As you will see from the following information there are moves a foot, however the time scale is very slow. At least someone understands that local areas with a military presents do benefit from their locations. The data that was being put together was being limited to the following locations; Aldershot (Army), Brize Norton (RAF), Catterick (Army), Colchester (Army) Plymouth (Royal Navy),, Tidworth (Army), Warminster (Army). The following location have been dispensed with; Brize Norton, Lineham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, HMS Collingwood. Their understanding is this is not such an issue with the RAF and the Royal Navy. I beg to differ, this issue affects all service personnel? They were also looking for more locations to exclude from the data being requested. Once again we see the government trying to paste over the cracks. Its very important at this early stage, that the correct number of service personnel and families being discriminated by Housing Association etc is formulated correctly, must include all locations. The other point I would like to make is, What about future locations for Super Garrisons. The local infranstructors will become hugh all built up by service families and single personnel!
Its the legislation that requires to change not pep talks to some HAs and Councils.
Plymouth has by all accounts included in the data but I'm not sure. None of the data has come with this FOI from the DCLG.
Regards
Hitback
