Sir, I am a local resident who doesn’t live close to the park but uses it to on an almost daily basis and I wish to strongly object to the rhetoric, tone and almost childish attitude used to describe then dismiss individuals who have had the temerity to use their democratic right to disagree with the views and actions taken by both Earlston Community Development Trust and Scottish Borders Council. Surely the Trust should recognise that the community’s different opinions need to be taken seriously and their validity recognised, not criticised, because they may not all necessarily be wrong. Community groups have to be open, inclusive and visible to everyone, willing and able to take on board a wide variety of views about it and its projects. Similarly, elected Councillors are expected to represent all constituents and not only support causes that they, rather than an entire community, have chosen to champion. For whatever reasons, the majority of local residents were completely unaware of the proposed change of the park’s use until a planning application came into the public domain in October and were only then alerted when a concerned individual posted the plan on the park gate, immediately raising awareness amongst its users. The lack of clarity may have come about because there is no evidence available of any robust, fact based consultation engaging with all sections of the community because none has taken place. The only meaningful activity appears to have been directed at those most likely to endorse the concept. Earlston has seen no public meetings, open debate or detailed discussions and therefore no in depth opportunity for interested parties to question or influence plans at the earliest stages of development.

Earlston’s opinions are currently divided over the impact of this project and the Council’s unilateral decision to change however small as section of the park’s, given that it is a very well loved open green space having been enjoyed for many years by all the generations of living here.

Perhaps its time that ECDT and SBC should both make the bold decision pull back on this issue and, follow Walkerburn’s example, embarking on a comprehensive consultant led community consultation exercise to establish the village’s shared future aspirations.

It may then be possible to build a co-ordinated plan for Earlston and although this may take time to develop, it is surely better to inspire, not divide, a community behind you and ensure you are formulating achievable plans which reflect local choices and target initiatives they all hope to achieve. I am, etc.

Sheila Gibb Earlston