ABERDEENSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS - MIR: DO OUR COMMUNITY COUNCILLORS REPRESENT US OR THEIR OWN PRIVATE VIEWS?
Many of us will be disappointed with the conclusion reached by the Newtonhill, Muchalls & Cammachmore Community Council as they do not seem to me to have represented the views of our community fairly as required by their remit - "to represent the views of residents to the local authority, national government, and other official bodies, as set down in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973". Many will feel that the representation with 106 signatures in relation to the proposed development at Elsick should have carried far more weight than the NM&CCC response to the MIR reflects.
On the other hand the North Kincardine Rural Community Council have given a very unbiased view and for those of us present at their Public meeting we felt they listened and represented everyone's views correctly.
The balance of views depends very much on the impartiality of the membership of the local community council and it is sad to see that the present membership of one of the community councils seems to lack the appropriate quality of impartiality.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Well........
Well boys, I do believe there is now a vacancy on the Community Council so this is *your* chance to 'put your money where your mouth is' as the saying goes :-))).
Dxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can see where you are
I can see where you are coming from Country_Boy.
I was extremely dissapointed following our Public Meeting at the Bettridge Centre, with respect to the Tesco Application, when on the immediate CC Meeting the following week that I attended as I am entitled to do, the question was asked, "Do we (The Community Council) support the application"?
The fact the Public Meeting vote had a majority to support the application still in my opinion, was being scrutinised by the CC only days after.
I held my tongue, as there was "General" agreement by the CC to support the application albeit with concerns that were raised during the meeting, as rightly they should have done.
The mere fact the question to support the application was asked, seemed like the final say so rested on the shoulders of the CC and during THAT meeting, could have been the exact opposite to that which was voted in favour for, by the Newtonhill Residents.