A council ‘not fit for purpose’

Re the Futurist: A lot of David Chance’s views in his letter were not actually relevant, just muddying the waters. There are several points that Diana Tasker has raised that are relevant.

I would like to question the decision made by Scarborough Borough Council on several grounds.

1. Were the votes of Bastiman and Co, and one or two other members, actually legal?

2. Why has all the emphasis only been on demolition, and little consideration, if any, given to the alternative offered by the Save the Futurist group?

3. The council over the past two years has failed in its upholding the covenant it signed regarding the maintenance of the theatre. Why?

4. Why do we keep hearing that the council can’t afford to keep the Futurist? We are not asking them to: we want to take over ownership and save it.

5. I already suggested a suitable alternative for Gordon Gibb on the North Side last year to the council chief executive Jim Dillon. No attempt has been made to consider this.

The vote made by council members should be cancelled, as it appears to have not followed full criteria.

Diana Tasker’s call for a referendum is to be supported because this council is not fit for purpose. MD Hellawell Ex-councillor Castle Ward Cross Lane Scarborough