Change language
Actions
Displays
Remove from selection
Add to selection
Abstract

Various letters from local residents condemning proposals for a visitor centre at Caledonian Park including one by Lizzy McInnerny: Cllr Paul Smith says: “We want to make sure the public can enjoy using the park with a café and toilets, and people will be able to go up the clocktower and enjoy the view” (Protesters fear visitors’ centre will go ahead, January 22)

People are not campaigning against the restoration of the clocktower, people going up it, toilet facilities, a small kiosk or indeed enjoyment in Caledonian Park. Most people support the addition of humble facilities which could be accommodated at the base of the tower as originally planned, or in a more suitable area of the park. What is being questioned is the need for a separate building and if necessary the location not blocking the north gate.

Councillor Webbe says: “I want to reassure residents that no one’s response, in whatever form, has been or will be ignored and that all responses will be given full and proper consideration.” Our experience has been that this is only the case if you are in agreement with the council. Anyone in opposition has been repeatedly ignored or paid lip service to, with emails and letters rarely answered. If they eventually were, genuine concerns were dismissed and a divide-and-rule approach adopted.

The delay in producing the results of the recent consultation is now nearly six months – a deliberate time-wasting exercise so that Cllr Webbe and her cronies can repeat that the location is fixed as it would “not be possible to change without entirely revisiting the scheme”.

A poor building in a bad location deserves to be revisited. Cllr Webbe will be able to walk away but residents, always the lowest priority, are going to have to live with this project for a long time.

Before the latest consultation in July, campaigners asked that a question be included about the location of the visitors’ centre. We asked again for a meeting with councillors. We were ignored on both counts until the consultation closed. Then, too late for any real influence, we were offered a meeting with Cllr Webbe. We were patronised by those present and our concerns dismissed as insignificant.

Cllr Webbe and her team consistently undermined our more than 750-strong petition and tried to belittle those present by implying nimbyism. She used the excuse that, if other options for a location had been chosen, she would only be having this meeting with a different group of people. I beg to differ. The location preferred from the beginning and chosen by the council is right in front of and obscures the clocktower, the feature supposed to attract visitors.

It is in the most densely residential area of the park. This is where most will be affected in the long term by anti-social behaviour, noise, smells, petrol fumes, deliveries, rubbish, vermin, scavengers and all the other disturbances that come with the practicalities of running a café, toilets and visitors’ centre right outside our homes.

The proposed site is ridiculously close to the 450 dwellings. It blocks the clear open site, designed by Southern Housing Group to discourage anti-social behaviour, a real problem here in the past.

To fund the costs of this unpopular building, the intention is to rent out space for functions, in the evening and at the weekend, possibly involving alcohol and the behaviour that can provoke.

In these economically challenging times the temptation for the council to abuse this idea could mean seven days a week from late afternoon when the café closes to 10.30pm with no let-up for residents, who should not be accused of being reactionary to a planned location which in some cases is only a few metres from their windows.

The council’s behaviour has given us no reason to trust it or any evidence that such rentals would be handled responsibly. It is a cynical money-making venture. It may well force this project through but it cannot pretend it has widespread support from the community or that it has behaved openly, honestly or even abided by the results of the consultations it set up. It has in fact cheated at rules of its own game.