and passenger services between two of the countries major cities, rather than merely allowing a private company to save money at the expense a potentially strategic route of national importance for rail. They are calling for the government to re-open the historic Woodhead line.

Local activists argue the re-opened line would relieve congestion on local roads, boost the local economy and open up the area to tourists. A spokesperson for the group states:

"Here in Longdendale it’s all too obvious what’s wrong with the government’s transport policy. The A628,a road that passes through the Peak District National Park, is clogged with cars and heavy good vehicles, whilst planes from Manchester Airport spew out greenhouse gases overhead.

Meanwhile one of the most modern railway tunnels in Britain stands empty. We demand a sustainable transport policy with freight taken off the road and onto the railway and commuters taking the train rather than the plane. We want trains through the Woodhead Tunnel again!"

The demonstration will include a samba band, picnic and speakers. To re-iterate , the event commences at 2.00pm on Saturday 2nd August at 2.00pm.

For anyone who is unsure of the venue there is a map of the area which can be found on the Save Woodhead Tunnel blog by clicking here . For anyone who has cycled the Longdendale trail before, you will find the tunnel head at the end of the trail, assuming of course you began at Hadfield. If you begin at the other end you're already there!

Most people will be attending by cycle. I would suggest getting on the trail at Hadfield by 1.00pm. A leisurely pace will see you arrive in plenty of time.

If the weather is anything like today it should be a fun day out. Enjoy.