Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by daveewood

  1. How is that even possible when you have to put in a UK postcode to sign it? Could this just be another falsehood from the Leave liars?
  2. I wasn't going to bother, but let's start with the legalities. The directors' legal duty is to the company, and make sure it's viable; if we try to "represent bus users", especially in our own wards, it's a conflict of interest! But the underlying philosophy at Network Warrington is of course to run a comprehensive service for the benefit of the Warrington public, at a lower profit margin than the "big boys", who would only run where they can guarantee profits into double figures (and local authorities simply cannot now pick up the slack, with budget cuts to provision of noncommercial services). As this is a thread about congestion, I'll not respond in more detail about the factors behind national and local drop in bus usage, but obviously out of town retail parks cut bus use, so do out of town offices (not now helped by the government allowing virtually any office to be converted to residential), and this is down to national planning guidance rather than local planning decisions. If people used all the lanes available at traffic lights, that would help congestion - e.g. why do so many drivers use the nearside lane on Winwick Road northbound approaching Cromwell Avenue even when going straight on?
  3. Most transport firms (from airlines to local bus companies) "hedge" against fuel price rises by bulk buying of fuel in advance. The last deal was before the recent slump in prices, which no-one predicted. And if cheaper fuel means people use their cars more, then that cuts bus journeys and revenue, and increases congestion. I'm not sure how you count 17 sets of lights, though it's in double figures. Unless you want traffic on side roads and Alban never to get out onto or cross the A49, is there any alternative to traffic lights? So far as I know, everyone thinks the new lights replacing the Long Lane roundabout have improved things. And before the Cockhedge roundabout is raised: the perception is that the lights cause congestion, but (as oft repeated) the lights only come on when tailbacks have already built up (and then it would be chaos as without the lights drivers would block the roundabout).
  4. I'm not sure if it wasn't a bit generated by a Warrington Worldwide article headed Anger as discount supermarket group moves in
  5. If you were selling your house, and the prospective buyers found out it was near one of the sites being considered, would you still say the Council should have published the list?
  6. If that was what every councillor got, we might get better councillors! That's only the leader's package, and whether he thinks it's "part-time" would be a good question. Do you really know Warrington councillors who think of it as a career?
  7. I wouldn't call being a councillor in Warrington "a political career"!
  8. Our award-winning Guardians? http://public-art.shu.ac.uk/other/warrington/00000015.htm For a quarter of the price of Brum's Floozie in the Jacuzzi I'd say we got good value. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/news-opinion/floozie-jacuzzi-runs-up-eye-watering-6450838 In 20 years we'll have the save our skittles heritage campaign...
  9. daveewood


    It doesn't really give any guide to pressure on the GPs unless you know how many GPs are in the practice. Getting through depends on how many receptionists they employ.
  10. http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/stuck-middle-over-glass-development-5288263 Is it quite as grey_man portrays the case? I'm not sure if the Supreme Court decision totally vindicated Farrall's advice but it seems less clear cut than the suggestion that Farrall "allowed it to be built", or that he somehow broke the law.
  11. I presume this is a mischievous reference to the Quinn Glass case. Didn't the Supreme Court eventually uphold Chester Council's approach?
  12. What do you think the result of a referendum on that would be?
  13. the quote "when the area around the memorial may change to accommodate changing opportunities and priorities within the town." is exactly what has happened here I took that as code for maybe it won't always be a traffic island. Get all the new roads built, including somehow a high level one over the ship canal from Walton and one of the bridges near the memorial might be pedestrianised. Move the traffic rather than the memorial.
  14. That's serious, and that's recent. I've no idea why you (or Dizzy) think I don't agree. But this thread began as about recent cases of inconsistency with hints of corruption, and you've said you can't quote them because of the destruction of pre-1996 records, but that doesn't stop anyone coming up with cases since 1996, and so far there's nothing that would pass as 'evidence'. Cases every week in the newspapers this year, Evil Sid said, but he's kept his head down since I asked him to back that up. You might be right, but saying there are lots of cases and then saying you can't prove it because of a cover-up is just conspiracy theory stuff. Can we now call it a draw?
  15. Sha, I didn't think there was any doubt who did it. 'A senior planning officer who had since left the Council had arranged to destroy records forming part of the statutory planning register'. Another officer knew it was unlawful but didn't do anything to stop it, and he's left the authority. It's possible others knew but (your words) their involvement in the matter has not been fully established, though you then say it has been established that they were at least aware of what was going on. That's hardly a basis for disciplinary action, and I still don't know which was the greenbelt case that was supposed to be inconsistent As for grey_man, I'll bow to his more intimate knowledge, or guesswork, of who knew what, but the records destroyed were pre-1996 - so we have 18 years of records since, so what are the cases that would back up his claim that 'anybody who has followed local news for a period of years will be aware of one particular surname frequently associated with retrospective planning approvals and one thing and another'.
  16. I was challenging two of you to provide evidence of recent dubious activity. The destruction of records happened over 5 years ago, and related to records prior to 1996. 'Warrington Borough Council wrongly destroyed records that formed part of the statutory planning register, so that it had no records of plans and applications approved before 1996' from the Ombudsman report. That's the last century and there should be no problem providing examples since then, if you can. Equating what senior planning officers did in Warrington with what happened in Rotherham seems a bit of a stretch.
  17. I presume 'DH' is me. Yes, I'm sorry but I did misread your post. Others can judge whether that's my fault or yours for not being clearer. I hadn't even realised you were comparing three different cases. You began by referring to a news story that 'clearly highlights the gross inconsistencies of officers decisions' about two cases where the officers were consistent in their advice. Then you came up with the other case to prove inconsistency, and as the news story didn't cover that it's diffcult to know whether they were inconsisent. What's the planning case number? I'm not sure whether grey_man is genuinely complaining that I mixed his comments with Evil Sid's. Compared to him saying 'the entire planning team broke the law' that's hardly worth bothering about. I was challenging both of them for something to back up their exaggerated claims, and I don't know how illegal destruction of records from the last century would stop them coming up with something more recent.
  18. Still unbelievable. Give us the links. How many? How frequent? It's an "unbelievable" number but you don't know what it is because there's a conspiracy to keep it quiet, yet it's in the local papers every week.
  19. The OP bangs on about the inconsistencies of the planning officers but if I read it right the officers were consistent, it was the committee that refused the farmer's wife case but passed the recent one for the child. The committee were, according to the story, 'moved by the plight of a family' and you use this for a rant about old stuff, most of which seems just a biased opinion. Unbelievable, really. Then Evil Sid says 'The number of times that some builders in the area have been granted retroactive planning permission for properties they have already built is unbelievable'. How many times is that, so we know how unbelievable it is?
  20. I see your point. The high-speed trains would travel at the same speed as existing trains so capacity is only a problem if there are more trains - and the whole point of HS2 is not so much the shorter journey times but to allow more trains. So HS2 gives more capacity on the routes it parallels, but the extra capacity might cause capacity problems elsewhere! Rail Freight Group obviously supports HS2 even if they have concerns. Some freight trains already use Settle & Carlisle rather than the WCML and the signalling on the S&C could be updated to allow more trains. No-one's said where the headline figure of houses affected came from....
  21. I don't follow - where would it reduce capacity?
  22. What exactly is the source of these figures? Given the line goes past some heavily built-up areas (Tamworth, Long Eaton, Sheffield, Leeds) this sounds very dubious. And can someone explain how taking HS2 through the town centre would affect fewer properties?
  23. No taxation = no police, no roads (except tolled), no public parks, no sewage system. Good luck with that
  24. And isn't that just the sort of response that makes any sort of trying to explain decisions wasted on some? The issue is whether it's daft to put 20 mph limits on a cul-de-sac. It may be but it's a choice between that, not including cul-de-sacs in the 20 mph in all residential streets policy (for which Axcell voted it seems), or putting 20 mph limits on the main roads through estates. I don't know about cough up and shut up but someone has to decide these things.
  25. So you don't think there should be any consultation with the public? What "inside" contractors are there? You mean without going out to competitive tender?
  • Create New...