Last night I attended our first Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee meeting since the election. From a representative point of view, nothing has changed. All 6 Ordsall & Langworthy councillors remain the same (since neither of the 2 up for re-election lost their seats) and our first point of business was to elect our community committee chairman, who also retained his position. Congratulations to Roy Marsh, he guides us through the busy agenda with a good degree of skill.
It has always slightly annoyed me that as a mere resident, representing no one group, while my voice can be heard along with all of the others in the room when it comes to discussing topics on the agenda – I do not have a vote when it comes to making community committee decisions. The rule is: you must be a ‘member’ of the committee to vote. Membership is open to elected members (I tried so hard!) and representatives of residents associations and other partner groups.
Therefore I was extremely upset and annoyed when the next agenda item for consideration by the community committee was the ‘approval of a decision to lock Chimney Pot Park from dawn until dusk’. After a lengthy, but thorough consultation which involved the entire ward (and beyond), the overwhelming result of the public consultation was to close off Chimney Pot Park at night. Without going into the problems that troublemakers have caused by congregating in the park at night – the residents of CPP have, quite frankly, had enough of the anti-social behaviour brought about by a minority of idiots in the park after dark.
Residents want the park closed at night. Personally, I voted for the alternative option (which was to light the park instead), but I respect democracy. I respect the 68% of people who out-voted me. Why then, would the community committee want to ignore the 68%? Simply, they did not like the idea of locking a park at night.
With no thought to the people enduring a living hell, who have to live through the constant onslaught of stone and bricks thrown against their windows & cars from the elevated position of the park, the ‘voting members’ of the community committee decided to ignore a full and proper consultation – intending to overrule local residents wishes.
At this point I made an impassioned plea to the voting members to re-consider and think about the problems of the area and more importantly what the residents of CPP wanted. I’m afraid all I think I have achieved is to hold off the decision for a couple of months – since after some heated debate with a voting member from the Pendleton/Broadwalk area, it was decided to defer the decision until the next community committee meeting in July (where Neighbourhood Manager Ross Spanner will present a full report on the consultation, including actual numbers of people who responded).
It is my profound wish that Chimney Pot Park has re-established it’s residents association by the time of the next community committee meeting, since if they have, they would be entitled to vote on this very important matter.
I cannot fathom why we should (and do) allow people from outside the area make decisions in our area. The only two ward councillors who attended the meeting both live outside Langworthy, yet they were granted full voting rights. Members of residents associations from Pendleton and Islington Estate were also allowed to vote, yet I, someone who lives close by the park, was not. Nor was their anybody present from Chimney Pot Park itself to either speak or vote.
Voting members of the community committee should remember why they are there – to help make the area better for local people. They have a unique privilege in voting, and therefore a unique responsibility to think beyond what they want themselves and represent the unheard population who need their wishes and requirements met.
Not at all. I welcome engagement within the community. I assume you mean Councillor Clague (an Ordsall councillor, not a Langworthy one).
I actually know the representative from Pendleton to whom I referred in my blog post (from Pendleton area), we agree on many things – just not this one!
I have no problem with people who speak out, but I do have a problem with local decisions being made by people who do not live here. That’s not right in my book. Neither Councillor Clague nor Councillor Loveday live in our ward.
I dont think anyone wishes to go against the wishes of the local residents if they have been consulted in a proper manner. The fault lies I think with what the committee was asked to do. It does appear strange that SALT did the conusltation (where they paid to do it) and then didnt declare an interest whn it was discussed.
I think the committee are fed up with poor agendas and papers that make no sense and what was asked for here was a proper report so a decision could be made. Not sure whats wrong with that its appears to be democracy.
Finally it was not one person who made an issue Councillor Clegg sat near me requested it be deferred for further information. Obviously you have an issue with local councillors and now people who speak out.
You are perfectly entitled to your interpretation of the way the meeting went, my blog contains mine. There is nothing inaccurate in this blog post and if it was not for the one person who claimed the process “was a mockery”, then the decision to lock the park would have been approved. One person decided to make an issue of it, and quite frankly I thought his reasoning was poor.
The council is often criticised for not consulting residents and just doing what it wants (I know, I have been critical of the council in the past for this behaviour, of which they have form). The one time we perform a proper consultation and ask residents what they want – we ignore it! This is not democracy!
As a result of Tuesday’s meeting, the park will be open for the next few months at exactly the time the residents wanted it closed off (summer months) and more trouble is bound to happen. What is going to happen in 2 months time if the voting members are unhappy with the number of people who expressed a view in the consultation? I am sure they will decide not to lock the park – totally against the residents wishes. The voting members need to remember why they are there and who they represent.
I was present at this meeting and I am afraid it would appear that you are trying to make political capital out of this situation. The so called voting members,( I too am not one) simply wished to have the full facts before they voted. This is democracy whether you like it or not. You often appear hot headed in your comments and appear to be laying the blame at one person from :
“pendleton” perhaps the only one who spoke any sense. You really must try and restrain from trying to embelish the issue and make inaccurate comments on your twitter about this matter