Neighbours are at loggerheads over a plan to restore bollards around the village green - why am i not suprised this is happening around richmond?!


By yilla6 at 2013-07-27 21:58:24
Richmond, Greater London, UK
11 replies
1753 views
Page [1] 2 of 2
2013-07-27 21:58:24

This is the most beautifully stupid dispute I've seen.

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/10572283._/


Edited: 2013-07-27 21:58:53
2013-07-27 22:00:23

Shit is without a doubt going down in zone 3!


2013-07-27 22:09:28

Mr Coates, 50, said: “Enclosing both greens with a fence of bollards and railings will be a huge inconvenience for thousands of users who come to enjoy them as open spaces with free, unhindered access. “Why should local tax payers have to pay for the maintenance of what is justly described as a vanity project for those few people promoting it?

Absolutely right.


2013-07-27 22:10:35

SirDawsonCloud wrote:
Mr Coates, 50, said: “Enclosing both greens with a fence of bollards and railings will be a huge inconvenience for thousands of users who come to enjoy them as open spaces with free, unhindered access. “Why should local tax payers have to pay for the maintenance of what is justly described as a vanity project for those few people promoting it?

Absolutely right.

Counter balancing that -- when metal was taken from railings/bollards for the war effort, it was every time on the arrangement that it would be replaced.

Also worth noting that these bollards are relatively small, and the bar is easy to walk over.

Quite how they could be a serious hindrance to anybody of average walking aptitude is a tad confusing.


Edited: 2013-07-27 22:10:58
2013-07-27 22:11:38

Seems a bit harsh to single out folks of below average walking capability for more inconvenience.


2013-07-27 22:19:55

samthesheriff wrote: Seems a bit harsh to single out folks of below average walking capability for more inconvenience.
Seems just as harsh to deny the majority a pleasure because of a handful of people? It's not as if the green is being blockaded with enormous barriers -- it's a discreet bit of heritage being restored, and there will forever be plenty of gaps left for those unable to raise their legs up a bit.


2013-07-27 22:23:17

yilla6 wrote:
SirDawsonCloud wrote:
Mr Coates, 50, said: “Enclosing both greens with a fence of bollards and railings will be a huge inconvenience for thousands of users who come to enjoy them as open spaces with free, unhindered access. “Why should local tax payers have to pay for the maintenance of what is justly described as a vanity project for those few people promoting it?

Absolutely right.

Counter balancing that -- when metal was taken from railings/bollards for the war effort, it was every time on the arrangement that it would be replaced.

Also worth noting that these bollards are relatively small, and the bar is easy to walk over.

Quite how they could be a serious hindrance to anybody of average walking aptitude is a tad confusing.

Yes but the war was a very very long time ago and if it hasn't been done so far I don't think there is any need to do so now.

It's merely a quaint misuse of money.


2013-07-27 22:28:34

Most heritage refurbishment is a quaint misuse of cash if you look at it in entirely economic terms, except we elect to waste it for the social good it delivers.

Just for the reason that it took 70 years to fix the damage done by WW2 doesn't mean the repairs shouldn't be carried out.


Edited: 2013-07-27 22:28:47
2013-07-27 22:30:21

jomaDD wrote: Most heritage refurbishment is a quaint misuse of cash if you look at it in entirely economic terms, except we elect to waste it for the social good it delivers.

Just for the reason that it took 70 years to fix the damage done by WW2 doesn't mean the repairs shouldn't be carried out.

Yes and this is why we have a thousand separate heritage trusts around the country who uphold what they can with the funds they receive. I object to council tax being forcibly taken to finance such stuff. If people actually want it, let them shell out for it. Don't take it out of the council budget.


2013-07-27 22:35:10

tez7 wrote:
jomaDD wrote: Most heritage refurbishment is a quaint misuse of cash if you look at it in entirely economic terms, except we elect to waste it for the social good it delivers.

Just for the reason that it took 70 years to fix the damage done by WW2 doesn't mean the repairs shouldn't be carried out.

Yes and this is why we have a thousand separate heritage trusts around the country who uphold what they can with the funds they receive. I object to council tax being forcibly taken to finance such stuff. If people actually want it, let them shell out for it. Don't take it out of the council budget.

The tax donation is 5% of the total and comes from cash already earmarked for local improvements.

It may be debatable whether the council ought to spend money on making the place we live in seem nicer -- but if they are to do so, then £5k is barely a rounding error in their yearly budget.


Page [1] 2 of 2
Your reply has been removed

Your reply has been restored

Your reply has been edited

Edit failed

An error occured

Are you sure you want to delete this discussion?

Thread delete failed