Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Glossing over an important issue



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 02 October 2008
Madam,

I attended the Derbyshire Dales District Council meeting last Thursday evening, September 25 as one of many members of the public and left in disgust before the Lido roof item was complete.
I pre registered my request to ask a question at the meeting and duly did so asking basically why the issue of the roof came apparently as a surprise and what condition monitoring took place.

In response (amidst a great deal of waffle) it transpir
ed that the Lido building was last fully assessed in 2003 and the findings were that rot was found in the roof but that the roof structure should last for four years or so.

This was quickly glossed over, and I was provided with no right of reply or opportunity to respond.

The specific point of the 2003 assessment was raised again by a councillor amidst concerns about the time taken to rectify matters but the response from council officials again glossed over the issue.

In fairness several councillors expressed their dismay at the time taken and the dissatisfaction over the Lido issue in the town and urged rectification to take place as soon as possible.

Then we were treated to a diatribe from a senior councillor who accused the public who attended as being pawns of the Matlock Mercury (at this point the heckling started) and this individual then proceeded to blame 'the opposition' for the Lido problem (the heckling volume increased).

I was incensed by this approach, felt it was merely a smokescreen and frankly was an insult to my intelligence.

I rose, stated loudly:- "I am not listening to this rubbish", stated the reality to be that the Lido roof had been assessed in 2003, given four years life and that the council had done nothing about it and very publicly walked out.

The situation, we now know, is that the Lido was assessed in 2003, a rot problem in the roof was discovered and a time estimate made for the remaining roof life, which has now obviously expired.

There is therefore no excuse whatever for the District Council to claim that the problem was unforeseeable and no contingency planning could have taken place.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened in legal terms had anyone been injured.

I think the Matlock public can draw its own conclusions, mine are unprintable in a newspaper.

Adrian Fletcher
Lums Hill Rise
Matlock



The full article contains 407 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 October 2008 1:31 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Matlock
 
 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you think we need the new phone mast at Cromford?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.