You are quite correct in making an issue of the intention to close the vehicular access to the promenade. It is a mean gesture and not one demanding a high priority. I walk along this area quite frequently and would make the following observations;
1) The fishermen who use this area are by far the biggest problem. They seem to be able to take there vehicles on to the length of the promenade with impunity. Furthermore they seem to think they own the area. They block the pathway with their vehicles, chairs and other paraphernalia and show no respect whatsoever to other users of the area. There are serious health and safety issues in that I witnessed a fisherman whose fishing line broke when casting with the result his lead weights and hooks struck a pedestrian with the hooks impaling themselves in the persons coat. Had they struck them in the face the effects would have been very serious. The fisherman showed little remorse. Having witnessed this potentially serious accident I wrote to various authorities drawing their attention to the event and the hazards of allowing fishing in the area but none showed the slightest concern or interest – an appalling situation in my opinion.
2) Frankly this council, in common with many others, are showing a high degree of cowardice in that they are justifying their existence by hitting ‘soft targets’ rather than dealing with more pressing and important issues. Motorised ship photographers are obviously seen as relatively defenceless whereas as inconsiderate and non-compliant fishermen would predictably respond with aggressive non-compliance to attempts to control them and hence from the council perspective are best left alone.
3) Do the council have any plans to deal with dog owners who fail in their duties to clean up after their beloved pets when exercising them in this area? Whenever you walk along there are large deposits of dog muck which have to be dodged. What about the health hazards associated with this appalling disregard of existing by-laws? Do the council not have any plans to enforce these laws more effectively?
Sorry if there is a hint of cynicism in my comments but I think it is totally justified and I am sure future observations will prove me correct. The council yet again have their priorities totally wrong. I just wished to add my support to the points you make and hopefully provide some justification to them.
Another correspondent who is a council employee had this to say:
Just so you don’t (quite) think yours was the only time that was wasted.
Having seen the proposed closure and as an employee of the Council I wrote directly to the Borough Solicitor asking why there should be this “sudden” proposal.
I naively thought that if there was some good reason, I should at least take that into account before considering objecting.
I had no response whatsoever. It seemed clear to me that this would be pushed through irrespective of any objections and that is what has happened. – all the comments which you make are clearly quite reasonable. The “People’s Panel” would always have been used as a justification for overriding any other comments. (even though there is no way of knowing what actually went on at that event)
Peter Bowman had this to say:
I read your correspondence with Wallasey about this situation, with some annoyance at the intransigent anti car philosophy of the powers that be. I have sent them a letter myself and have played a slightly different tack to you as you will see. I really think it is ridiculous that this area should be denied people who like myself may have only a few minutes to stop and take in the view.
I also think back to instances of a few years ago when I had an invalid mother and would occasionally take her out in the car and park somewhere where she could enjoy a reasonable view.
I strongly suspect we are wasting our time but here goes! Perhaps you could get the Wirral Globe (Is it still going?) to take up the cudgels on behalf of the car bound grannies.
Peter is sadly right it probably has been a waste of time - but it has highlighted how a council can ride rough shod over people's wishes and and it is interesting to note that I wasn't the only objector as suggested in the letter which I posted!