Trying to hide the facts

Even after disposing of the Project Leader for the Mottram Bypass scheme Stephen Greenhalgh and appointing Alex Bywaters from Yorkshire to take over his mantle, the Highways Agency is still trying everything in the book to stop you knowing the facts. This latest example should appal everyone throughout Tameside and Longendale.

Because a Bypass will now cost YOU far more than the £200 million anticipated, plus of course the absolutely disastrous failure to back up the road scheme with factual evidence (which cost TMBC Council Tax payers around the £1 million mark for absolutely nothing), then of course the £16 million plus which YOU have paid for the absolute trash presented by the Highways Agency as evidence, I wanted to know who are the members of the Highways Tender Selection Panel and their specific backgrounds. Who are the people who are determining how and to whom YOUR MONEY is being allocated?

Back came the reply that we have been unable to offer the details as yet because we are considering the ramifications that such information may not be in the Public Interest. But they promised to correspond further later on in April.

What absolute bloody arrogance and contempt to now try and stop the facts being given because the details may well be "NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST".

Well, as a member of the Public who is contributing to the Department of Transport/Highways Agency/TMBC road scheme already found to have cost £17 million for absolutely nothing, I bloody well want to know who these Panel Selection Members are!

Could this Panel consist of Councillors, plus maybe Highways Agency Staff who previously were employed by large road building Contractors?

Are you prepared to permit these nameless and faceless quango members to spend such huge amounts out of your purses, wallets, pockets etc, and then turn around to you and say we need to be anonymous because "we believe" its not in our interest to allow the people who are paying these numerous millions to know who we are?

Now, who the hell do you trust in this absolute and contrived dictatorial regime we have in the UK (NOT ONE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED)?

Watch this space for the final response from the DfT/Highways Agency in April...

We are one today

We're one year old today. Hasn't the time flown?

I'm not surprised we're still here - after all, unlike the opposition, we always expected the Public Inquiry to drag on (although it's now even surpassing our own expectations). Plus, we are in this for the long haul. The politicians may look forward to 2012/2013 (the planned date of construction of the bypass), but even if all goes the way of the destroyers of the earth A LOT can (and will) happen to try to knock this project off the rails. There is a war, this is a weapon.

One thing can be sure, if you want to know what's going on, you will read it here first.

Last year, we set out to fill gap that existed in the coverage of the debate about this road. This blog fully intended to become the only regularly updated website which tackles the core and broader issues of the bypass. 12 months later, it remains so. It's not that we want to hog the limelight, but given the glacial progress of this scheme, the devil often makes work for idle hands. Having said that, if the blog becomes an end in itself, then it will be time to end the blog. The contributors are all activists, but our activity must come before our contributions.

We have drawn some criticism for having anonymous contributors, largely from two sources. The first was High Peak Councillor Anthony McKeown, someone who clearly likes to keep his blog free from comments, so much so that you're only permitted to comment if you attach a name. How he knows any name that is provided represents the posters' real identity, we will never know but of course for Anthony having a 'real' identity is a condition for your freedom of speech. It's indicative of how far in a right-wing direction the Labour Party have travelled of late.

The other critic was the pro-bypass blog 'Support the Hollingworth Bypass' which we have evidence was written by the Longdendale Councillor Sean Parker-Perry briefly last year before being taken down lest he got the sack. This is ironic given that the blog was in itself anonymous. The blog has recently been resurrected by us (with a slightly different URL) so anyone can read what he had to say. Watch this space for more about him soon.

Over the last year, we have added more features to the site, including videos and selected brief insights into who is reading us (obviously focusing on the opposition). We've become technically more savvy, so that we now have a lovely counter that tells us how much the bypass is costing (25 pence per second - an educated guess, but we look forward to seeing how accurate it is). And we feel we now a have a broad range of (much valued) contributors.

We always welcome new readers, so if you haven't already done so please tell your friends, neighbours and colleagues of our existence

To all our contributors - your input is essential and valued. For all our readers - whatever your views - you know you need the fix this blog provides, so keep on reading and spreading the word. Here's to another 12 months.

