So, shortly before polling day, and to very little reaction, Colchester Council has announced the sale of Abbeygate House for use by Gurkha veterans and their families (Gazette, April 20).

Previously, the council alleged Abbeygate House was unfit for use by local pensioners, so how can it now be fit for use by Gurkha pensioners?

Is this a relic of colonialism, where subject peoples had to make do with whatever was not good enough for their masters?

Or is it just that Abbeygate House is a perfectly good home for anyone, and the Gurkha veterans have spotted a bargain? If so, well done them, and they will be very popular residents.

But the fact remains this sale permanently reduces the number of sheltered flats available to our fast expanding and steadily ageing population.

This must be the last sale of Colchester’s family silver.

We must do what we can to halt this process of our council abdicating from its responsibilities.

Tim Oxton
Creffield Road
Colchester

...Angel Kalyan is correct when she highlights the role of the monitoring officer in Colchester Council’s decision-making (Letters, April 25).

His input is understandable since he is the council’s legal officer. However, interpretation of the law is not an exact science and his refusal to allow a debate following submission of a petition against sheltered housing closures really does not stack up.

Clause 14 of the petition procedure rules makes it clear that if 1,800 or more signatures are obtained, there will be a debate by the full council.

This condition was fulfilled, but, notwithstanding, a debate was denied by virtue of clause 4(a).

In the opinion of the monitoring officer, the petition is vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate to be dealt with.

The officer’s reasoning is that since a decision has been made by the council’s cabinet, it is inappropriate for the debate to take place.

Interpreting rule 4(a) in this way would allow the council to refuse any petition it did not like.

As a consequence, the decision to sell two complexes was made by eight councillors (the cabinet).

The other 52 councillors had no say in the matter.

This cannot be called democratic by any stretch of the imagination.

Can I, like other correspondents, urge all voters to use their vote on May 3.

It is clear from Gazette letters over the past year there is dissatisfaction with many of the council’s decisions and this is an opportunity for us to tell it so.

Norman Bailey
Cambridge Road
Colchester