How can Rutland County Council planning committee approve 'the most expensive building project in Rutland's history' when only four out of the nine committee members voted in favour of the project?
It is an affront to local democracy, another major embarrassment for the county and, I suspect, another example of a council committee dancing to the Cabinet's tune.
Is it the fear of losing government funding, the fear of being ostricised by the
ir council colleagues or the fear of having to face a disenchanted Rutland public that motivated the majority of members to abstain, rather than vote positively at the meeting?
The facts as reported last week clearly suggest that the plans that have been approved are seriously flawed and should not, at this stage, be forwarded to the government and Sport England for approval, as they fall short in a number of ways.
The only council owned and controlled playing pitches in Oakham are at the Vale of Catmose College.
The proposal reduces them by at least one third. How does that improve the facilities available?
What is more, due to the recently approved Vision 2010 the most logical space available (Rugby Ground and Royce Rangers pitches) which might help to overcome this problem are to be given over to housing.
In addition, government policy now stipulates that schools will have to provide five hours of sport every week for all pupils. The current plans clearly do not cater for this increasing demand.
With regard to the issue of lighting, the committee is right to be concerned about the effects of light pollution on neighbouring properties.
They also need to be just as concerned that, without suitable lighting, outdoor sports cannot be played safely or at all at night.
This fundamental point must be intrinsic to the concept of a sports centre. How can the plans be approved with this issue left unresolved? It's a nonsense.
If any of the five members who abstained agree, then they should have voted no. They may, of course, have other serious concerns not covered in last week's report.
This is too important an issue to be approved by default.
If the government office for the East Midlands and Sport England appraise this project effectively, they will reject it.
So Rutland either misses the boat completely or we end up with a £26m white elephant. Either way, those councillors sitting on the fence will have an awful lot to answer for.
David Beswick,
via email
The full article contains 417 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
