There are three separate reports in the Observer (January 12) I wish to add my comments to. They have a tendency to be repeated week after week in some form or other and there are tenuous links between them.
It was predictable the Butter Market project was destined to lose its ‘market’ feel when the council, desperate for tenants, agreed for two up-market jewellers to take prime position. During the time discussions on the future of the building were taking place the future of the market’s unit-holders was also on the line. It seemed obvious then that whatever happened during the closure of the businesses during rebuilding, any that would survive would never be able to afford the rents that would be asked for the new building.
It seems there is more money to be made from the jewellers’ gold carats than from organic carrots! You quote Chichester City Council clerk Rodney Duggua as saying that the empty shops were not costing the taxpayer any money. So why can’t the council subsidise the units to attract proper specialist traders?
It was good to read that more than one million people visited the city last month and the council applauding themselves, yet there is still talk about closure of toilets; surely a facility necessary to be conserved to ensure visitor numbers continue to increase.
I was therefore surprised at the attitude of council leader Heather Caird in taking the view that as provision of toilet facilities is not a statutory requirement, it is fair game for cuts. Once again is no-one overlooking the whole picture?