Topic: | Re:Reply | |
Posted by: | Joseph Cairns | |
Date/Time: | 15/06/19 02:22:00 |
Richard, thanks for the reply however, 1) The 1996 review comment is only an opinion, expressed in emotive language. 2) The ‘Royal Parks’ commission finding that most traffic is through traffic is an indication of how valuable the park is for alleviating traffic on surrounding roads and indirectly the need to consider the surrounding environment when contemplating changes to traffic management changes in the park. 3) The 2003 comment you quote is again only an opinion, unsupported by any quantification of the ‘threat to the delicate balance within it’. Furthermore, you fail to mention that the results of the 2002 consultation (Appendix B of your linked report) revealed overwhelming opposition from all 3 adjoining boroughs to the closure of Robin Hood Gate yet the ‘Royal Parks’ agency went ahead and did just that. In addition, two of the three boroughs called for responsibility for the management of the park to be transferred to the local authorities (so that decisions are democratically accountable). The fundamental problem of this latest ‘consultation’ is that it is being carried out by a democratically unaccountable organisation with a limited agenda. They have no responsibility for the harm they may do to the surrounding areas by their short-sighted decisions. It is time to take up Wandsworth and Richmond’s proposal to the 2002 consultation for the management of the park to be handed over to the local boroughs. Only then might we get holistic solutions to these problems and some degree of democratic accountability. Finally, instead of calling opponents of these proposals ‘selfish’ you would be better advised to seek out objective evidence to support your claims. |