From: Conor Burns MP news@conorburns.comSubject: News Bulletin from Conor Burns MP #135 - NAVITUS BAY DECISION SPECIAL EDITION

Date: 11 September 2015 16:33To: news@conorburns.com

In this edition: Conor Burns MP welcomesNavitus Bay decision Conor in Parliament:Navitus Bay Case-Study Questions to the Secretaryof State for Energy, 12 July2011 Adjournment Debate:Navitus Bay Wind Farm, 4July 2012 Westminster Hall Debate:Navitus Bay Wind Farm, 19November 2013 Business of the House, 5December 2013Adjournment Debate:Navitus Bay Wind Farm, 9July 2014 Business Questions, 11June 2015 How to contact Conor Burns MP

Issue 135 - Friday 11th September 2015

CONOR BURNS MP WELCOMES NAVITUS BAYDECISON Bournemouth West MP Conor Burns has today hailed the Departmentof Energy & Climate Changes decision to refuse planning consent forthe proposed Navitus Bay Wind Farm. This follows the PlanningInspectorates recommendation that the application be rejected. The proposal, which would have seen up to 194 200m-tall windturbines installed 14km off the Dorset coastline, had attractedwidespread opposition from local residents and their representatives.It had more objections lodged against it with the Planning Inspectoratethan any other offshore wind farm to date, and a survey of localresidents conducted by Conor Burns found that 87 per cent wereopposed. In their announcement, the Department of Energy & Climate Changesaid that planning consent had been refused because of theproposals adverse impacts on the Jurassic Coast World Heritage siteand other Areas of Outstanding National Beauty. Commenting on the news, Conor said: I have said from the verybeginning that the Navitus Bay proposal would be bad forBournemouth and bad for Dorset, threatening the UKs only naturalWorld Heritage Site and the tourism economy which is the lifeblood ofmy constituency. "I very much welcome the governments decision to refuse planningconsent, which vindicates my own long-standing opposition to theproposal, as well as that of many of my constituents. I have spoken inParliament on six occasions on this subject, lobbied the Secretary ofState in their own Department and put the case directly to the PrimeMinister in No. 10. I am delighted that our case has prevailed. "While others were prepared to countenance this scheme, I opposed itfrom the very start. The developer should take note that we will fightany appeal with equal resolve. This scheme must now be at an endand the threat to our area removed forever.

Conor in Parliament:Navitus Bay Case-Study Questions to the Secretary of State for Energy, 12 July 2011

Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: The Secretary ofState may be aware of the proposals for a wind park of between 900MW and 1,200 MW covering some 76 square miles just 10.2 miles offthe coast of my constituency. Many people in our area are profoundlyconcerned about that. Given that the local authorities do not have anyrole in the process, is he prepared to meet me and my hon. Friendsthe Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Poole (Mr Syms) andfor Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) so that we might discuss it withhim? Christopher Huhne Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh: I would be happyto meet my hon. Friend on the subject. I caution him, however, againstbeing too hostile to what is, after all, potentially a very interestingdevelopment that could have considerable benefits not just for thecountry as a whole but locally. Every single energy source has itsdetractors, whether it is nuclear, onshore wind turbines, offshore windturbines, natural gas or fracking. The reality is that we need to find ourelectricity from somewhere, and that includes offshore wind farms. Adjournment Debate: Navitus Bay Wind Farm, 4 July 2012

Click on the image above to watch the debate. Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: It is a pleasure tomake a brief contribution to this debate. I shall not dwell on the points that my hon. Friend Richard Drax hasmade so eloquently about the philosophy behind offshore or, indeed,onshore wind, about which my hon. Friend Chris Heaton-Harris hasalso spoken at length in the past, except to say, as my right hon. andnoble Friend the Baroness Thatcher once did: Nothing is moreobstinate than a fashionable consensus. This is a profoundly serious issue for my constituents and, indeed, forthe entirety of the conurbation, and that is demonstrated by the factthat my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and forChristchurch (Mr Chope) and my hon. Friendand constituency neighbour Mr Ellwoodthe entire conurbationarein the Chamber this evening to highlight our profound and realconcerns and reservations. Bournemouth is well known to Members, who go there for the partyconferences and will have all stood in the Highcliff hotel and enjoyedthe incredible views across the bay. The bay and the view are thehook on which our local tourism economy hangs. The vital prosperityof our area is dependent on that, and we have profound reservationsabout this scheme and what it may do to the tourism economy. I have extreme concerns about the process of consultation in whichEneco is involved. The initial consultation did not fill us withconfidence; it included questions such as: How far do you agree with the following statement? People have anot in my back yard attitude to wind parks. How far do you agreewith the following statement? I am happy to live close to an offshorewind park if it helps to combat climate changeHow many averagehouseholds energy consumption do you think an offshore wind parkcan produce in one year? Those are not open-minded consultation questions, but dogma-drivenones. We also have real concerns about the inability so far of the companyto provide us with real graphics about what the park will look like. Thecompany keeps telling us that it cannot yet do that because it does notknow where in the development area the farm will be, how manyturbines there will be or what height they will be. If the company does not know all those things, I find it strange that itcan tell us exactly the quantity of energy the wind farm is intended toproduce. When the company does give us illustrative graphics, theyare of a dusky winter scene. We want them to show the wind farm atthe height of the season on a clear, blue-sky day or on a clear night,so that we can see what it would mean for the area. We are concerned about the economic impact assessment. Infairness, the company is seeking to talk to more than 400 businesses,but some are up to 10 miles away from the coastal area. That will notgive us meaningful data about the potential impact on our area. I close with a simple point, one of the most important that my hon.Friend the Member for South Dorset made. I would love the Minister togive us a firm and detailed reply. It is about proximity to the shore.Enecos preferred site is 7 nautical miles from the coast, but theDepartment of Energy and Climate Change offshore energyassessment 2 says that new offshore wind farm generation capacityshould be sited away from the coast, generally outside 12 nauticalmiles. The same report goes on to acknowledge that The environmentalsensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and in certain cases newoffshore wind farm projects may be acceptable. In certain casesI find it inconceivable that anyone could judge thatan exception could be made for the case under discussion. My hon.Friend talked about the beauty of the Jurassic coastline and I havedwelt on the beauty of our area, which attracts so much tourism. The project may be some way off, but our constituentsmine andothers across the conurbationwill not forgive us if we do nothighlight today the impact that it could have. If it damages our area,our constituents would rightly not forgive those of us sent to thisplace to stand up for the interests of the areas that we serve. Westminster Hall Debate: Navitus Bay Wind Farm, 19 November 2013

