Active Longdendale's Credibility Gap

You may remember we co-hosted a series of articles in April about Active Longdendale (AL), the pet project of Councillor for Longdendale, Scam (sorry, Sean) Parker-Perry.

We helped to put this shady 'organisation' under the spotlight, and this was followed in May by a response in the form of an article in the Reporter Group Newspapers from Sean (since removed from their website - how strange!), which actually left even more questions unanswered. 

Very little has happened since - indeed, since his re- election, Sean has been keeping rather a low profile. So why another article from us?

Well, the reason is that August saw the 1st anniversary of Sean/AL obtaining a £8,000 grant from the 'Awards For All' scheme, and that is significant because the money has to be spent within 12 months. The Railways Arch which Sean had leased has been refurbished - at least by outward appearances - but little else has been heard, other than AL's appearance at the Broadbottom 'Community Day' in June of this year.

Our spies tell us that at that event, Sean had his own AL stall there, plugging the 'tool hire' aspect of AL, as well as carrying a lot of Co-Op Labour literature. You may remember that the terms of the Awards for All grant specified that the use of the grant must be 'non-political' - so that's already a breach of the terms there and then. Sean had published a leaflet which detailed the hire of tools that would be available from AL, and the wind has blown a copy into our hands.* We can only assume that the cost of public liability insurance for such equipment would be huge, perhaps even prohibitive. Maybe this is why nothing further has been heard since Community Day about the tool hire aspect of AL? 

As to whether or not the grant money has been spent, we may never know, although you would expect Charitable Status to have been obtained by now (as the Chronicle/Reporter article promised) and therefore an AGM to have taken place and accounts to have been published. 

But other than that, there's really nothing to go off, because there has been nothing in the news & no activity on the website. All of this now leads to virtual confirmation of the belief that the whole Active Londgendale project is nothing but self-aggrandisement on the part of Scam (sorry, Sean), a method of boosting his 'Community' and 'Environmental' profile. 

Unless and until Sean decides that AL is accountable to the Community, nothing more will be known, and this will ultimately lead to more questions being asked of him and those who have sponsored him.

*the other side of the leaflet - an membership application form - can be viewed here. Most strange is the undertaking to "agree to the aims and objectives (of AL) as set out in the constitution". This elusive document was not available for inspection, and it is not mentioned on the website.

Lidl - bribing the public

We had spies at last week's Lidl 'Open Day', and they brought back all kinds of goodies - though not products produced by Lidl.

We hear that Lidl put on a large spread, but more important than that, they were asking people to write to them to support a future planning application. Whilst we can't think why anyone in their right mind would want to do so, they obviously thought it might work and this flier was handed to all visitors (we've been careful to obscure the relevant address in case any morons who like supermarkets read this blog). Of course, this kind of tactic is nothing new in this area - JD Williams employed similar methods by 'asking' (more like threatening!) their employees on Rossington Park to write in support of a planning application last year (HPBC approved it, natch).

Lidl propose to provide 72 car parking spaces, but lord only knows what disruption will be caused to the area due to an inevitable traffic increases - there's no mention of this in their leaflet.

You can view the brochure they were handing out here and here. But we thought we'd publish the Q&A section, which are (unsurprisingly) overwhelmingly positive and seemingly poorly translated from a standard German text, with attendant poor grammar. Our comments are underneath in bold:

Q - Why have you chosen this location?

A - Lidl have chosen this location as it primarily serves as a catchment of Hadfield, Gamesley and Hollingworth and these areas currently have a limited offer for convenience goods.

There is a 7-11 store in Hollingworth, and a similar store in Gamesley. There are 2 minimarts in Hadfield. So it's not needed on that front.

Q - Will the store undermine Glossop Town Centre?

A - No, the small scale of the development will have little or no impact on Glossop Town Centre. A full Retail Impact Assessment is provided with our application. It should also be noted that Lidl do not operate in-store Bakeries, Delis, Butchers, Fish counters, Dry cleaning, Newsagents and therefore complement rather than compete with local small businesses.

One wonders what use the store is to anyone if it does not provide those facilities, and what need there is for it if it is a 'catchment of Hadfield, Gamesley and Hollingworth'? I suppose if you really want pumpernickel and really can't face going to Aldi, it might come in handy. Then again, Lidl and Aldi are currently a zeitgeist thing for the Bourgeoisie who like 'slumming it' as this recent article in the Guardian shows.

