The people's land
SIR – Miss McEvoy is perfectly entitled to her views on the use of Clothall Common and to use the privileged platform of your columns to air them, but perhaps she should remember that the rest of the citizenry are also entitled to their views without bein
SIR - Miss McEvoy is perfectly entitled to her views on the use of Clothall Common and to use the privileged platform of your columns to air them, but perhaps she should remember that the rest of the citizenry are also entitled to their views without being subjected to derogatory remarks.
The responsibility for the fate of the land is primarily that of the local authority and then, in turn, to the local population. Perhaps the long delay in considering this land for housing is the result of originally misdesignating the land, (a bureaucratic decision) changing of minds (political change) or even the view of the local population being taken into account, and in precedence to that of the bureaucrats.
As to the "wasting of council's money (and ours) by continuing to fight for a lost cause", the council has no money but ours which it demands to satisfy its own appetites. Examination of any council's account will show how enormous a proportion is bound up in internal bureaucracy where the denizens make the rules and we have to pay whatever they demand. Just try and refuse to pay for a service you consider substandard or which you do not want! Until a situation is irretrievable, the cause is not lost, and the protagonists are entitled to use legitimate means to further that cause. If Miss McEvoy is correct, the council's costs should be minimal in defending an open and shut case.
L S J SHIPP
You may also want to watch:
- 1 Regeneration plans submitted to 'breathe new life' into Stevenage retail park
- 2 Man suffers head injury after fall from moving car
- 3 Video of woman spewing racial hate in Hitchin goes viral
- 4 Stevenage teen sentenced after sexually abusing young boys
- 5 Proposed 5G mast labelled 'monstrosity' by objecting residents and councillors
- 6 Bomb squad attends residential street in Letchworth
- 7 Demolition work begins on former Matalan site to make way for flats
- 8 Train services resume after earlier disruption at Royston
- 9 The hidden history of Hitchin's disappeared pubs
- 10 App launched to promote shopping at local businesses
SIR - I am writing in response to your article 'The Last word'.
I am shocked by the inaccuracy of your article. I live on the estate and regularly use the green to and from work and I am not a dog owner! If you had visited the green you would have noticed the footpaths worn into it. Although I have not lived on the estate as long as some others I feel it would be a great shame to see yet more houses built on this space. There are not many green spaces left in Baldock now and we should value the remaining few.
It frustrates me that you feel you can dictate how others should feel about supporting the green. I think it is great people are willing to campaign for what they believe will keep this area pleasant for all. As for a drain on local taxes, I have made a contribution to support SOGS' fight for the green. The people on Clothall Common pay their taxes and yet we do not receive much in return.
Since your article was published, I have spoken with many people on the estate and we are all stunned at your narrow minded view and lack of truth. The vast majority of people living on the estate whole-heartedly support what SOGS are trying to achieve and back them 100 per cent. We do not feel they are a drain on funds as they are self-financing. In future maybe you should seek both sides of the story to ensure your articles are factually correct and courteous to your readership.
SIR - Referring to the letter headed 'Common Mistake', could I ask Mr J of Baldock why is he so sick regarding saving a small green on Clothall Common from development?
He states in his last sentence that 'I do not want to see it developed, but the argument against it is poor and does not fool anyone'?
Does this person have first hand account of the argument he is referring to? Does he any other bright ideas to stop it becoming developed?
I used the field during my own childhood, from about 1988 on and off for at least ten years. The field, during that time, was of course unfenced, and therefore no restrictions applied to using it. Mr J has only seen the field fenced, if,, as he states he has only known it for about three years.
I am also not sure how he sees dogs defecating as he drives past, which takes all of three to four seconds! He fails to mention when he walks past seeing the dog owners clearing up after the said bowel movements and the paths which are clear to see cross the field from usage at every conceivable angle.
As for nimbyism, I am quite happy to say yes, I would rather see development outside towns or urban areas, and leave what little bit of green space is left along within the town boundaries. If this is nimbyism, then so be it!
Baldock Town Resident