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)

Ivan Bell...again

Further to yesterday's post, Councillor Bell's letter in the Chronicle is markedly different than that in the Advertiser. Again, here it is verbatim:

I wish to thank all the voters in Old Glossop for supporting Independent Councillor Chris Webster and myself.

There have been a lot of changes to the High Peak Borough Council this election and I hope that the 'in power' Conservative Party will recognise the expertise and commitment of two hardworking, honest, non-party councillors who have been returned virtually unopposed in Old Glossop.

Unti April 7, 2006, our unelected Peak District National Park Authority Council had supported the Longendale Bypass.

However, the officers of this quango had decided that the residents of Tintwistle, Hollingworth and Mottram should continue to suffer the continuing traffic problems by brining (sic) a motion before the April Council 2006 meeting to change policy and object to it.

Unfortunately, no recorded vote was taken, indeed the names of the proposer and seconder were not recorded and only a Cllr Mrs J Bevan (a Derbyshire Dales councillor) requested that her vote against the motion be recorded.

I have requested under the freedom of information act that these people's names and the full vote count be made available to me so I can name and shame them in a future letter.

I have also asked for a full list of all the expenses that these people are getting for misrepresenting the majority of Peak District residents.

Some of the more responsible environmental groups and councillors are pressing for wetland and tree planting (to replace the areas required for the bypass), to take place now so that when the bypass is constructed these will already be established and if the bypass is not constructed we will have gained extra wildlife areas

I would have thought that if the park authority were genuinely concerned about the area they would have been at the forefront of such a move instead of being swayed by negative thinking of non-park members.

I do not know how our two Labour Derbyshire County Council representatives voted, but I am rather concerned because their addresses listed on the Peak District website are very misleading, non-Post Office approved which could be construed to make people think they lived in the Peak District.

I really think that until such time as the Peak District National Park Authority is made up of elected members from the Peak District and not from selected members, its views on non-park issues should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

One of the things I will be hoping to cure now I have been re-elected, are the council speak gobbledygook documents and reports. These are designed to cover up secrets and hide the truth from the public by using terribly written buzz words, and jargon etc.

It seems that not only the HPBC and DCC are guilty of this, but a recent consultation document issued by the Park Authority is full of this gobbledygook and could do with a makeover from the Campaign for Plain English people (sic).

It's interesting that the Advertiser clearly chose to judiciously edit this rant to within an inch of it's life, but also how the Chronicle have excised all references to Rossington Park.

Perhaps he should have his own blog and give everyone a laugh on a regular basis?

Join the dots

Whilst we know that Labour Party Councillors (if not their members) are fully behind the bypass (and we needn't even talk about the Tories), some people might have hopes of independent councillors.

But that's all dispelled in a letter from Ivan Bell to this week's Glossop Advertiser. Once again, we will reproduce it verbatim below:

I wish to thank all the voters in Old Glossop for supporting Independent Councillor Chris Webster and myself.

There have been a lot of changes to the High Peak Borough Council this election and I hope that the powers that be in the Conservative Party will recognise the expertise and commitment of two hardworking, honest, non-party councillors who have been returned virtually unopposed in Old Glossop.

I have many things to do as a councillor, but most importantly, at the Public Inquiry on the bypass at Stalybridge I will be asking the inspector to give weight to the opinions of people who live in the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle.

And to only note the opinions of unelected bodies like the Peak District National Park Authority and people who are not resident in those areas.

Some of the more responsible environmental groups and councillors are pressing for wetland and tree planting to replace the areas required for the bypass so that when the bypass is constructed these will be already established.

And regarding the eyesores of Rossendale Park (sic) Hadfield and Bridgend (sic) Tintwistle, I am sure the residents would applaud the Peak Park authority if it helps to curb the ravages of the council planners in allowing such unsightly developments to take place.

This plonker wants to have it both ways. He wants a bypass, but not Rossington Park. He's a fool - as we've shown, RP has been built in anticipation of the bypass, and the clear (but latent) plan to create a strategic transportation route will entail further development of this kind in the area.

Who cares if the Peak Park isn't an elected body? Councillors are, and look what a shower of shit they are. The fact of the matter is that the Peak Park are the only institution fighting this road. If they were elected, they no doubt be lobbied by corporations to bend over and give them want they want. Either that or they would be comprised of people who have a past career amongst those behind this road - hauliers for example, or even former councillors who've taken a bung at every available opportunity.

But then again, his contradictory logic condemns the 'unelected' Peak Park for opposing the bypass but commends it for anything they can do to stop Rossington Park. To cap it all he lives in and represents people in Old Glossop, not Hadfield, Tintwistle, Mottram and Hollingworth.

There's clearly something else at work here which merits further examination.

Those fighting Rossington Park have common cause with us. If this road goes ahead, it will be almost impossible to prevent Rossington Park and other such schemes.

Trespassing in the Peak

Kinder Mass Trespassers in 1932 (Benny Rothman indicated)

I'm in favour of trespassing.

Let me qualify that statement. When 75 years ago, a group of young socialists trespassed upon Kinder Scout, they struck a blow for real freedom. In defiance of the law and the privileged landowning class, they showed the way to a possible future where people could wander to their hearts content upon mountain and moor, leaving behind the city and the worries of that other, crazy world.

If we are to be truly free, we need to maximise the time we can truly call our own. Theirs was, and still is, a truly profound vision of freedom, still to be realised.

But for these brave, principled individuals, we would not be able to enjoy the Peak District. They were the 'eco warriors' of their day, and people younger than them would do well to respect and understand the real meaning of that.

But, I'm not in favour of trespassing.

Again, I'll qualify that statement. This bypass is the thin end of the wedge for encroachment and trespass into green spaces and National Parks by road schemes and developers. That is good enough grounds to oppose it if nothing else is. Some of the more idiotic Tameside Councillors have argued that building more roads through the countryside allows us all to see more of wildlife. I can only presume they mean roadkill.

The whole point of a National Park is that you get out of your bloody car and walk! The fact that some people prefer to remain atomised and alienated from life in general is not an argument for a lifestyle which is slowly turning us into bloated, alienated machines.

Better late than never, the Peak District National Park have renewed their opposition to the bypass. They know full well that they would not exist without those Manchester lads and lasses who took to the moor in 1932. And those who value and cherish our National Park must move mountains to end this scheme.

The Highways Agency could not have chosen a more apt anniversary to try to gain legal backing for this scheme, through a Public Inquiry. They need to be clear that for every legal measure there are counter-measures, both legal and illegal. Our justification for such activity? Our heritage...