In reply to Freckles:
> (In reply to toad) In terms of public accountability, if the Land Trust were to secure the contract we would be accountable to the county council as much as the other two interested parties. I understand your concerns that if we were government funded there would be a conflict of interest but this simply isn’t the case.
>
> Yes, you are right to notice that some of our sites are old colliery sites, but we also own and manage ecology parks, community woodlands and award winning wetlands and stretches of Cumbria’s coastline. Although these sites all differ wildly in their specifications and needs, they are all managed with the same ultimate aim: that they are cared for forever. This will be the case with the Roaches too. Where appropriate, we will get organisations like the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust to manage sites on our behalf – giving the benefit of local knowledge, skills and experience supported by the security of a national organisation.
>
> As for the Trustees they aren’t just development or remediation experts, there is a great breadth and depth of knowledge including some very passionate conservation and environment professionals.
>
> When we take on a new site, we always, always set up a friends of the park group and prior to ANY changes or management plan implementation we contact as many stakeholders as possible to seek views and opinions on how the site should be managed, maintained and evolve. Everything we do is in recognition of ‘local ownership’ without the legal or financial liabilities so that the public at large can enjoy such spaces safe in the knowledge that they will be there forever.
>
> Regardless of the outcome next Friday, if you or anyone concerned with the management of our open spaces wanted to meet up and have a frank and open chat I’m sure the Trust would be happy to arrange something. We may even stretch to a cheeky pint!
I'm sorry, I've been over your site with a fine toothcomb. All I can see is that you manage a variety of post industrial sites (Including the award winning wetland!). The Roaches is a fundementally different site, with a fundementally different outlook on management required.
As an example, I think you misinterpreted my "frends of" comment. I'm not talking about a "friends of xxx" volunteer group, overseen and directed by you, I referred to the Friends of the Peak District - ie an example of an external and independant charity whose opinions you should seek, ideally through committee positions in your organisation.
On a wider, and more worrying note, I can still see no way for users to have any sort of influence or role within this organisation, beyond unempowered practical volunteer roles - Any organisation managing such an important site MUST be publically accountable - I can't see anything on your website like Articles of Association, for example.
As it is, It looks from your public information as though you exist purely to implement section 21 agreements, provide a site management service to public bodies, and undertake similar service agreements. I'd point out that the Staffs Wildlife Trust have rather more in the way of security and support of a "national organisation" than the Land Trust do - the Wildlife Trusts national holding dwarfs yours, and they have been in existance for rather longer. And, of course, the NT are in a different league of experience and ability again.
I'm sorry, but my comments about being worried about the Land Trust still holds, and your reply does nothing to reassure me. Put simply. How can individuals hold the Land Trust to account? We can't vote, we can't join.