The other day I commented on an attempt by a local businessman to purchase a right of way for an access road to his proposed housing development, which would result in the loss of up to 15% of the playing field area. The playing field committe were in favour of accepting an offer of more than £70,000.
Under the constitution of this registered charity it would require a 51% majority of residents attending a public meeting to approve such a deal.
Yesterday evening I attended the public meeting called to discuss the matter, and I was astonished to find the Village Hall bursting at the seams - standing room only, with some people standing outside listening through the side doors that had had to be opened. There were in excess of 300 people, ages ranging from eight to eighty.
In spite of feelings running high the debate was orderly, polite, and with plenty of good humour. One young lad (must have been around 10 or 11 years old) stood up and said his piece, saying that if they were going to finish up kicking a ball about near an access road and a housing development, balls might get kicked over the fence, damage cars etc., and it they went round to ask for their ball back "...they might - well - er - get killed or something!" This produced a good laugh and a round of applause.
I pointed out that up and down this country we have been selling off bits of playground and sports fields for housing development for the past couple of decades, and it was about time it stopped and we got a grip on our priorities: which is the most important - another batch of expensive houses that we don't need, or space for our children and grandchildren to play in. Regarding the playing field finances (often desperate) I said I was prepared to declare in front of the assembled public that I would be more than happy to contribute the huge sum of £1 per month by Direct Debit. I chose this ridiculous figure to demonstrate that if all these people who had filled the village hall did exactly the same it would provide an additional income of £3,600 p.a. This would more than cover the biggest annual outlay, i.e., the public liability insurance premium (nearly £2,000 p.a.)
When it came to the vote we were hugely amused to find that the committee had not printed enough ballot papers to go round. Since it had been clear which way the wind was blowing several of us suggested that we conduct the vote by a show of hands. This was agreed, and to make it even more significant, it was suggested the Chairman should frame the question in this way: Who is in favour of accepting an offer of £70,000? He did, and about four hands went up! Then he asked for the NO vote and a sea of hands shot up. Never mind a majority of 51%. This was a majority of 99%!
During the Annual General Meeting that immediately followed on, the Committee Chairman (a personal friend of the controversial businessman - but let's not dwell on that!) was (politely) given his marching orders. A new Chairman was elected, also a new Secretary and a new Treasurer.
There were over one hundred written pledges of regular donations to the playing field.
This was local democracy at its best in action. I was proud to be part of it, and it restored my faith in civic responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment