| Topic: | Reply to Mark Proctor et al | |
| Posted by: | R Barry | |
| Date/Time: | 27/01/11 22:26:00 |
| Mark There are three parties involved within this matter: 1 Those in favour. 2 Those against. 3 The council. I have heard questioned and answered the repective positions of 1 and 2. Though I may disagree with some of the points I respect the fact that they are prepared to anwswer and stand by their convictions. The council have remained somewhat tight-lipped on their position, resting on the 'we have to maintain a neutral position' arguement. I find this difficult in what is at its heart a commercial transaction. What are we paying for and what do we get in return? What happens with any (if any) excess funds? When we enter into these sort of transactions normally we understand that the money goes as profit to a commercial venture. I fail to see how this can be treated as a commercial venture, so there HAS to be a degree of accountability. We have seen with recent issues and the ensuing court cases where failing to do so can lead. With respect to forwarding my post, I hope that you are far more successful in getting answers than those who attended the meeting. As evidenced by the responses given and then the failure to answer direct questions, there is either a desire to avoid these questions and misdirect or an inherent incompetence within the assessment criteria being applied. My calculations would seem to indicate that if the scheme is forced upon the majority who do not want it, there is a clear basis to charge less to both residents and businesses. That aside i agree with the last point made at the meeting, that the scheme is devisive, damaging to the local environment that we all enjoy and will have a siginificant effect on the attractiveness of the area and in turn property prices I trust that this explains my position. With thanks. R. Barry |