Dear Planning Officer,
City Council Grandiosity – Objection to the Heavitree Artefact
As an Exeter citizen and taxpayer, I have been following the reports and public reaction in the local press relating to the foisting of a £70,000 piece of art upon us. As a frequent user of Fore Street Heavitree, I will welcome sensible tidying and improvement of the area, but am horrified at the City Council’s extravagance with money that could be better spent.
Having learned about the public meeting called for the 1st July, I was drawn to attend by indications that City Councillors and Officers were adopting the same bullying attitudes that have previously caused huge damage to community in the Whipton and Mincinglake areas. The Council seems bent on creating a fertile environment for vandalism and gang culture in these localities by withdrawing its support for volunteers engaged in children’s organisations that have served City families brilliantly for decades before being ‘constructively evicted’ from their Council owned premises.
The reason given for depriving us of the Summerway Junior LTC, a registered Community Amateur Sports Club providing truly affordable tennis for children, was that the Council couldn’t afford to maintain the premises. These have been maintained for over three decades by the local Councils for an average annual outlay of a few hundred pounds. So, Exeter City Council cannot afford less than £1,000 to constructively occupy and benefit 85 children, but can afford £70,000 for this monument! Where is its sense of proportion and care for the people?
I appreciate the complexities of the Summerway situation, and the difference between capital expenditure and an ongoing commitment, but ECC surely earns the epithet, ‘penny wise and pound foolish’. It denies the children crumbs, while spending thousands on grandiose projects intended to boost its own image. The injustice of this is something which needs to be exposed, however much effort is involved. The £70,000 is more than a local matter. It affects every City taxpayer.
The feelings of local residents regarding the lack of consultation are duly noted, as are the protestations of those associated with the Council that it has consulted adequately. Depth of experience has taught us that the City Council does not consult meaningfully before doing its own thing, and that it is important to judge its actions as they are frequently at odds with its words. We have found Council statements to be untruthful and even contradictory on occasions, but those concerned clearly feel that they can get away with such unworthy behaviour.
I do not wish to object to the proposed £70,000 structure on artistic grounds, as I agree that such things are a matter of taste. My personal opinion is that it is interesting, but far too convoluted for its proposed location. From a practical point of view, it is an obstruction within a pedestrian area, and therefore an unnecessary hazard. The space is more useful than the object. It makes far more sense to use the end wall of the gun shop for attractive artistic expression.
The City Council is clearly trying to bulldoze this item through, regardless of the feelings of its citizens. The public meeting struck me as an extremely balanced affair, and its message was abundantly clear as indicated by the vote. The Council should be serving the people, and not to be regarding communal resources as its own prerogative. This ‘us and them’ approach to democracy demonstrates the Council’s isolation from reality, making the Civic Centre into an ivory tower. Many points were made about the inappropriateness of the materials, and I am not convinced that future maintenance will not be required. It has to be something of a challenge to the vandals, and they certainly like a challenge.
Councillors and Officers are patently pursuing an inappropriate project at variance with the wishes of the citizens who have to live with it, so please abandon the wilfulness and listen to the people’s views as expressed through the public meeting. An elitist Council is being extremely unfair to a large slice of the City’s population. It should be much more equitable, as well as more responsible stewards of taxpayer’s money. Please reconsider.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Harle.
This objection was not acknowledged in any way, so whether it went unheeded, was overlooked, or was just dismissed out of hand remains a mystery. The matter of the Heavitree Arch is of greater simplicity than the Summerway Tennis saga, and therefore demonstrates the City Council’s modus operandi with the greater clarity.
Click this box to view a letter, published in the local press, pointing out who really runs the Exeter City Council. There seems to be a huge discrepancy between theory and practice.
£70,000 for a Status Symbol
Spending £70,000 for a controversial sculpture seemed so inappropriate that local residents held a public meeting to voice their displeasure when they learned the full details.
The ‘Heavitree Arch’ is yet another example of the City Council’s obsession with spending considerable sums of our money on expensive status symbols. It does the same in pursuit of its passion for unsupervised facilities. Contrast this profligacy with its failure to invest in volunteers and the community’s children, as in the case of Summerway Tennis.
Councillors and Officers have indicated that they will be going ahead with their
plans willy-
The City planning committee is scheduled to meet 21st July to approve proposals regarding improvements to the locality. If you subsequently notice a large stainless steel and glass archway, over sixteen feet tall, on your left as you run into Fore Street Heavitree on entering the City from the Honiton direction, you will know that the City Council has bulldozed public opinion and the interests of the community yet again.
Click this box to watch the Arch arrive on YouTube
( opens in a new window )
