[yerself]

I received Gayle's reply to my e-mail about 1 hour ago.

Thank you for your comments. In response to your email and some of the
other questions that have been raised by others.

I know I can't change anyone's mind on art - it's a subjective thing and
there are some forms of art that I like and some that I don't too. But
what the paper is failing to tell you is that the 'humps' are just one
of the possible earth works that may be developed. The designer has
done one design which uses some of the elements from the Hyndburn coat
of arms which might be more acceptable to people if the paper was
prepared to admit it. The final design will be developed using children
from the local community - the future generation who are likely to use
the Coppice as you do.



It's part of a wider scheme to get people out into the countryside using
the Regional Park area of East Lancashire. And yes, it is a bit sad
that sometimes someone needs a reason to climb a hill but look how many
people climb up to see Darwen tower simply because it's there (try
knocking that down now and wait for the reaction). This scheme is going
to bring a shed load of money into the town - we know that for a fact
because the Halo (the design originally rejected by Hyndburn) has
attracted further funding for the site on which it is now going in
Rossendale. It is likely that the Coppice will attract similar sorts of
funding (talks are already taking place between two other funders) and
that money will be spent on developing pathways, clearing trees, sorting
out parking and all the other things that are needed. None of the money
spent will come from Hyndburn Borough Council. The Panopticon £50,000
is coming from North West Development Agency and so is allocated for
that purpose, it can not be spent on anything else. If we don't have a
Panopticon we lose the investment.



Plus, it's inward investment so local businesses and local people will
be doing the majority of the work and of course, getting the money for
it.



No harm will be done to the existing monument (although I presume people
won't object if we clean off the graffiti) or the trenches.



It's only when it is put in context that it makes sense. The paper's
question was extremely leading because they haven't given the public all
the facts. If they had said 'Does Accrington want us to invest in its
future?' the result might have been a bit different