But I still don't see why the Town Council (therefore the council taxpayer) is paying for all this? I can understand that the Town Council has been compliant in this "church car park". They have from time to time maintained this "Church Car Park". As I pointed out in a previous post the Church has a right of way over the village green. In exercising that right the Church has to reinstate the ground it uses. I don't see why the Council taxpayers have to foot the bill for users of this church to use of this "church car park".
At the Council meeting (6/1/10) the Conservative Town Councillors seemed to want to go for the grasscrete of option. This would have meant the a large cost for someone. Guess what? Most of the cost would fall on the Town Council!
Grasscrete blocks
There were some vague noises about asking Tesco for a contribution to the cost. But hold on my a minute. Where is the contribution from the church for something they consider as "their car park"? The Conservative Councillors have had months to come up with alternative proposals and costings.I don't care whether this piece of land is a green or a car park. I just don't see why the burden has to fall on the Council taxpayer!
1 comment:
I have to agree with your sentiments on this one. The grasscrete idea would be ideal, however, nearly £15,000 cannot be justified in the current climate. This area of land is village green and not a car park and the proposed solution would grant access to the church and provide an attractive grass area to compliment the green. I don't think anyone would have any objections to grasscrete if the church was willing to pay for it.
A decision had to be made that was fair to the whole of St Neots tax payers and I feel the solution reached does exactly that as it can be paid for out of the existing budget.
If the conservative goup were in control I wonder of they would have voted for this option? I doubt it....the luxury of opposition!
Post a Comment