How much did Tameside spend on their 'virtual' bypass?

It's a question that needs answering, especially in the light of the revelations today (which are now reaching a national audience) about how Tameside MBC spent £36,000 to create a 'virtual council' on the online game Second Life.

It's hard to fathom exactly what they thought they were doing by throwing money down an online drain, but in reality Tameside spent much much more on their own 'virtual bypass', the Glossop Spur, to much less complaint in the media. The last we heard, the costs were £7 million.

Perhaps they should have planned to build a virtual bypass in their Second Life zone? Having spent a small amount of time mooching around their zone in SL ourselves before it was shut down, we could find no trace of it.  Which is a shame, because it would be the perfect place for an avatar of the late Roy Oldham to hang out: he could cast his gaze over his bypass forever and ever - he could find the success for his project in his Second Life that he failed to find in reality.

Well, to a certain extent, the powers that be did create a virtual bypass. They employed a company to construct a virtual bypass (though not a Glossop Spur - you can see a screen grab from the virtual map above, showing the plans they had for Swallows Wood). If, like us, you are curious person(s), you will find a way to download the file that contains this map, and viewing software from the site.

On the map, there's a little car that permanently traverses the route - whizzing by every now and then. How misleading: the Highways Agency knew full well their new Bypass would be chock-a-block from day one. Tameside's virtual bypass was a lot like their zone in Second Life: no-one used it. It was an expensive waste of time, money and effort.

What is the closing date for objections to the Mottram Tesco?

Visitors to the TMBC webpage for the Mottram Tesco application will be under the impression that the official closing date for objections is 15th July. This is also the case for those who saw the advert in the local newspapers.

But if you visit the potential building site for the store, the notices posted on lamp posts around the site make it clear that the closing date is 26th July. We think Tameside need to make clear to the public the relevant date. Given that the public notices mention the 26th July, we're pretty sure you are safe leaving it until this date to object if you cannot do this sooner. 

Longdendale Labour Party member breaks ranks on Mottram Tesco

Today's Tameside Reporter contains a letter from a Mr S Naz, voicing concerns about the proposed new Mottram Tesco store. We'll reproduce the letter in full below:

It'll cause chaos

Disgrace! That is the opinion of 99 per cent of people I have spoken to in regard to the plans that have been put forward for a new Tesco Extra on Stockport Road, Hattersley (at Mottram roundabout opposite the Macdonalds). 

How, after decades of campaigning for a bypass due to severe traffic congestion in our area, can we allow this to happen?

This is one of the THE traffic hotspots in the UK. To build this store in this location would make the traffic situation much worse, leading to misery for thousands of commuters every day.

For the promise of around 200 jobs for local people? How can you balance that equation?

The other thing to consider is that there are small retailers in the Longdendale villages of Hollingworth, Mottram, Broadbottom and Hattersley whose livelihoods will be under severe threat from this development, some of whom will close forever.

Tesco will not hold out the hand of friendship to those local people and offer them compensation for the loss of their income and the goodwill of their businesses. These small business owners have invested their life savings, redundancy money and taken out huge loans to buy their businesses. 

How many people working in these businesses will become unemployed?

Balance that against the number of jobs on offer! When the 80 per cent of local residents in Hattersley said 'yes' to the superstore, were they made aware of the repercussions?

How man residents in Hattersley attended the meetings in Hattersley? And why were the residents of all Longdendale not made fully aware of these meetings and why were they not held at times when a larger representation of residents could attend?

It makes me wonder; how about you?

Now many of the points of concern is Mr Naz's letter are things that we've been pointing out for some time. But what makes this more interesting is Mr Naz's political affiliations: we are reliably informed that he is a member of Longdendale Labour Party. Not only that, he is a delegate to the Constituency Labour Party. Now we can't assume that everyone within Longdendale Labour Party is in favour of the Tesco development, but we can assume that Roy Oldham is, since it was under his administration that the deal was done to bring this Hypermarket to the area, in return for the regeneration that is linked to it. No doubt Roy losing power has made members more confident to speak their minds. Has Mr Naz put his head on the chopping block, or will others now speak out?

Mottram Tesco poll results

The results of our poll regarding the proposed Tesco Extra store at Mottram are in with 48 votes having been cast. We asked 'How do you feel about the possible new Tesco at Mottram?', and our respondents voted as follows:

Good idea - 3 (6%)

Bad idea - 35 (72%)

Don't care - 2 (4%)

Good idea, but worried about traffic - 8 (18%)

So not exactly a ringing endorsement. Now our poll is not exactly scientific, and you might not think it has much credibility, but then Tesco themselves also carried out a survey on Mottram and Hattersley, holding two 9-hour exhibitions, several static displays over a week, and delivering leaflets to 2,700 households, alongside posters and articles in local community newspapers. After all that money and effort, only 92 comment forms were received by them - and we received more than half that. You can read more details of the Tesco survey in this document they have submitted to the planning department at TMBC.

We'd like to receive your comments about the Tesco plan - please feel free to comment on this post, or contact us if you live locally and are concerned enough to want to do something about it.

Mottram & Hattersley Tesco plans are online

The planning documents can be found here. Above and below are some images from the application which give you an idea of the absolutely massive size of this development which will have huge traffic implications for Mottram and the surrounding area.

Tesco planning application due in June for Mottram & Hattersley site

Long-standing readers of this blog will know that we've been following the story of a planned Tesco development in Mottram & Hattersley for over 2 years (previous articles can be read here and here). But in the intervening period between writing our two articles, there's been very little news, and the site alongside the A560 Stockport Road has remained undeveloped since then, with virtually no signs of activity.

So it was with a little surprise this week that we learned the plans are moving forward. It seems that Tesco have begun one of their classic 'softening up' exercises by holding 'exhibitions' about their plans in certain parts of the affected locality. As is too often the case with these exhibitions, a press release about it is published in the local papers on the day it takes place, with the hours of the exhibition excluding most people anyway (8.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m and 3.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.). Then there's the question of how they find out - it seems that NMB contacts on the Eastern side of Mottram have not had any kind of notification. Since the latest exhibition appears to have been held at Arundale Primary School, one wonders if the only people who do know are the parents whose children attend that school.

The press release tells us that a planning application will now follow in June, hoping for a decision in October. The artist's impression tells us straight away that this will be a massive store - Tesco Extra stores are much bigger than a standard sized supermarket. It is bound to generate massive amounts of traffic, all adding to the calls for a bypass.

We will post links to the plans as soon as we find out more information.

Revealed - the cosy meeting to progress 'Bypass 2.0'

This week has seen the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities publish a document (opens PDF) outlining which major transport schemes will be prioritised in the region and how they will be funded. The story has hit the headlines and is in today's Manchester Evening News.

If you don't know much about the background to this report, then you'd assume the numerous references to a 'Mottram Bypass' would be shorthand for the Mottram/Hollingworth/Tintwistle Bypass, even though the latter scheme is referred to only once in the document (on page 4). Look more closely at some of the tables illustrating costs, and you'll find the 'Mottram Bypass' is described as now only costing £100 million - and you may be wondering 'what happened to the other £200 million'?

But if you take this in the context of the previous AGMA press release issued at the end of March and also the TMBC Executive meeting last month, then you'll quickly start to understand something new is on the table.

And now, we can shed more light upon exactly who has been up to what in terms of progressing this new 'Bypass 2.0' scheme. Well, almost.

First we must set down some context. On 19th March 2009, representatives from various agencies met at the Highways Agency's offices at City Tower in Manchester. The date is neatly sandwiched between the announcement of the deferral of funding for the original bypass scheme by 4NW on 12th March and the announcement by the Highways Agency that they were withdrawing from the PI on 24th March.

The purpose of the meeting was to salvage something from the 4NW decision, and the (redacted) minutes of the meeting - obtained by John Hall - can be read here.

Upon reading the minutes, it quickly becomes clear that all of the major players in the Bypass have no intention of simply dropping the plan for a road through Longdendale, whatever their public position may be. Whilst this is unsurprising for the likes of Tameside MBC, you do start to wonder what is going on when the Highways Agency play a major part, and as you read further into the minutes, you realise it is they that are playing a strange game.

The key section of the minutes lies in section 5 'Existing scheme', with paragraph 7 showing duplicity is at work with regard to the Public Inquiry (emphasis added):

"(redacted) explained that the Public Inquiry had been adjourned but was still live. A discussion took place about the potential for a Phased Inquiry based on any revised option, and it was agreed that there may be some value in exploring this, dependent on the shape of any emerging proposals"

Presumably, this anticipates that the last two years (and as yet undisclosed £X million) have been 'phase 1' which is now adjourned, and that another scheme can be drawn up and emerge in 'phase 2' when it is ready.

Looking back to March 24th, when the Highways Agency announced their withdrawal from the PI, one has to look at the wording of their statement which we emphasised at the time (again, our emphasis added):

The Highways Agency is withdrawing from the current Mottram-Tintwistle bypass Public Inquiry

We feel that these minutes are an important part of the puzzle falling into place: they demonstrate that the statements made by Alex Bywaters - the head of the Bypass project - in his email to the PI programme officer are wilfully misleading, and also that the HA have clearly not formally withdrawn from the PI yet because it doesn't suit the plans that this little crowd have for our Valley and the wider area. After all, the idea for a 'phased Inquiry' that they float means that there must be a period of transition: closing the current PI would simply be the end, and getting another PI running at a later date would clearly be much harder. It wouldn't be 'phase 2', it would simply be a second Inquiry.

One also has to note that 'alternative proposals' as described in the minutes means a road drawn up by the agencies, and not those presented to the Public Inquiry so far. The minutes go further in a section entitled 'Alternative proposals', which is clearly concerned with TMBC's 'Bypass 2.0', and makes clear the background behind AGMA's announcement in the press yesterday.

What we would be interested to learn is whether or not those individuals that had taken time and effort to propose 'alternatives' to the bypass or were due to do so at the PI (i.e. the Translink scheme for reopening Woodhead) have been invited to be present at these discussions? And if not, why not?

There's much more to these minutes than can be commented upon by us at this time (particularly the role of GMPTE, Faber Maunsell and Sir Howard Bernstein who the minutes suggest are joined at the hip), and one interesting point to note is that some of those present were due to meet the following day to progress 'Bypass 2.0'. We wonder what went on there?

Finally, there's the issue of the redacted names. There seems to be a spurious reason given for not releasing these names, so we're inviting readers to posit exactly who these people are. If this all looks plausible, at a later date, we'll amend the minutes to show who we think was there. So let's have your ideas.

This one will run and run...

Tameside's Woodland Greenwash

Above is the latest edition of Tameside MBC's "60 second news" (actually 120 seconds long). The first item (at 30 seconds into the video) is truly the best wind-up we've heard from TMBC in some time. For those who'd rather see it in Black and White, we have a transcript below:

Countryside lovers can explore Tameside's 18 Woodlands secure in the knowledge they are also being safeguarded for future generations to enjoy. The Council has achieved the UK Woodland Assurance Standard which acknowledges its commitment to managing the woods sustainably while making them as accessible as possible for local people

Excuse us while we do a double take - this is the same Council that wants to blight Longdendale with a bypass and destroy Swallow's Wood. You may remember that we commented on the irony of Tameside's 'plant a tree' campaign last December, but this is one better (or worse) than that. The line 'safeguarded for future generations' particularly sticks in the craw. 

Tameside 'needs more trees' - laugh? we nearly shat...

This one seems to have slipped under the radar (thought not others - hat tip: Tameside Eye). You really couldn't make it up, the irony is so beautiful. Anyway, rather than explain it all, here's the article in the Tameside Advertiser from 20th November:

Council branches out for Christmas

’Tis the season to be green. Residents, schools and community groups are being given an early Christmas present next Sunday (30 November) in the form of 3,500 trees.

The giveaway, run by Tameside Council, hopes to give the borough’s tree coverage a much-needed boost.

Martin Watkins, the council’s environmental co-ordinator, said: “In relation to many other areas of the country and Greater Manchester, tree coverage in Tameside is poor. “We don’t have access to great big sweeps of land where we can go and plant woodland but if everyone puts one or two trees in their garden it’s the equivalent. It helps wildlife and it helps the planet as well.”

Residents have 10 domestic varieties to choose from - maple, hornbeam, alder, silver birch, hawthorn, bird cherry, wild cherry, crab apple, rowan and whitebeam.

The feathered whips, around 1.5m tall, are bare rooted and need to be planted as soon as possible after collection. Instructions for planting and fertiliser will also be handed out so all residents need to bring is a bin bag.

Well, well. What a classic line - "In relation to many other areas of the country and Greater Manchester, tree coverage in Tameside is poor". This is the same Council that wants to trash Swallows Wood for the Bypass - an Ancient Semi Natural Woodland and an important habitat for wildlife with thousands of trees. And this is ignored and instead, individuals are urged to plant trees in penny numbers here and there.

One is immediately reminded of Roy Oldham's comments during his 2006 State of the Area Address when he announced the eventual planting of 10,000 trees to 'compensate' for the loss of Swallows Wood and also to 'offset' the CO2 emissions increase caused by the bypass. Except his sums were wrong - one of our backroom pixies worked out that 6.7 million trees would be needed to accomplish this - they would cover 1600 hectares, an area roughly the size of Glossop!

But there's a seed of a good idea in there. How about we start planting and sowing - here there and everywhere? Without permission, without warning, we should take this plea literally... 

Derbyshire CC & Tameside MBC - Traffic Management fuckwits

Are there any people out there who seriously believe that both Derbyshire County Council and Tameside MBC  - 2 of the main sponsors of this planned bypass - have any credibility in terms of traffic management?

If there are such weird individuals, then please be my guest to take a stroll along the A57 tomorrow.

Essential work being undertaken by United Utilities in Hadfield and National Grid just over the border at Woolley Lane means that the A57 is effectively shut off for traffic coming from the Sheffield direction. Local traffic from Hadfield cannot similarly access the A57 to Hollingworth.

Tonight, I viewed traffic queuing all the way back from New Road, Tintwistle, along Waterside, down the length of Woolley Bridge Road, along Brookfield and into Glossop. 

What utter madness and bureaucratic idiocy has scheduled the closure of 2 roads along the same route at the same time? COULD YOU TRUST THESE TWO AUTHORITIES TO RUN A PISS UP IN THE PROVERBIAL BREWERY?

What's more, would you allow them to construct a pseudo-motorway on the basis of relieving 3 villages of traffic when that's clearly of no concern to them for the next 4-7 weeks in this neck of the woods? Wake up...

*UPDATE, 28th October 2008: we are reliably informed that the United Utilities work at Shaw Lane has been suspended, no doubt to ease the gridlock and filter some traffic through Hadfield towards Woodhead. Meanwhile, the work on Woolley Lane has not even started yet.

glossop.com is reporting that prior to this change, it was taking traffic 2 hours to get from Glossop to the top of Mottram Moor via the diversion in place. They have also pointed out that Local Authorities were given the power this year to co-ordinate roadworks to avoid such disruption.

It'll be interesting to see how many calls this creates for a bypass as soon as possible or similar twaddle. I'd like to ask anyone moaning in such a manner exactly what they think the disruption will be like once construction is underway? Do they also realise that the Highways Agency's evidence illustrates that the bypass will be full to capacity on the day of opening?

Tameside's "Traffic Calming" Deathtraps

There was a small snippet in last week's Tameside Advertiser that may have escaped widespread notice. It was about a campaign by Roseanne Kay of Stalybridge to highlight the death of her 16 year-old son, Callum, on Tameside's roads.

In December 2003, Callum was out on his moped for the first time when he hit a pothole, fell off and slid into the path of a lorry and was killed. The pothole was below the Council's own trigger point for repairs (depths greater than 50mm), and the Coroner criticised TMBC's road repair procedures heavily at the Inquest into Callum's death. 

Roseanne is now planning to present a petition to James Purnell MP calling for action on the state of the Roads in Tameside.

As we reported recently, Tameside already has a brutal approach to expressions of roadside grief. But the grim reaper himself in this morbid pantomime is played by none other than Roy Oldham. Just over a year after the inquest into Callum's death, the best he could offer by way of an explanation for potholes is that they were a "Traffic Calming Measure". You would expect a shape-shifting politician to be rather more mindful of the grief of Roseanne, but Oldham's trademark is his tendency to open his mouth and put his foot right in it. The message is clear - we don't give a shit about the safety of the public, be they pedestrian, cyclist, motorist or otherwise. Tameside MBC would rather spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on ridiculous flower arrangements, whilst banning floral tributes. It would rather spend millions of plugging a road that will increase deaths (the bypass), than  a few thousand filling in properly holes that will prevent them.

We wonder what reception Roseanne will get from the veritable smooth snake that is James Purnell? Fine words probably, but fuck all is our best guess. And if she lays flowers at the site where her son died, under their new directive the bureaucrats at Tameside will remove them in a month...

Tameside MBC - Death Race 2008

A front page article in this week's Tameside Advertiser speaks volumes about the priorities of Tameside MBC and their contemptuous attitudes to public safety in and around their borough. The article reveals that TMBC consider Roadside Memorials to those killed by motor cars are 'distractions' and - even more bizarrely - 'dangerous'. Their plan is to remove them after a month of display. 

The whole matter is a stark illustration of how such deaths are depoliticised, and precisely because they are a 'necessary' part of the social existence entailed by the capitalism. The depoliticisation comes about in the description of these deaths as 'accidents' - i.e. inevitable and incidental, when in fact they are anything but. 

Earlier this year, the World Health Organisation forecast that deaths from car use could reach 20 million worldwide between 2000 and 2015, with 200 million facing serious injuries. If one is to include the bereaved and those left to care, the figure rises to 1 billion people affected by the motor car worldwide over a 15 year period. 

At these rates, the car industry kills more people than diabetes and malaria - 1.2 million people per year. It ranks seventh amongst the world's biggest killers. And yet huge amounts of human energy and money are poured into the industry and subsidiary concerns such as road building, which exacerbate the problem -  the veritable cause of death, and on such a colossal scale. 

All of which is why Tameside MBC make a conscious decision to remove any obstacles that stand to remind us of these facts (to the extent that the public is not already completely marginalised from learning about such shocking statistics). The Advertiser article quotes Councillor Peter Robinson (a former funeral director FFS! - no doubt his nickname is 'the grim reaper') stating that the place for tributes to the dead is in the cemetery, not on the road. The subtext is that the machine rolls on, and the dead and the reminders of them, must be cleared away, lest they hinder 'progress' and 'business as usual'. 

Making you an offer you can't refuse

With the Public Inquiry in abeyance, all kinds of things are going on in the background. Whilst planners are no doubt working overtime to make adjustments to future traffic flow predictions, both in Mottram and Glossopdale, it's also likely that individual objectors are being worked upon.

Late last year saw the withdrawal of the objection (opens PDF) from the Greater Manchester Directors of Public Health. Upon closer examination, it seems that in writing the objection, a Dr Watkins had used the wrong headed notepaper to write his letter, and some bright spark amongst the supporters team used it as an opportunity to seek support amongst the NHS secretariat to get the objection withdrawn.

Does this mean that the regional NHS - let alone the local Primary Care Trust - does not take a view as to the health impacts of the construction of the road?

Mottram Show Committee are, you would have thought, another natural objector given that their showground will be destroyed by the bypass. But they have not done so - the committee is said to be split, but we understand the clincher is that promises of land being found for relocation would be scotched by Tameside MBC were there to be any objection. This is also a reason why anti-bypass stalls at the Show itself are not allowed.

Meanwhile, it looks like another objector is being worked upon. The Trustee's of Mrs E Bissell's Marriage Settlement are major land owners in the area, and they have objected - although if one reads their submission to the PI (opens PDF) they have clearly left the door open for negotiation. But it appears that the supporters of the scheme are not even willing to accommodate them. Our attention has been drawn to a planning application they made in August 2006, to convert a Bungalow on Dewsnap Lane to a House. The application was refused in October last year, and the report makes interesting reading (opens PDF). Only two objections were received, plus a representation from the one and only Roy Oldham. The head of planning has commented that this application must be turned down due to the impact on the greenbelt. Yes, the impact on the greenbelt! - clearly, this is far more grievous than a dirty great proto-motorway that is planned for the area to the East of a sodding bungalow!

Is this really coincidental? Could it be that pressure is being put upon the Trustees to withdraw their objection to the bypass, so that Councillor Oldham and TMBC will allow their plan for a house extension? Let's hope they show some backbone and do not back down.

One Man and His Poodles

Not sure how you are managing with the Council Tax increases, plus paying this Winter's power bills, but some are doing fantastically at getting money out of TMBC, to the tune of £500 million plus - yes, £500 million plus! So who is this giant money-making Company, and how is it happening?

Well, nearly £200 million came from the Longdendale Bypass contract, and now another £300 million contract - placed by ONE TMBC Decision maker - for the Tameside Schools programme.

Remember Carillion, the construction Company named last week by the Office of Fair Trading for being associated with manipulating contracts, or otherwise being bent? Their appeal for mercy was obviously lodged to try to get a potentially large financial penalty reduced.

But hang on, within recent weeks Carillion were awarded another massive contract by none other than your Councillor Roy Oldham, who was described (see page 1, opens PDF) as the "Decision Maker", the contract being appropriately signed by him.

Now, to attain this important role Roy Oldham was instrumental in starting another Advisory Quango (see page 9, opens PDF) for the purpose of giving him so-called 'advice' before he took this £300 million plus decision. Now I ask you - do you really fall for this, that Roy Oldham required advice from a carefully selected TMBC quango before he flexes his Dictatorial "I'm in charge" decision-making stance? But he did, and the known contract-manipulating Mowlem/Carillion were handed your money to the tune of £500 million plus in total.

Were there any others considered for this massive contract? Well, the two considered along with the extremely dodgy Carillion were Trillium and Interserve Project Services Limited. Trillium are not exactly a Construction/Building Company, but Interserve Project Services Limited were also on the OFT's named and shamed list last week. Out of interest, their Company Chairman is Lord Blackwell, previous Head of the Prime Ministers Policy Unit, but it gets better because he is also a Board Member for - the Office of Fair Trading!

Now I and others are getting pissed off at these so called revered people who administrate our lives and these known very dodgy Companies putting their hands in my pockets, your purses and wallets to the tune of £millions and laughing at you as you try and make ends meet each week. It's all a bloody disgrace, and that's why you need to know as much as I can discover.

A Freedom of Information request to TMBC, as to who else tendered other than Carillion, did not bring results until the TMBC Solicitor was informed that the information had passed to the Office for Fair Trading - then, lo and behold, the information was given immediately.

Remember how the cost of the Bypass job rocketed skyward after the contract was awarded? - and don't forget the Highways Agency's finger in this escalating financial costs scam.

Now you may well think this is mud raking, but if you are a soft touch to the tune of £500 million with these individuals and Companies doing their thing, then you must have a trusting mind beyond most peoples imagination.

Do you deserve to be conned? - I think not - and you deserve far better than being robbed
by those laughing at you.

I definitely have a feeling some people and some Companies are sitting on an already-lit time bomb. Lets wait and see!

Is the bypass contract rigged too?

Interesting news today that the Longdendale Bypass main contractor Carillion are one of the 112 construction firms accused by the Office of Fair Trading for colluding to inflate the prices of public sector contracts.

Could this go some way to explaining the ever-rising costs of the bypass? And is it also significant that Carillion also won contracts worth £164 million to transform secondary schools in Tameside (now valued at £300 million)?

This is going to be an interesting development to keep our eyes on...

Tameside - bailing out the BOAT

In 2005, the Trail Rider's Fellowship (TRF) - an organisation set up to open up the countryside to motorcycles - applied to make Coach Road, Stoney Road and Rabbit Lane in Longdendale a BOAT ('Byway Open to All Traffic'). Although Tameside MBC have consistently objected to this, the TRF have so far succeeded in their plans.

In our view, Tameside's tactics and the way they have handled this matter have led to this outcome - they screwed up big time!

First of all they failed to advertise the issue so that people couldn’t object. When challenged over this by one of our readers, Tameside merely stated that there was "no provision in schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for giving public notice" - they didn't have to, so they decided not to bother. Great.

Secondly, they submitted evidence that the lanes in question were ancient highways. Now, because of that and as a direct result of the Council incompetence, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs has decided in favour of the TRF that these lanes should be open to all traffic! The clincher is on page 14 (paragraph 43) of this document (opens PDF), and we quote (emphasis added):

Copies of some of the maps referred to in this appeal have been provided but not all. The two earliest maps, the 1777 Burdett map and the un-named map of 1831, were inspected by the Council but have not been supplied. However the details contained in the Council’s report [24] are not disputed by the appellant; in fact it tends to support his case.

We can only conclude extreme incompetence or deliberate tactics to allow traffic onto these country lanes in order to further the case for a bypass. Either of these conclusions seem feasible when buffoons such as Sean Parker-Perry ( the District Assembly Member given responsibility for dealing with this) and Bill Johnson (he of Longdendale Hertitage Trust fame and another pro-bypass 'green') are involved. Indeed, we feel that the hue and cry that Tameside have thrown up in the press since the New Year about this matter serve to cover up their own cack-handed way of dealing with it.

If we lose round two (which seems inevitable now), drivers would have legal permission to short cut Mottram Moor by heading up Coach Road, turning left or right onto Rabbit Lane and then heading off towards Ashton or the M67. Of course this would be difficult at the moment unless you own a 4x4, quad bike or motorcycle, but we are strongly against the use of these country lanes by all motorised traffic. If the route is used enough, over time it may have to be converted to a more general purpose road.

We believe it is vital to prevent these lanes from becoming BOATs. Please object ASAP to the following name/address:

Keith Davy
Tameside MBC
Council Offices
Wellington Road
Ashton-under-Lyne
OL6 6DL

Quote reference ETL/AKD/24860/1. The deadline is 21st April 2008, and the grounds upon which you object must be stated.

John Hall on TMBC's 'smoking gun'

February 28th 2008 in the Glossop/Tameside Advertiser saw Councillor Jonathan Reynolds belting out the rhetoric again regarding the Mottram Bypass. Well, it's time the confirmed and accurate truth was given out regarding the serious deception that has been produced concerning the Longdendale Valley which MPs, Councillors etc have been aware of and have decided to keep hidden from the electorate of Tameside and Longendale. So here it is.

The Bypass planned for the Longdendale Valley form part of a transpennine route linking the Humberside ports and their facilities plus all the Yorkshire Regions to the Western ports. It will provide road links to airports linking Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic with Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield & Yorkshire and from Eastern ports to further afield: Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, the Balkans and other European Countries.

What is needed by the Government & TMBC is a Bypass to create an 'M62 mark 2' linking all these locations which include the M67/M60/M6/M5/M56 on what is called in Tameside Council's Documents the "West-East Eurocorridor" from Northern and Southern Ireland across the Irish Sea to the "Transpennine Corridor of Northen England" named NETA (North European Trade Axis) in Government and TMBC circles. TMBC are the actual NETA Secretariat for all interested parties in Europe such as business organisations and Regional Authorities. At the present time there are more than 50 partners from Germany, Holland, Ireland, Poland etc, and having met in Amsterdam, the scheme has been named the "North European Trade Axis" backed by Government money and TMBC as administrators.

So knowing the M62 is at saturation level and wanting more heavy traffic with links between ports, airports etc, the Longdendale Valley is the chosen local route to facilitate this multinational road route, hence the massive developments along the expected route for storage facilities (such as Rossington Park), truck stops, Motels plus service areas, and a host of other developments which will totally destroy thousands of acres of open rural spaces with beautiful views. So at last the truth is out, the politicians have deviously duped you, and have been deliberately deceptive, disguising the real objective as a Bypass to assist the 3 Villages. What they did was drip-feed so called concerned rhetoric to build up a head of steam up in the Longdendale Valley for a Bypass, because to simply state they wanted the Northern Way Route through the Longdendale Valley would have seen serious revolts against the scheme.

Because of these substantiated facts, which anyone can now source if willing, I have informed the Public Inquiry Inspector that he has been drawn into a scam: the PI was supposed to be totally related to the electorate of Longdendale and their concerns, whereas the absolute truth is that the PI is being held under deliberate and knowingly false pretences and the Bypass objectives have been kept hidden by TMBC Councillors and those within the administration, plus The Highways Agency, UK Government, and developers and speculators.

John Hall, Denton

TMBC, Longdendale Siege & David Moore: the truth

Hands up who believes the propaganda of Tameside MBC & Longdendale Siege Committee that the Longdendale Bypass is meant to relieve the three villages of congestion? If there are any that read this weblog, then this post may make you think again. For those who already suspect it is lies, here is the evidence that seems to have lain buried, until now.

Readers of local newspapers may be familiar with one David Moore. A person of that name used to regularly write in to advocate pro bypass views, as well as launch vitriolic attacks on anti-bypass campaigners (to be fair, we could be said to be the 'anti David Moore' in that respect, as it's our style too). Some examples are here and here (notice the classic Chronicle/Daily Mail/Fascist headline for the latter - 'Minority views are not valid'). We're not sure whether or not he had any direct affiliation with the Longdendale Siege Committee, but given his views and willingness to write to the newspapers (and regularly get published) we'd be surprised if he didn't. The fact that he lives in Hollingworth makes it seem highly unlikely that he is a stranger to them.

But what can be revealed with certainty is that someone called David Moore (with the fizzog displayed above) used to work for Tameside MBC. His contact details are on this page of this website. Go on, take some time to read what the website is about.

Yes, he was the Project Manager for the North European Trade Axis (NETA), an organisation seemingly run by TMBC from their offices. He also clearly has affiliations with the North West Regional Assembly, given the alternate email address on the contact page.

So what is NETA about? Lots of things, full of awful public language, the new bourgeois coded speech. But looking at the website and the conference reports, there talk of Transpennine Corridors, and 'management of M62 traffic flows'. But next to David Moore's face on the 'welcome' page is this more intelligible blurb:

"The NETA project seeks to develop and promote a West-East Eurocorridor extending from Northern and Southern Ireland across the Irish Sea to the Transpennine Corridor of Northern England and thence via the Humber ports and North Sea to the Netherlands, North Germany, Poland and beyond"

Given that TMBC are the facilitators of this project, we can now clearly link them with a project to develop their leg of a 'braided' (their terminology) trans-european transport network: in this context 'management of M62 traffic flows' can only mean one thing - diversion of key (trade) traffic elsewhere. Clearly, leaving the M1 to avoid the M62 and thereby accessing the M60 to head to the Western ports for Ireland and vice versa: the Longdendale Bypass.

Because the website was last updated in 2005, it looks like the project isn't exactly thriving, and we're not sure why this is. We wonder if the project is on hold, given the delays of the Public Inquiry.

We feel that this post is not the end of this issue, and we hope to return to it again in future.

In the meantime, if you really do believe the Longdendale Bypass is meant to relieve the three villages of congestion, ask Tameside and David Moore for explanations as to what NETA is all about. And come and tell us what they said. Food for throught.

NB: since we originally posted this article, the NETA website has mysteriously disappeared! We have changed the links to point to the pages captured by the internet archive.

Mottram Tesco - update

You may remember our exclusive article back last month about TMBC's plans to bring Tesco to Mottram.

Well now the press has caught hold of the story since the issue was raised at last week's Longdendale & Hattersley District Assembly. And quite rightly, concerns are being raised about the increased traffic it will bring to the area. And it seems Tameside will have a fight on their hands if residents like Jane Whyte have anything to do with it:

"If I have to walk round every house on this estate and Broadbottom and Mottram and get a petition, I will do that rather than see these children hurt."

Jane wants an entrance/exit to the store either on Mottram Road or Stockport Road, rather than Ashworth Lane. But that will clearly really mess with traffic projections - if they aren't already hugely affected by this development. And we revealed last month that this is the reason for the delays in the Public Inquiry into the bypass, as the existing traffic models will be severely compromised.

The clincher is this quote in the article:

"Although no planning application has yet been received, the council as a promoter of the regeneration of Hattersley supports its development."

Indeed, no application has been received because they have been told to wait until after April by Tameside - when the Public Inquiry will have resumed.

This is going to be very, very interesting indeed...

Glossop Spur costs & Tory opportunism

Today's Manchester Evening News has a story which is well-known in anti-bypass circles, but perhaps less so more widely: namely, that Tameside Council's costs for the Glossop Spur have reached £800,000. There are two aspects of this we would like to concentrate on in this post.

Firstly, that this is in fact old news, to us at least. Indeed, our fellow campaigner John Hall submitted a Freedom of Information nearly 2 years ago and received a response indicating that the projected costs to March 2007 would be approximately £836,000. Given the hiccups with the Public Inquiry, the costs must surely be far more by now.

Perhaps it's time we rigged up another cost-counter for the Glossop Spur?

The second aspect is the fact that this article is effectively a press release for Tameside Tories. All you need to know about this lot is summed up by these words in the article:

"Councillor Bell said while the Tory group supports the proposal..."

We'd have to assume they do because there's been no opposition from them. It's hard to imagine what points they are trying to score here. Would they have done anything differently from the Labour Party? If they are committed to it, then surely that means they support it to the end - there's no implication that they would pull the scheme because of costs. This is simply a party political matter for this lot.

And who can be surprised? The 1990s Tory road policy got a bloody good hiding from environmental direct action campaigners, to the extent that most of the schemes were shelved by Labour upon coming to power in 1997. That's how unpopular they were, and still are. Why should anyone think this lot would be any different from Labour, should they come to power?

Time for a quote from Thatcher in 1990:

"We are not going to do away with the great car economy."

Any argument that advocates 'changed priorities' as a way to transport and ecological salvation really does not understand the central relationship of the car industry to modern capitalism. The answer lies without politics and capitalism, not within.