What's the delay?

You may remember back in the dark distant past - 31st March actually - the Public Inquiry Inspector issuing document X21 to the Inquiry. In the document (entitled "Possible Closure of the Inquiry"), John Watson politely requested that the Highways Agency withdraw the draft Orders, and other such legal niceties, and confirm for him the date when they planned to formally withdraw from the Inquiry. He further requested that they do so by 15th April, unless it was their intention to provide such notice "within 4 weeks of the date of this note".

Well, we heard nothing from the Highways Agency by the 15th April and 4 weeks later, no such notice is forthcoming. Once again, the Highways Agency are prepared to waste money by prolonging matters to the utter limit, a limit which the Inspector is wholly reluctant to enforce. 

Could it be that something else is going on? We'll leave you to speculate.

The Inspector in his castle & the Inquiry that never was...

More interesting developments at the Public Inquiry. A new document has appeared at the Persona Website (can be found here - opens PDF) in which the Inspector, John Watson, virtually pleads with the Highways Agency & TMBC to withdraw the Draft Orders, which he considers will be the end of the Public Inquiry. What's amazing is that he's given them a 2 week deadline to get back to him. If they delay this long, that means the Inquiry will have rumbled on for 3 weeks after the HA stated their intention to withdraw. It's so much fun spending other people's money.

Watson comes across as so weak and subservient - he's not actually telling them to end the PI, instead he asks them to notify him of what they want to do. This reveals almost all you need to know about Public Inquiries. They are granted by the good grace of the State, and the State decides when they end, and even if it gives the PI a chance to conclude, it can (and frequently does) choose to ignore the 'recommendations'. 

So contrast Watson's pleadings with comments today in a letter to stalwart objector John Hall from the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Katrine Sporle (which you can read here in a PDF - the redacting and highlighting is ours). It is a response to a Freedom of Information request, but we feel the letter is more interesting than the information they refuse to release. 

Sporle says that the five-times adjourned Inquiry is "exceptional", and she goes further:

Indeed, I am not aware of this having occurred on any other case in recent years.

So much so that they are considering "issuing new guidance" to ensure that "all parties are fully prepared when they come to the Inquiry". She goes on to say that adjournments are necessary to ensure "natural justice" and that the Inspectorate does its best to avoid adjournments. 

Does anyone believe this crap? Individuals have had nearly two years of their lives caught up in this charade, whilst an Agency of the State has sat back and laughed. That the Highways Agency would have suffered any "injustice" had the Inspector been much more firm with them, is a joke. Sporle continues:

We will however be reviewing the handling of the inquiry to see if there are any lessons to be learned from the process and, where appropriate, we will be sharing these with the Highways Agency and others.

Hmmn, yes I imagine that will take all of 5 minutes given that the new Planning Act that we warned about last year is now the law of the land.

On a more confusing note, Sporle says that the HA have "withdrawn from the Inquiry" today. Does she know something that Watson doesn't? Or is she confusing Watson's plea to the HA with the response everyone else wants?

We know of 2 objectors who have been challenging the Inspector over the previous past months as to the legality of the Inquiry. It's noticeable that no criticism has been levelled at Watson by supporters of the Bypass. They have tended to voice their 'frustration' in general terms, not even necessarily attacking the Highways Agency too vociferously for the supposed 'errors' that have produced the delays (although it now seems open season following their withdrawal). 

It's possible to speculate about the reasons why Watson has not come in for criticism. It may because he's seen as impartial. But as far as we're concerned, his handling of this Inquiry has been entirely partial from the start. We've written at length about this, but what concerns us lately is how Watson has essentially pulled up the drawbridge and silenced dissent of his running of the Inquiry, or at least prevented the outside world from seeing that dissent exists. 

John Watson made moves to essentially hide dissenting correspondence from public view. Late last year, a series of conditions were added to the website clarifying what kind of correspondence would be uploaded to it, and we quote:

The scope of the website is as follows:

1 Evidence submitted to the Inquiry that is relevant to the proposals and Orders that are before the Inquiry;

2 Transcripts;

3 Questions of clarification of evidence that are put in writing;

4 Legal submissions that are put to the Inquiry;

5 Documents issued by the Inspector;

6 Inquiry news and programme, and links to related websites; and,

7 It is also useful, so as to keep parties informed during the current adjournment, for the website to carry information from the Promoters regarding their current reviews of their cases (if such information is presented by them in the form of an Inquiry document). 

We can therefore see that, short of a legal challenge to the legitimacy of the Inquiry (which was beyond the means of most Objectors, and seemingly beyond the will if not the means of the larger statutory objectors), dissent as to the process itself was not be allowed to be displayed to the public. Watson created a fortress to buttress the complete sham that is his Public Inquiry. The walls are still standing, and he's still behind them.

The sham will seemingly continue until the Highways Agency decides it has had enough. Did anyone really expect anything else?

One year on, the Comedy of Errors continues...

That's right, it's 365 days since the Inquiry last sat. And John Watson has chosen this anniversary to seemingly set out his stall for the coming months with the issuing today of a new document (opens PDF).

What's more interesting is that Watson seems to be trying to answer some of the questions we posed back in September. You may remember that we'd pondered the following:

1/ How can a public consultation on new evidence take place in the midst of an Inquiry into the original proposals?

2/ How can any new expression of support or any new objections be 'duly made' when the deadline for the submission of such correspondence passed years ago?

3/ If there is a new consultation and deadline, then where does this leave existing objectors? Are their objections still 'duly made'?

In answer to our question 1, Watson clearly isn't particularly troubled as long as Geoff Who? is similarly unconcerned. In paragraph 3b, he states that:

"If any new Orders, Notices of Intention or similar are promoted, then there should be evidence that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Inquiry should consider them, that the necessary statutory processes have been followed, and that all objections and representations received during the appropriate period are before the Inquiry"

But Watson seems to be making it pretty clear that anything new must go through the usual rigmarole, including any new Environmental Statement (para 4b). So that also seems to imply an answer to our question 2 - new evidence means new rigmarole, if not new Inquiry (as far as he's concerned). And Watson wants to be clear - in paragraph 3d, he asks for a list of all previously submitted evidence, with an indication of whether each item should remain or be withdrawn. One wonders what percentage of evidence will be withdrawn - and if it is above a certain percentage, how loudly will the official opposition call for the Inquiry to end?

But there also seems to be implications for our third question in there. How much is new and how much is revised will surely be a hot topic - because if it is substantially new, then all the existing objections will be invalid. 

In these circumstances, how can this Inquiry continue?

We'll leave that one hanging there ... in the meantime, it gets better. In paragraph 3f, Watson seeks a written undertaking from the Highways Agency that "(it) will not alter the evidence it has submitted". Or else?, you might be asking. Presumably, he'll then get very cross and give them another chance, as has been his usual pattern of behaviour.

What an interesting few months we had ahead of us then. Will the Highways Agency pay any attention to this apparently newly assertive Inspector? Has he subtly made it very difficult for them to move? And if they disobey, will he do the decent thing?

Playing the long game - the Planning Reform Bill & The Longdendale Bypass

Over the past few months, we've increasingly been forming conclusions about possible reasons why this Public Inquiry (PI) is facing the massive delays that it is. We think it's likely that the Labour Government - in the midst of a 'managed decline' - simply does not want to be the party to make a decision about this road - or at least the wrong decision for the Labour Party in Tameside, and the Labour MPs James Purnell and Tom Levitt. Much better to leave any decision to the Tories, and it will suit the propaganda of the local politicians.

Isn't it funny that whilst the likes of Manchester Chamber of Commerce and the Longdendale Siege Committee mewl and puke over the slow progress of the PI, local MPs and politicians don't express their concerns in public, nor write to the Inspector or the Highways Agency to urge for progress in the way objectors do? Do they know something that we and the regional and local cannon fodder for their scheming don't?

Indeed, are there other reasons for the delays? Well, it seems to us that the quiet but sinister progress of a major piece of Planning legislation - the Planning Reform Bill - may shed some like on the surely tactical reasons for the delays in the resumption of the PI.

The Bill seeks to leave it to future Governments to declare 'National Policy Statements' which identify major developments that are in the 'National Interest'. A newly created 'Infrastructure Planning Commission' - unelected and unaccountable, natch - would make a final decision on these schemes, obviating the need for Public Inquiries. It's the stuff of the somewhat damp dreams of the otherwise impotent Longdendale Siege Committee.

Grey Gordon's Goons have trumpeted the Bill as being a way to cut cost and delays, and also as a way to push through 'Green' projects - Orwellian code words for Nuclear Power Stations and 'cosmetic energy projects' like (Pissing in the) Wind Farms.

And despite the fact that Bourgeois Reformists like Friends of the Earth have tried to persuade the Government otherwise, the Bill has now passed it's third reading in the House of Commons. Unless the Lords mangle it too much, it will become law by possibly next year. The failure of the reformist approach to this issue is writ large in FoE's 'hope' that another unelected and unaccountable lot - the House of Lords - will allow the great unwashed some 'climate change' sugar to coat the bitter 'planning' pill.

So what does this mean in the context of the Longdendale Bypass?

Firstly, although the PI has been dragged out by the State rather than the objectors (I make no apologies for delaying tactics!), we are already hearing a clamour about Red Tape, delays etc. To some, this PI entirely justifies the legislation.

It could also mean that another benefit of the 'long game' the Highways Agency are playing is that if the PI is somehow axed, then the Scheme will simply be resurrected under the new rules. Similarly, if a future Tory government drop the scheme and then decide to bring it back, a new planning environment will exist to speed it through. That really would be 'foul play'.

And the delays surely render the Inspector, John Watson, under suspicion. This is his first major PI, and he has served the system well by allowing the HA to ride it roughshod. Would it be cynical to suggest that he might be after a job in the future Infrastructure Planning Commission? If he is, then he's going about it the right way (excluding the objectors and the general public), albeit in the wrong fashion (slow, delays etc) - if you know what we mean.

We'll be keeping a watchful eye on the progress of the PRB, and we'll also be sure to contrast it with PI developments along the way.

Watsongate - the Highways Agency's secret meetings & John Watson's free time (at our expense)

We have an exclusive on the blog tonight. Leading Objector John Hall has contacted us owing to the frustrations he is experiencing getting information from the Highways Agency.

In August 2008 in this document (opens PDF), the Highways Agency revealed that they planned to meet with Statutory Objectors that month to discuss their new plans which they ominously called a 'compromise result'. 

John Hall then promptly wrote to the Highways Agency requesting copies of the minutes under a Freedom of Information request. Almost 3 months later and in contravention of the Statutory time limits, the minutes have still not materialised.

Excuses that have been given so far include:

- HA staff are on leave (including the Project Leader, Alex Bywaters)
- The person responsible for typing the minutes hasn't finished them yet!
- All those present have not agreed to the finalised minutes, which means they cannot be sent out

Whatever the truth is, there are no minutes being provided, despite John Hall's continued reminders. One certainly smells a rat, but of what kind is another matter. What was discussed? Would the release of info prejudice ongoing discussions? What have they got to hide?

In frustration, John tells us that he wrote to the PI Inspector, but was told that John Watson was not aware that any such meeting had taken place - this despite the fact that a document published by the Inquiry broke the news of the meeting in the first place! It seems that Watson does not read all the Inquiry documents, despite having ample time to do so - and these are delays that he himself has ordered & presided over.

Is it lies, or is it incompetence? Exactly who is fooling who? We'll keep you posted...

John Watson - for how much longer can the "rules cope"?

We note that the Glossop Chronicle had another article last week about the latest delays to the Public Inquiry (PI), and that it seems to reveal further slippage on the whole process. We're not sure why the Chronicle is so privileged, but the information has yet to appear elsewhere. Perhaps the Highways Agency (HA) are keen to spin the news that we gave the exclusive for the other week? Indeed, according to the sitemeter, Carillion have been spending a lot of time on the blog of late.

Careful readers of the HA's latest submission to the PI will have noticed that they promised to publish a 'consultation strategy' this month - September 2008 (para 5). And whilst no date for the new Exhibitions was mentioned, the indication was that the revised Environmental Statement and other important documents would be submitted to the PI by May 2009. On the surface, it looked like the exhibitions would take place between this September and next May.

But the Chronicle is now saying that the exhibitions will not take place until June 2009. And a new article in Saturday's Manchester Evening News makes it clear that 'Public Consultation' will follow, making this PI the longest running Road Public Inquiry on record.

'Public Consultation' implies a long period of time - possibly several weeks. It also implies that the public will be consulted, and hence that responses will be invited, as is usually the case.

But what the HA actually want - and what the Inspector John Watson seems to want to give them - is to hold a public consultation on effectively brand new information (let's dispense with this 'revised evidence' crap!) whilst also holding a Public Inquiry simultaneously.

Surely 'never the twain shall meet'? How can the public respond to a consultation whilst a PI is underway into the 'same' (actually anything but) proposals? The Planning Inspectorate's own guidance notes make it clear (para 7.5 onwards) that these would not be 'duly made' supports or objections, since the deadline for responses has already been made. So how will they be treated?

If it is the case that the Highways Agency are making a new consultation, and that there will therefore be a deadline for responses, where does that leave the existing objectors? Do they have to object all over again, or do their existing objections - made against wholly different evidence - still stand ('duly made')? Perhaps, as we've seen before with John Watson, he will state that the 'rules can cope' with such a dog's breakfast?

This increasingly intriguing muddle of a farce is surely breaking entirely new ground now. But we'd like to know exactly what kind of rules or guidance permit John Watson to let the PI continue when the Highways Agency have effectively re-written their entire case, and further, allow the HA to re-consult on a new road scheme whilst keeping the PI into the old one open!

Passing the buck?

It seems that the local media has only just noticed the correspondence from the Public Inquiry that we broke last week, and today there are a couple of articles in the press about the delays to the PI, with some putting the possible resumption back to this time next year. The best bit is surely Brian Lashley's revelation that Roy Oldham's much mooted meeting with Tom Harris, the under Secretary of State for Transport, has still not taken place. It seems Roy doesn't find the favour he once did.

The Manchester Evening News also features a couple of 'outraged' quotes from both pro and anti bypass folk, but there is another side to this that everyone is missing. Clearly, the Government does not want to make a decision about this road, and that may well be because they don't want to be the ones to quash it. With an increasingly hostile political climate for the Labour Party, the last thing they'd want to do is nix a scheme that is the pet project of a strong Labour Local Authority, and one in the constituencies of 2 Labour MPs, one being a Secretary of State. It's much better to leave the decision to a future Conservative government, and to let them take the flak - locally and nationally - if they decide against it.

But that's a big 'if'. We should all remember that this scheme survived Labour's cull of Tory road schemes upon their coming to power in 1997. It could well do so again.

Our call for John Watson to go was certainly tongue in cheek. In fact, in reality we're happy for this charade to go on as long as possible - the chances are that the delays and increased costs will really stuff things up for the whole scheme. We'll drink to that.

John Watson - resign, do it Monday!

The Highways Agency have taken all of the 7 days John Watson gave them this time last week to to respond to the questions he posed to them last week. Below are the questions posed by Watson (bold), and the answers provided by the HA (italics):

Does the Highways Agency still intend to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry?

It is still the Highways Agency’s current intention to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry.

If the Highways Agency still intends to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry, when does it intend to do so?

Our current developing programme still indicates that revised evidence will be
available in October 2008.

The Highways Agency have ignored the pre-amble to Watson's original questions which are the most revealing thing here, to wit:

(In March 2008) ... it was the Highways Agency's intention to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry, to produce revised traffic forecast for the Bypass and the Spur by the end of May 2008 and to make available at the end of May 2008 a firm programme for the submission of revised evidence to the Inquiry...

But why should they respond to this? After all, it is Watson's fault for not making this part of his question. To the less than casual observer, it is quite clear from the Highways Agency's answer that the timetable has slipped massively - again. Whereas in March they undertook to produce traffic forecasts and have a timetable for the submission of revised evidence by May, their answers today show that they now will only commit to submitting revised evidence by October 2008. In the meantime, we have to assume John Watson won't have to remind them again and live without a timetable.

As far as we're concerned, we're now changing tack - we've been easy on Watson up until now, but it is time for him to go. It's for his own good - this charade is surely holding back his career - and his professional integrity looks a bit suspect too. After all, the Highways Agency are blatantly 'driving' this Inquiry in a most flagrant manner.

It's no good - he has to go.

John Watson: "Get busy livin', or get busy dying"

John Watson sounds even more at the end of his tether now than he did back in March of this year. He issued another plea to the Highways Agency yesterday, asking them to tell him when they will be ready to re-start the Public Inquiry. That's right - when they will be ready. Clearly, if this had been an objector, the delays would not have been tolerated, and they would not have been indulged in this way.

He also sounds more and more desperate. Like a spurned lover, he's forced to leave more and more pathetic messages on the Highways Agency's answerphone "we used to be good together, we used to have fun - please get in touch".

A bigger political game is at foot here. In reality, Watson is at best "going through the motions", and all of this serves to do is underline his powerlessness. Will he take the rope, like Brooks, or will he choose escape, like Red? We'll see.

John Watson's lonely hearts club

We did promise more about the further postponement of the Public Inquiry and today we have the sad tale of the lonely figure that is the Inspector, John Watson.

What prompted the Highways Agency's latest announcement was in fact a letter from John Watson published the week before. He makes it clear that he has not heard from the Highways Agency by their promised date of February 2008 and published a series of questions, to wit:

Does the Highways Agency still intend to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry?

If the Highways Agency still intends to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry, when does it intend to do so?

These are the words of a man kept hanging on. He has no role without his consort, and sounds rather lost and desperate. He is eager to please, but is really the Highways Agency's plaything. And they have decided not to play, at least for the time being.

The reason Roy Oldham and the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce are huffing and puffing and getting steamed up, and that the pathetic figure of Tom Levitt has to issue press releases reminding us that he still supports the bypass is because they are clearly not calling the shots. At a time of huge financial uncertainty, the government is prepared to put projects like the M1 widening on the back burner and move towards using the hard shoulder of motorways to 'take up the slack'. The Longdendale Bypass has become a 'wait and see' issue.

Those who are opposing the bypass must press on with the attack, to take the advantage. It's not time for a rest.

As for poor old John Watson, we hope he's making good use of his time, perhaps by writing another book?

John Watson's Worldwide Fanclub

Older readers of this blog may well remember the joke we had at the expense of the Inspector John Watson prior to the commencement of the Public Inquiry last year. We'd rumbled his textbook on road building and called for a book signing session on his behalf.

And he even commented upon our blog at the Pre-Inquiry Meeting:

I have written a textbook called Highway Construction and Maintenance which was last revised in 1994. You can still buy it, should you wish to. I will not be signing copies today because it is out of date, apart from anything else. (page 7, lines 9-12)

(Much to hoots of laughter & applause from the members of Siege Mentality who were present - not recorded in the transcript. The joke's on them anyway)

OK, it was a joke - but why not? After all, one or two visitors to the blog over the past few weeks have been seeking out this tarmac-junky-tome for far-flung shores. Here's one from Jakarta and another from Dubai.

Of perhaps John's on holiday and is looking himself up?

Hostages to fortune

Day 15 of the Public Inquiry (PI) - amazing isn't it? it's been running for more than 6 months, yet it's only just managed to have a fortnight of 'sitting days'.

The Highways Agency have managed to go one better than at the last hearing on November 6th. For now, they have managed to get the PI postponed indefinitely.

Stephen Greenhalgh (for the Highways Agency) was unable to say when their evidence would be sufficiently in order to present to the PI, but promised to return 'after Easter' to give an update. The Inspector, John Watson, wanted him to be more specific:

JW - There is an awful lot of time, I hope, after Easter 2008. How long after Easter 2008 do you have in mind?

SG - I don't know at this stage, sir.

For once, the Peak District National Park looked like they had some bite. Their Barrister, Mr Cannock, set out a perfectly reasonable possible order of events:

• The Highways Agency withdraw the Line Orders
• They produce new traffic forecasts
• They introduce a consultation on a Peak Park-wide HGV ban and how route restraints measures will be secured
• If the bypass still remains the optimum solution, their new evidence can be produced

These are serious points. Anti-bypass campaigners have always asked that a HGV ban be trialled, then that part of the argument can be dealt with. The promoters have always said 'it won't work', but there's no harm in trying, and it could have been running in the interim, during all this wasted time. Most reasonable people would surely agree.

Mr Cannock stressed that, as things stand at present, there is no valid evidence in support of the road proposal from either the Highways Agency or TMBC that is actually in existence. This left any future scheme approved by the Secretary of State under a real risk of a future legal challenge.

John Watson seemed to echo the latter point when he said even if he agreed that the proposals should go forward, he would have to explain to the Secretary of State why he had confidence in the 5th version of the HA's proposals (as things stand currently - it could be 6th soon!).

Predictably, Charles Calvert announced that the HA had no intention of withdrawing. So the show goes on.

John Watson insists that he is bound by the procedures - his beloved 'rules' that he referred to last time. He increasingly comes across as someone who wishes he could be put out of his misery. In our view - and probably his - the PI is being held hostage by the Highways Agency: they know that the rules mean this charade can go on and on.

It's in these circumstances that John Watson has decided to adjourn indefinitely or an 'unspecified date' as he put it. And to cap it all, objectors will only have 3 weeks notice of any future hearing when the HA has got it's act together.

So that's all for 2007. Who knows when we will meet again...

(Today's transcript can be read here - opens PDF)

"It seems to me it is, in the literal sense of the word, an extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves..."

Those of you that have been following this farce that calls itself a Public Inquiry know the drill by now. The Public Inquiry re-convened today. So, right on cue, the Highways Agency admit that even more of their figures are wrong. Over to the Inspector, John Watson:

Yesterday the Programme Officer had a telephone call from
Louise McCawley, who I understand works for the
Highways Agency. She told him and asked him to tell me, which
is why I am mentioning it now, that more errors had been
found in the traffic modelling and that there may be a delay
in presenting the Environmental Statement later than
30th November. I know nothing more about this. (p.3, line 22)

'lah-de-dah' Charles Calvert for the Highways Agency professed his client's complete incompetence (or wilful tactical ploys...):

it is nigh impossible for us to achieve the date that was set at the last meeting. (p.4, line 10)

And guess what? This also means that their amended evidence, submitted since the last adjournment, is now invalid. Great.

John Watson's view on this (and a priceless quote):

It seems to me it is, in the literal sense of the word, an extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves (p.9, line 21)

Do you think he's pissed off with this charade? He must be at least simmering. But he went on to say that 'the rules' can cope with this situation. The bourgeoisie will always cling to their 'rules' when all else is clearly lost.

The fact of the matter is that the State, represented here by the Highways Agency and their local manifestation TMBC, is playing a game to frustrate the Objector's case. They clearly do not want to the evidence to be heard, but the cold hard fact is that the longer this thing stretches on, the more diminished the resources of the 'official' opposition become.

This is now an all but official war of attrition.

Pull the other one...

It won't have escaped anyone's notice, but last week the Public Inquiry was adjourned unexpectedly for the second time. The Inquiry will briefly reconvene on November 6th, giving the Highways Agency time to re-work some of their evidence, and then again on December 18th to deal with the rest of it. The Objectors will now have to wait until 2008 to present their evidence again.

At this stage, it would seem to naive to believe anything other than that this is a tactical charade by the Highways Agency. By the time their case is over, they will have had nearly 2 years to formulate their case to bring before the public - so one questions if that is really the problem. Unlike the State, the Objectors do not have bottomless pockets to fund their part in this charade, and individual objectors can get fed up with the constant delays. The Highways Agency want to turn everyone off with their slow, grinding misery of an approach.

And, of course, the Inspector lets them carry on with it. At the Inquiry, he has been largely subservient to their whims. Faced with complaints, he can only offer Objectors a bit more time to change their evidence, and makes vague references that Objectors can point out how they have been disadvantaged by the actions of the HA, and that he will take a view when writing his report. This is cold comfort.

In a Court of Law, the actions of the Highways Agency may well by now have been regarded as 'abuse of process', and their case may have been dismissed. But not here.

And it seems that both sides are in agreement that this thing needs to be wrapped up. Channel M dutifully reported on matters once more (see above), and that's the impression one gets from their report. But it does have some anomalies.

In it, Mike Flynn of the Longdendale Siege Comittee puts in an appearance again. Standing but a stroll away from his house on Wedneshough Green in Hollingworth, he laments the time it is all taking. Notice how he's nowhere near the Inquiry. As we've pointed out before, he's prepared to mouth platitudes for Television and his best mates at the Reporter Group Newspapers, but he hasn't the bottle to stand up at the Inquiry and tell us all why he wants this road. What a Weasel...

The second problem is that the video shows Brookfield near Hadfield when talking about 'diverting traffic away from the villages of Mottram, Tintwistle and Hollingworth'. What's more, it's traffic heading into Glossop, and away from the area. Pull the other one, it's got bells on...

Who'd offer odds on this?

One of those ultra-rare events occurred last week. A Public Inquiry recommended that the massive Thames Gateway Bridge road scheme through London should not go ahead.

Transport for London had clearly been very cocksure about the result, as we had reported back in May, because they had already started putting tenders out shortly after the PI had wound up. But the Inspector has now come back and given them a surprise by agreeing with objectors, and also pointing out that the increases in C02 emissions the scheme would entail were contrary to government policy.

What' s more interesting for us is that the Assistant Inspector was our very own John Watson.

But before anyone breaks out the champagne, the government have ignored the Inspector's decision, and ordered a new Inquiry. Unlike the Inspector's decision, this is entirely predictable.

This 'rebellion' on behalf of the Inspector could be the establishment's response to the government's Planning White Paper, which seeks to remove 'obstacles' to the Planning Process.

Either way, it's clear the government's use of the Planning Process is clearly a fig leaf to cover the nakedness of it's ambition to carve up our environment. If the White Paper goes through the fig leaf will be removed.

John Watson's tour of Longdendale - ' On the Road Again'

The latest dates have been announced for John Watson's 'Tour de Longdendale' - the itinerary for his tour locations (and impromptu gigs) has been announced and can be viewed here. He'll be taking to the road on Wednesday 25th and Thursday 26th of July, to view the sites and areas the Highways Agency/TMBC wants to devastate with the bypass.

Take your place by the roadside to wave him on his way. Though groupies will not be encouraged, there is a chance that he will sign copies of 'Highway Construction & Maintenance' at selected locations for his fans. The tour's secret last date is at Number 8 Back Moor, where JW will play before a select, invite-only audience of his biggest fans.

Public Inquiry Premonitions...

Today's Guardian carried an interesting item on the progress on the Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry.

The assistant Inspector at this PI is John Watson. It seems that despite the fact that the Inspector has yet to issue his report, and the Secretary of State yet to make a decision subsequent to that, Transport for London can't wait, and are putting tenders out already (Cue press releases to the appropriate publications and much excitement, particularly here).

Welcome to the world of Design, Build, Finance & Operate (DBFO). The battle lines drawn in the 90s are being drawn again.

It seems that days after Ruth Kelly's announcement that the government intends in future not to consider Public Inquiries for 'infrastructure projects' and thereby tear up the 1947 planning act, those without any illusions about how things work anyway can't contain their glee.

You can expect similar developments about the bypass machinations to be reported here, as and when they arise.

Post Inquiry Meltdown...

Yesterday was a rather ominous portent of things to come in this campaign. It's easier to make a list of the issues and comment on them:

An Inspector seemingly out of his depth - unaware of crucial aspects of law such as PPS7 (calling it 'PPS5'), clearly inexperienced and without an assistant to help. Less than firm with the Highways Agency who had the gall to admit they might miss a (statutory) deadline for submission of their evidence. Expressed only mild dissatisfaction that Inquiry Libraries were at either end of the bypass (Stocksbridge & Stalybridge) and nowhere near those most affected by the scheme - Mottram, Hollingworth, Tintwistle & Glossop (the Highways Agency showing their utter contempt for those of us who want to do research, both for and against the scheme). He clearly reads this blog though, because he declined to sign copies of his book!

Unsuitable venue - a large old stone-floored market hall. Appalling acoustics. Much time wasted passing around a microphone. With a partial glass roof, meaning the sun's rays burned those present and removed any hope of seeing the projection screens.

Private rooms for the Highways Agency & TMBC - quelle surprise. They had comfy chairs and tea & coffee laid on - and swiftly evicted anyone whose face didn't fit. This was a pretty blatant exercise in making themselves comfortable at the expense of everyone else. Although food and drink was not allowed in the Inquiry Room, water was not provided: the heat was clearly meant to be a test of endurance for everyone but the elite who are well provided for.

Poor preparation for the issues at hand by the Highways Agency & TMBC: Barristers doubtlessly earning a fortune clearly 'winging it' while enthusiastic amateurs run rings around them by pointing out the complexity of the issues at hand. They barely seemed to have considered them & expressed ignorance of the availability of data on key parts of their case. Perhaps TMBC are on a tight budget in preparing for these matters, but it beggars belief that the HA are.

Members of TMBC's team laughing at someone relating the stress and emotional torment of having their home subject to a compulsory purchase order.

Longdendale Siege (mentality): the cheek of the twinset and pearl brigade calling an objector a 'dinosaur' when they probably have fond memories of the Jurassic themselves (except for the lack of roads no doubt). They all shuffled off early, quite impatient that the whole thing wasn't being wrapped up today, but probably more likely because they needed their regular afternoon kip before the evening's Ovaltine. Equally bizarre was one Siege chap who said the reason he moved to Longdendale was "because of the proximity to the Motorway and the Airport" - because he can't wait to get away quickly? (see last post on Mr Oldham's intentions for the valley).

Smile, you're on candid camera: TMBC decided to stream the meeting live from their website. How many people watched that do you think?

Spooky people: someone (who will be identified soon) asked for a copy of all the people who attended today. He was summarily refused, but it's spookily similar to a Freedom of Information request (also refused) on the HA's website.

Yes, it really was THAT interesting.

John Watson - book signing dates announced

All you engineering students out there, get yourself down to Stalybridge Civic Hall next Tuesday (1st May) if you want your copy of J P Watson's fantastic Highway Construction and Maintenance*

The author will be present and will be happy to record his best wishes for posterity to all his ardent fans (especially TMBC Councillors, Highways Agency et al).

NB - it should be noted that the author intends to proceed immediately afterwards to conduct a Public Inquiry in a totally impartial manner. The fact he has written a book detailing modern road construction methods does not indicate any partiality, and in no way can he be described as a 'tarmac head'.

*Highway Construction and Maintenance (Paperback)
by J.P. Watson (Author)

• Paperback: 248 pages
• Publisher: Longman; 2Rev Ed edition (22 Aug 1994)
• Language English
• ISBN-10: 0582234123
• ISBN-13: 978-0582234123

Elementary my dear Watson*

"Watson, you amaze me. How did you get yourself into this mess? This infernal scheme must not progress any further. Do the decent thing old chap..."

Our friends at Save Swallows Wood have today's exclusive: the Highways Agency (HA) have announced dates for the Public Inquiry (though as yet, only in letters to those who wrote in to object/support - a Press Release is yet to appear on their website). The timetable is as follows:

1st May 2007 - Pre-inquiry meeting at Stalybridge Civic Hall, Trinity Street, Stalybrige, SK15 2BN, starting at 10.00 am. The meeting will be presided over by Mr John Watson BSc, FIHT, MICE, MCMI (appointed by the Secretary of State and soon to be Google'd and dissected here mercilessly!)

26th June 2007 - Start of the Public Inquiry

First thoughts - if John Watson is in on this, does that mean we get Sherlock Holmes too?

Secondly - the HA have acted very swiftly since the close of the consultation, although TMBC's trumpeting of a May date for the PI a few months ago shows the timetable has been put back yet again.

Thirdly - they surely haven't counted all those new objections yet?!

Expect more comment and analysis soon.

(* incidentally, this phrase is incorrectly attributed to Holmes, as all his real fans know)