| Topic: | Re:Horse Play in Isleworth? | |
| Posted by: | Vanessa Smith | |
| Date/Time: | 06/02/15 08:39:00 |
| The Leader of the council - Cllr. Curran did confirm to me that it should be the Lead Member with cabinet responsibility who should indeed sign a Chief Officer Delegated Authority. He said he would expect that Lead Member to do this in consultation with local ward councillors, from what I have been able to glean, from the outset the Lead member has been airbrushed out of the whole matter. The question is, exactly what was Cllr. Sampson's role in this? Her name is on the delegated authority, although she has denied to me that she sanctioned this? I doubt Cllr. Curran could have been more offensive with the tone of his e-mail had he really tried, it was obvious from the wording that he considered the whole matter to be a small irritant and we should all get over it. So far we have come up against a web of buck passing, blame, bully-boy tactics and lies. The council have - if you will pardon the pun, driven a coach and horses through their own 'local plan' which designates this area as 'open space', neither do they seem to have had due regard to their own 'Strategic Property' decision making process. This requires all strategic property matters that require "CLT, Cabinet, Single Member or Borough Council decisions to be made in compliance with the approved Property Strategy and taken through SLAB (Strategic Land and Buildings group) to consider proposals before the report is taken forward and any formal decisions are made. All reports will be regularly monitored for compliance." Is there a point to any of these grandiose policies when deals can be struck without a by your leave? There are still questions to be answered, why for instance when this grazing lease can be terminated by a month's notice from either party has this not been done? Why have councillors maintained this situation, even though it has been admitted they got it wrong and have asked Cllr. Dennison to investigate to ensure that nothing like it happens again? There has to be reasons for this reluctance, any consultation they manufacture now will be tainted and unfair unless it can be done with the situation returning to the status quo, namely the park being returned to an open space. Then people need to be asked to decide how best this open space can be utilised for as many local people as possible to derive some benefit from it. The officer's disgraceful and wholly incorrect reasons given to a local resident and copied to Mary Macleod M.P. used his own authority's neglect of the area to justify Hounslow's actions in this - I quote "In this instance this piece of land due to its nature (with restricted access and no active management or advertisement as a park"). It should also be noted that there is an access road that runs alongside the park, plenty big enough for a decent sized vehicle to drive its length, so wrong again. Isn't it great when you can just lie and do it with the authority of the local council? This park has been used for many years by a good many people, it just needs some TLC, neglect is no excuse for what has been done here. This is an urban residential area not some sort of rural idyll, these open spaces are important for the leisure, social and health benefits they can bring, and that should be for the benefit of as many local residents as possible, not one individual. |