https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com

Making it happen. Holding officialdom to account. Frank, fearless and free. THE DIGITAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH BLOG. Join our conversation https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com YOU MAY NOW VIEW PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE OVER A SECURE WEB LINK: https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com PASS IT ON!

PBROtrib PAGEview COUNTER excludes casual browsers scrolling through a selection of posts

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

'Cardea' South Peterborough halal poultry slaughterhouse proposal has been known about by planning since 2012....

Typical poultry slaughter line

LAST CHANCE: PLANNERS HAVE CLOSED THE ON-LINE PORTAL EARLY BUT YOU CAN STILL GET YOUR OBJECTION IN BY EMAIL BEFORE MAY 3rd 2017

 mail@huntsdc.gov.uk  quote planning reference

12/01847/OUT Poultry Farm & Slaughterhouse Outline Planning Application 

Cut and paste the content from our blog and add your own thoughts. Consider that from nearby Cardea say outside Morrisons Supermarket to the ritual slaughterhouse, its direct line of sight!  

STOP PRESS Cllr Harper is belatedly ( err a few years too late) attempting to claw back some credibility by launching his own 'party political' petition against the mass chicken slaughterhouse soon to be part of our neighbourhood.

Don't be fooled, use your rights!

IT PAYS TO COMPLAIN DIRECT have your detailed concerns LEGALLY included in the formal planning committee bundle rather than being reduced to just a number.

Asleep at the wheel or too busy counting up the allowances?  Suddenly after a few years of inactivity, Park Farm resident Cllr (call me Chris) Harper (Conservative) South Stanground -aka Cllr Turnip - has finally -some five years late - woken up to the fact that he, as chair of planning, didn't bother to consult and find out about this huge poultry (halal) slaughterhouse, put out to public consultation in 2012 (FIVE YEARS  AGO).

https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/park-farm-neighbourhood-watch.html


ONE of the objections stated:
Mr Martin The Old Rectory Haddon Peterborough PE7 3TR (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Jan 2013

I have just received from Mr Hall of Bull Barn Farm House, a copy of the proposed poultry farm and slaughter house on the land north of Bull Barn Farm, Kings Delph Drove, Farcet.

I am surprised as I own land adjoining this site - both to the south and west, that I have not received any official notification from yourselves. I am very disappointed.

I strongly object to this proposal.

1. This application will adversely affect my land.


2. It is completely out of context with the surrounding land.


3. The smell/stench when the sheds are cleaned out will be intolerable for the three close neighbouring houses, and to Cardea and Stanground to the east with the prevailing wind being in the west south west, and also to the village school in Farcet.


4. Where is the effluent going to go?


5. The extra traffic and heavy lorries on this very minor single lane drove will be unacceptable.


6. The surrounding properties and land will be greatly reduced in value.

What is Halal?

Animals must be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter and all blood is drained from the carcass. During the process, a Muslim will recite a dedication, know as tasmiya or shahada.

There is debate about elements of halal, such as whether stunning is allowed.



Stunning cannot be used to kill an animal, according to the Halal Food Authority (HFA), a non-profit organisation that monitors adherence to halal principles. But it can be used if the animal survives and is then killed by halal methods, the HFA adds.
Source BBCNEWS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27324224


Clearly the whole of Cardea is in the firing line for the smell and issues arriving from the ritual slaughter of many thousands of birds. Just think of the extra traffic! Add this to the outstanding issues of burning rubbish at the brickworks. Clearly Cllr Harper cannot dodge this one, the brickwork chimneys have been smoking out dioxins since the 1930's! Nothing has been done about that either.

Now we have what is possibly a huge halal slaughterhouse for ritually slaughtering millions of chickens... 

Below is one of the documents from the agents dated 2012.  This is a document Cllr Harper CON Stanground South should have made himself aware of back in 2012.  

Purchasers of new houses on Cardea might like to ask why this did not register with Peterborough and why this did not appear on the legal searches. Clearly Cardea property will nosedive in value if a halal slaughterhouse for poultry is built. 

Still Cardea will be known for the smell of chicken and chips. Not forgetting the Mc Cains factory just over the road and the mushroom processing plant just up the road a bit. Then we have the anaerobic digester plant taking in sewerage from miles around . Nice one Chris  and your re-election is just over a year away 


PROPOSED POULTRY FARM AND SLAUGHTERHOUSE at KINGS DELPH DROVE, FARCET, PETERBOROUGH for MR N HUSSAIN 


 
Cllr Chris Harper CON Stanground South...a bit slow,by a few years, but quick to vote himself a whopping payrise

"I have been made aware of this planning application this morning  (APRIL 11 2017) in the adjacent authority area and have asked our own planning department and the county councillors to perform some investigation work."

http://publicaccess.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/…/applicationDet…
Apart from the obvious concerns we might have with the application detail itself, I also want to know why once again Peterborough wasn't notified about this application when it is so close to our boundary and particularly our ward? Something as I understand it, is the normal etiquette with other surrounding authorities.  More information as I have it.

Its taken Cllr Harper CON, Stanground South five years to come up with the above response, look what the Peterborough Tribune found in under five minutes:

PROPOSED POULTRY FARM AND SLAUGHTERHOUSE at KINGS DELPH DROVE, FARCET, PETERBOROUGH for MR N HUSSAIN 

Comments on Consultation Responses to HDC at End of Consultation Period

The Planning Application Programme

The Planning Application was received and validated by Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) on 22 November 2012 and was allocated the reference number 1201847OUT.


Consultations to interested parties and Authorities were issued in the normal way, with a terminal date of 28 December  2012 for any comments to be returned to HDC.

Comments on Responses Returned to HDC

Response

1. CCC Archaeology

2. Environment Agency

Comment

It is accepted that, in view of the comments on the potential archaeological importance of the site, an archaeological investigation clause will be included on any forthcoming Planning Approval.

The EA have requested a FRA. A preliminary examination of the likely flood risk on the application site has already been undertaken by Messrs Morgan Tucker Consulting Engineers within which it is stated…. “They [the EA] have since advised that they do not have any information for this site, and have also confirmed that in the event that a planning application was made, would not wish to comment on the application” This seems however, not now to be the case since an objection has been made on the basis that no FRA has been submitted. The EA will be contacted directly for confirmation that it has had an opportunity to read the Morgan Tucker Report. Clarification of what, if anything, is actually required is considered to


3. Environmental Health
 4. Highway Authority
 5. Mr Jeff Sargent
 6. Steven Twelvetree
 7. David Coates
 8. William Peacock
 9. Stephen Izycky


be necessary before this objection can be dealt with.

It is noted that this response is not an objection and should not therefore impede the satisfactory progress of the Planning Application. All elements of the preliminary advice offered by EH are in hand and will be dealt with at the appropriate time(s). Preliminary reports have already been commissioned on the very concerns raise by EH and will be continued in detailed form following an Outline Planning Approval.

It is noted that no traffic / transportation objections have been raised and comments made should not therefore impede the satisfactory progress of the Planning Application. Due note is taken of the general advice given which will be dealt with at the appropriate time(s)

All issues raised by Mr Sargent have been taken into consideration during the feasibility stage of this proposal. Preliminary reports from Specialist Consultants have been commissioned to ensure that there are no problems in principle to the proposed development, although it will of course be necessary to examine all issues of noise, traffic and pollution at the appropriate detail design stage to ensure that there is no unacceptable loss of amenity to surrounding residents. It can also be seen above that all Authorities charged with protecting the environment have been consulted and, subject to detail design and detailed reports, have no objection to the proposals. In particular, whilst heavy good vehicles passing through Farcet itself was never intended, Highways have already picked up this point and required all commercial vehicular access to be from the east of the site.

Please see comments made on similar points above, in response to Mr Sargent’s representation. Street lighting and footpaths are not a requirement in the countryside. There are very few other residences in the locality outside the defined limits of Farcet that could in any way be disadvantaged by the proposal.

