Communities right to question council decision

Sir,—Re the article in The Courier on December 11, calling for ‘an end to boundary wrangle’. Just who does Anne McGovern think she is as she expresses disappointment and anger, at the actions of the communities and councils fighting to correct a wrong imposed on them, without consultation, by Fife Council?

I write as an inhabitant of one area affected by the wholly dictatorial and undemocratic actions of Fife Council officials, who have been rightly reprimanded by the community councils whom they profess to serve.

For Keith Winter to promote boundary changes, inform councillors of his plan in a veil of secrecy, then finalise it without any prior consultation with the affected inhabitants and their community councils smacks of a dictator who fears defeat in open discussion.

Little wonder some community councils disbanded after such a defiant and arrogant action by the head of the development services department, the arch architect of the boundary wrangle which the leader of the administration is now pleading with communities “to draw a line under”.

Following a demand for public meetings, both Anne McGovern and Keith Winter must obviously now realise there are some very offended and intelligent people in the areas covered by the Winter master plan, who are not prepared to nod like councillors on demand, and that these same people support fully the organised protests of their community councils.

Instead of lecturing to people Anne McGovern should accept that Fife Council has made a major blunder, and initiate steps to rectify the council’s admitted error—it is quoted that even the chief executive accepts that, in hindsight, the issue might have been dealt with differently and that it would have been sensible to have sought the views of community councils. So why can’t the leader of the administration also accept that a fundamental mistake was made?

Money could be better spent

Sir,—With the growth in the Rosyth-Zeebrugge ferry link, the internal ferry link between Fife and Lothian on the agenda, and with two thousand businesses throughout Scotland sharing in European grants designed to encourage innovation, the Scottish Executive should be spending a million pounds to promote a bid to host the Euro 2012 football finals, and not on an obscure ‘Centre of Confidence’ whatever that may be.

A sigh of relief

Sir,—I, along with many people I know, breathed a sigh of relief when members of the development quality committee, contrary to the recommendations of the director of planning, refused planning permission for the proposed student residences at Parker Street.

I must agree with the committee members that the design was inappropriate for the site. It may be worth revisiting the earlier development brief to consider if it is appropriate to have a large modern building dominating the site (and all around it), or whether it should fit in with its neighbours.

It certainly should not distract the eye away from the distinguished listed buildings to the north. Other factors which can cloud the issue are ‘worthiness’ and economic importance of the development. This development by the University of Abertay can be considered to have both, although the university is unlikely to be held in fond regard for long if it donates a ‘carbuncle’ to the city.

It may be in this case that the elected members’ feelings are in tune with those of the people of Dundee.

Surprised by quote

Sir,—As a parent of a child in the nursery class of Arbirlot Primary School, I was surprised to read your in article (Parents to battle school axe threat, December 10), an Angus Council spokesman being quoted as saying that, “The council must stress that no decisions have been made regarding accommodation at Arbirlot Primary”.

During the minuted meeting with parents on Tuesday evening, I asked the convener of the Education Committee ‘Are there any circumstances under which the council would be prepared to keep the school open?’ and received the answer ‘No’.

It was made clear to parents that the purpose of the consultation was to decide which alternative school our children would attend in future and when that should start happening, not whether the school should close or not.

Should be applauded

Sir,—I am not quite sure which planet Mr Stewart is living on when he claims that the costs of cycling are merely wear and tear on the individual. Last time I was in my local cycle shop I noticed that not only were quality bicycles costing money to buy, but the shop also expected to be paid for servicing them.

Whilst cheap in the long term it is hardly a cost-free form of transport. Cycling on official business where practical is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money.

I would hardly expect a Conservative to be suggesting that the council should instead spend more than twice as much on a motoring mileage allowance, with the additional costs arising from parking provision and congestion, and none of the proven health benefits of cycling.

Perth and Kinross Council are doing the right thing in encouraging an environmentally and fiscally sensible mode of local transport. They should be applauded for this instead of criticised.

Claims wrong

Sir,—Alexander Stewart is wrong in his claims regarding cycle allowances. Cycles are vehicles. Tax is paid on the vehicle, accessories and the repairs needed due to wear and tear. Tyres do not last for ever, sadly.

Cycles also depreciate in value, as a check of the ‘second-hand’ advertisements would confirm. If only cycling did cost nothing. Perhaps more people would take it up, then. The council are to be congratulated for their long overdue scheme.