Q - How will the store look?

A - The site, as is currently stands, clearly is in need of redevelopment. Lidl design their buildings to complement their surroundings and as such the proposal is for a traditional building in keeping with the surrounding area.

Personally, I'd rather have an empty car garage that generates no traffic than this plan. The logic here seems to be 'if there's spare Brownfield land, it must follow that something new is created on it'. And it's not hard for it to be 'inkeeping with the surrounding area', when that means a small industrial estate, a car dealer and Europe's largest caravan showroom!

If you want to object - in advance - to this proposal, then you could always write to that paragon of virtue Adrian Fisher, the Director of Planning (Disasters) at Der Bunker, High Peak Borough Council, Municipal Buildings, Glossop, Derbyshire, SK13 8AF.

Glossopdale Supermarket sweep part 3: Tesco

In our final post about Supermarket expansion and the (thus far attempted) transformation of Glossopdale, we turn to the veritable Dark Lords, Tesco.

'What about Tesco' you may ask? Well, putting aside the traffic problems their current store in Glossop causes we can reveal that they too have plans for expansion. We say 'reveal', but it is actually a reminder of information that is already in the public domain, with a certain amount of educated guesswork and speculation tagged on. But as usual, we are prepared to fall, as well as stand, by our predictions.

On 7th November 2007, the Glossop Advertiser (and not the Glossop Chronic, which is rather strange) featured a front page headline 'Supermarket on Stilts'* about Tesco's plans for Glossop. In the article, they outline their plan to relocate the store 'nearer to the Town Centre', although it was hinted that this would be 'in a different part of the (Wren Nest) site'. An exhibition of the plan was held on one day - the same day that the article in the paper was published!

Despite this, a follow up article, with more detail, was published a month later. It revealed that Tesco now wanted to construct another entrance to their store from High Street West, increase the number of parking spaces, and also expand the warehousing facilities on the site. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the plan was that the store would be raised 'on stilts' to allow an increase of parking underneath it.

Again, this 'softening up' exercise was concluded prior to a formal planning application being made, one which has still yet to materialise, but the November 2007 article stated that the application would be made 'next year' and that work would not start until at least 2009.

The psychology of the way all 3 Supermarkets have conducted their affairs in the area is highly significant. By presenting exhibitions on their own premises, on near to the planned sites, they control the perception of the plans, as well as the access to them. You effectively have to be a customer to take part, and you also have to know about it. In the case of Tesco a notification of a one day exhibition was posted on the day it took place - and a lot of people in the area don't receive that paper through their letterbox until the very same evening!

Having said that, despite the way Tesco managed the process to actively exclude people, it's actually possible to argue that more people will know about it than were it left to High Peak Borough Council. One only has to look at the fact that thousands of people in Hadfield literally woke up to Rossington Park one morning that shows how hard this Local Authority works to marginalise the people in the area as to major planning decisions that greatly affect their lives.

After all, it was this time last year that saw HPBC allowed Tesco to keep signs they had erected that had breached advertising consent rules. It seems you can do anything you like if you are Tesco.

In relation to all this, what is very interesting is if we recall a war of words in the press earlier last year centred on Surrey Street itself, a potential access road for any new development by Tesco. Residents wrote in to the Glossop Chronic to complain about any attempts to make Surrey Street accessible to more traffic. Others wrote in to counter that and berate residents for their 'selfishness', as if wanting to preserve a degree of calm outside one's front door was an offence. Chief amongst the hecklers was a Tory Councillor, Anne Worrall, and her letter can be read here (albeit cloaked in the emotive issue of the Wren Nest Mill apartments fire). Of course, she is more likely than anyone else to be aware of Tesco's plans, since she is on both the Environment and Regeneration committees of HPBC.

So why have Tesco delayed matters? Who knows? Perhaps HPBC have told them to do so.

