This week sees two of the council's more ardent critics (both live in my ward) in the top two positions on the page - unless you count the newish letters page within the letters page, which features the Town Council. (Roy Bebbington's picture seems to have appeared more often than anyone else's in recent weeks.)
Sir Reggie quotes Euclid and makes great play of the greater length of an arc as opposed to a straight line. He goes on to suggest that both the car parks and town centre shops, and new lavatories and town centre shops, will be further apart. He seems to have forgotten that there will be an underground car park almost as near to St Andrews Street South as the old Cattle Market one was. As for the loos, they will be nearer than the Risbygate Street temporary ones - and as can be seen from my picture above, they won't be very far from St Andrews Street either. Given the shift of the centre of gravity, and the need for loos on the new development, are they so badly sited?
Sir R also accuses the "(ir)responsible portfolio holder" (moi?) of describing our clocks, costumes and paintings as more accessible. Well, anyone who visits the Moyse's Hall exhibitions will find that these exhibits are indeed accessible: in a central town location where children are welcomed, and displayed in a fresh modern and interesting way. Sadly when I visited last Saturday none of the save the Manor House crew nor any of the public they claim to represent were there.
I found it hard to follow our other critic's letter. Martin Whitworth joins Sir Reggie and Anthony Platt in tastelessly using the passing of Peter Drew to attack the council, and then dismisses councillors and officers as having "no sense of" business or history. As well as generally criticising the Cattle Market development he suggests that instead of a single developer taking it on, individual plots should have been sold off "for people and companies to build their own properties" within a masterplan. I wonder what that would look like?
Finally, David Nettleton is on about "arc" again, claiming that a secret ballot would have produced a different result in the recent council debate. I don't think so David. Your own "block vote" is simply not big enough, following the May elections.