Please see comments made on similar points above, in response to Mr Sargent’s and Mr Twelvetree’s representations. All such fears are understandable, but the associated issues are in the hands of the Specialist Consultants and the various Authorities

Please see comments made on identical points above.

This is a more thorough response, but makes similar


10. Richard Corney, Joan Fisher Denise Ireson and Philip Hall
statements, albeit in greater depth, to those above. It is appreciated that more detailed investigation must be undertaken at the appropriate stage, and it may be that insurmountable obstacles cannot be discounted. The process of new development recognises the broader issues which may result from development proposals. The fear that unacceptable situations will arise as a natural outcome of this proposal is understandable, but unfounded. All issues will be exhaustively addressed as the proposal moves forward.

Please see comments made on identical points above.

Conclusion

It is clear that external Agencies and nearby inhabitants have not raised issues of substance in Planning terms that are not already in the process of investigation, and which in almost all cases are not seen as being fundamentally problematic by both Specialist Consultants and Authorities alike. There is equally no reason in Local Plan terms to resist and application at Outline stage which is shown not to be harmful to its setting and surroundings.

It is intended that discussions will take place with the EA to deal with the only apparent objection of significance at this stage with the object of removing the objection.

It is now contended that the proposal overall is deemed generally to be acceptable and that preparations for the issue of an Outline Planning Approval could be begun.


A selection of objections ( apparently not known to Cllr Chris Harper CON South Stanground -Cardea)

J A J Martin Grange Farm Haddon Peterborough PE7 3TR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Jan 2013

Comments can be viewed by clicking on the "External Documents" tab, "View Associated Document" and then view the documents with Notes containing "Contributor" and a Document Type of "Comment for Public Access".

Mr Glennon Associate, Peacock And Smith Suite 9C Joseph's Well Hanover Walk Leeds LS3 1AB (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Wed 09 Jan 2013

Comments can be viewed by clicking on the "External Documents" tab, "View Associated Document" and then view the documents with Notes containing "Contributor" and a Document Type of "Comment for Public Access".

Mr Martin The Old Rectory Haddon Peterborough PE7 3TR (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Jan 2013

I have just received from Mr Hall of Bull Barn Farm House, a copy of the proposed poultry farm and slaughter house on the land north of Bull Barn Farm, Kings Delph Drove, Farcet.

I am surprised as I own land adjoining this site - both to the south and west, that I have not received any official notification from yourselves. I am very disappointed.

I strongly object to this proposal.
1. This application will adversely affect my land.
2. It is completely out of context with the surrounding land.
3. The smell/stench when the sheds are cleaned out will be intolerable for the three close neighbouring houses, and to Cardea and Stanground to the east with the prevailing wind being in the west south west, and also to the village school in Farcet.
4. Where is the effluent going to go?
5. The extra traffic and heavy lorries on this very minor single lane drove will be unacceptable.
6. The surrounding properties and land will be greatly reduced in value.

Christopher And Rebecca Drury Milby Farm Kings Delph Drove Farcet Peterborough PE7 3DQ (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Jan 2013

Comments can be viewed by clicking on the "External Documents" tab, "View Associated Document" and then view the documents with Notes containing "Contributor" and a Document Type of "Comment for Public Access".

Mr And Mrs R B Moyses Tansor Bungalow Kings Delph Drove Farcet Peterborough PE7 3DQ (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Jan 2013

Comments can be viewed by clicking on the "External Documents" tab, "View Associated Document" and then view the documents with Notes containing "Contributor" and a Document Type of "Comment for Public Access".

Mr David Gillam 9 Manor Close Farcet Peterborough PE7 3AA (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Fri 28 Dec 2012

I feel that it is inappropriate to establish this site.
Previous proposals of this type in other areas have resulted in civil protestations regarding animal rights protestors.

The increased traffic is a major concern, the site is located on a single track road that is potentially accessed through Farcet village. The local access roads are already used by pedestrians, cars and heavy goods vehicles and increased traffic will raise the risk probability of accidents.
The site will produce noise and smells.
There are potential errors in the aplication, regarding hazardous waste production. The application staes there will be zero hazardous waste produced but this is most unlikely.
Wasste control is a major concern, there are risks of pollution to local grounds and water courses.

