M JONES’ letter contained a number of flaws (Redditch Standard).
I Willcock’s letter made the wholly reasonable assumption that anyone objecting to the proposed cemetery at Ipsley meadow would have made themselves familiar with the reasons.
Unfortunately, M Jones has not done this as the assertion ‘few trees need cutting down’ amply demonstrates.
Road widening, provision of additional car parking, public transport access and probably a secondary access road will completely change the area.
That particular piece of the Arrow Valley Park is arguably the most scenic part, only rivalled by one or two views of the lake.
To claim over 600 objections are worthless as it is a small percentage of the entire population of Redditch is at best disingenuous.
That so many from Ipsley and elsewhere have taken the trouble to actively oppose this misbegotten plan is testament to the local strength of feeling.
Of course most people across the town will not be proactive.
I note M Jones lives in the Callow Hill area, would they take the same relaxed view if it was Morton Stanley Park?
I NOTE that more than 600 respondents is good enough for the Redditch Town Fund application to be passed by Redditch Borough Council’s executive committee.
Can we take it then that the planning committee will accept that as more than 600 people objected to the new cemetery at Ipsley Meadow that that plan will be refused?
Seems straight forward to me.
T Wilkes, Matchborough
IN RESPONSE to M. Jones’ comments (Letters, January 22), with regard to the proposal to use Ipsley Meadow for an overspill cemetery.
I don’t intend to go over the numerous very valid reasons why this is a ridiculous notion.
However, I will take issue with the ludicrous assertion that more than 600 objections is not many in comparison to the size of the town, together with the clear implication that, as such, it would be a perfectly acceptable development.
Using his same logic would invalidate virtually every election undertaken. If a political party only gets, for example, 35 per cent of the votes of the entire electorate who are eligible to vote, and the opposition gets 20 per cent of the votes, then one can’t argue that the one side with 35 per cent has no right to govern simply on the grounds that 65 per cent of the electorate didn’t vote for them!
The reality is that those eligible chose not to vote, the losing side can’t assume that all those who didn’t vote would have voted for the losing side.
Similarly, just over 650 objections in total, does not mean that the rest of the borough population are in favour of said development. Likewise, with only seven submissions supporting this proposal, one can’t assume that everyone else is against.
What is apparent, is that on the figures presented, for every one person who is in favour of this development, almost 93 people are against it. If one chose to extrapolate those figures on a percentage basis, it would seem to be pretty conclusive!
There aren’t many planning proposals that attract over 650 objections, or anywhere near it.
S Williams, Ipsley
I AM very surprised that no mention is being made about what is happening to Redditch Market.
Work starts for six months in February to repave the ground and Sketts who run the market have not told the traders anything – their contract is also up for renewal.
What is happening? Is the Borough council going to take it back?
I know at present we are in lockdown but us market traders should be told something, it is after all, our livelihoods which are at stake.
We were here before the Kingfisher Shopping Centre and we need to know what is happening and where they are puttign us while the work takes place.
Disgusted market trader
ANOTHER desperate appeal for hospital volunteers to take a small item from the Alexandra Hospital entrance to the outside of a ward is something a child of five could do.
Having been a ward volunteer for nearly five years, I and many other aged 70 plus willing helpers were unceremoniously dismissed from the important jobs we loved.
The current appeal invites all 18 plus to apply.
What the silly health authority does not say, is that over 70s are not invited.
On checking, the reason is that those in charge are scared to death of being hauled up before some nameless quango accused of breaking the age discrimination laws.
Is it not time that some of the expensive snowflake silly-billies who invent current legal stupidity were put out to graze.
F Piles, Headless Cross
NO GRIT- again!
On Saturday morning I had to drive on a 30 mile round trip to an NHS appointment at 9.15am.
There was no sign of a grain of grit/salt on any of roads, dual carriageways all in Worcestershire.
Our road was the worst and it’s a bus route!.
Don’t tell me the gritters are on furlough as well! – or is it just typical of Worcestershire Highways saving money again
.Remember the two lanes on the M5 when it was built.
Over the last few weeks l have seen a couple of cars that have skidded off the road through lack of grit, disgusting!
I HAVE just had my first Covid vaccine jab at Studley Village Hall.
The volunteer helpers were friendly, helpful and cheerful.
The organisation was superb.
Thank You NHS.
M Hay, Studley