JERICHO ECHO ARTICLE
December 1982
Early in the summer, at the initiative of John Sutton, more than thirty signatures were collected to endorse a letter to the Council about various kinds of pollution for which Lucy's factory seemed to be responsible. We approached people mainly in Southmoor Road but also in some of the other roads around. We did not try and organize a mass petition, thinking that this might have to come later if our first approach failed.
The reaction to our request for support was interesting. There was clearly a very high level of indignation about what many called: "Lucy's ability to get away with anything". Some people thought that the only solution was for Lucys to move. They may be right but meanwhile it seemed to us that it was right to attempt to get Lucys to co-operate with the local residents. We also resisted suggestions that there should be a campaign of public embarrassment, enlisting the maximum political support. We felt that there was more mileage in trying to persuade Lucys to adopt a positive "good neighbour policy", to work with the local residents not apparently against them. We were well aware that the relevant laws are not as strong or specific, as they might be in requesting the various emissions of soot, grit, smoke, fumes and noise.
In the event we kept our M.P. in the picture and also a number of local councillors, from whom we had much support. We also had much advice and encouragement to pursue matters in the way described, from Mr. Garrod, the Chief Environmental Health Officer. His officers visited the area at various times throughout the summer and took readings of pollution levels. He caused an informal meeting of interested parties with the Environmental Health and Central Committee to be set up. This meeting took place on 28th October. It was attended by David Coleman and me. Unfortunately John Sutton was abroad on business. Everybody was given a chance to speak, and the speaking was frank and good-tempered without being bland. Minutes were taken.
Towards the end, the Chairman invited Mr. Holland, the Managing Director of Lucys, and Mr. Dick, another Director who was also present, to consider the usefulness of regular meetings between the firm's management and the local community. This was thought by all present, including councillors, to be a step forward which would be likely not only to secure but also to sustain a good working compromise. To this Mr. Holland readily agreed. He also invited me to write to him or ring him personally between informal meetings if occasion arose. Shortly after the meeting, Lucys circulated a letter from the Managing Director, which many local residents have had. This made the good points that the firm gives stable employment to about 550 people, has already spent considerable sums of money to reduce pollution and is committed to monitoring the situation.
People to whom I have spoken generally consider the letter to be a constructive response, a good beginning to a "good neighbour" policy. We shall only be able to judge over a period of time whether it will bring distinct and discernible improvements. We hope so. I am aware that there are other matters in addition to pollution, which concern Jericho residents. Perhaps the "good neighbour" policy could be induced to cover these too? For our part, if the present arrangement of positive cooperation with the local residents and regular contact does not in fact work, we shall be in a much stronger position to argue our case more publicly, as reasonable men who have failed. I believe, however, that the omens are good and that Lucys management has shewn good faith. We have a basis for living cheek by jowl in reasonable amity.
Author: Seamus Rainbird