It ain't over...

Rumours of our demise have been greatly exaggerated! Yes, we spoke far too soon. But even we were taken aback by the news today that the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) have decided to intervene in the Bypass funding problems by coming up with a scheme of their own, no doubt with Roy Oldham throwing his weight around, using all the various kinds of 'influence' he commands. The news was published today in the Manchester Evening News, and the story can be read here.

What's new is that there would seem to be a suggestion that there are advanced plans for what's described as an 'alternative alignment' - i.e. a different route that would be ready for submission 'within a few months'. Could it be the case that the Highways Agency have been helping to model this route for months, whilst telling everyone else they were working on the current plans before the Public Inquiry? 

You may remember that at the Hoongate meeting last November, Hoon himself had suggested detrunking the A628, and also finding a new alignment. According to the minutes, James Purnell was wary since an alternative route would "hug the conurbations" - code for bringing it very close to a lot of people's houses.

Under such a plan, it's possible that even pro-bypass folk would have far more cause for concern than at present. We're busily trying to locate details of the alternative routes put before the public way back in time, but this website has details of a possible extension of the M67 mooted a long time ago, and on another page a possible route that Purnell may have been alluding to that saw the road slice through Hadfield. 

'Detrunking' means the Highways Agency would no longer be responsible for the road, and therefore their costing models for construction won't apply in the drawing up of plans for a newer bypass. It seems clear that the pro-bypass local authorities are using this as a possible method for a bypass on the cheap.

But what puzzles us is the nature of this plan. The MEN story tells us that Sir Howard Bernstein announced it at the AGMA Executive meeting last Friday - but there are no details on the agenda, nor in the supporting documents for said meeting. Is it pie in the sky? Only time will tell, but it seems for now that the fight against the road is still on, the fat lady has not yet sung...

Hoongate: Who? is fooling Who - enter 'Bronze' Adonis...

The first document submitted by the Highways Agency to the Public Inquiry in nearly 6 months appeared in the last couple days on the Persona Website. 

It's a letter from the Department for Transport to the Planning Inspectorate (opens PDF), ostensibly concerning a complaint from the stalwart Objector John Hall about Geoff Hoon's meeting with pro-Bypass politicians last November. Whilst this is a rather pedestrian and brief document, it does contain a very interesting new development. 

In a highly suspicious move, the letter reveals that the ultimate decision maker on the Bypass project will be the Transport Minister, Baron Andrew 'Bronze' Adonis rather than Who?/Hoon. There are several apparently significant implications in this chess move.

Firstly, that Hoon/Who? doesn't want to be tarnished with making a decision (whatever that may be), and also that he's been rattled by the criticism coming his way that he's usurped the Inquiry with the 'Hoongate' meeting. John Hall has touched a raw nerve here.

Secondly, who (Who?) better to make a decision than an unelected bureaucrat like Adonis? It can't ruin his career because he's not - and never has been - an elected politician. He climbed the greasy pole as one of Tony Blair's policy wonks, after repeatedly failing to become an MP (for the Liberal Democrats!).

Thirdly, Levitt, Purnell and Oldham must be feeling pretty bloody stupid and duped by Hoon's chess move here. They even posed for photos with him for Christ's sake!

Lastly, after the 4NW decision last week, will Adonis agree to meet with Levitt and Purnell? If Levitt went on his own, it'd look like a Gilbert and George convention, increasing the comedic possibilities. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that they'll pose for photos which will result in another in our 'lolprat' series.

More news as we get it.

EXCLUSIVE: The bill to TMBC taxpayers for Oldham's jaunt to London

Further revelations have emerged about the costs partially incurred for Roy Oldham's trip to London to lobby Geoff Who? last month.

In a Freedom of Information release, John Hall has discovered that the trip cost Tameside MBC's taxpayers £545.60 in train and taxi fares (although any associated costs have yet to be disclosed).

