LETTER: We need street traders like a hole in the head

I REFER to my letter published November 5th and the reply from Mr Townson, Pendle Council’s Legal Services Manager, who I thank for responding.

Friday, 19th November 2010, 1:24 pm

So, Mr Townson, black’s white is it? The council doesn’t want street trading, so the way to achieve this is to create a situation where consents are given out. This is a contradiction in terms.

To a person of my limited intelligence, I would have thought prohibition might be the way forward.

The response in Arthur Street and Walter Street, Brierfield, where objections were made against the street traders, was to make them prohibited streets. Don’t think for one minute we all came over in a milk float.

What Burnley has done is irrelevant.

The stance of our councillors from Colne, Barnoldswick and Barrowford is much more significant. Pray tell me why they have not been convinced by this particular brand of logic? It begins to look like there’s more to this than meets the eye.

In any event whatsoever, I still say the residents of (all) the streets must be consulted and honestly consulted, first.

Arthur Street and Walter Street, Brierfield, have been made prohibited streets, precisely because of objections that were able to be made against street trading.

And now we have the company which owns Pendle Rise shopping centre going into receivership!

We need cheap competition from street-based traders like we need a hole in the head. They would be a threat to our local and town centre shops.

There is a choice to be made. What we are up against is the “law of unintended consequences”.

Please, stop and think for a minute.

ROY PICKLES

Edge End Avenue, Brierfield