You are quite
correct in making an issue of the intention to close the
vehicular access to the promenade. It is a mean gesture and not
one demanding a high priority. I walk along this area quite
frequently and would make the following observations;
1) The
fishermen who use this area are by far the biggest problem. They
seem to be able to take there vehicles on to the length of the
promenade with impunity. Furthermore they seem to think they own
the area. They block the pathway with their vehicles, chairs and
other paraphernalia and show no respect whatsoever to other
users of the area. There are serious health and safety issues in
that I witnessed a fisherman whose fishing line broke when
casting with the result his lead weights and hooks struck a
pedestrian with the hooks impaling themselves in the persons
coat. Had they struck them in the face the effects would have
been very serious. The fisherman showed little remorse. Having
witnessed this potentially serious accident I wrote to various
authorities drawing their attention to the event and the hazards
of allowing fishing in the area but none showed the slightest
concern or interest – an appalling situation in my opinion.
2) Frankly
this council, in common with many others, are showing a high
degree of cowardice in that they are justifying their existence
by hitting ‘soft targets’ rather than dealing with more pressing
and important issues. Motorised ship photographers are obviously
seen as relatively defenceless whereas as inconsiderate and
non-compliant fishermen would predictably respond with
aggressive non-compliance to attempts to control them and hence
from the council perspective are best left alone.
3) Do
the council have any plans to deal with dog owners who fail in
their duties to clean up after their beloved pets when
exercising them in this area? Whenever you walk along there are
large deposits of dog muck which have to be dodged. What about
the health hazards associated with this appalling disregard of
existing by-laws? Do the council not have any plans to enforce
these laws more effectively?
Sorry if there
is a hint of cynicism in my comments but I think it is totally
justified and I am sure future observations will prove me
correct. The council yet again have their priorities totally
wrong. I just wished to add my support to the points you make
and hopefully provide some justification to them.
Another correspondent who is a
council employee had this to say:
Just so you
don’t (quite) think yours was the only time that was wasted.
Having seen
the proposed closure and as an employee of the Council I
wrote directly to the Borough Solicitor asking why there
should be this “sudden” proposal.
I naively
thought that if there was some good reason, I should at
least take that into account before considering objecting.
I had no
response whatsoever. It seemed clear to me that this would
be pushed through irrespective of any objections and that is
what has happened. – all the
comments which you make are clearly quite reasonable. The
“People’s Panel” would always have been used as a
justification for overriding any other comments.
(even though there is no way of knowing what actually
went on at that event)
Peter Bowman had this to say:
I read
your correspondence with Wallasey about this situation, with
some annoyance at the intransigent anti car philosophy of the
powers that be. I have sent them a letter myself and have played
a slightly different tack to you as you will see. I really think
it is ridiculous that this area should be denied people who like
myself may have only a few minutes to stop and take in the view.
I also
think back to instances of a few years ago when I had an invalid
mother and would occasionally take her out in the car and park
somewhere where she could enjoy a reasonable view.
I
strongly suspect we are wasting our time but here goes! Perhaps
you could get the Wirral Globe (Is it still going?) to take up
the cudgels on behalf of the car bound grannies.
Peter is sadly right it probably has been a waste of time - but
it has highlighted how a council can ride rough shod over
people's wishes and and it is interesting to note that I wasn't
the only objector as suggested in the letter which I posted!