YOUR report (LET, December 10) regarding the planning application for the former May House restaurant in Blackburn to become an Islamic religious school was totally inaccurate and misleading.
St Silas' church council's objections to the proposals were portrayed as vindictive, stupid and petty.
First, you did not make it clear that the phrase "massive problems" was solely to do with the fear of adding to the traffic and parking problems which already exist.
Secondly, your report stated that "the church is worried that the new development could badly affect its plans for celebrating its centenary next year."
We said no such thing, and it is plainly mischievous to misconstrue over words this way.
As can be seen below, the church centenary was mentioned simply to underline the fact that the church and parish centre have been established for many years and it is our wish that nothing should interrupt the normal routine of parish life. This, our letter to the planning officer, ended with these two very important paragraphs which your report took completely out of context:
"St Silas Parish centre has been used since 1838 for religious purposes, and the Parish Church celebrates the centenary of its opening next year. The Parochial Church Council is therefore particularly anxious that nothing should prevent or hinder the activities of the Parish Church, the Sunday School and all the groups who use the Parish Centre.
"The Parochial Church Council is also particularly anxious that nothing should be allowed to threaten the good community relations which exist in the district, and it considers the proposed development too much of a risk to take in this sensitive matter."
The REV BRIAN STEVENSON, St Silas' Vicarage, Preston New Road, Blackburn.
Footnote: St Silas' church council's objections were summed up in two paragraphs of a 13-paragraph report. This was not "totally inaccurate or misleading" but a resume of an extensive report, covering several objections, in the borough council minutes which itself condensed Mr Stevenson's letter to the planning officer - Editor.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article