Steep Village Hall is looking for a reliable, enthusiastic and highly organized person to run the hall on a day to day basis, and to promote it as a venue. This is a very varied role, needing good administrative and customer service skills, familiarity with on-line booking and financial reporting systems, experience of property and people management, and a willingness to work in close collaboration with the management committee.
Flexible hours, in the region of 1 day per week, spread over the week and possibly occasional weekends. Pay according to experience. For more details please contact [email protected]
In the light of the recent changes to Government advice and uncertainty on numbers attending combined with the rising number of Covid cases in East Hampshire, the Management Committee has taken the decision to cancel the community meeting due to be held this Saturday (11th)
The Management Committee will decide how to move this forward in the New Year when there will (hopefully) be a bit more certainty about Covid.
There are a number of opportunities to meet, subject to Covid regulations, either at the Hall or during an “Online/In Person” HYBRID Meeting. Details below.
One or more of the trustees will he available to discuss any questions you have and ease any misconceptions, over coffee in the Village Hall Car Park, between the hours above.
After a few trials and errors, the trustees are pleased to announce the planned HYBRID meeting can go ahead. In outline it is an ONLINE MEETING, with a small audience present in the Village Hall.
We ask that the vast majority of attendees join online using the details below and leave the limited spaces to those who are not confident of joining meetings online or have limited internet. Anyone who wishes to attend in person should contact the Secretary using the contact form here. Requests will be reviewed and those who prefer to join in person but are technically able to join online will be added to a reserve list, but most requestors will be encouraged to join online so that we do not exceed the current Covid limit for the village hall.
ALL ATTENDEES AT THE HALL MUST REGISTER WITH THE SECRETARY AND WEAR MASKS in the Hall, except when invited to ask a question, in line with the in-force return to use policy under current Covid restrictions. Entry will be through the main entrance, wearing masks and you will be asked to use hand sanitiser. Your temperature may be taken and attendance at the Hall recorded for Track and Trace purposes.
The meeting is being run through MS Teams, the Charity’s standard online meeting tool. You can join either in a browser (Chrome or Edge recommended) or download the free app for most devices (registration may be required depending on your device/store).
You will join a lobby, before being accepted into the meeting and will be “muted” initially, to reduce sound interference. For most, there is the ability to “raise a virtual hand” when questions are called for, which will be explained in the introduction and can be seen on this video and this one gives a general intro to MS Teams. You can also wave vigorously. Please do not unmute your microphone until called upon, and then re-mute when you have finished.
Or, if you need to copy and paste the link use the actual link here: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ODBhNmNiYzUtY2RmMi00MTcyLWJlNTktOWQ5YWRkMjM4MGI1%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%225ef7f3d5-cce2-4913-81ab-e43886791ca2%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%2273737b1e-3aca-4a80-8c53-231defaaa9c9%22%7d
One or more of the trustees will he available to discuss any questions you have and ease any misconceptions, over coffee in the Village Hall Car Park, between the hours above.
We want to hear your views on what the future holds for SWMVC land. It is our responsibility as trustees to take the final decision, but your feedback is vital as you are the beneficiaries of the charity.
This is not a referendum, but your views are important and will be taken into account.
which provides the wider context for this discussion.
BACKGROUND
The trustees* are focused on meeting the charitable aims of the Steep War Memorial Village Club (SWMVC) in the best possible way.
The impending development of the adjacent Steep in Need land cannot be ignored and presents trustees with an opportunity to significantly increase the benefit of the SWMVC land to the beneficiaries (the residents of Steep).
The impending development of the adjacent Steep in Need land cannot be ignored and presents trustees with an opportunity to significantly increase the benefit of the SWMVC land to the beneficiaries (the residents of Steep).
*Trustees: the word trustees on this site refers to Steep Parish Councillors acting together in their role as sole managing trustee of the Steep War Memorial Village Club charity.
A CHANGE OF APPROACH
Proposals previously shared with residents were developed on the basis that
Steep in Need and the SWMVC would jointly enter an agreement to sell the Steep in Need field and the rough grassland at the back of the SWMVC land to the preferred developer
The developer would submit a planning application that met the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) requirements for the site – see pages 253-254 (Chapter9-Sites-Settlements.pdf (southdowns.gov.uk) , including a proportion of designated open space which would be transferred to the ownership of the SWMVC in due course.
Any development on the Church Road site must be in line with the allocation policy set by the SDNPA (Local Plan reference SD89). This includes a requirement for a proportion of the total area defined by the SDNPA in the Local Plan to be provided as public open space directly accessible from the village hall and car park.
The open space has frequently been referred to, including in the consultation undertaken in the autumn of 2020 by the Parish Council, as the ‘20% Open Space’. This is because the accompanying text about the allocation site in the South Downs Local Plan says that proposals should provide approximately 20% of the total area as informal public open space, recognising that the site (in practice the SWMVC land) has previously been earmarked for recreational use. However, this figure is not specified in the allocation policy and the policy takes precedence over the accompanying text.
The actual amount of open space will be determined through the planning process which is ‘landscape-led’, taking account of a range of factors including the lie of the land, natural features and ecological findings. There is no expectation that it would be less than 20% of the total area and might be more, depending on the planners’ assessment. It could, however, be less than 20% of the developed area if this is only part of the allocation site.
To the best of the trustees’ knowledge, if there is no agreement between the SWMVC and the developer and a planning application is submitted for the Steep in Need field alone, there would not be an automatic requirement for 20% of that area to be provided as open space. We do not, and cannot at this stage, know what the actual amount of open space would be in those circumstances.
The SWMVC land represents 15% of the allocation site, so the designated open space will certainly be greater than this area. Once development is complete, it is intended that any land designated as open space that is not already owned by the SWMVC will be transferred to it. All options therefore result in an increase in the total amount of land owned by the SWMVC.
NOTE ON THE OPEN SPACE
Any development on the Church Road site must be in line with the allocation policy set by the SDNPA (Local Plan reference SD89). This includes a requirement for a proportion of the total area defined by the SDNPA in the Local Plan to be provided as public open space directly accessible from the village hall and car park.
The open space has frequently been referred to, including in the consultation undertaken in the autumn of 2020 by the Parish Council, as the ‘20% Open Space’. This is because the accompanying text about the allocation site in the South Downs Local Plan says that proposals should provide approximately 20% of the total area as informal public open space, recognising that the site (in practice the SWMVC land) has previously been earmarked for recreational use. However, this figure is not specified in the allocation policy and the policy takes precedence over the accompanying text.
The actual amount of open space will be determined through the planning process which is ‘landscape-led’, taking account of a range of factors including the lie of the land, natural features and ecological findings. There is no expectation that it would be less than 20% of the total area and might be more, depending on the planners’ assessment. It could, however, be less than 20% of the developed area if this is only part of the allocation site.
To the best of the trustees’ knowledge, if there is no agreement between the SWMVC and the developer and a planning application is submitted for the Steep in Need field alone, there would not be an automatic requirement for 20% of that area to be provided as open space. We do not, and cannot at this stage, know what the actual amount of open space would be in those circumstances.
The SWMVC land represents 15% of the allocation site, so the designated open space will certainly be greater than this area. Once development is complete, it is intended that any land designated as open space that is not already owned by the SWMVC will be transferred to it. All options therefore result in an increase in the total amount of land owned by the SWMVC.
THE OPTIONS – Overview
There are two central questions that distinguish the different options:
Whether to enter into an agreement with the developer, either for sale or for the rough grassland to be treated as part of the open space required by SDNPA
Whether to make any immediate changes to the layout of the SWMVC site (the Village Hall site) to enhance its use for recreational purposes, in line with the charity’s objects.