Mr Christopher Drury Milby Farm Kings Delph Drove Farcet Peterborough PE7 3DQ (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Thu 27 Dec 2012

Dear sir,

We are writing to inform you of our objection to the proposed poultry farm/slaughter house/managers accommodation on land north of Bulls Barn Farm,Kings Delph Drove, Farcet. Our objection is down to :-

1.Traffic Impact - Kings Delph Drove itself is a single track road with an HGV 7.5t weight restriction. It is a busy road, with very few adequate passing places and a deep main drain on one side. The surface is subsiding and deteriorating due to the current busy traffic usage through the village and agricultural community to and from Yaxley/Farcet and Cardea/Stanground/Whittlesey. It is not in our view of suitable standard to provide access of vehicular transport to the proposed site. This additional traffic would only prove detrimental to the roads condition and increase risk of vehicle accident.

2.Environmental Impact - The noise and smell created by the day to day running of such a commercial unit would be noticeable by the nearby residents and Farcet community. The village is only half a mile away. Their quality of life would only be effected in a negative way as a result of the working plant machinery, poultry feed and excrement.

3.Pollution Issue - We feel it needs to be noted at this current time the local area is undergoing flooding issues. The natural water table is rising. An intensive food processing unit would require vast amounts of water usage. Ultimately the large quantity of waste produced would only increase the probability of leaking into the local water course.

In summary we feel that the proposed developement would be better located, not on this green field site, but on an existing commercial site where the proper transport links and utilities required would be met with a more minimal impact on the local community.

Yours faithfully
Christopher and Rebecca Drury

Mr PHILIP HALL Bulls Barn Farm Kings Delph Drove Farcet Peterborough PE7 3DQ (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Wed 26 Dec 2012

Further to my earlier comments, I would like to add that this Development is most likely to increase the volume of HGV's travelling through the village of Farcet, as the site access, is within the 7 Ton Weight limit, Restricted Area, (HGV's will tend to take the shortest route to/from the A1 travelling North/South).

This would be detrimental to the impact on the quality of life, of Village/Fen dwellers life, whilst making these delivery/collections, 24 hours/day, 7 days a week and the CONSTANT OPERATION of the CHICKEN FARM & ABBATOIR.

Comment submitted date: Sun 16 Dec 2012

Conflict of policy, this application is for an Industrial Factory on prime green-belt land, with bad access to a subsiding, single lane, (HGV Max. 7 Tons Weight Limit), restricted road (Kings Delph Drove), next to a very deep/dangerous drain.

The site is too near to the village of Farcet (plus The Green Wheel Cycleway) and Cardea, Stanground and the fumes/noise and vermin infestation would affect the both villages and wildlife, (I believe the site is next to a wildlife sanctuary, J.W. Blench's - New Barn Farm- Kings Delph Drove).

Secondly, no mains drainage (causing extra traffic if a cesspool used and possible Leaching into local drains as the flood plain, is very high, possibly below sea level, at this site) or services /gas/electricity, are available and would require installation.

Plus the impact on the Environment, both Visually & Pollution impact, and would be better sited on an Industrial Estate, for factories.

Mrs Jill Normington 6 Southoe Road Farcet Peterborough PE7 3AS (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Tue 25 Dec 2012

The proposed hatchery would greatly increase the amount of heavy traffic through the village. The bridge by the Black Swan has been identified as in need of improvement. King's Delph Drove is a single track heavily subsided road and entirely unsuitable for a development of this kind. The smell from the sheds when cleaned out would affect the whole village and possible pollution of the surrounding land and drains.

Mr Rob Dolby 3 Main Street Farcet Cambridgeshire PE7 3AN (Objects)


Comment submitted date: Sat 22 Dec 2012

I would like to raise concerns about the building of the poultry farm and slaughter house. My concern is an increase in the amount of heavy goods vehicles through Farcet village. The village is already affected by too many heavy goods vehicles passing through roads that are not designed for that purpose, causing damage to the roads and property.





https://parkfarmneighbourhoodwatch.blogspot.com E&OE google.com/+JulianBray Tel:+44 (0) 1733 345581 > PETERBOROUGH TRIB NEWSREEL .
Post a Comment

P'BORO TRIB. SEARCH ENGINE

LONDON EVENING STANDARD NEWSREEL

google83466ac7cb7103b1.html]

JULIAN BRAY AVIATION SECURITY NEWS 01733 345581 UK ISDN 01733 345020


UPDATES: Post are transmitted from a variety of remote sources, immediately published on servers in the USA, additions, updates and any corrections added later on the blog version only.


Editorial policy: WE DON'T CENSOR NEWS, we will however come down hard on lawbreakers, all forms of ASB - Anti Social Behaviour, and anyone or group who seek to disturb or disrupt our neighbourhoods and communities, or in anyway abuse, take unfair advantage or financially disadvantage our citizens. We support the Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch and digitally carry the messages from this independent Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.


We are openly but constructively critical of all political parties (actual and sham), pressure groups, overbearing 'jobsworths' and those who seek to waste public funds, abuse public office, ramp up expenses, BUY VOTES and/or engage in any form of directed or robotic voting.

Whilst accepting that many in Public Office perform a valuable service and make a worthwhile contribution, there are others who are frankly rubbish. Although Julian Bray is the editor, there are several Blog administrators / correspondents who actively contribute by remote transmission to this blog.

So it could be some days before the copy (content) is seen by the Editor and properly formatted. We consider all representations and correct any facts that are clearly deficient.




OUR HUMAN RIGHT TO LAMPOON AND CRITICISE POLITICIANS

THE HIGH COURT has ruled....People have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court has ruled.

We have the full High Court judgment, saved as a page on here. l

ampoon (lampoon) Pronunciation: /lamˈpuːn/ verb [with object] publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm: the actor was lampooned by the press noun a speech or text lampooning someone or something: the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons.

Derivatives: lampooner noun lampoonery noun lampoonist noun Origin: mid 17th century: from French lampon, said to be from lampons 'let us drink' (used as a refrain), from lamper 'gulp down', nasalized form of laper 'to lap (liquid).

NUJ CODE OF CONDUCT

NUJ Code of Conduct

The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936.

The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.


Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:

A journalist:

1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed

2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair

3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies

4 Differentiates between fact and opinion

5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means

6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest

7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge

9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation

10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed

11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare

12 Avoids plagiarism The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.

The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

The NUJ logo is always a link to the home page.

(As modified at Delegate Meeting 2011)

PBROTRIB CHARTER


Rights Holder Charter
Version: January 2009 v.3
Introduction
This Rights Holder Charter (“Charter”) sets out the terms and conditions governing the relationship between Julian Bray, Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch blog entitled Peterborough Tribune (PBROTRIB) on the Blogger and other platforms, and an individual or company making a Contribution to PBROTRIB (“Rights Holder”). The purpose of this document is to ensure that the Charter terms are
incorporated into to all Contracts with each Rights Holder, so both parties areclear as to how PBROTRIB may use content. This Charter does not apply to content submitted:
· using a feature or interactive service that allows
the individual to upload to and display content on any of PBROTRIB websites
(including social sites), apps, WAP sites or any web address owned or operated
by PBROTRIB as may link to the terms accessible at
(User-Generated Content (“UGC”)); or
·
This Charter applies to all Rights Holder Contributions, except where the Rights Holder is already subject to a separate
written agreement with PBROTRIB in relation to Contributions, or where PBROTRIB
has agreed in writing to vary or amend the Charter due to exceptional circumstances. Formation of the Contract

By sending PBROTRIB a Contribution you are making
an offer to PBROTRIB to use the Contribution.’ PBROTRIB’s use of the
Contribution is acceptance of your offer and creates a Contract on the terms of this Charter. Submission of a Contribution by you is an acknowledgement that
you agree to the terms of this Charter. If you do not agree to the Charter you must email us as soon as possible to raise your objection and withdraw your
submitted Contribution, otherwise you will be deemed to have accepted the Charter terms.
Definitions
Contract: the agreement between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution incorporating this Charter and the Special Terms (where applicable);
Contribution: material (written, audio, visual, video or audiovisual) created by the Rights Holder and will be
classified as either Material You Send Us or Material We Request From You;
Credit: for Material You Send Us “© [insert name of Rights Holder and Year]”;
Publication: means one or more publications owned or operated by PBROTRIB. Licence: the licence granted by the Rights Holder to PBROTRIB
as set out in the Licence sections of this Charter;
Personal Data: has the same meaning as provided in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998;
Material You Send Us: a Contribution as set out under the Material You Send Us paragraph;
Material We Request From You: A Contribution as set out under the Material We Request From You paragraph; Rights Holder: name of the of the individual or company which has created the relevant Contribution; Special Terms: written terms between PBROTRIB and the Rights Holder relating to the Contribution that are not set out in this Charter and/or vary this Charter; and User-Generated Content: content submitted by an individual through a feature that allows the individual to upload material to any of PBROTRIB websites or social sites.
Conflict with other Agreements: If there is any inconsistency between any of the provisions of this Charter and the Special Terms, the Special Terms shall prevail. To be clear, where no Special Terms are agreed in writing, the Charter will apply without variation. Sending us a Contribution –
The information Rights Holders please provide To PBROTRIB When sending us a Contribution, please provide the following information:
·
Your Full Name;
Your Full Address; and Your Contact Telephone Number and Email Address.

We will not be able to provide Credits where a
Rights Holder has not provided the relevant information.

Material You Send Us

Material You Send Us is a Contribution that is
received by PBROTRIB from a Rights Holder. The Contribution may be solicited or unsolicited. The following are examples of Material You Send Us:
PBROTRIB has seen the Rights Holders’ photograph on a third party website. PBROTRIB contacts the
Rights Holder and asks to use the photograph. (Solicited). A Rights Holder speculatively submits a range of photographs to and for PBROTRIB’s use. The Editor may or may not decide to use one or more of the photographs. (Unsolicited) Material You Send Us does not include UGC, Material We Request You To Send Us or material that is governed under any
other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to accept any Material You Send Us for review and if accepted for review is under no obligation to offer a Contract. Should PBROTRIB decide that it wishes to use the Contribution, it will be governed by the terms of this Charter. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. If you wish to submit a speculative Contribution to us, please
contact the appropriate PBROTRIB title. Please note that PBROTRIB will not be able to acknowledge receipt of your Contribution and any submission is at the Rights Holder’s own risk.
Material You Send Us – Licence Terms
PBROTRIB believes that Material You Send Us is the
Rights Holder’s property and that the Rights Holder should not need to give up all its rights for the Contribution to be used by PBROTRIB. Therefore, by
sending us a Contribution, the Rights Holder grants the following irrevocable licence in perpetuity to PBROTRIB: The right to publish, reproduce, licence and sell the Contribution as part of the Publication throughout the world in the following formats:
-- the physical printed Publication;
-- in a replica layout in any electronic format of
the Publication;
-- on the website version of the Publication;
-- in any PBROTRIB apps delivering the Publication
to a reader; and
-- on any PBROTRIB social media pages.
-- The right to publish extracts or the whole of
the Publication (which may or may not include the Contribution) when promoting PBROTRIB’s business or subscriptions in media advertisement, show cards and other promotional aids. The Right to authorise The Newspaper Licensing Agency and similar reprographic rights organisations in other jurisdictions (“RROs”) to distribute or license the distribution of your Contribution throughout the world in any language(s) for RROs’ licensed acts and purposes as amended from time to time, and to keep available your Contribution through such RROs. The unlimited right to amend, edit, select, crop, retouch, add to or delete any part of the Contribution, in any format, whether electronic or otherwise, including the right to remove or amend any meta data associated with the Contribution.