Climate Change and the Decisions that Matter

The Acid Test - Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Before proceeding with this article it is best to state at the outset that the issues are qualified to some extent by prevailing uncertainty regarding Climate Change being man made/anthropocentric. Dripping glaciers and collapsing ice floes make the national and indeed global headlines with alarming - perhaps to some tedious - regularity. Two very recent examples were headline news recently, where the increased rate of melting glaciers was “bettered” by a gloomy prognosis on the decrease of even stable ice continents, that are not supposed to be so susceptible to fluctuations in temperature.

Seemingly, there is also little doubt that the consequences of climate change could be considerable in political, economic and ultimately human terms, hence the urgent need felt by many to “do something” to avert this crisis – i.e. promote the Nuclear Industry. Hence also the globe trotting Al Gore - hopefully not contributing too significantly to aviation emissions - and the Stern report, which being economic in its consequences tends to be treated seriously.

Climate Change a Natural Cycle or Man Made?

However one impediment to “doing anything” is the argument that the crisis is not of our making, and the author feels this viewpoint needs to be acknowledged. It is a minority viewpoint, apparently the scientific majority of around 80% see a significant correlation between human activity and the crisis, but it is a view that is held in some parts. Indeed nature columnists in certain local newspapers, who rub shoulders with such luminaries as David Attenborough and might be considered as having some influence, have quite recently expressed the view that climate change is simply part of a natural cycle. A natural cycle unfortunate perhaps in its consequences, but for which the blame should not be laid at our door, and seemingly one we can do nothing about.

Until such time as columnists adduce some evidence to support such views however, this article will follow the scientific consensus, in assuming that the scientific majority are right, though we append a useful link on the topic below. Overall also we will make the assumption that not all such scientists blaming mankind are likely to have been hired by vested interests to play a particular tune. It is possible of course, but the opposite influence of traditional vested interests, such as the aviation and automobile industries seems more likely, and the wish to continue enjoying such transport will drive such views.

Key Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Moving on to the central topic we wish to briefly examine the substance of government actions with regard to climate change and local and influential decision making.

The concerning fact is that whilst we have a large national budget being targeted towards the area, and we seek to promote the UK global trailblazers in the diminishing emissions, the actual behaviour on the ground is different. Two recent decisions by the government, both made by theSecretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Hazel Blears, alert us to this worrying discrepancy.

The Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry took Global Warming very seriously. On this occasion the Inspector even recommended that the Gateway proposal should, on this very count of adverse climactic impact, be refused. However, despite the Thames areas being particularly susceptible to heavy flood damage, the Secretary of State thought otherwise, and ordered a review of the decision.

At Lancaster, the Heysham M6 Link Road Bypass scored very badly on Global Warming, and again the Inspector Mr Tipping (Cantab) had little choice but to record this fact. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from the scheme, including an increase in CO2 emissions, would be a significant adverse impact of the road scheme IR8.3.37” (Para 31 of Inspectors Report). However, significantly she claimed that there were no alternatives, something that opponents of the scheme hotly dispute as they assiduously compiled a package of alternatives. The Inspector did not allow the CO2 consideration to get in the way of rubber stamping another “business as usual” road scheme. Would it have mattered if he had? Perhaps not greatly, we might at best have expected another review of the decision, but in fact the relevant Secretary of State was only too pleased to endorse his decision.

What does this tell us?

Whilstl it is tempting to allow the reader to draw their own conclusion, without spelling it out, what seems clear is that the UK policy on global warming and climate change is one thing, but practice is another. Where policy can be hidden behind small print budget mechanisms it allows for giving the “impression of doing something”. In fact it may only be serving to add to government coffers, a fact which is often seized on by the cynical road lobby. The real decisions, that is to say those which are not simply obscure pricing mechanisms, but exist in the tangible world of results and action, tell another story.

When it comes to stark decisions, that will have to be taken if the challenge is going to be even remotely met , the record so far begins to look a little indefensible. The story so far seems to be “business as usual” and no change.

