THIS weeks Redditch Standard letters.
ACCORDING to the police, the responsibility for enforcing parking restrictions lies with the council, as it employs the traffic wardens.
As I am reliably informed there is currently only one traffic warden to cover the whole of Redditch, it is hardly surprising that chaos continues to reign outside the schools in the area, with cars parked illegally and dangerously, engines running, polluting the air for residents and children alike.
Some of the problem is caused by blue badge holders who do not obey the rules under which their badges are issued.
I ask councillors to visit local schools in the area they represent and ask themselves if such conditions are acceptable, and if they would be happy to have to plan their day around school arrival and leaving time in order to be sure of being able to access and leave their property.
I feel they would have to agree that more traffic wardens need to be appointed.
Also, I do not know whose responsibility it is to enforce the rules on e-scooters, but it would seem that this is yet another bright idea from a local councillor with no contingency plans in place to ensure that what laws there are, are enforced, including the pavements being littered with discarded machines.
Fancy pie in the sky schemes for plazas etc are all very well, but what most residents would like to see are day-to-day nuisances dealt with such as those mentioned and pavements and potholes made good.
Mrs M Morley
Redditch
THE 72 per cent of residents who did not support the relocation of the library looked impressive, that is until you read on and see the actual number of people who responded to the council’s survey survey.
According to Google, in mid 2020 the population of Redditch stood at 86,996.
Therefore a survey of 1,467 responses is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things and hardly worthy of being given the elevated position of the front page on your Friday, June 9, edition.
I’m not sure who the council asked and when, but it seems to be a poll that very few people actually participated in, and probably many didn’t even know about.
It certainly could not be deemed to be truly representative of the people of Redditch.
It seems to be fairly typical of the media exaggerating and using statistics to create misleading headlines.
Somewhat disingenuous I feel.
Susan Roberton (Mrs)
WOW, I thought, reading the Standard’s headline of June 9, ‘72 per cent want the plan to move the library shelved’.
A thumping majority and presumably a body blow to elected representatives proposing a change of location.
‘Redditch residents do not support the move’ it continued.
I did, however, continue reading beyond the opening sentence and it actually transpires that 72.3 per cent of the 2.2 per cent responders oppose the move.
In other words, only 1.59 per cent of the Redditch population aged over 19 actively disagreed with any relocation of the service.
It may or may not be the case that 98.41 per cent of the population would actually like to see a move but it surely cannot be concluded that there is a massive majority against change.
For some people the siting is necessarily important due to mobility, health or other issues and I hope that such matters will be carefully considered and solutions found but I suspect that most people, like myself, do not really care one way or the other and to try and present conclusions without factual basis serves only to divert attention from the pertinent data.
In the recent local elections members of the Labour and Liberal parties expressed their opposition to a move and enjoyed some increased success at the polls but this may have been due to other local and national factors and not necessarily the library issue so cannot be relied upon as a basis for conclusion.
Elsewhere in the paper we were informed that around a thousand people attended a Pride parade which constituted ‘a success’, ‘a day of history’ and a ‘sea of diversity’. It is to be hoped that future events will build on such ‘success’ but 98.5 per cent of residents chose not to offer support or were unable to do so.
Statistics can, as we know, be used to convey a preferred slant on an issue and so, it seems, can the headline and report writer who must also be aware of and alert to their professional responsibilities.
D Yeomans
Headless Cross
EDITOR’S NOTE – The headline related to the result of the consultation – the only means possible to gauge public opinion – and it was made clear in the story what percentage of the population responded.
With regard to the consultation not being sufficiently advertised, both local authorities involved (borough and county) publicised it – including in the library building itself.
We also ran numerous stories detailing the poll and how people could have their say – in our print editions, on our website and on our social media channels.
AT THE Worcestershire County Council Corporate and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel June 8, Coun Hart repeated his ‘we’re in listening mode’ mantra.
A public consultation exercise with 72.3 per cent respondents opposed to demolition of and moving Redditch Library to the Town Hall would be loud and clear to most. Politicians could only dream of such an emphatic result at election time.
The Redditch Council proposals for improving the town centre have been restricted to a small group with access to considerable public funds, enabling them to promote their scheme.