As well as himself, Oldham transported 4 other Councillors/Staff members including Councillor Wareing his - get this - Aide-de-Camp! Oldham clearly thinks he has to impress the former Defence Secretary Who?/Hoon with this pseudo-military posturing. Perhaps Wareing carries Oldham's Viagra?

Anyhow, what is interesting is that although Oldham took 4 other people with him, according to the official meeting notes only Mike Thompson ('Director of Operations and Performance') was allowed in. Perhaps the Aide-de-Camp was too busy setting up Oldham's field HQ? Either way, it's a waste of money, and hopefully a waste of time. 

Hoongate part 3: what was said to Geoff Who?

And now here's the news you needed to make you chuck up your Xmas dinner. We have some answers about what took place at the 'Hoongate' meeting last month. The implications for the future of this road scheme are massive.

Keen readers of the local press may have noticed a press release from Friends of the Peak District over the past week or so. Along with the Campaign for National Parks, they have demanded to know how alternatives have been rejected (as was the line from Tom Levitt) when the Public Inquiry has not yet had chance to examine them, and they also accuse Geoff Who? of breaking the Governments Ministerial Code by 'jumping the gun'.

But now leading Objector John Hall has passed to us notes from the Hoongate meeting, which can be viewed here. They reveal the 'official' version of events, which we'll now try to elucidate.

Firstly, it's clear from the text that Tom Levitt has shot his bolt by stating all the guff about the Glossop Spur. For the DfT officials, the Spur is clearly so unimportant that it's not even appeared in the notes. As usual, Levitt makes a complete fool of himself. 

The main complaint begins in paragraph 5, where Roy Oldham makes it clear that the big problem for the pro-road lobbyists is the cost escalation. Oldham believes the estimated costs are too high when compared with other schemes, although it was pointed out to him by Highways Agency officials present that the cheaper schemes he used as an example are not really comparable, which shows how ignorant he is. 

Hoon then offered to turn the Inquiry process on it's head - paragraph 6 says that he offered to detrunk the existing road - this demonstrates that he is clearly partial and implicated now in this whole mucky, cruddy business. The current proposals for the bypass envisage that detrunking - a shifting of responsibility for the road from the Highways Agency to the Local Authorities - would take place after the bypass had been built. The fact that the A628 and A57 are a Trunk road is also one of the principle reasons thrown up by the pro-road lobby as to why a lorry ban is not possible. 

So we can only assume that Hoon's offer to detrunk the road now means that a Lorry Ban is more possible now than it has ever been. If it's that easy to remove problems, then there's no excuse not to try it. 

The implication of Hoon's offer is that if the responsibility for the road is handed to local authorities, then they can also have the responsibility for funding and constructing a bypass. Whether or not this makes a bypass more or less likely is a point we'll surely return to if Hoon's offer is serious. 

In paragraph 7, Purnell discounts alternative routes, after Hoon asked for views on them. This makes it clear that Hoon is asking the opinion of politicians before the case for alternatives have been put to the Inquiry, and before Hoon's agency - the Highways Agency - have rebutted any evidence put before them for alternative routes.

And in paragraph 8, Hoon is said to be 'awaiting formal advice from the relevant regional authorities before making a decision and when he had received that in the coming weeks he would be considering the best way forward'. 

With the release of this news, John Watson the Inquiry Inspector must wonder exactly what his role is. It's clear now for all to see that the key decisions are being made outside the Inquiry, and the politicians are completely brazen about it. Not only are the Highways Agency wasting the time and money of the public with their delaying tactics and not only is the Public Inquiry clearly a complete sham, but the politicians have no intention of even listening to the alternative point of view. 

That's fine - it confirms what we knew all along: they want a road, not alternatives.

But they need to be clear about the implications of making such aggressive moves. If Hoon wants to launch a war on the environment in Glossopdale and Longdendale in the same fashion as he launched the Iraq war - i.e without consultation, without listening to other points of view, in a pre-emptive manner - then he can expect a suitable response. 