But perhaps their plans lie elsewhere? Remember the recent news that the despised Ferro Alloys factory was to be demolished? - the Glossop Chronic told us that HPBC refused to disclose who the owner is. And then the news that Glossop North End AFC are looking to leave their ground of the last 50 years at Surrey Street and move to a larger site elsewhere - how did they get the money and why move now? Is it a coincidence that the Football Ground and Ferro Alloys are adjacent, and that these sites are 'nearer to the centre of Glossop', as desired by Tesco? Or do we have an over-active imagination? Only time will tell.

* Tesco 'Stores on Stilts' are springing up all over - just type the term in Google

Glossopdale Supermarket sweep part 2: Sainsbury's

At the beginning of April, local newspapers carried reports of a plan to bring another Supermarket to Glossop. This time, it was Sainsbury's. Tom Rowley's initial article in the Glossop Advertiser was more about the whole of the Howard Town Mill development, of which Sainsbury's would be a part. The article was followed a week later with a more detailed reports in both the Glossop Advertiser and our old friends the Glossop Chronic.

The companies involved are Glossop Land and Evans and Reid (E&R). Glossop Land share a director (Mike Ryan) with the company who are developing the mill site - B & R Developments. Evans and Reid are particularly interesting - take one look at their site and look at the geographical spread of their companies - Cardiff, Newcastle, Wolverhampton and ... Glossop! Don't get me wrong, I love Glossop, but the fact they are based in 3 large cities and one small town should lead to all Glossopians to wonder what's going on. But if you do some digging, it's not too hard to make some connections.

One of these companies, E&R Polymers, was the name of the company formed following the merger of St Albans Rubber and ... Volcrepe! Yes, that well known Glossop Company (who had contracts with the Ministry of Defence, just like Ferro Alloys), whose former works is now also up for sale to developers. So we've come full circle.

Whilst Tom Rowley in the Advertiser skirts around the issue, hinting that Sainsbury's is a possibility for Glossop, in the Chronic, David Jones says Sainsburys WILL move into the Mill (his capitals). And further, that "tree lined streets, dressed stone pavements and a new look station forecourt" are all part of this deal. So has this consortium paid for this work, and all the disruption that has cost small traders dearly? This must surely be the 'sweetener' for the deal, but one that leaves a bitter taste in Glossop.

In the more recent Advertiser article, Mike Ryan told us that his companies had "worked closely with High Peak Borough Council over 5 years to deliver Howard Town Mill" - does this mean that HPBC know all about Sainsbury's, and that it's pre-approved. Is this another 'softening up' exercise? If you think back again to how the 'regeneration' of Hattersley/Mottram is being paid for - the as yet un-named Tesco plugging a large financial hole - it looks as if something similar has been happening here. In the 2004-2005 financial year, the entire E&R group of companies had a turnover of £22 million and profit of merely £350,000 (read the PDF here). It all seems a bit too grand a project for such a seemingly minor company!

Like last week's news about Lidl was part of a trend to announce plans before a planning application has been lodged. This runs in complete contrast to the way that TMBC have handled the (still clandestine) intentions of Tesco for Mottram. In our final article about the Supermarket Sweep that is Glossop, we'll look at another 'softening up' exercise that has dipped under the radar somewhat.

But we'll finish with another quote from Mike Ryan:

"it cannot be underestimated how important the securing of Sainsbury's is to the potential successful redevelopment of these sites and to Glossop as a whole and the important and exciting benefits and opportunities this will bring to the town"

We're sure the traders along High Street West feel very excited about their future annihilation because that is what it will amount to. Not to mention transforming Glossop beyond recognition (for the worse) and ensuring the traffic situation is even worse than before.

Glossopdale supermarket sweep part 1: Lidl

Keen readers of the Glossop Advertiser will have noticed an astounding advert in this week's edition. The German supermarket giant Lidl have announced that they plan to apply for planning permission for a store on the site of the former Vauxhall Garage at Brookfield, Hadfield.

They're holding an Open Day opposite the site at Glossop Antiques Centre (who have clearly been bought!) next Thursday 15th May between 1 - 4 p.m.

What's astounding about this advert is that we usually hear about things like this in the press because a planning application has been lodged. But in the High Peak, and Glossopdale in particular, there are more and more examples of things like this taking place (as we will show in other articles to follow). As we write, there is no planning application from Lidl on HPBC's website.

