Last updated at 12:10, Thursday, 18 October 2012

"I AM deeply saddened and concerned about these proposals, which if they become a reality, will have a significant effect upon the well-being of the community, and especially Whitehaven.

Many of the proposed cutbacks are directly concerned with people’s quality of life, and appear to have been made without any real concern about the effects such cutbacks might have.

All local councils throughout the country are faced with the challenges of the current economic crisis. Many, however, have been able to respond to the challenges with more creativity and sensitivity than others. For me, this situation raises several important issueswhich need urgent consideration by the community and by Copeland Borough Council. The first is that the council’s present structure is overburdened with too many elected members who are both unnecessary and too costly.

Following the last review of local government in the county, Copeland promised to begin a process of reducing the number of councillors. Up to date it would appear that nothing has happened to this effect.

Coun Woodburn is correct in her statement that only the Boundary Commission has the powers to review the number of councillors. However, the Commission is unlikely to do that without being asked to do so by Copeland.

The council is calling on unpaid voluntary groups to run the services that are under threat whilst the council continues to pay 51 councillors their expenses. This is not fair.

Many of the decisions that have created these proposals have been made by high-salaried senior officers who do not even live in Copeland and so are personally unaffected by the damage likely to be made to the quality of life of Copeland residents.

The proposals pose a significant threat to the economic and social well-being of residents. Much of this potential damage could have been avoided if Whitehaven had its own town council, as Egremont, Millom and Cleator Moor have. Whitehaven needs its own elected councillors to stand up for it and to work solely for the well-being of the town.

Over recent years, large amounts of taxpayers’ money have been wasted on various schemes which have failed to succeed, the Hemingway Town Centre Strategy and Pow Beck Stadium being two examples.

Such schemes have lined the pockets of various “consultants” whilst taking up many hours of council officers’ time. What benefits are there to show for such use of money?

The unhealthy attitude which Copeland has towards our nuclear neighbours has developed a culture of dependency and unrealistic expectations on the part of the council. I wonder how big a part the council is expecting Sellafield and its associate companies to play in bailing them out of this crisis.

I agree that the nuclear industry has a responsibility to support the communities of West Cumbria, which it does admirably. It does not, however, have any responsibility to run local council services for them.

I believe that the current economic crisis is a good opportunity for the people of West Cumbria to seriously consider what they really want from their local council and what local government should look like in the future. After all, we are not only the ‘customers’, we are also the paymasters.

The Rev John Bannister, rector of Whitehaven

First published at 11:08, Thursday, 18 October 2012
Published by http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk