Dear Supporters,

Thank you for your incredible continued support. There has been a major development in our campaign.

Following our formal complaint, we have now received a response from the mast operator, Cornerstone. In their email, they have made a truly shocking admission about their "consultation" with the specialist Menphys Nursery.

Cornerstone is now claiming their only attempt to contact the nursery was a single email sent to a generic office inbox. They admit in the same letter that they never received a reply.

Let's be clear about what this means:

Consultation is a two-way conversation. It is not sending one email into a void and hoping for the best. They had no idea if the email was even received, let alone read or understood by the right person.
This was a grossly inadequate and negligent act. For a matter this serious—a 20-metre mast next to a playground for uniquely vulnerable children—a single, unanswered email is an insult. A follow-up phone call should have been the bare minimum.
It proves their original application was based on a falsehood. Most importantly, this admission proves their formal statement to the council—that the nursery "have been consulted"—was a material falsehood. They presented a failed attempt as a completed success.
Their attempt to defend this is unacceptable. I have sent a firm response on behalf of all of you, making our position clear and putting the pressure directly back on them. You can read my full reply below.

Our Formal Response to Cornerstone
 

Dear Dr. Clark,

Thank you for your email of 26th September.

We note your new position that your agent's only attempt to consult with the specialist Menphys Nursery was a single email sent to a generic office address, and that you knowingly received no response.

You must be aware that a single, unanswered email to a generic address does not constitute "meaningful consultation," especially for a provider caring for uniquely vulnerable children. Crucially, it confirms that the statement in your formal planning application—that the nursery "have been consulted"—was a material falsehood. Your agent presented a failed attempt as a completed action, which the council then relied upon.

While we agree the council has serious questions to answer, the submission of a misleading planning application is a failure that rests solely with Cornerstone and its agents.

Your refusal to meet is unacceptable given the gravity of this evidence. We are therefore re-extending our offer of a meeting on the strict agenda of agreeing a timetable for the mast's deactivation and removal, alongside a plan for its relocation.

We require you to reconsider your position and agree to this meeting by 5pm on Wednesday, 1st October. If you continue to refuse to engage constructively, we will proceed accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Vermeire (On behalf of the Sketchley Mast Action Group)
 
As you can see, we are not backing down. The pressure is working, and it is forcing them to reveal the weakness of their position.

Please continue to share the petition. Every signature shows that this community will not be ignored. We will update you again as soon as we have a response.

Thank you for being part of this fight.