Just read the report in the Evening mail about the Ulverston town councils decision on this bit of land that Ford Park wanted included in the local development plan.
They quote Jim Prosser(cons) as saying " I believe that the town would want that maintained as open green space, I believe that would be the towns peoples opinion generally" I believe, I believe, was he in the Batchelors in the 60s maybe!
I had a brief word with him after the meeting and I said that if he was better informed he may have taken a different view. He said that he didn't have the time to know about all the things that go on in Ulverston. But it says in the report, that he knows the opinion of the town, sorry, he believes he knows. Not exactly informed debate here Jim, some people believe in fairies too.
He has never set foot in Ford Park, not in my eight years there anyway, and I doubt he has any idea of how much land Ford Park wanted to allocate for housing. The area in question here is 0.7 acres out of a 9 acre site. I don't suppose he had even looked at the proposed bit of land on the SLDC map, otherwise he would not have made that statement about the town wanting to have Ford Park maintained as green space.
OF COURSE WE DO, that's the whole reason the community group exists Jim. RN178, as the plot is nattily titled is not a great loss to the park. It's an area seldom used by anybody, except kids wanting a quick exit over the wall into Hart street, or a dogs toilet in the scrub at that corner of the field. Losing this tiny bit of land is no sacrifice at all, if it means saving the future of the Park, and not, as was written in the Mail securing the groups future.
On the way out I also had a conversation with Cllr Jack Rice,(cons) who wasn't sure if the community group owned the land. I had to tell him that although the trustees own the Park they do so with an outstanding loan of £300,000 to another charity, The Architectural Heritage fund, who have first charge on the land and buildings. "Oh I didn't know that"
I was heartened to see that Jan Hancock (cons) was supportive of the proposal.
I don't know who voted which way in the debate, I wasn't allowed in the room, but I would suppose that the majority who opposed my proposal were conservative councillors. Why do I say that, because to my mind Ford Park is a political issue.
There are no conservative councillors involved in the saving Ford Park project. None nada. Not that they haven't been asked to come and join the board of trustees, or become members, they have been invited countless times. Somehow they see it as a Labour party project, but that is not how the group see themselves, as far as I can see we are a none political group with the fate of the Park being our only goal. So whatever we propose will always be viewed with suspicion by a conservative dominated council, hence last Mondays result with the L.D.F. allocations.
Your council needs to wake up, put aside it's party political stances and become a none political body that cares for it's town, not it's petty posturing. If I had my way we would all be independents and no-one would be able to serve for more than two terms, that's eight years, then we might see some vim and vigour brought to bear on running this great little town.
Rant over.
They quote Jim Prosser(cons) as saying " I believe that the town would want that maintained as open green space, I believe that would be the towns peoples opinion generally" I believe, I believe, was he in the Batchelors in the 60s maybe!
I had a brief word with him after the meeting and I said that if he was better informed he may have taken a different view. He said that he didn't have the time to know about all the things that go on in Ulverston. But it says in the report, that he knows the opinion of the town, sorry, he believes he knows. Not exactly informed debate here Jim, some people believe in fairies too.
He has never set foot in Ford Park, not in my eight years there anyway, and I doubt he has any idea of how much land Ford Park wanted to allocate for housing. The area in question here is 0.7 acres out of a 9 acre site. I don't suppose he had even looked at the proposed bit of land on the SLDC map, otherwise he would not have made that statement about the town wanting to have Ford Park maintained as green space.
OF COURSE WE DO, that's the whole reason the community group exists Jim. RN178, as the plot is nattily titled is not a great loss to the park. It's an area seldom used by anybody, except kids wanting a quick exit over the wall into Hart street, or a dogs toilet in the scrub at that corner of the field. Losing this tiny bit of land is no sacrifice at all, if it means saving the future of the Park, and not, as was written in the Mail securing the groups future.
On the way out I also had a conversation with Cllr Jack Rice,(cons) who wasn't sure if the community group owned the land. I had to tell him that although the trustees own the Park they do so with an outstanding loan of £300,000 to another charity, The Architectural Heritage fund, who have first charge on the land and buildings. "Oh I didn't know that"
I was heartened to see that Jan Hancock (cons) was supportive of the proposal.
I don't know who voted which way in the debate, I wasn't allowed in the room, but I would suppose that the majority who opposed my proposal were conservative councillors. Why do I say that, because to my mind Ford Park is a political issue.
There are no conservative councillors involved in the saving Ford Park project. None nada. Not that they haven't been asked to come and join the board of trustees, or become members, they have been invited countless times. Somehow they see it as a Labour party project, but that is not how the group see themselves, as far as I can see we are a none political group with the fate of the Park being our only goal. So whatever we propose will always be viewed with suspicion by a conservative dominated council, hence last Mondays result with the L.D.F. allocations.
Your council needs to wake up, put aside it's party political stances and become a none political body that cares for it's town, not it's petty posturing. If I had my way we would all be independents and no-one would be able to serve for more than two terms, that's eight years, then we might see some vim and vigour brought to bear on running this great little town.
Rant over.
No comments:
Post a Comment