Geoff Who? & Purnell - lolprats

In homage to one of our favourite websites, the wonderful icanhascheezburger.com, we present our moderately amusing take on the phenomenon that are the lolcats. 

So here's a challenge. If you know lolcats and you think you can do better than our version above, then email us with suggestions for an alternate caption for this, and any other picture of the pro-bypass protagonists which we can build into a regular series. If you provide (or point us to) the picture and the caption, we will do the rest...

(the above is a picture of Geoff Who? meeting James Purnell at the 'Hoongate' meeting - from Purnell's abortion of a website)

Hoongate part 2 - who said what to Geoff Who?

Since our post last week about the Bypass Cartel's meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport Geoff Hoon, we now have three different sources of info about what was said. It's time to compare and contrast and form some conclusions.

Firstly, the article in the Advertiser, and a classic Oldhamism from Roy:

"Clearly he (Mr Hoon) can’t support it as he is the final arbitrator but I am hopeful that what we heard is that he understands what our problems and our needs are."

Arbiter Roy, that's the word you're after. Anyway, Levitt didn't get a look in on this article and for a change, Oldham is diplomatic, making it clear that Hoon is 'supposed' to be impartial. 

Then we have the article in the Glossop Chronicle, which also quotes Oldham at the Longdendale and Hattersley District Assembly, and Levitt's remarks on what was discussed. Leaving aside some of the more revealing and juicy quotes for future articles, the impression it gives is that the delegation 'made their case' to Hoon, but hinting that some kind of reassurance was given, Levitt is quoted thus:

"We left the meeting feeling far happier than when we went in"

Now set aside visions of a meeting along the lines of the ones Roy Oldham used to hold with his friends Tom Pendry and Owen Oyston and a bevvy of young women for one moment! This suggests Hoon gave them some kind of hope that the road will be built, come what may.

But the clincher is another source. Quoted by Virtual Glossop, it's from a newsletter sent by Levitt to Party supporters. We'll quote it in full:

Bypass Talks Win New Momentum

The new Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, met local MPs Tom Levitt and James Purnell with Tameside Council Leader Roy Oldham last week. The meeting was called to try to get the road plans for the A628 / A57 back on track after the public enquiry ran into technical problems.

“A number of ways forward were discussed,” said Tom, “and some were ruled out. For example, local politicians and the Highways Agency agreed that there was no credible alternative route for the road.” Tom said that Glossop’s economic development relied heavily on the bypass and the associated Glossop Spur being built together. Geoff Hoon, who was our Euro-MEP until 1994, knows the area. He said that officials would explore options to bring the plans back on course quickly.

Levitt likes to portray himself as having all kinds of access at all kinds of levels of government and no doubt this news is more than a little bit of self-aggrandisement. But then we have the mixed messages about 'ways forward' being 'ruled out'. Who is ruling what out? Is it Hoon (previously known as 'Geoff Who' by the press during the attack on Iraq)? If so, it's none of his business, as Roy Oldham was keen to make clear at the Longdendale DA. 

So is Levitt going out on a limb, out of desperation for his more than likely battering at the next General Election? Or did this very cosy meeting really agree a way forward? It should be clear that if objectors request to met him and are rebuffed, then he clearly showing favouritism and bias.

To try to get to the bottom of the matter, leading Objector John Hall sent a Freedom of Information request to Hoon on 26th November:

The press releases today 26th November 2008 indicate your meeting with a delegation of TMBC Councillors who seek your approval for the strongly contested ByPass scheme through the Peak District National Park.

To accept this lobbying by those concerned indicates your complicity in showing contempt for the Public Inquiry process and the protocols required under an appointed Public Inquiry Inspector.

Those objecting to this road scheme have had to abide by the PI proceedings in presenting their evidence under the requirements of the Inquiry, and then being subjected to any cross examinations required by any Supporters of this ByPass.

