THE decision by the JAC to reject the idea of subordinating the preservation of a unique natural feature regularly enjoyed by many thousands of tourists to the development of a traffic stimulating and damaging project was not unanimous.
The motion moved by Councillor Gwyn Eburne was quite clear in setting out the primary duty of the JAC, the protection of the AONB. This must include recognising the clear planning criteria which cover the AONB. The proposed cycleway breached all of those planning criteria and the Feasibility Study made it clear that the cycleway project would damage the AONB. It did suggest that such damage could be minimised.
Given the full text of the resolution which Councillor Eburne moved it would appear that those who voted against the resolution or, to a lesser degree, abstained from voting on it are not committed to the aims of the JAC in preserving the AONB.
Whilst I venerate (sic) their right to wish to see the AONB subjected to unsuitable development surely they should continue their campaign to promote the change of status of the AONB from outside the JAC. Personally given the divergence of the views of the dissenting councillors from those of the majority I should have thought that their resignations would have been tabled shortly after the meeting.
Certainly the attitude of certain of the dissenting councillors at the close of the relevant meeting indicated their extreme disappointment that the vote had gone against them. I believe they should offer their resignations forthwith. – Allan B. Carpenter, Brockweir.