November 14
Why no compensation for the residents? Bury St Edmunds has become a permanent building site – road closures, diversions, limited parking facilities, dust, noise – the list goes on.
No wonder the town seems more and more empty of shoppers – who in their right mind would want to do battle with all of this let alone live near the development?
Why is it that developers can cause so much havoc and wreck people's lives and get away with it? If I caused damage to other people's property in this way, I would be committing a criminal offence, yet construction work causing noise, dust and fumes pollution seems to be above the law and a ticket for builders to do what they like.
Why are the people living near the Cattle Market development not being compensated, or at least being given a Council Tax reduction in recognition of the noise, mess and loss of enjoyment of their amenity?
Name and address supplied.
It's hardley 'eye-popping'
Anyone reading the Bury Free Press in recent weeks could be forgiven for thinking that St Edmundsbury borough councillors want to award themselves pay rises of 'up to 44 per cent'. Not true, of course, but it's a terrific story.
The reality is that the proposed overall budget increase is 2 per cent. The first part of the recommendation is that the basic allowance paid to all 45 members goes up by 42 a year to 5,160 before tax, a rise of 0.8 per cent. Set against the latest RPI inflation rate of 5 per cent this is effectively a pay cut in real terms.
Based on an assessment that councillors work an average of 75 hours a month (2.5 hours a day, six days per week) this equates to 5.73 an hour, the level currently set for the National Minimum Wage. Hardly 'eye-popping', is it?
The second part of the recommendation relates to the Special Responsibility Allowance paid to 20 posts, comprising cabinet members, committee chairs and vice-chairs, where extra time, expertise and commitment are required. If the recommendations are accepted by the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP), two posts would be deleted, thus saving 3,072 and a further four committee chairs and vice-chairs would suffer a reduction of 1,476 in total. Minor adjustments to the six other committee posts has led to an overall sum of 96 in total to be shared between them.
Recognising that since a cabinet-style system was introduced in 2002, decision-making has shifted gradually from committees to the executive, the Members' Allowances Panel (MAP) is recommending a transfer of 4,454 to the seven part-time cabinet members. To save anyone adding up the pluses and the minuses of changes to these 19 posts, I can tell you that it will cost the local tax payers 2 in total. I've told Cllr Paul Farmer that we must get it right next time!
The panel regards the post of leader of the council as full-time and that continuing to treat it as part-time is neither logical or fair. Given the degree of responsibility involved and a budget of 50 million, a similar position in the private sector would attract a six-figure salary. Set against the average national wage for full-time workers of around 23,000 a year, the proposed figure of 14,448 seems modest by comparison. I hope that when it next meets, the IRP endorses our views.
David Nettleton,
Independent,
Members' Allowances Panel,
Cannon Street,
Bury St Edmunds.
We need a new bridge
Now we are finally going to have an asda on the western side of Bury, am I the only one who can see a need for a footbridge/cycle path over the A14? Not only will this bring easy access to asda to their customers with no need to use a car for a bag of shopping but will be of benefit to all business in that area again in getting cars off the road.
C Goldman,
Thompson Walk,
Bury St Edmunds.
Now leave them alone
I read with interest your article (Bury Free Press, October 31) on the effect the credit crunch is having on the evening economy.
I can't imagine that anyone is having an easy time at the moment, so can all the residents and councilors who have caused so much anxiety and added pressures for the licensees over the past few years, please leave them alone for now and let them concentrate on trying to get through this financial crisis the best way they can.
Name and address supplied.
Bombs hit us in 1916
Dr Cunliffe's article on the bombing of Bury in 1915 was of particular interest to me as my family were bombed out in 1916.
They lived at 11 Victoria Street and the bomb dropped halfway between Chalk Lane and Victoria Street.
My mother and my three sisters were in the house when the bomb dropped and were in the room where the window was blown in. Fortunately, none of them was hurt although a soldier standing in Chalk Lane was killed. My surviving sister, Eileen Plumridge, is now living at Fornham House and must be one of a few people left to remember the night of March 31, 1916.
My father, who was away in the Army, arranged for the family to be evacuated, first to Hartest and then to Shimpling. He probably felt that Victoria Street, being so close to Gibraltar Barracks, would be far too dangerous.
For those interested in the history of these bombings, Moyse's Hall has a wonderful little booklet, very well illustrated with photos and a map, entitled Zeppelins Over Bury, at the bargain price of 3.
David Evans,
Hardwick Lane,
Bury St Edmunds.
How can this be justified?
I and my neighbours received a letter from the local council informing us of some improvements to the spinney behind our houses. It informs us that paths will be added with view points. The spinney will be thinned out so the middle is in view from Mount Road. This is to stop anti-social behaviour.
I have lived in this house for 18 years and the only anti-social behaviour I have heard is the owl hooting late at night and the pigeons early in the morning.
This area is about the only untouched piece of land on Moreton Hall. It is filled with an array of wildlife including muntjac deer. Any changes will have a huge impact on their natural habitat. Why does the council need to add these features? Who has asked for these to be done? The residences that back on to the spinney certainly didn't.
Why were we not contacted and asked our opinion before now? The work is due to commence on November 17.
When we are reading so much about the financial crisis and people struggling to make ends meet, I wonder how does the council feel justified in spending money on things that are not necessary.
I would be interested in the Council Tax-payers' point of view and if there are any Bury Free Press readers who could help to stop this travesty from happening.
