Attitude of councillors will create the raw deal’

I DO not understand the negative reaction of the town councillors to the district's plans.

The district's plans would result in a greater number of taxpayers in the town, thus reducing the "overhead" burden of the town's council on the taxpayers.

There might be inefficiencies to contend with - for example, the location of new developments should not require extensive re-building of existing services/infrastructure - but these challenges are not show-stoppers.

I think town centres are falling into disuse generally, because they no longer serve any useful purpose for workers.

As the population remains healthier for older, it's only reasonable to expect people to perform their chores such as shopping in the quickest and most convenient way possible.

Superstores offer this convenience, especially when they sit on key commuting junctions; town centres - often bedevilled by "cottage" planning and traffic congestion - are ill-equipped to offer such convenience.

Few elected officers seem to have the vision or guts to allow wholesale redevelopment of a town for its own survival.

Rather, they prefer to keep it in aspic, as if it should be a living museum, and to watch it die slowly and painfully.

I think the town councillors should look at the district's proposals as an opportunity to inject significant inward investment into the town for the benefit all of the town's businesses, citizens and taxpayers.

But, for the taxpayer, the council's attitude of "not in my backyard" represents the real raw deal.

Be grateful that you have the choice and the land around Royston to use.

In St Albans, decades of neglect have resulted in massive traffic problems in the city centre. Yet, the legacy of muddled "planning" has made unpicking this mess difficult.

MARTIN THORNHILL

St Albans Taxpayers Alliance