Forum Topic

GeorgeIt is annoying when people don't answer questions. I have to say that anyone reading this might think you were the elected politican here, not me. Are you really suggesting that because i am paid as a local cllr, that i have to account for my views, which i am happy to do by the way, but you, who are not paid as a local cllr, can say whatever you want on this forum and never have to account for what you have said. I don't understand why you would say that giving people back their own money is the same or worse than just throwing away money. That's pretty insulting to a lot of people GeorgeDo you really beleive that the only people who need money in a recession is the local council, central government or the people who receive services from the local council. What about people who go to work and pay the bills, use very few council services, why shouldn't they receive their money back. We knew at the time that there were cuts coming to local government. We also knew that people and business's were struggling with the recession. Please explain why giving these people back their own money is the same as throwing it away. I am sure you are aware that every labour cllr at the time voted in favour of this, including the current cabinet, with the exception of cllr hitesh tailor, who is newly elected. Finally, I didn't see the cashback as a bribe, what i said was, it could be described as a bribe. It's a pity you can't answer my straightforward questions, and you have to twist what i said then. That is sad.

Colm Costello ● 5568d

Hi GeorgeI didn't ask if you were happy with the decision and I suspect you know I didn't ask that question. You seem to be answering the question you want to answer and not the one you were asked. Are you happy with HOW the decision was made George. Are you arguing for whoever is in power never to put any facility on the borders of the borough. You say you were highly disatisfied with the Tory decision to give people back their own money. I'm not surprised you are disatisfied with the Tories. you seem to be looking for opportunities to highlight your disatisfaction with us, and at the same time you  seem to be bending over backwards in an attempt not to criticise Labour. As far as the decision to give people back their own money, that shouldn't have been a big surprise to you. Our starting point is we believe in small government and when we get an opportunity to reduce the size of the government, we do it. What should have surprised you is that every member of the then Labour group of Councillors(which includes all the Labour Cllrs in the cabinet now with the exception of Cllr Hitesh Tailor who is newly elected) voted in favour of the measure to give people back their own money and they actually wanted to go further than we did. they wanted to give the money back in August, we opted for the end of November and the beginning of December. The money we gave back was a windfall that we weren't expecting so it didn't involve cuts to the budget. As far as bribing the electorate with their own money, everything we offer in our Manifesto could be described as a bribe. We offered to continue our spend on resurfacing roads. We spent over £20m in four years which was more than Labour had spent in their 12 years in power on roads. That could be described as a bribe. Labour in their leaflets in my ward during the election promised to increase the number of Rangers if they were elected. That could be described as a bribe too. I can't argue with you on that. Now, can you tell me, are you happy with HOW Labour made the decision to move the skatepark from Elthorne park to the Gurnell site George

Colm Costello ● 5572d

GeorgeThe problem here is the way the decision was made and what motivated the new Labour council to move it away from Elthorne. Their motivation was to keep their supporters in Hanwell happy. Is this how you want your council to be ran. The council doing for their supporters and not the general public. The way they went about it too is not acceptable. To move it away from one place to keep their people happy, then announce the new site without any plans to consult with the people in that area is an absolute cheek. They have now thrown together a consultation after the decision was made. Do you believe that if it gets 31% opposing it that they will move it somewhere else. As far as Phils abstaining, I haven't spoken to Phil about this so I don't know what his reasons are. that is why I didn't say anything about that. Phil didn't choose the site. There was a number of sites looked at by the officers who then presented them for discussion at the youth provision scrutiny panel which I sat on. The number was narrowed down to three. The perivale park, Northala park and Elthorne park. The panel recommended Elthorne parkGurnell was not considered I believe because we would have to build on a flood plain. I'm fairly sure that is still the case and it goes against our planning policiesIf the Hanwell community forum, whose chair announced at a meeting in a neighbours house which was arranged to go over the success's of the street party held on station road in 2007, that she was a lifelong Labour supporter(no one asked her what her political affiliations were) hadn't submitted an application to designate Elthorne park as a Village green, and the new Labour administration had respected the results of a big consultation that we had done where an overwhelming majority were in favour of the proposal, then we would have a skatepark in Elthorne park now. We don't because some Labour activists and their friends didn't want one there. It didn't matter to them what the consultation results said and it didn't matter to this new Labour coucnil either. What their supporters want is more important

Colm Costello ● 5574d

GeorgeI am fairly sure that the decision made ar overview and scrutiny was to uphold the new councils decision to put the skatepark in the Gurnell site without doing a consultation with the residents there first. One of the main reasons given was that there was considerable local opposition there. 31% of those consulted were opposed to the plan to put the skatepark into the Elthorne park site. 69% were in favour. That's overwhelming support in my eyes Those opposing the previous conservative administrations decision to put the skatepark into Elthorne park were Cllr Yoel Gordon(Labour) who i believe sat on the overview and scrutiny committee that voted to move the skatepark away from Elthorne park. Cllr Gordon had campaigned before against the decision to put the skatepark in ElthorneCllr Mrs Lauren Wall(Labour) also voted to move the skatepark away from Elthorne park. Lauren was a member of the Hanwell community forum who campaigned strongly against this from the minute the decision to locate the skatepark in Elthorne was made. This committee submitted an application to designate the Elthorne Park area as a village green in the knowledge that this would delay the councils plans to build a skatepark there. Laurens husband Ray, also a Labour cllr, I believe  encouraged the regulatory committee not to make a decision yet on the village green application at a recent meeting of the regulatory committee. Ray somehow also got onto the overview and scrutiny committee that made the decision to uphold the decision to move the skatepark to gurnell.  Then there was the high school who made their case. I don't agree with them and think that this skatepark would have caused no more noise or disruption to the schools life than the multi use games areas that are at the back of the school and even closer to the school than the skatepark would have been. Most people who live beside high schools accept the disruption that comes with living beside a high school. I think the school should have respected their neighbours wish to have this skatepark located here, as the results of the consultation suggested. Almost 70% of residents consulted in this area wanted this to go ahead and it hasn't becasue of labour activists in the Hanwell community forum, Labour councillors who campaigned against the skatepark, then sat on a committee that voted on this matter and voted for what they wanted, not what the 70% who voted for this to go ahead. I believe also that the chair of the governing body at the school is Margaret Majunder, former Labourt cllr strongly opposed this too because she didn't want teenagers hanging around a high school. why on earth would you go onto a governing body at a high school if you had such a low opinion of teenagers. I disagree with my fellow conservative cllr Phil taylors comment about labour (in)action. They were very active here, and their actions showed no respect to what the majority wanted. They have made a rod for their own backs here. Any consultation that only has 69% support can now easily be chaleenged.

Colm Costello ● 5574d