ARGOS Consultation with Scarborough Harbour Users Group
Harbours correspondent ALLAN ROBERTS reports on a curious disparity in the various ARGOS consultation processes. Is someone attempting to tilt the playing-field again?
I draw your attention to the two statements at the foot of this article.
One is of a screenshot, passed to me by an unknown source, the other is of a comment made by the South Bay Traders Association, and currently displayed on the Council Planning Department website, where it is marked, by Planning, as ‘NEUTRAL’.
I do not know the identity of the ‘stakeholder’ who has been tasked with organising this meeting to discuss the ARGOS development, nor do I know who made the request for the meeting.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that Scarborough Harbour Users Groups (SHUG) representatives may, in the short space of 5 days, be asked to make statements/assumptions on the behalf of its members, on an important and deeply contentious issue – an issue completely unrelated to Harbour business.
I understand that, by law, there must be a Public Consultation for ARGOS to proceed, and where those Harbour-users who live within the Castle Ward, and who are therefore most likely to be affected by ARGOS, will be able to state there case personally.
Let me draw your attention to the manner in which the South Bay Traders Association (Chair: Mr John SENIOR MBE, pictured above) has chosen to deal with this identical issue, quoted from their comment currently available to view on the Council planning department, and posted below for your convenience.
The SBTA states that the Association has:
“made no comment either for or against [the Argos development] and have directed its members to write directly to the Council the Council in the normal way”.
Two questions spring to mind.
- Why does Scarborough Harbour Users Group require an Extraordinary Meeting to discuss the ARGOS development?
- Would not Scarborough Harbour Users Group be wiser to adopt the strategy of the South Bay Traders Association and remain ‘NEUTRAL’, thus allowing its members speak for themselves?
Comments are closed.