If the trustees do not enter into any agreement with the developer, the SWMVC site would stay exactly as it is in the short term. This would not rule out future change, but any enhancements would require funding. Once the development is complete, a portion of the SIN field is expected to be added to the SWMVC land as designated open space. This is option 1.
If the trustees sell the rough grassland to the developer, it would be incorporated into the development. In line with the SDNPA policy, a proportion of the total area would be transferred to the ownership of SWMVC at the end of the process. This is option 2.
An alternative to sale is for the trustees to enter into an agreement that the rough grassland would be counted as part of the designated open space, with the addition of a portion of the Steep in Need field. This could be on the basis of no immediate change to the layout of the Village Hall site, or a reconfiguration to open up the land at the front and join it up with the SIN land. These are option 3 (no immediate change) and option 4 (reconfiguration).
A final option is to swap the rough grassland for a like-for-like replacement elsewhere in the village. We have assumed that the rough grassland would then be incorporated into the development in a similar way to option 2. This is option 5.
The options are described in more detail below, with an analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each.
This is a ‘do nothing’ option in the short term. The rough grassland at the back would continue to be accessible as a semi-wild area for physical and mental recreation, as it is today. Once the development is complete, a portion of the Steep in Need field would be added to the SWMVC land as designated open space. The SWMVC would be able to explore any options that might improve the use of its land for the beneficiaries in the future, if funds became available.
Advantages
The total amount of designated open space, including the rough grassland and designated open space within the development on SIN’s land, may be larger if the SWMVC land is not connected with the development, but this cannot be known at this stage.
Any biodiversity attributes of the rough grassland would be preserved. (It is not yet known if there are any particular biodiversity attributes on this plot).
Disadvantages
The open space is likely to be made up of two areas separated by the car park, which may not offer the best opportunities for recreation.
The rough grassland would remain inaccessible to many in the village because of the rough terrain and lack of paths.
Any further enhancement of the Village Hall site would require additional funds to be raised by the trustees.
This is the closest option to the original proposal for a joint sale of Steep in Need and SWMVC land. We do not know whether the rough grassland would be built on or included as part of the designated open space, as this would depend on the developer’s layout. The designated open space for the development would however be larger than the rough grassland and, once the development was complete, would be gifted back to the SWMVC. Charity Commission approval would be needed both for the sale and to be able to use the proceeds to enhance the open space and invest in the Village Hall site and facilities.
Advantages
The open space would be designed for recreation using ideas and input from Steep residents, based on the autumn 2020 consultation.
Disadvantages
The size of the SWMVC site originally gifted by the Badley family would be reduced.
For a period, SWMVC would own no land other than the car park.
Use of the sale proceeds to invest in SWMVC’s objects would depend on securing agreement from the Charity Commission.
The rough grassland may form part of the development and, if so, any biodiversity attributes would be lost. (It is not yet known if there are any particular biodiversity attributes on this plot)
This is a new option that has emerged through discussion of alternatives to sale. Agreement with the developer would take the form of a deed of covenant restricting the rough grassland to be kept as public open space in perpetuity. This is consistent with the SWMVC’s charitable objects of providing for physical and mental recreation. The payment from the developer would be of the same order as the sale proceeds in option 2. In practical terms, this option would be similar to option 1 with the rough grassland continuing to be accessible as it is today and supplemented by a portion of the SIN field once the development is complete. Charity Commission approval would be needed for the deed of covenant.
Advantages
The payment from the developer may allow SWMVC to invest for the future benefit of residents of Steep, for example by improving access to and use of its land and improving the village hall site and facilities (subject to Charity Commission agreement).
Any biodiversity attributes of the rough grassland could be preserved. (It is not yet known if there are any particular biodiversity attributes on this plot).
Disadvantages
The total amount of open space, including the rough grassland and designated open space within the development on SIN’s land, may be smaller than if there was no agreement with the developer.
The open space is likely to be made up of two areas separated by the car park, which may not offer the best opportunities for recreation.