Click on the image above to watch the debate. Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: I congratulate myhon. Friend Mr Syms on securing the debate to highlight this veryimportant issue. He has been very active on this subject. After I raisedit with the previous Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,the gentleman who is no longer a Member of the House, my hon.Friend and I went to see him to put on the record our concerns aboutthe process of this development. Let me pick up a couple of points that colleagues have made. I say toAnnette Brooke that the critical difference between her constituentsand those of other hon. Members present is that her constituents willnot have to look at this wind farm. All of ours will, so the impact, bydefinition, will be greater on the constituencies represented by otherhon. Members here. My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour Mr Ellwood intervenedtwice on the point about the distance from shore and the definition thatthe Government lay down. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister togive us some clarity on that point. I put it to the company before theclosure of phase 4 of its consultation; I raised the issue that my hon.Friend raised about the 12 nautical mile limit. In the reply to my letterof objection, Mike Unsworth, the project director at Navitus Bay, said: Regarding the wind farms distance from the shore, I wouldemphasise that the Government has not issued guidance thatstipulates a 12 nautical mile limit. Indeed on 10 October 2013, theClimate Change Minister Greg Barker was clear that DECC has notissued guidance on the distance that offshore wind farms should beplaced from the coast. He was quoting from column 342W of Hansard for 10 October 2013. Iask the Minister to give us some clarity on what the Governmentsposition is on distance. Richard Drax Conservative, South Dorset: My hon. Friend ismaking an excellent speech. As I understand it, the EU guidancerefers to 23 km, which is not 12 nautical miles, and the Crown Estatehad identified eight other sites, which my hon. Friend the Member forPoole was talking about, totalling some 22,000 sq km. There is noworld heritage site in those sites; there is no coastline in sight. Whycannot the company go there? Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: My hon. Friendmakes a very valid point. Even if the company has to go within thedevelopment area that it has been given on this site, it does not haveto go within the area of the development site that it has chosen. Itcould go significantly further out to sea. All hon. Members, at the beginning of this process, were very open inengaging with the company. We have no in-principle objection to windfarms or wind energy at all. That is the policy of the Government.There is no point in arguing on that, whatever our views. We arearguing on the impact that this proposal will have on our localeconomy and, as my hon. Friend Richard Drax says, on a worldheritage site. Bournemouth attracts more than 6 million visitors annually. Thetourism economy is worth in excess of 425 million to the townseconomy. It supports in the region of 16,000 local jobs. Navitus Baysown research suggested that one third of summer visitors questionedwould not return to Bournemouth during the construction period, whichit is estimated will last for five years. That would be a devastating blowto our local economy. I have to question how many of the townsbusinesses, which rely on tourism, would even be in business at theend of that five-year period if those figures Tobias Ellwood Conservative, Bournemouth East: My hon. Friendhas been a passionate advocate in looking at the detail of thisproposal. Does he agree that one concern is about the shape of thebay? On the left, in the east, we have the Isle of Wight, and on theright, Studland bay. That offers a frame from which visitors can lookout to sea. It is very different from Blackpool and other areas, wherethere is just an open expanse of water. These are reference markswhereby people can measure the height and, indeed, the intrusion ofthe wind farm. That is why we have been pressing, as my hon. Friendsaid, for the wind farm to be pushed back as far as possible. Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: My hon. Friendmakes a powerful point well. The bay and the beach are the hook onwhich the local tourism economy hangs, and anything that had adetrimental impact on that visually would be very serious. My hon.Friend will know the figures. Navitus Bays own research goes on tosay that 14% of visitors surveyedthese are the companys ownfiguressaid that they would never return to the conurbation if therewas a visual impact. There are other things that we still do not know, because the companyis sitting on information. Several reports vital to our assessment of theimpact of the scheme are ongoing or have not been released,including the assessment of the noise impact, which my hon. Friendthe Member for Poole referred to, the night time visual impact report,the climate and microclimate assessment and outstanding issues inthe landscape, seascape and visual impact assessment. The Minister will be aware that even at this stage, the company willnot tell us how many turbines there will be, where they will be or whatconfiguration they will be in. When we do not even know what type ofturbine the company has in mind, how are we to believe that it hasproduced accurate visuals on which the public can reasonablycomment? The fact is that it has not done so. That is at the centre of our argument about the flawed nature of theconsultation process that Navitus has entered into. Last year, Navitus told us in terms of great rejoicing that we should allcelebrate the proposed reduction in the number and height of theturbines. I question how we were supposed to celebrate that when wehad not been told how many turbines there would be, what height theywould be or where they would be. It is absolutely vital that we knowand understand exactly what the proposal looks like. In his letter, MikeUnsworth says: It is vital that the views of the public are taken intoaccount. The public overwhelmingly want their views on the views that theyenjoy to be taken into account, and that cannot happen withoutaccurate visuals. There was a news story on the subject in October in the BournemouthDaily Echo, and one of the comments on the storyit is often wise notto read the comments on the Bournemouth Echo, but I did on thisoccasioncalled those who were opposed to the plan NIMBYs.Someone commented below: Simple answer. My Back Yard is aWorld Heritage Site. Business of the House, 5 December 2013

Click on the image above to watch Conor's question. Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: My right hon.Friend will be aware of a proposal for a large offshore wind farm by theNavitus Bay company off the coast of Bournemouth. In the light of theGovernments announcement this week on onshore and offshore windfarm subsidy, my constituents are profoundly concerned that thedevelopment could go ahead. It has been shown that a third ofsummertime visitors would not return during the five-year period ofconstruction and that 14% would never return. Will he provide anopportunity for the Government to reassure my constituents that someoffshore wind farms are, and remain, as inappropriate as someonshore ones? Andrew Lansley The Leader of the House of Commons: My hon.Friend makes his point straightforwardly and forcefully. I will talk withmy right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Communitiesand Local Government about that, particularly the extent to which thepoints he raises are material considerations in relation to planning. Adjournment Debate: Navitus Bay Wind Farm, 9 July 2014

Click on the image above to watch the debate. Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: It is a pleasure torise to address the House in this Adjournment debate. It is four yearsand two weeks since I stood in exactly the same place and made mymaiden speech, which was in an Adjournment debate on studentvisas. I was pleased on that occasion to make significant progresswith the Government afterwards. I hope that the same will be the casetoday. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responding andthe Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend Mr Vaizey, is in his place. This is not a debate about the Governments energy policy or abouttheir renewables policy; those are debates for another day. This isabout a particular proposal to build a wind farm off the Dorset coast. Itis appropriate that we are debating it while councillors from across thecountry are enjoying the Local Government Associations annualconference in Bournemouth and the stunning views from thewonderful conference facility. I recently conducted a survey on theproposed wind farm and have brought with me a small sample of theresponses. They show overwhelming opposition from my constituentsand others, and for good reasons. I wish to discuss the potential impact of the Navitus Bay wind farm onEnglands only natural world heritage site, the Jurassic coast,designated by the Government and UNESCO in 2001. That status,under article 4 of the world heritage convention of 1972, obliges theGovernment to protect, conserve, present and transmit to futuregenerations the sites identified as being part of the cultural and naturalheritage. A proposal for a wind farm of up to 194 turbines, each of upto 200 metres in height, is currently before the Planning Inspectoratefor evaluation. It will be sited within full view of the Jurassic coast andits main visitor centre at Durlston castle. As part of the planningprocess for this proposal, DCMS submitted an environmental impactassessment to UNESCO. I wish to address the response of UNESCOand the International Union for Conservation of Nature to thatenvironmental impact assessment. In its comments on the environmental impact assessment, the IUCNraised a number of concerns about the potential impact of theproposed wind farm on the Jurassic coast world heritage site,particularly regarding the unique processes that shape the Jurassiccoast and contribute to its outstanding universal value. If thisoutstanding universal value is compromised and the natural erosionprocesses on the coast are affected, the reason for the sitesdesignation as a world heritage site would be threatened. The IUCNnotes, too, the potential for the proposal to affect the protection andmanagement of the property. It states that in particular, the adequateprotection of the wider setting of the property, recognized by the WorldHeritage Committee to justify at the time of inscription the lack of adefined buffer zone, will be compromised. As such, the IUCN said that any potential impacts from this project onthe natural property are in contradiction to the overarching principle ofthe World Heritage Convention as stipulated in its Article 4 as thecompletion of the Project would result in the property being presentedand transmitted to future generations in a form that is significantlydifferent from what was there at the time of inscription and until today. The first of a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister isthis: what is his response to IUCNs conclusions, and how will theGovernment meet their obligations under the convention to protect thesetting of the site, as well as its listed outstanding universal values? UNESCO does not make hollow threats. In 2011, there were plans tosite a three-turbine wind farm development 10.5 miles from the shorenear Mont St Michel in Brittany. As this threatened the setting of theworld heritage site, the French Government acted to exclude windfarms from a buffer zone around the site. They were right to do so, asUNESCO is not afraid of removing a sites designated status. TheElbe valley in Germany was removed from the list of world heritagesites in 2009 following the construction of a four-lane bridge in thevalley which meant that the property failed to keep its outstandinguniversal value as inscribed. My colleagues would not expect me to say this, but my secondquestion to the Minister is this: will he follow the French example andtake action in England to protect the setting of our only natural worldheritage site for future generations, thus avoiding the fate that befellthe Germans? I believe that if the Jurassic coast were to lose its designated status asa world heritage site, the tourism economy throughout Dorset wouldsuffer drastically. Over 30 million trips were made to Dorset in the pastyear, some 5 million of which included the Jurassic coast, andevidence suggests that visitor numbers have increased since theJurassic coasts designation as a world heritage site. Given thatNavitus Bays own research shows that 48% of people visiting thearea cite the sea view as a reason for doing so, and that IUCNconsiders that the impact of the Project on the visitors experienceand appreciation of the property in its wider natural setting is likely tobe significant, it is by no means a leap of the imagination to say thatthe proposed wind farm will have a significant impact on tourismnumbers. Robert Syms: The fact that there are many Dorset MPs in theChamber today shows that we fully support the compelling case thatmy hon. Friend is making. My constituents are very worried about thisproposal and the impact that it will have on the local economy. Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: I entirely agreewith my hon. Friend and I salute his dogged determination in opposingthis plan and, indeed, that of my hon. Friends the Members forChristchurch (Mr Chope) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), whoare sitting behind me. My hon. Friend Mr Ellwood would be present,except that he is on manoeuvres on Salisbury plain as part of hisTerritorial Army activities. My hon. Friend Mr Syms, who is my parliamentary neighbour, knowsabout the vital impact on Bournemouth and the conurbation. Tourismis Bournemouths second most important sector of the economy afterfinancial services and it is worth about 475 million to the townannually. It directly supports 8,500 local jobs, with a further 2,000 jobsindirectly dependent on visitors. Across Dorset as a whole, tourism isworth in the region of 1.7 billion annually and supports in the regionof 47,000 jobs. Given that 20% of summer visitors surveyed by Navitus Baytheywere surveyed by the development company itselfsaid that theywould be unlikely to visit Bournemouth during the five-yearconstruction phase and 14% said that they would be unlikely ever toreturn, the development would have a major impact on our tourismeconomy and change the nature of our town and conurbation. May I, therefore, ask the Minister another direct question? Given theimportance of tourism to Bournemouth and Dorsets economy and theGovernments commitment to our long-term economic plan[Hon.Members: Hear, hear!] I am not surprised that my colleaguesexpected me to say thatwhat steps will the Minister take to ensurethat this damaging proposal does not go ahead? Richard Drax Conservative, South Dorset: I congratulate my hon.Friend on securing this debate and fighting, as we all are, this cause.Does he agree that what is surprising is that it is not as if there isnowhere else to locate this wind farm? The Crown Estate identifiedeight other sites totalling about 225,000 sq km that would be nowherenear the land and that certainly would not damage this fantastic site.Why on earth did the Crown Estate choose this most special site,which we are trying to protect? Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: I entirely agreewith my hon. Friend. The development company was given a vastarea to put the wind farm and my hon. Friend will remember that in ourinitial meetings with its representatives, we told them that we wouldnot oppose it if it was not visible from the shore, if its visual impact didnot deter visitors and if it did not damage the world heritage site. Allthe company had to do was push it further out within the area given toit by the Crown Estate, but it did not do that. I want to turn to some of the criticisms of the submission process,starting with the independence of the environmental impactassessment. I agree with the IUCN that it would have been moreappropriate for DCMS to have commissioned an independentenvironmental impact assessment, rather than use one prepared bythe proponents of the schemethe Navitus Bay developmentcompany. In the words of IUCN, this raises questions on thecredibility and objectivity of the assessment. I have heard some of the arguments made by Navitus Bay to discreditIUCNs comments, including that they were merely interim and are notaligned with other impact assessments. Could that be because otherimpact assessments have been provided or commissioned by NavitusBay itself? Is this a case of, Were right, because the documents wehave written say so? Then there is the question of the appropriateness of the guidanceused. The IUCN notes that the guidance used by Navitus Bay for itsassessment was not the most appropriate possible. Rather than usingthe IUCN world heritage advice note on environmental assessment,Navitus Bay used the International Council on Monuments and SitesGuidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural WorldHeritage Properties, which is adapted to cultural heritage. Accordingthe IUCN, it did so despite being aware of the IUCN guidance, whichis referred to in the environmental impact assessment. IUCN claims that by adopting the other guidance rather than the IUCNadvice note, Navitus Bay failed to adhere to all eight world heritageimpact assessment principles. Notably, IUCN believes that NavitusBay failed to adhere to the principle that reasonable alternatives to the proposal must be identified andassessed with the aim of recommending the most sustainable optionto decision-makers, including crucially the possibility of the noproject option. Why did the DCMS not commission an independent environmentalimpact assessment? Did the Minister or any of his current or previous colleagues in theDepartment approve the letter to UNESCO of 17 Februarysent byLeila Al-Kazwini, the DCMS head of world heritagethat takes forgranted the evidence provided by Navitus Bay regarding the impact ofthe proposal on the Jurassic coast while dismissing the concerns of,among others, the steering group for the world heritage site itself? Sixthly, given those criticisms, does the Minister have confidence inthe environmental impact assessment submitted by his Departmentbut created by the Navitus Bay development company? Christopher Chope Conservative, Christchurch: I congratulate myhon. Friend on introducing this important debate. Does he share myconcern that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport did notissue a formal response to the UNESCO letter of 2 May? That lettercontains some powerful arguments. Surely they merited a responsefrom my hon. Friend the Minister. Instead, according to aparliamentary answer I received from him on 23 June, that letter waspassed to the planning authorities as part of a process. Is that notmost unsatisfactory? Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: My hon. Friendmakes a very important and valid intervention. One reason why Iattempted to secure the debate was so that the Minister has theopportunity to explain the Departments thinking. He also has theopportunity to explain to the House that this is not simply a matter forthe Department of Energy and Climate Change or the planninginspector in Bristol, but a matter for the Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport, which has a vital, and indeed legally binding, obligation todo all it can to protect that world heritage site, and, as it says, to passit on intact to future generations. I look forward to his response in amoment. I conclude as I began. This is not about the Governments energypolicy, renewable energy or subsidy. Hon. Members have differentviews on those. The debate is about a proposal that my constituentsand those of my hon. Friends fundamentally believe is the wrongproposal in the wrong place. Its demerits vastly outweigh its merits.The Government can achieve all their energy ambitions and still sayno to the application. My hon. Friend the Minister of State now has anopportunity to tell us what he is prepared to do to assist us. It does notjust affect us in Dorset. As things develop, it could affect Hampshire MembersI notice that my right hon. Friend Mr Swayne issitting on the Front Bench. The New Forest would be torn up to allowenergy to get into the grid. This is very serious. I say without exaggeration that it is possibly themost significant issue in Bournemouth and the conurbation, andDorset more widely, in a generation. I hope that the Minister, in hisreply, can assure us and our constituents that he is with us and will dowhat he can to protect that fantastic bit of England. Business Questions, 11 June 2015

