|
|
 |
| |
I'm still
keen to see democracy at work
• I attended the planning committee meeting at
Camden Town Hall part of which concerned the proposed mortuary
in Oakford Road, around the corner from where I live.
I had never been to such a meeting and was eager to see
democracy at work, a naive illusion which was shattered only
a few minutes into the proceedings when the chair, Councillor
Heather Johnson, began by berating us all (and there were a
large number of residents present) for being so naughty as to
have deluged the committee with our emails and letters.
Apparently this gave too much work to the committee (presumably
they are busy with more important matters than hearing the views
of people they are supposed to be listening to).
Cllr Johnson’s dismissive manner continued for the rest
of the evening whenever she had to address the rabble (we, the
people) and put us in our place.
My second shock came when I leafed through the voluminous report,
copies of which were available at the door. Concerning Application
No 4 (for the mortuary), The Yard, 2A Oakfod Road, NW5, listed
under ‘Against the Application’ were only nine names,
whereas 314 letters objecting to the mortuary were sent. Under
‘In Support of the Application’ 108 names were listed,
many of which were of businesses and/or of people not living
in the streets affected by the mortuary plan. Something fishy
was afoot. When I asked someone why the 300-plus letters of
protest were not included, I was told that they did not mention
the word “submissions” or had been sent to the wrong
clerk, or something.
Whoever received our 300-plus protest letters, if they were
moderately intelligent human beings and not robots, must have
realised which application the letters referred to and therefore
which file they belonged under.
Apparently they did not and those letters are lost in a Camden
black hole. By some magic, however, the “supporting”
letters found their way to the proper pigeonholes. Coincidence,
of course.
By this time, I was not surprised when Cllr Johnson, in her
best headmistress tone, threatened us all with eviction from
the chamber if we did not stop applauding after the deputation
given by Felicia Olney and Roz Maxwell (representing the Burghley,
Lady Somerset and Oakford Roads Residents Association).
Ms Olney clearly and concisely presented the facts and precise
reasons for the neighbourhood’s objections to the mortuary,
all of which can be read in the report.
The response to our deputation given by Ms Roslyn Cassidy, whose
company Green Endings is the applicant for the mortuary, did
not satisfactorily address our specific concerns but dwelt mainly
on what a loving, caring and green funeral service her company
provides.
The letters she collected to back up her application are like
references from satisfied customers and wholly irrelevant to
the issues we address.
Nobody has objected to Green Endings per se or questioned the
company’s reputation. Our concerns are legitimate practical,
physical, environmental and psychological concerns by those
of us who live close to the proposed mortuary.
When the voting at the end of the session went in favour of
the application, it was clear that “proposed” was
a euphemism for “foregone conclusion”.
Democracy at work? Hopefully, this is not the end of the story.
Natalie d’Arbeloff
Lady Somerset Road, NW5 |
|
|
|