The right to store the Contribution electronically.
In return for the licence granted in relation to the Material You Send Us, PBROTRIB will endeavour to provide the Credit with the Contribution. The licence granted to PBROTRIB shall survive any termination of the agreement between PBROTRIB and the
Rights Holder. Material We Request From You
Material We Request From You is a Contribution that
has specifically commissioned by PBROTRIB. PBROTRIB will contact a Rights Holder and
commission them to provide a Contribution in relation to a brief. An example of Material We Request From You is: PBROTRIB needs a photograph of a country building. PBROTRIB instructs the Rights Holder to attend the venue and take picture of the building. Material We Request From You does not include UGC, Material You Send Us or material that is governed under any other relationship between the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB . The Rights Holder will provide its own equipment and materials to fulfil its obligation for Material We Request From You. PBROTRIB is under no obligation to use the Contribution. Material We Request From You –
Assignment and Licence
PBROTRIB believes that Material We Request From You should be PBROTRIB ’s property as PBROTRIB has requested the Rights Holder’s services and instructed them to create the Contribution on its behalf. However, PBROTRIB acknowledges that the Right Holder may need a licence from PBROTRIB to
use the Contribution for limited purposes. Therefore, in submitting Material We Request From You to PBROTRIB , the Rights Holder assigns to PBROTRIB with full title, right and interest all existing and future intellectual property rights in the Contribution. In return, PBROTRIB will endeavour to give a Credit to the Rights Holder and PBROTRIB grants the Rights Holder a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to use the Contribution in its own online and offline portfolio, provided that the following copyright notice is applied to the Contribution “©Peterborough
Tribune, used under limited licence”.
General notes about Rights: Any rights granted to PBROTRIB or the Rights Holder under this Charter shall survive termination of the Contract for any reason. Rights Holder Promises The Rights Holder promises: that it owns the Contribution and / or is (and will continue to be) authorised to grant the rights to PBROTRIB; nothing in the Contribution is blasphemous, discriminatory, defamatory, untrue, misleading or unlawful; that the Contribution complies with the NUJ Code of Professional Conduct and the Independent
Press Standards Organisations Editors’ regulations and Code of Practice; the Contribution does not contain any virus, Trojan horse, hidden computer software or similar; the Contribution does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party; where the Contribution contains Personal Data, all
the necessary consents in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 have been obtained; where the Contribution contains images of children under the age of 16, written parental consent has been obtained and can be provided on request; and maintain and comply with, at all times, the highest ethical standards in the preparation, creation and delivery of the Contribution.
Complaints In the event that a complaint is raised in relation to a Contribution, the Rights Holder agrees to co-operate fully with any internal or external investigation or process. Status. The Rights Holder is an independent contractor and nothing in the Charter shall render the Rights Holder an employee, worker,
agent or partner of PBROTRIB. The Rights Holder is responsible for any taxes/national insurance payable in relation to any services provided under the Charter.
Indemnity The Rights Holder shall keep PBROTRIB indemnified in full against all loss incurred or paid by PBROTRIB as a result of or in connection with any claim made against PBROTRIB by a third party:
arising out of, or in connection with the Contribution, to the extent that such claim arises out of the breach of this or any terms of this Charter (including any Special Terms); and for actual or alleged infringement of a third party's intellectual property rights arising out of, or in connection with the use of the Contribution except in so far as the claim arises as a result of changes made by PBROTRIB or a breach of the Licence by PBROTRIB.
Variation of the Charter No variation of any term of this Charter will be effective, unless it is set out in writing (letter, fax or email) and signed by
a relevant authorised representative of PBROTRIB. If you wish to submit a Contribution and are unable to agree with the terms of this Charter or if you
have any questions regarding this Charter, please contact a relevant authorised representative of the PBROTRIB publication.
Problems & Disputes In the event of a problem or dispute in relation to a Licence and/or in connection with this Charter, in the first instance the Rights Holder and the Editor will look to resolve the dispute amicably. Application of the Charter Unless otherwise agreed, this Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction