| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Clearing up after the horses | |
| Posted by: | Vanessa Smith | |
| Date/Time: | 20/02/15 11:08:00 |
| The results of the consultation are in - the majority of people who commented said 'No' to horses in the park. Great you might think, but not with this lot. Now they claim they can't terminate the lease unless the horse owner acts irresponsibly? There has been one nasty incident that culminated in a neighbour being bitten by one of the horses when he tried to help when a dog got into the park, that has just been brushed aside. The fact that councillors Curran and Mayne are also saying the decision was wrong, and that local councillors have claimed they were mislead by officers are also not of any consequence, in spite of a councillor being named on a delegated authority notice and then denying it! So a lease was given that actually shouldn't have been because the information given by officers was untrue, councillors were fed a load of nonsense but they won't pull the plug even though the terms of the lease allow for it. If the will was there this could be done - the fact that Cllr. Curran has decreed the horse must stay for a year is highly suspect, possibly if the council did give notice they would have to pay off the lessee, that is probably why there is such a reluctance to proceed. That's without taking into account the costs of re-instating the ground, so much for the claim from officers that they could save £2000 p.a. So residents get the mucky end of the stick for a bunch of incompetents who even now refuse to put their mistake right. Well, we haven't finished yet, this is absolutely not acceptable, but at least we know where we figure in the great scheme of things - somewhere behind the horses rear end! |