Additional Notes on Public Meeting of 6th February 2004

Notes compiled by nine residents who attended the public meeting on 6th Febuary 2004.

Introduction

These notes should be used as supplementary to those issued by Mr. A. Postlethwaite which may be read in the March edition of Aspects. These notes do not seek to contradict anything that Mr. A. Postlethwaite has written or to infer directly or indirectly that anything he has written is inaccurate. It is however, felt that a number of contributions were either not included or given the weight that they merited.

Present 69 residents. Also in attendance Cllr J Major (Barrow Borough Ward Councillor). After the Presentation by Mr Des Metcalf an Architect employed by South Lakeland District Council, Helen Johnston Chairperson of the Residents Association resumed the chair and invited individual responses and questions and emphasized everyone would be allowed to voice their opinion.

Questions and Comments from the floor included

1. Mr I Glover attempted to speak first on behalf of 26 Residents of the Green but was told he would get his turn by the chair, who wished to take comments from another resident.

2. The afore mentioned resident wished to hear the views of 26 residents before commenting.

3. Mr I Glover delivered his statement. (see attached)

9. Lady agreed with gate at North end, but not outside number 24, would be safer at junction where she considered sighting of traffic would be easier. Would also like soft lighting under the trees to deter vandals and traffic calming introduced at the Buccleuch Hall by way of speed bumps at North and South ends.

23. Gentleman on behalf of Head teacher, said he would welcome extra path to school. His own view was the Green was colourless, agreed with path and seats, and didn't want too much stonework.

25. Gentleman asked is it too late to take a vote? Vote was refused.

28. Lady resident who had been to all consultations, mainly wanted railings renewed, asked if plans will be changed if public feelings are against them. She asked am I been listened too? Does the meeting have a purpose? Why all or nothing?.

29. Same Gentleman asked for vote, and again refused.

32. A gentleman then asked what had been the purpose of the meeting, nothing been quantifiable, how can the comments from this meeting be carried forward, and what will be the outcome? At this point the meeting was closed, with several speakers waiting to express their comments and views, they still put questions to the table but lots of questions still remained unanswered.

Summary

We believe this is an accurate and unbiased account of the meeting. However, we had many reservations about the process before this meeting and know that we are not alone. The meeting unfortunately reinforced some of these.

A number of people were not allowed to speak. It is impossible to see how any quantifiable information could be gathered from this meeting. We also feel that the mandate claimed by both the Parish Council and the Residents' Association has certainly not been demonstrated.

These notes were compiled by nine residents in attendance at the public meeting, we apologise for the delay in delivering but some of us had work, family and holiday commitments, and didn't think we would feel a need to circulate our own notes.

[Go to The Green Contents]