Are objections from residents being minimised?

A similar meeting of this committee took place in July 2004 when this development proposal was first aired.

Both meetings were chaired by Coun Briggs and both meetings were attended by approximately 50 members of the public, the majority of whom appeared to be against the proposal.

At the first meeting, Coun Briggs took some time explaining to the public that, despite their objections, the proposed development would probably proceed as the land had been earmarked for housing.

Furthermore, in the event of a rejection of the proposal, a subsequent appeal by the owner of Quemerford House would prove costly to the district council.

At the meeting last week, five members of the public were allowed to express their opinion to the committee, others were not allowed to speak because they had not registered their intention to do so with the secretary before the meeting opened.

The five who were allowed to speak had registered their intention with the secretary because they had previous knowledge of the system at these meetings. At no time was it made clear to members of the public prior to the meeting that it was necessary for those who wished to speak to register their intention.

However, a member of a company employed by the council to carry out an ecological survey of a part of the site was allowed to speak despite the fact that he had not registered his intention to do so.

I firmly believe that the public has a right to assume that the chairman of a committee such as this is unbiased in his handling of meetings of this nature.

However, Coun Briggs gave the impression at both meetings that he holds firm views favouring the residential development at Quemerford House and was trying to minimise objections from local residents.

Is this local democracy in action?

A K Hill

Calne