The rough grassland would remain inaccessible to many in the village because of the rough terrain and lack of paths.
Designation of the rough grassland as open space for physical and mental recreational use in perpetuity would restrict what trustees could do there in future.
This option builds on option 3. It is again based on an agreement with the developer securing SWMVC land as part of the designated public open space. In this option the Village Hall site would be reconfigured as part of the development, moving the car park to the rear and creating a recreational area at the front with direct access from Church Road and the Village Hall. This would replace the area of rough grassland used for the car park and join up with the portion of the Steep in Need field designated as open space. The payment from the developer would be less to reflect the changes to the parking and recreational land. Planning permission would be required for the reconfiguration and Charity Commission approval for the deed of covenant and the use of the proceeds.
Advantages
The payment from the developer may allow SWMVC to invest for the future benefit of residents of Steep, for example by improving access to and use of its land and improving the village hall site and facilities (subject to Charity Commission agreement).
Any biodiversity attributes of the rough grassland could be preserved. (It is not yet known if there are any particular biodiversity attributes on this plot).
Disadvantages
The total amount of open space may be smaller than if there was no agreement with the developer.
Designation of the new recreational area as open space for physical and mental recreational use in perpetuity could restrict what trustees could do there in future.
Any biodiversity attributes of the current rough grassland could be lost. (It is not yet known if there are any particular biodiversity attributes on this plot)
This option has been explored as a result of comments from the Charity Commission. The trustees could, without Charity Commission approval, sell the rough grassland and use the whole proceeds to buy equivalent land as a like-for-like replacement. We assume that, whether sold directly to the developer or to a third party, this would result in the rough grassland being incorporated into the development. The designated open space would be transferred to the SWMVC once the development is complete. In practical terms this option would be similar to option 2 except that the proceeds of sale would be used entirely to purchase additional land. Charity Commission approval would not be required.
Advantages
The open space would be designed for recreation using ideas and input from Steep residents, based on the autumn 2020 consultation.
The SWMVC would also have another plot of land elsewhere in the village offering further options for recreation.
Disadvantages
The size of the SWMVC site originally gifted by the Badley family would be reduced.
The rough grassland may be built on and, if so, any biodiversity attributes would be lost. (It is not yet known if there are any particular biodiversity attributes on this plot).
No equivalent plot has been identified in the village.
The trustees would have no additional funds to underpin the financial resilience of the charity or increase the potential for improvements.
OUR ASSESSMENT
Having considered all the options identified, the trustees have discounted options 2 and 5. These two options share a common disadvantage of reducing the size of the SWMVC site gifted by the Badley family. In view of the nature of the gift, in memory of men from Steep who died in the First World War, this merits serious weight. Trustees are also conscious of the concerns already expressed by some residents about this possibility. Since the advantages of these options can be secured through means that do not involve selling the rough grassland, the trustees do not propose to pursue them further.
The three other options all have specific advantages and disadvantages. The trustees’ view is that option 4 is in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the SWMVC. By entering into an agreement with the developer, the trustees would further the objects of the SWMVC both in the short term, with enhanced recreational space, and in the longer term by securing the financial sustainability of the Village Hall. Under option 4, the designated open space required by the development would be provided as a single continuous area in a location that allows people to connect with neighbours and their surroundings. As such it is a close fit for the objects of the charity as well as for the key themes that emerged from the autumn 2020 consultation on the open space: a place where people can:
come together and socialise.
enjoy and nurture our natural environment.
pause to reflect in a tranquil setting.
Option 3 offers some of the advantages of option 4 but would be likely to leave the designated open space as two small areas separated by the car park, as would option 1. Both options 1 and 3 would leave the rough grassland intact, including any biodiversity characteristics, and option 1 might result in a larger overall area of open space but this cannot be known with any certainty. Taking all these factors into account, the trustees have selected option 4 as their preferred option. It would require planning permission and the agreement of the Charity Commission. Option 3 is considered a good fallback if this cannot be secured.