Click on the image above to watch Conor's question to theLeader of the House of Commons.

Conor Burns Conservative, Bournemouth West: Today is thedeadline for the planning inspectorate to make a recommendation toMinisters at the Department of Energy and Climate Change after along-running and hugely expensive public inquiry into the proposedNavitus Bay offshore wind farm. Will my right hon. Friend find time fora debate on whether it is appropriate for this proposal to remainconfidential until the Secretary of State publishes her decision on 11September? In the meantime, will he note that this proposal isopposed not only by me, but by my hon. Friends the Members forChristchurch (Mr Chope), for Poole (Mr Syms), for Mid Dorset andNorth Poole (Michael Tomlinson), for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood),for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and anybody else I have forgotten inDorset? Chris Grayling Lord President of the Council and Leader of theHouse of Commons: I can understand the challenge my hon. Friendfaces in trying to remember all the Conservative MPs in Dorsetthereare now so many of them in his part of the world. As always, my hon.Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituency and for the countyof Dorset. I know that the Secretary of State for Energy and ClimateChange will have listened carefully to what he said. It is a sign of theconcern about this matter that an Adjournment debate has been callednext Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset(Richard Drax). I know that my hon. Friend the Member forBournemouth West (Conor Burns) will want to make a point in thatdebate. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will have listenedcarefully to my hon. Friend, but she has to do this job properly in herrole as assessor of the issues.

Three ways to contact Conor Burns MP:

By Phone: 01202 534 888By email: mail@conorburns.com By post: Conor Burns MP

House of CommonsLondon SW1A 0AA

www.conorburns.com

More news from Conor Burns MP, Conservative Member of Parliamentfor Bournemouth West, coming soon Please forward this email on to anyone you think may be interested. To unsubscribe from this list, please reply to this email"UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject heading.

www.conorburns.com!

Promoted by Anthea Bailey on behalf of Conor Burns, both of 135 Hankinson Road, Bournemouth, BH9 1HR

!!!