| Topic: | Re:CPZ meeting 26/01/11 | |
| Posted by: | Cate Lyon | |
| Date/Time: | 29/01/11 15:15:00 |
| Sam Hearn I do not accept Sam Hearn's apology - his comments about 'mob rule' were disgraceful for someone in a public position. He has got form on this - I went to see him at his surgery on another issue and was subjected to 30 minutes of polemic rehearsing his own views whilst dismissing mine out of hand. He lost my vote then. Representing our views At the meeting one Councillor told us his job is to listen to the minority voice, SH shouted at us that we were trying to have “mob rule” and a Cllr Oulds told us that: "some of the 9 Councillors who will be taking the decision on 12 April are ideologically opposed to CPZs, some are in favour, and those who are ambivalent may be swayed by the points made in the consultation process". I thought all Councillors were elected to listen to and represent the views of local people - not vote on issues according to their own entrenched ideological positions. It occurs to me that it is we residents who are in danger of being subjected to 'mob rule' - by 9 Councillors on 12th April. Funding of CPZ Consultation It was revealed at the meeting by a resident that the Council has approved building plans to develop a block of 14 flats with no parking facilities in return for accepting money from the property developer to fund this CPZ consultation. This was confirmed by one of the Councillors as correct. This destroys any possible claim that the consultation is a neutral process - on the contrary - it is funded by a developer with a vested interest in pushing through a CPZ. No wonder we get the feeling the Councillors are keen to go ahead with it. |