The gates have been opened through your acceptance of this "organised delegation" who have been allowed to submit their support of the scheme directly to yourself, thereby showing contempt for the present Public Inquiry, the Inspector administrating the proceedings, and all the many objectors.

Because of these lobbying methods adopted through the stated meeting, those involved have avoided being cross examined in a Public Inquiry where their rhetoric and manipulated comments were directly made to yourself, with no recourse whatsoever to the substantial and error free evidence submitted by objectors.

To discriminate in such a flagrant manner Secretary of State, indicates and confirms an existing bias against those objecting through your acceptance of this recent lobbying meeting in London.

The PI Inspector concerned has now lost all credibility in his administrations because of these recent methods adopted by TMBC Councillors and MPs, which indicates a desperation in not being capable of substantiating their rhetoric in an Public Inquiry Open Forum.

I therefore now wish for the implementation of my FOI legislated request to yourself seeking the minutes, agenda, or any matters whatsoever discussed at your recent meeting because I believe extremely serious existing Public Inquiry protocols and procedures have been breached by the DfT whose impartiality has now been totally destroyed through its substantiated complicity with those supporting the ByPass.

We'll keep you informed of any responses as soon as we hear. 

First Watsongate, now Hoongate...

Today brings reports that the local politicians backing the Bypass - Tom Levitt MP, James Purnell MP and Tameside Council Leader Roy Oldham - have met with the new Transport Secretary of State Geoff Hoon to gain assurances about the status of the Longdendale Bypass.

Although the (as yet) unofficial press release from Levitt (originally published on Virtual Glossop - a snapsot of the original article can be viewed here) does not quote Hoon, according to Tom Levitt, there was agreement that "there is no credible alternative to the road" - at least amongst the Highways Agency and local politicians. As the Secretary of State, Hoon is effectively the head of the Highways Agency, so with this proclamation, the Secretary of State is commenting on a scheme that - if it were a Court case - would be sub judice. Breaching that would mean contempt of Court. 

Through their completely unfettered incompetence, Hoon's agency - the Highways Agency - have assured that the 'alternatives' have not even yet had a hearing at the Public Inquiry. What he should be saying is that 'at the Inquiry, the Highways Agency will contend that there are no alternatives, and the Inspector will make a decision based upon the evidence presented by ourselves and Objectors that argue the contrary'. But there's fat chance of such a reasonable pronouncement from this crowd of assorted cretins.

If, as is suggested, the Highways Agency has examined the case for alternatives, why is this information not available to the public at the Inquiry Library or on the website? Why are they not allowing their evidence to be examined prior to challenge by submitting their theories about alternatives now? After all, the alternatives do not form part of their scheme, and are independent of their work/cock-ups so far. Dos this mean the work has not been completed, or is there something else going on?

Despite his past warm words for the Save the Woodhead Tunnel campaign, Tom Levitt is 'speaking with forked tongue'. Because if, as he says, there are 'no credible alternatives' to the bypass, this means he's flashing the campaign a huge V sign. That this twit wants to have his cake and eat it has always been largely undisputed by those who have a realistic appraisal of snake-like politicians. 

And if they are so concerned and passionate about the Bypass, why did James Purnell, Tom Levitt and Roy Oldham fail to schedule their appearances to speak in favour of it at the Inquiry when it was running previously? Because they know full well that their rhetoric and propaganda would be tested to the fullest extent and that they would be exposed as a Cartel in hock to the Road Industry.

Lastly, we hear of reports that at a 'Community Empowerment' event last weekend, Tom Levitt proclaimed that supporters and objectors stood at 50/50 - THIS IS A LIE. For the umpteenth time, we'd like to remind this liar that of the 4239 responses logged by the Highways Agency (available on a list at the Public Inquiry Library), 1469 expressed support, but 2770 have objected. This is 65% against - or using a ratio, 2:1 against. 

We're sure we'll feature much more about this matter very soon...