LDF Consultation descends into farce!

With around 74,000 people eligible to take part in the consultation over the future of the Borough only 118 responses were received to this opportunity for local people to tell their Councillors and Council Officers what they think is important.

Some of the responses were from Parish Councils and can be regarded as expressing the views of their villages, other like the Homebuilder's Federation were lobbying bodies acting for their own interests rather than for residents.

The Council officers have interpreted the information received as indicating that residents want Bury St Edmunds to continue as before. This despite the fact that only 19 of the 80 replies to this question opted for 'business as usual,' with 61 respondents preferring another option as their first choice.

After 46 out of the 118 respondents thought the Western Suffolk Sustainable Strategy was 'the right spatial vision for the Borough' the Council officers interpreted this as 'having majority agreement'. Most people will understand that 46 out of 118 does not make a majority!

Should 46 responses from potentially 74,000 people form the basis for establishing policy in the Borough?

I should think not!

We cannot condemn the efforts of the Council Officers who did such outstanding work to give residents the opportunity to take part. It was advertised in every household. It was advertised in the local paper. Letters were sent out to various bodies in the town to encourage participation. The Council ran two workshops for residents to take part, but only 18 attended! A web site was set up, which unfortunately very people visited, and the consultation could be completed online.

No effort was made to get these workshops out into the rural areas. However they did organise 29 drop in sessions across the Borough, which did include the surrounding villages. However according to Council Officers these rarely had more than one or two local residents 'drop in', and there is no indication that they were successful in persuading residents to participate.

Overall a huge effort in time and money was made by the Council to encourage residents to take part. They chose not to. But now the majority face polices imposed on them by a very small minority who did participate.

We have to seriously question the value for money of this exercise, creditable as it has been in trying to get the 'you the public' involved. Should taxpayers money be spent on such a scale to ask the views of the public on sometimes complex issues.

Perhaps in future such issues should be left to be decided by the Councillors elected by the public to represent them, and the money saved used to reduce Council Tax?