Before reaching a final decision on which of these options to progress, the trustees will carefully consider the feed-back received as a result of this consultation and assess the balance of risks associated with any action.
Clicking on the button below to express your views.
Over recent months the Village Hall trustees have been considering the future of the charity and its land. We are now asking for feedback from the residents of Steep to help make the best decision.
BACKGROUND
In 1920 the Badley family gave land on Church Road for a village hall, in memory of the men of Steep killed in World War I. A charity, the Steep War Memorial Village Club (SWMVC), was set up to provide a centre for social activities and “for all forms of physical and mental recreation and for educational purposes… for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Parish of Steep”.
Since the 1930s Steep Parish Council has been the sole trustee of SWMVC, regulated by the Charity Commission. As trustees, Parish Councillors have a duty both to fulfill SWMVC’s charitable objectives and to secure its long-term future. We do this mainly by running the Village Hall, which is used by local clubs and organisations and is available to hire for events.
Prior to the pandemic, the Hall’s income broadly covered its running costs, and it was no longer being subsidised by the Parish Council. But we have to think about the future. The Hall’s last major renovation was 1999, i.e. 20 years ago. Recent surveys brought up various issues that will need attention, and there are things we could do to make the building work and look better.
It would also be great if we could ‘future-proof’ the charity financially, to make sure it is there for the next generation of Steep residents. We do not have a large endowment, and so have to consider very carefully any opportunity to put the charity on a more secure long-term financial footing. This is one aspect of the situation we are now facing.
As well as the Hall itself, the charity owns some land on the south side of Church Road. This consists of the Hall car park and just under half an acre of rough grassland, stretching back to the hedge line dividing the Hall’s land from Bedales’. Although it is open to the public, we feel that as it is this land does not fulfil SWMVC’s objects. It is also largely inaccessible for wheel-chair users, people with prams or buggys, or anyone with limited mobility or sight. This consultation is about the future of this land.
To the east of the Hall’s land is the field of around 1.4 acres. This was assigned in the nineteenth century as “allotments for the labouring poor of Steep” and held since then as a charitable trust. This is now in the stewardship of Steep in Need, an independent charity created in 2015 to help people in financial need in Steep and the adjoining parishes (see Steep in Need website – www.steepinneed.org.uk – for full details). They are a separate organisation from SWMVC and from the Parish Council.
STEEP AND THE SOUTH DOWNS LOCAL PLAN
In 2019 the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) adopted a Local Plan which has some important implications for Steep. First, it changes the settlement boundary – the area within which development is normally allowed – and makes it more tightly focused on Church Road as the centre of Steep.
Secondly, it designates Steep in Need and part of SWMVC’s land as an allocation site which could be developed to meet housing need in the National Park. The SDNPA would be likely to approve an application for 8-12 dwellings, with various conditions such as retaining mature trees and avoiding hard surfaces. Crucially, around 20% of the site should be public open space accessible from the Village Hall.
RECENT HISTORY OF THE CHURCH ROAD SITE
Over the last three years Steep in Need and SWMVC trustees have been working together to see how both charities’ land could best be used to help both charities’ objectives: Steep in Need’s for the relief of poverty, and SWMVC’s for recreation. Together we decided to sell the land to the developer, who would build a mix of market and affordable homes on the site, while keeping around 20% as public open space. This would be returned to SWMVC ownership as a recreational space for the whole village.
Steep in Need’s land makes up 85% of the allocation site and they took the lead in choosing a preferred developer and commissioning preparatory works, such as ecology studies and ground water monitoring. More details can be found on their website.
After discussions with the Charity Commission and concerns from some residents, SWMVC’s trustees have decided NOT to proceed with the joint sale. Steep in Need can develop their land without our involvement and have recently signed an agreement with Wilson Designer Homes Ltd. We are now considering how best to make the Village Hall land work for its beneficiaries in this situation.