Wendy Harvey,
Sheerwater Close,
Bury St Edmunds.
A waste of our money?
You say in your article (Bury Free Press, November 7) that the changes to a two-tier educational system are dependent on Central Government funding.
In the present financial climate and with the amount of opposition there is to the scheme, is there any guarantee that this money will be available and when?
If there is no such guarantee in place, I would suggest the whole exercise is a deplorable waste of tax-payers' money.
Susan M Snajdr,
Via email.
I can't praise you enough
I WOULD like to praise West Suffolk Hospital, in Bury St Edmunds, for the treatment I received when I was a patient for replacement knees this year.
Everything went well and I have nothing but praise for the doctors and nurses who looked after me.
The care I received was second to none, as was my aftercare, and I am walking well. I can't praise the hospital enough.
K G Brown,
Stow Road,
Ixworth.
Pathway is a great asset
I just have to respond to the letters I've read in the Bury Free Press lately suggesting that the excellent cycle path between Thurston and Bury St Edmunds is underused because of some individuals' bad behaviour.
My husband is a volunteer ranger for Sustrans, the sustainable transport charity, which worked with the local authority to bring about this section of National Cycle Route 51. He and fellow volunteers regularly litter pick, sweep and cut back vegetation along the stretch between Thurston and the Flying Fortress (and beyond). Occasionally, they have been met with indifference but mostly appreciative thanks by the various users who have increased very considerably over the time it has been opened.
Every time he is on the cycleway, he is greatly heartened by the number of people using it for getting to and from work or school and for leisure activities, so in no way would he consider it underused. That's not to say there isn't plenty of capacity for more! However, we could do without the dog walkers who DO pick up after their dogs and then throw the plastic bags into the hedge left hanging like unsightly 'fruit' and making it extremely unpleasant for the volunteers to have to remove. As for the road crossing, it was always going to be difficult logistically and financially though it is planned that, in time and finances allowing, improvements will be made.
This off-road, dual-use pathway is a great asset to our community. Don't let the odd person's ignorance put you off. Use it and enjoy it like countless others do on a daily and weekly basis.
It's particularly heartening to see whole families out cycling along it at the weekends and there are pubs with gardens at either end of this stretch to provide refreshment, too.
Find out more about Sustrans at its stall at the Green Fair, in the Corn Exchange, Bury, on November 22.
Penny Kelly,
Via email.
Houses too close to site
I write in reference to the letter written by Rupert Read of the Green Party concerning the proposed Wyverstone windfarm development (Bury Free Press letters, November 7).
We at the Stop Wyverstone Windfarm Action Group (SWWAG), which now comprises nearly 600 members, concur with his assertion that climate change is a real and present concern and that the development of sources of renewable energy is vital.
However, I must take issue with several of his other assertions. In the first instance, his reasoning that because the site is not a 'designated site for conservation or landscape quality' and so is 'perfectly suitable for a wind-farm' is risible and simplistic. Most of Suffolk is not designated as such, but that is not a valid reason to site two turbines that will dominate and destroy countryside.
It also betrays a lack of understanding of local issues regarding this development, including noise, potential health issues, visual blight and the very close proximity of residential housing. I suspect this lack of in-depth local knowledge probably stems from him living 50 miles from the proposed site.
Secondly, I find patronising and worryingly authoritarian his dismissal of 'local authorities who are worried about votes'. The last time I looked, we were living in a democracy and I find it reassuring local authorities are concerned about the worries of local people.
Thirdly, I would refute his accusations of 'nimbyism'. The facts are that the location is unsuitable due to the close proximity of housing, unanswered questions on how these turbines will be built and then connected to the national grid and, most importantly, the extremely low efficiency of the turbines due to the fact they are proposed to be sited in one of the least windy areas of Britain.
Paul Ryle,
SWWAG member.
Everyone interested in the countryside should know that a windfarm application for a site in Wyverstone was received by Mid Suffolk District Council on October 27, ref 3342/08.
The application is for two turbines, 130 metres high – eight times the height of the trees and overshadowing ancient bridleways.
There are less than three weeks in which to object. Please write to Mid Suffolk District Council with your views.
P G Davidson,
Badwell Ash.
'Under offer' is not 'let'
Concern leads me to reply to Sara Mildmay-White (Bury Free Press letters, October 24).
First, I must point out that the term 'under offer' does not mean the property is signed and sealed 'let'.
Second, given the close proximity to the opening of the arc (spring), the cavalier attitude that (only) 15 of the smaller units and one larger remain vacant, because they only make up 15 per cent of floor space.
Add these 16 units, plus the five that are vacating the town centre for larger units within the arc (presumably these five have been included in the number already let and have not re-let their original premises?), and any shops that are vacant at present, then we have a total of 30 which will be unoccupied (not 16).
Roy Day,
Park Road,
Bury St Edmunds.
Five people helped dad
I would like to thank the four young lads who helped my dad when he fell over at the bottom of Station Hill/Tayfen Road on October 16.
They kindly helped him up, called an ambulance, waited with him until it arrived and then stayed until he had been assessed.
I would also like to thank the young woman who stopped in a car and helped to clean him up.
My dad is now recovering at home with two broken arms.
It is really good to know that there are still lots of good youngsters about.
Bev Diaper,
Bury St Edmnunds.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Bury St Edmunds
Wednesday 08 February 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: -2 C to 0 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: -1 C to 1 C
Wind Speed: 6 mph
Wind direction: North east