Can you imagine that Lidl are taking a huge chance, being cocky, pre-emptive? We doubt it - the recent planning history of this area has shown how High Peak Borough Council's response to advances from developers is to bend over obligingly. And this looks like yet another example where permission has been 'pre-approved'.

There are may good reasons to oppose this idiotic plan. Firstly, the area does not need any more supermarkets. There are enough, and they are destroying the area. They do nothing for the area other than provide minimum wage jobs which have a high turnover rate - not needed in an area where there is full employment. Furthermore, every penny spent there goes out of the community, not into it.

Secondly, the traffic problems that will result will be hugely significant (there's no need to expand on that, surely?).

Thirdly, the way Lidl treats it's staff is appalling. Read here for details and reference points, and this excellent article from the Guardian in March of this year has extensive details. Other reasons can be found on this excellent German flier (opens PDF).

What's becoming more and more clear in this part of Glossopdale is that developers are keenly eyeing the area with the Glossop Spur in mind. First Rossington Park, then the Home farm hotel/Travelodge and now this plan (as well as activity in Glossop itself) all show that the objective that High Peak Borough Council are colluding in is to to turn the A57 in Glossopdale into a long retail strip easily accessed from the motorway network.

We'll be watching this one like a hawk, and doing our bit to oppose it. By any means necessary.

**Update 13/05/2008: Lidl themselves landed today on this blog post after searching Google for 'glossop & lidl' - everybody wave!

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!

Op-Ed: Cash Stash funds Tool Pool & Arch Lark

We're proud to present the second op-ed from Digger regarding Sean Parker-Perry and Active Longdendale. Based on their post over at the alternative Active Longdendale blog, it looks at the murkey world of funding for this virtually underground clean-up team.

"...It would appear that Councillor Sean Parker-Perry's (nee Sean Perry) blogspot is suffering from a period of inactivity. In fact his one and only post came in late January just after his return from Spain. No doubt this is because he has been busy writing up his research on the aromatic effects of burning olive stones on open fires. The residents of Longdendale are awaiting this vital information with baited breath, and so are we. The story can also be viewed at the Bad Air Sponge

On the subject of bad smells we continue to dig for the truth behind the creation and purpose of Active Longdendale. In this post we shall look specifically at the financial aspect.

The story begins with an 'It's Your Community' Award from mobile phone company O2 in late 2006. Whilst details of the award are no longer available from the O2 website, they have been kindly preserved for posterity in an obscure online magazine entitled 'Parish Pump News' (at the foot of page 13 - opens PDF).

Here we are told that Active Longdendale is an "ingenious scheme to create a sustainable and self-funding tool resource for local groups wishing to improve their immediate neighbourhood but who lacked the tools to carry out the work". I want you to remember the words 'self-funding' for later in the article.

You may also wish to ponder the fact that there is in fact a Rangers outpost within Cllr. Parker-Perry's immediate neighbourhood at Lymefield in Broadbottom, only a couple of hundred yards from the infamous Railway Arch where he plans to store the said tools. Furthermore, one of the two alleged clean-ups that Active Longdendale take credit for was in Etherow Park, who also have a 'Friends' group along with their own tools and store!

The Parish Pump article goes on to say O2 awarded a cheque for £400 to buy several start-up tool kits and quotes Active Longdendale's 'co-ordinator' Sean Parker-Perry:

"This support has enabled us to buy the tools necessary to seed self-help groups who will now be able to tackle trouble spots because they have recourse to a tool pool."

Finally, the ever helpful Pump informs us that since receiving their O2 award the project received more attention ... aah, that will explain this article in the Glossop Chronicle then:

Oh yes. What's more, this attention has apparently led to additional funding and consequently new opportunities to inspire other groups to to start their own clean-ups in areas within the Longdendale Valley. I'll let you, the readers, be the first to give me the news on such inspirational examples that AL has created.

Personally I am more intrigued by the additional funding aspect.

Whilst the £400 grant from O2 was widely publicised, a much larger award - £8,000 from the 'Awards For All' (Award No. 121) Lottery Fund (yes that's right £8,000!) didn't rate a mention in the local press. Odd. Particularly so when one considers that Sean is particularly keen on publicity and photo opportunities (a future blog!). Let's face it, even if we disregard the New Labour penchant for PR and pizazz, any politician worth his or her salt would want to shout it from the rooftops if they secured an £8,000 windfall for their community. Yet not a dicky bird!

So the next obvious question is "What do AL want £8,000 for?". It sure would buy a lot of tools! According to the blurb "this new group will hire out more tools and create a disabled access to its storage building to encourage more users of the service". Ah yes. The storage building - that's the infamous Railway Arch remember? Now this really is odd.

The conversion of the said Railway Arch begins with this planning application to his own council which, unsurprisingly, gave the nod. There are two things of note about the Arch itself. First of all it is not of any use in its present state to act as a secure lock-up for said tools. Basically it is derelict and it will take an awful amount of spending to make it anything like secure.

It is literally an open archway with no doors or any form of security and with rocks and rubble strewn throughout - derelict in every sense of the word.

One can't help wondering why they don't opt for a standard lock-up like an existing garage or shed? Something that is relatively cheap, secure and immediately available for members of the community who actually want to hire some tools, now that Spring is in the air.

The other puzzling aspect of acquiring a derelict archway is the cost. Spacia is the name of the company that rents out these arches and to get some idea of the cost, type 'Stalybridge' into 'property search' on the site - property reference SYB03904 (Unit 3 Waterloo Court) is the nearest example to Broadbottom where there is something available. Wow. £6,100 per annum +VAT. Not cheap then. Admittedly, this one comes fully furbished, but still not cheap.

I would suggest that the £8,000 Awards For All would just about cover the cost of refurbishment plus rental costs for the first year, but then what? They would have to rent out an awful lot of tools to cover rental costs of the archway per annum. Particularly when one bears in mind that this is a not-for-profit enterprise. Awards For All cannot award grants to companies that aim to make a profit! This is made plain on page 2 of their Guidance Notes. Hence, this brings into question the feasibility that this can ever be a self-funding project, something I alluded to earlier...

Readers of this blog may have also noticed a political dimension to AL so at this point I would simply draw your attention to the fact that on page 4 of the Guidance Notes above, it also states quite clearly that they will not fund political activities.

In summary, we have an organisation with an undefined legal status that allegedly hires out tools to the community and has acquired known income to the tune of £8,400 to do so. Yet does anyone know how to contact Active Longdendale, and how to join them? Has even a single person ever actually hired any tools from this spurious organisation and if so when, how, from whom and from where?

It seems certain that had Active Longdendale purchased any tools for the community we would have heard about it in the local press, to whom Sean as a Councillor, clearly has access. It's equally certain that if a rental service had been established, the community would know about it by now.

Apart from the Archway, the only other known expenses that Active Longdendale have incurred come from the Spanish expedition. You may recall that Cllrs Parker-Perry and Jonathan Reynolds went to Moclin in Spain as representatives of AL which brings us full circle.

Moclin, Moclin. Mmm. That rings a bell. Ah, yes. Didn't the Longdendale District Assembly grant 'Friends of Moclin' £500 recently? Yes that's right. In December 2007. Just a month before our local Cllrs went to Moclin themselves. What a rare coincidence! People do say we live in a global village these days and when unfathomable events like this just happen to occur in a quirky manner you just know it's true. Well blow me dahn, who'd of thowt it possible? I wonder though. Is it possible that lightning could strike in the same place twice?

Surely not. Better wait and see though!..."

Once again, we have our own thoughts on this matter.

Firstly, the status of Active Longdendale. It's been variously described as a trading co-operative, a charity, and a small business enterprise. The latter description is of particular interest, since those were the words of fellow Longdendale Councillor Roy Oldham, upon defending AL and Sean and Jonny in the press when the Olive Stones debacle reached the newspapers. As Digger has noted, were AL to be a profit-making enterprise, that would breach the terms of the grant from Awards for All.

To be a Co-operative, AL would have to be either a Limited Company or an Industrial and Provident Society, and there's no evidence it's either of those.

It's clearly not a Charity, as Sean's website and literature would then have to display their registration number.

Also of interest is that Awards for All make it clear that the money must be able to be spent within one year, in this case of August 2007. So this raises the question, how has it been spent? Has Sean in fact bought the railway arch? It would seem not, because the planning application documents make it clear he's the lessee from Spacia. Given that the arch is derelict, it's not yet been spent on restoration. They're in no hurry to spend the money.

We await August 2008 with interest.

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...

The Longdendale jigsaw puzzle

The Bypass Jigsaw is looking quite interesting, as the pieces and associations click together.

Here we have Carillion PLC - preparation costs for the Public Inquiry - £4,944,274

Now Carillion PLC bought Mowlem PLC (a previous contractor for the bypass) and their preparation costs for the PI are £4,577,105 - give or take a few pence.

But hang on, who supports the Bypass? Well, the North West Development Agency for a start. And who figures at the top of that Agency? Well, that's a stroke of luck - it's Vanda Murray. Vanda happens to be at the top of Carillion PLC who have already made for Carillion/Mowlem & Associates £9,571,379 for a load of flawed paperwork issued to the Public Inquiry.

Now back to the North West Development Agency and their declared "Key Objectives" for the region:

(a) Improve journey time reliability and tackle congestion (except on the M67/M60 as yet) on "the Regions Principal North-South-and East West Transport Corridors" (perhaps call it the M62 Mk2 Longendale Route?)

(b) Develop effective integrated transport networks within, to, and between City Regions. (something like Yorkshire North and South Cities straight through the Longendale Valley to Manchester)

(c) Underpin the Gateway Functions of the Region's main Airports and Ports, (quick dash from all of Yorkshire to Ringway - Manchester - Airport methinks)

(d) Develop Intergrated Transport Networks in rural areas based on HUBS at Key Service Centres, (why don't they speak English? The Bypass will need HUBS/Service Centres Hotels/Supermarkets/Regeneration Areas and everything "including the kitchen sink".

But we seem to have forgotten Mott MacDonald's fees for their Public Inquiry preparation and dodgy paperwork, costing approximately £3,741,500, and a warm welcome from Mr Stephen Greenhalgh of the Highways Agency, who has administered the campaign for theBypass as Project Leader. But hang about, wasn't he previously an employee of Mott MacDonald, as is his shadow at the Public Inquiry Mr. Brian Witten?

Now our Council Leader is very influential with the NWDA and its members, which probably includes Vanda Murray, a NWDA Executive "and" Carillion PLC Executive, the Company deeply involved in the almost £200 million Bypass project.

But wait a moment, the folks in Tintwistle/Hollingworth/Mottram know nowt about the M62 Mk2 connecting Cities in Yorkshire with Manchester, and the North West Development Agency keep referring to improving the Region's Principal North-South-East-West Transport Corridors, because that would be a perfect solution to an alternative M62 route through the Longendale Valley methinks.

Now there's another funny piece of the jigsaw emerging: that of Councillor Roy Oldham switching his latest rhetoric away from the folk in the 3 villages. His main concern seems for the business interests of his financial friends both now, and certainly in the future, with his big regeneration plans for the Longendale Region.

So what a lousy sight emerges out of this jigsaw - the utter destruction of the Longendale Valley for the M62 Mk2, and it's financial interests to businesses, a shed load of extra vehicles down this City-to-City Bypass route, and images of numerous people taking their places at the financial trough.

So yes, I want relief for those experiencing slow-moving, single-lane traffic in the area, but has it not been noticed that TMBC/HA have done "nowt" through the years for the village folks. They've resisted calls for a trial HGV ban to establish its effectiveness, and also stopped route restraint measures on the A628, because it would have undermined their main objective over the years, that of an alternative road route to the M62 bang through the Longendale Valley. But wait a mo if, like everywhere else in the UK, the Bypass tunnel is blocked by a vehicle accident, or perhaps a collision on the route itself, where the hell is the traffic going to go? Yes, you've guessed back on the rat runs already utilised in the area.

Now I DO WANT REAL SOLUTIONS, but more importantly, I want the "real truth" of the DFT/HA/TMBC objectives and looking at the jigsaw puzzle, it appears to be similar to a game of monopoly with lashings of dosh swilling around.

One thing finally: whilst Roy Oldham agonises about the financial interests now being affected, he fails to tell you that he has so far spent almost £1 million of "your" Council Tax Payments from "your" pockets and purses, to prop up the Tameside Council's costs of the Public Inquiry. But just wait for the real bills from the Builders/Developers/Consultants/Legal-Eagles: if divided between the families of Longendale it would be like a sudden windfall for everyone, except those staring into the trough at present.

My regards

John Hall

Greenwash the United Utilities way

It seems the institutions that are for this road are really now stepping up their efforts to marginalise the public from the facts.

United Utilities (UU) have now brought themselves into the firing line. An article in this week's Advertiser - which is clearly a press release from UU - waxes lyrical about how the Longdendale Trail really is a wildlife haven. This is the same week that has seen an article in the Glossop Chronicle trying to demolish hope for any plans to reopen the Woodhead Tunnel to rail traffic. Is all of this press coverage a coincidence?

The position of United Utilities in this one is very curious indeed. Their links with TMBC are not that well know, but the most direct and undeniable one is the fact that they enrol their employees into the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, a fund that is administered by TMBC, with Roy Oldham as Chairman. We've heard mutterings about shady financial deals done between TMBC & UU over The Kingswater/Waterside Park development years ago, in which TMBC paid millions to UU via a front company, in order the buy their land, despite the fact that the project was subject to tens of thousands of objections from the public.

Why have UU been keeping silent about the implications for their assets that the bypass will bring? As one of the largest landowners in the area, acres of their assets will be detrimentally affected by this road. Isn't it strange that they have not objected? But by the same token, they haven't supported the proposal. Is that because they don't want to be asked tricky questions at the PI?

Interestingly, they have objected to the alternatives to the bypass. And this info is in the public domain.



If one looks at their objection, one is immediately struck by the fact it is in the language of a less than worldly or literate individual - the use of the word LOTS in block capitals is almost laughable. What's more, since alternative 1 envisages the construction of only a small bit of road from the Showground roundabout, we're at a loss to understand why this is more destructive than a dirty great dual carriageway across the North of Longdendale - i.e. the bypass. And we could go on about the fact that this objection amounts to 1 side of A4, but that's surely too obvious.

UU's website has a page for the Longdendale Trail, but not Swallow's Wood. Visitors to Swallow's Wood will know that the reserve is not exactly actively managed by UU. Has another deal taken place, whereby UU's silence has been bought? Has someone 'sweetened the deal' to make the compulsory purchase of thousands of acres of their land more palatable?

Keep that in mind while reading the article about the Longdendale Trail. Any 'neglected' area stands a good chance of 'returning to nature', but equally any plans to re-use an existing trackbed for trains are in no way as grievous as the plans to destroy Swallows Wood with a brand new road. UU's silence over the devastation of their asset, Swallows Wood, is both conspicuous and deafening. I for one smell a huge cagney-esque rat.

Who are our David Abrahams?

We've run a whole series of posts where we've asked questions about things that just don't seem to fit right.

The national news at the moment features a whole host of - speaking frankly - shady, bent bastards who are prepared to open almost any door upon which money knocks.

But buried in the story of Labour's relationship with David Abrahams is the matter of planning permission for a retail park he wanted built in County Durham, alongside the A1. Initially, the Highways Agency had blocked the scheme on the grounds it would cause congestion (!). In October 2006, they changed tack and removed their objection. The excellent Paul Mason touched on it briefly in last night's Newsnight.

We are sure there are local similarities to this situation, some of which we've touched upon, some of which we've yet to look at. We've always smalled a rat, and eventually we will corner it and shine a light on it. You're welcome to help us.

Money talks, bullshit walks...

A little snippet from last week's Glossop Chronicle:

Store signs may be here to stay

Tesco looks like keeping the signs it erected without advertisement consent at their Glossop store.

High peak Development Control Committee is poised to let the supermarket giants keep them.

If the company gets the go ahead however, it will be a blow to Councillor Ivan Bell.

The Old Glossop Independent claims they on the edge of a conservation area and "out of keeping".

The two red, white and blue gantry signs, double sided and externally illuminated, are next to the petrol station and adjacent to the Wren Nest Road store's car park.

Council officials say they are not on listed buildings or in the conservation area.

And as such are signs normally expected at a large supermarket and are not out of keeping with the general street scene.

Do we really need a point-by-point rebuttal? Words fail me (and Ivan Bell contradicts himself again).