THE BROADER PICTURE: A CENTRE FOR STEEP?
The Hall and its land are a vital part of village life and need to work as well as it can for the whole village. As trustees we want to find a solution that fulfills the aims of SWMVC and also meets the spirit of the original Badley gift.
Steep is an unusual parish: we have more than 400 households spread over an area larger than Petersfield but no obvious village centre. The main concentration of residents is along Church Road, where there is also the church, Steep Common, the primary school and the entrance to Bedales.
We believe we have now a unique chance to create an attractive public space on Church Road. We could bring our grassed area to the front of the site and join it to open space in the Steep in Need development to make a new ‘village green’ for all the people of Steep to enjoy. The car park could be moved to the back of the site.
A pleasant public space in the middle of the village directly fulfills SWMVC’s objectives by providing a place for physical and mental recreation. The recent Open Space Working Group consultation revealed that residents want somewhere to come together and socialise, to enjoy nature, and to pause to reflect in a tranquil setting. Your responses also emphasized that we should think holistically about such a space, including the Village Hall land and the current car park.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?
This is a complex situation. Tt’s important that we understand and consider all the options so we can make the best decision for the long-term future of the charity and its beneficiaries, i.e. you, the people of Steep.
We have come up with five options for the SWMVC land, assuming that development will go ahead on the Steep in Need land. These are set out briefly below and described in detail in the Options Appraisal document.
Under any of the options, all the open space created by the development would ultimately come into SWMVC ownership, increasing our land holding and making it easier for everyone to enjoy. Some options would also improve our financial status, so we may be able to make improvements to the Village Hall and strengthen the charity’s future.
THE OPTIONS IN BRIEF
Do nothing. We could simply leave the hall and its surrounding land as it is.
Sell the rough grassland to Wilson Designer Homes, the developer, with the final open space returned to SWMVC ownership.
Leave the hall and surrounding land as it is but covenant the rough grassland to be part of the final open space. The land would remain in SWMVC ownership and the developer would make a payment in return for the covenant.
As option 3, but with SWMVC land rearranged by moving the car park to the back and creating a recreational area along Church Road. This would be covenanted as part of the final open space in return for a payment from the developer.
Sell the rough grassland and use the whole proceeds to buy equivalent land as a like-for-like replacement elsewhere in the village. The current plot would presumably be included in the development and the final open space come back into SWMVC ownership
Please read the Options Appraisal for a fuller explanation of the differences between these options, and what we have considered in weighing them against each other.
We do not think that the options 2 and 5 have any clear benefits over the others and we do not plan to pursue them further.
The other three options have distinct features. Option 1 represents the least change from the status quo. Option 3 leaves the land unchanged, and in SWMVC ownership, but the payment would provide financial security for the charity.
Option 4 creates a better space for recreation and reflection at the heart of Steep, in line with SWMVC’s objectives and residents’ wishes expressed in the open space consultation.
We think this is the best way both to secure a green centre for Steep and to fulfil SWMVCs long and short-term objectives. It is important to realise that if the Village Hall land isn’t included in the development, there is no guarantee of 20% of the Steep in Need land being left as open space.
LEGAL CHALLENGES & QUESTIONS
Over the past three years, there have been a number of legal and process challenges to the Parish Council, to the Village Hall charity and to the SDNPA about various aspects of any potential development in the centre of Steep. We fully respect the rights of residents to hold us accountable for our actions, but we assure all residents that we have been working with care and in good faith throughout and are committed to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the charity.
THE CONSULTATION
We want to hear your views on what the future holds for the SWMVC land. It is our responsibility as trustees to take the final decision, but your feedback is vital as you are the beneficiaries of the charity. Although this is not a referendum, we will take your views into account and will publish a summary of the information from the consultation.
It is likely that we will end up with a larger plot of land after the Steep in Need land is developed. How important do you think it is that this is a continuous open space?
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
-
-
-
-
-