Keep the Level Green replied on 21 November to the Greens’ rejection thus:
“Thank you for your mono reply. Keep the Level Green was somewhat surprised to receive just the one reply, and not from just the nine of you who were approached, but also by another four uninvited councillors! Keep the Level Green could perhaps be excused from thinking it would receive nine replies with different takes on the situation.
Disappointingly, you all chose to make this a Green Party political issue and by doing so you have effectively inhibited your ability to act for your own constituents. Keep the Level Green only invited the nine local councillors from the wards adjacent to the Level and yet you sign your reply “For and on behalf of the City Council’s Green Group of Councillors”.
Should you not each be supporting something, or not supporting it, on the basis of what you think is best for the residents of your own local community of which you too are a part?
Furthermore, we invited you to support our campaign because we felt it would help us. We wanted you to support us because we hoped that you would agree with us that keeping the north end of the Level open and green was best for the local community at large, both now and for the future.
Your strategic advice is questionable when you say that a possible planning application being made in the future could result in a conflict of interest. Only Paul Steedman and Ian Davey are members of the Planning Committee so only they needed to have remained “neutral”. Coincidentally, you are happy to trumpet the Lewes Road Tesco affair as a Green victory and make much of Ian Davey’s part in the campaign, and yet there he sits on the Planning Committee. Nevertheless you, the Greens, decided to support that campaign regardless. One would assume also that the Conservatives did not join the campaign, so that was taking a risk! Bit of double standards going on there.
You say you “share residents concerns over the previous 2009 consultation” but then seem prepared to accept just one part when you say: “…we are aware that certainly some residents are attracted by the increased space that this would allow for children’s facilities in the southern area. In fact it is likely that many of those who responded ‘yes’ to moving the skate park in 2009 did so for those reasons.” Cake, and eating of said cake, springs to mind.
Finally, would you, and here Keep the Level Green now of course mean: the Green Group of Councillors, be prepared to support a Parks for People bid that included building on the north end of the Level?
In anticipation of a clear response,”