COUNCIL OPINION 2

CAN THE COUNCIL EXPLAIN?
Perhaps someone from Derby City Council could tell us just how deep our pockets are supposed to be? With what justification can the council increase parking charges by a massive 25%? Council spokeswoman Carol Mee's pathetic "a rise was due last November" isn't good enough. This increase is so way over the top, it's nothing short of barefaced robbery. Could she or someone else from the council tell us just how much the council rakes in every year from car parking charges? After all we the motorists (mugs) are also part of the electorate and as such I think have a right to know.

The fire service settled for a 16% national pay rise only last year. Then they have the gall to ask the council tax-payer to cough up another £4m. The fact that they are under-funded, according to Mat Lee, and that from this year are now allowed to set their own budget doesn't give them the right to ask for a totally unrealistic increase. If £4m is needed (due to under-funding) then why do they intend to spend £3.5m of it on their pay and pensions? If they didn't need to spend that amount of money on their own pay so soon after a pay rise, then the fact is they would only need £0.5m to put the modernisation into place in Derbyshire as required. There's a big difference between £0.5m and £4m.

The truth is that Derby City Council gets more than its fair share of money from the Government and the council tax-payer yet it continues to squander it on useless projects, such as the Five Lamps fiasco and the Alvaston speed humps. How much did they cost us again? And then there's the free fireworks display and the free open-air music concert with yet more fireworks etc, etc. Spending other people's money is easy isn't it, especially when you can just demand more again next year? If there's so much to throw around, at least throw it in the direction of essential services, such as the fire service or the police. Derby City Council, get your priorities right and stop wasting so much of our money. S. Radford

BENDING THE RULES
I experience a feeling of great despair and gloom of what the future will bring, whenever decisions on planning matters are made in Derby. This is because the officers and members appear to circumnavigate the rules to push things through. A typical case in point is the Riverlights Project. Right from the beginning, the officers from the council and the developers appear to have had no intention of listening to the public. When I asked questions at the (very poor) exhibition for the new Bus Station, I was sharply rebuked by the Derby City Council officers, quoting, "outline planning permission for the Bus Station has already been given, therefore this exhibition only concerns the Riverlights buildings."

However, the posters on display were full of images of the planned bus station. The original Environmental Impact Assessment tended to totally ignore traffic considerations, the flood assessment and air quality management. We are now less than a week away from the planning meeting and I still do not think the traffic assessment meets the criteria required, particularly given the cumulative effects of Riverlights, Westfield and Connecting Derby. The Air Quality Assessment Report was issued on October 13 and interested parties have 21 days to make known any objections.

But, Derby City Council, in its arrogance, has decided that this will make no difference whatsoever. So, the planning control committee meeting scheduled for October 23 is to go ahead. Several members of the public who requested the officers' report on Riverlights were told it was not ready. It was finally made available to the public on October 16. How then, could this report have been presented to the pre-planning meeting held on October 8? We were then told that it was more or less ready, but bits were being added to it all of the time. If proposed changes have been made to the scheme since the plans were submitted, then these changes should be made available to anyone who objected to the original development.

The way the officers at Derby City Council appear to be conducting themselves is questionable. I believe, that due to the way the council has conducted the whole sorry mess, there may well be grounds for a legal objection once the officers' report has been examined. Because of the comments made by the director on the consequences of pulling out of the agreement, the council should postpone going to planning committee until all the legal wrangling has been sorted out. And because they have biased their own case, the plan should be called in by the Deputy Prime Minister for a fair decision. Tony Dunn

<<< Prev