Redditch’s increasingly diverse population alongside businesses around Church Green should have been fully involved to develop projects and enterprises to meet the challenging and urgent issues facing the town – not just an open space with some more cafes.
The primary claim for the present scheme is to increase footfall to the Kingfisher Centre and also make use of a half-empty Town Hall.
There is something of contradiction with Redditch Council wanting to dispose of what are already community hubs – the library and Community House but dubiously claiming the same for its own scheme.
The county council meeting which approved the public consultation referenced the ‘pioneering spirit’ of Redditch undergoing the new town transformation in the 1970s.
One of those aspects included replacement and upgrading of the town’s library.
The scheme to now go from a fit-for-purpose library to be inserted into the Town Hall is not an upgrade.
Even while the self-serving decision making processes are at an advanced stage the details of floor plans have still to be drawn up while officers spoke of adopting innovative measures such as moving furniture about and using some as storage.
There are claims about matching the current floor space going forward to the Town Hall – the open plan of that building means the variety of activities and services as currently provided and potentially developed cannot be transferred.
On the archives, why shouldn’t those pertaining Redditch stay here and why shoule people have to traipse to Worcester?
One rather alarming claim was that – due to location of services in the present library – children are ‘at risk of being snatched’. In five decades how many such incidents have occurred? None, as far as we know.
With the increasing need and demand for vital services can Worcestershire County Council afford to demolish a building and a site worth millions?
Another Coun Hart favourite was the result was of a ‘consultation, not a referendum’. So what is it – a cosmetic exercise?
Simply demolishing and wasting an established and valued community resource on the speculative notion that more would visit the shopping centre is not a good reason.
If Redditch taxpayers have to pay for a half-empty Town Hall, perhaps that needs to be disposed of to fund much-needed services.
While there was overwhelming objection to the council’s plans only 2.2 per cent of Redditch’s population (over 19) responded to the public consultation.
Is this issue a matter most people in the town aren’t interested in, couldn’t care less about? Is it apathy, disillusionment with politics, of not being involved or whatever they say will be ignored?
We need something new in Redditch to inspire, entertain, educate and contribute to the wellbeing and prosperity of all residents now and future generations and attract visitors.
Alan Godwin
Redditch
I WOULD like to respond to Darren Bagnell’s letter please.
The cost of a month’s travel for school and other journeys at £50 per month is now the rate to provide transport of this nature across the country unless it is subsidised by the taxpayer like in London.
The normal cost for a journey to and from school works out to be £700 per year.
If you are paying 10 months at £50 that is a great deal.
If the council has told you that your child has a place in a school less than three miles away you are not entitled to any financial help.
If it is over three miles then the council should subsidise, but if you have chosen to send your child to a school over three miles away there is no financial help.
The cost of providing public transport has increased by over 40 per cent in recent years partly due to covid but mostly because of Brexit.
Many Eastern Europeans who drove buses have left increasing the wage rate and therefore the cost, but most importantly parts are now so difficult to get hold of.
Next day delivery in some cases has turned into next month.
These are the real reasons for cost changes.
Andrew Harris
I WRITE regarding the Redditch Library Consultation Appendix C – Comments (worcestershire.gov.uk)
There were two surveys submitted in Polish, now translated into English.
No-one submitted their views in Urdu, nor any other language.
Members of Worcestershire County Council’s Cabinet should spend time reading these comments before its meeting on June 29.
And, of course, our county and borough councillor Matt Dormer must do the same – that is if he cares to find time to read the views expressed.
Just a warning, Appendix C is over 200 pages.
It includes a reference to Dormer’s dislike of the back wall of the library building, with a suggestion Banksy could be invited to improve it.
P Bladon
Southcrest
MP Rachel Maclean recently got caught breaking the rules by using taxpayers’ resources to campaign for the local elections.
She was supporting the same local councillors who broke the rules by using taxpayers’ resources too.
The same people now want us to believe that losing councillors and a thrashing in the popular vote is somehow a victory.
But if that’s not enough proof they can’t count.
Check out Rachel Maclean’s post boasting about her seven years’ service as our MP.
It has actually been six.
Anonymous