As long as climactic human calamity is far off, as with Bangladesh awash in melting the Himalayan glaciers, this will probably remain the likely course of events, perhaps until it is too late. Despite the many warnings, sadly it may require things to come home to roost even more clearly than the recent floods in the Midlands, to usher in the cold, if necessary, wind of change.

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 Watson's lonely hearts club

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siege must be choking

After a long, long wait, the Longdendale Siege Committee have finally updated their website, and the most noticeable addition is a new page about Nitrogen Dioxide pollution in Hollingworth.

From an academic point of view, the data they provide is useless - in the sense that they do not provide sources for their data. If there are no points of reference for the information they provide, then it cannot be effectively verified or checked.

Now don't get us wrong: we are not saying that there is not pollution in Longdendale or Hollingworth, but we would like to be able to examine the validity and accuracy of the data they present. We feel that this is not unreasonable.

So in the absence of proper references, we can only turn to the information put before the Public Inquiry. The Highways Agency's Air Quality expert, Mr Bean (seriously), presented a lot of information about pollution. The accuracy of his data and the methodology deployed may be looked at in a future post here, but for the time being, we'll accept his figures as accurate.

That being the case, Longdendale Siege choose two particular areas to demonstrate their data - Green Lane & Market Street. In Mr Bean's supporting data, these sites are given the designation R8 & R30 respectively.

Regarding Green Lane, where Siege have provided a figure of 21 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) in the year 2000, whilst the Highways Agency say it is 31.4 μg/m3 in 2005 - a rise (page 51). But their own study goes on to show a drop to 24 μg/m3 by 2015 without the bypass, owing to anticipated improvements in Car Engines etc. Add the Bypass, and it only achieves a further drop of 1.2 μg/m3 by 2015 to 22.8 μg/m3.

Regarding Market Street, Siege provide a figure of 46 μg/m3 in 2000 and 85 μg/m3 in 2007. But the Highways Agencies info is much lower - 23.1 μg/m3 in 2005, with a drop to 18.8 μg/m3 with or without the bypass by 2015 (page 51). In this case, the building of the bypass makes no difference by 2015 to literally 'doing nothing'.

Two quotes from the article are highly significant (emphasis added):

"There would be a small increase in NO2 concentrations along all road links due to an increase in road traffic with the operation of the Scheme" (i.e. the bypass - page 42, paragraph 5.7.2.9)

"The regional assessment indicates that the Scheme would result in an increase in all emissions compared to without the Scheme for both the Main and Air Quality Extended Study Areas" (page 47, paragraph 6.1.12)

So the Highways Agency's own expert says that the Bypass will entail an increase all forms of pollution in the area they have studied.

Returning to the Siege website, the key here is Siege's chosen year of 2007. This suggests they have access to data that not even the PI has before it. Either that, or it is a fabrication. Our contacts have emailed them to ask for more information., but have not had replies.

All of this leads us to two conclusions. Firstly, why are they publishing this data on their website and not at the PI? Is it because it will not stand up to scrutiny, or is there some other reason? Their submission to the PI does not mention pollution, or quote any data, although presumably it was as much of a problem then as it is now.

Secondly, if we accept that emissions from slow-moving vehicles causes pollution along the A628 and A57, then why not implement a HGV ban now? It's no use demanding a bypass that is at least 4-5 years away if you want to lessen pollution now - if it's bad enough now, advocate a trial HGV ban now.

STOP PRESS! - Public Inquiry dead as a Dodo?

We've missed this one, but so has everyone else. On Monday, the Highways Agency informed the Inspector of the Public Inquiry, John Watson, that they will not be ready to present proper finalised evidence until OCTOBER 2008.

One wonders if the PI will ever reconvene. More soon...

John Watson's Worldwide Fanclub

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's in Action Man's pants?

Chronicle & Reporter readers had a rare treat last week from one of Longdendale's seemingly shyest councillors. 'Our friend from the North' Jonathan Reynolds - a trainee solicitor and seemingly a career politician in the making - clearly feels he has to do his bit to calm the troops in the pro-bypass lobby:

















His use of the term "unanswerable case" demonstrates his contempt for those who dare to dissent - something he has in common with his fellow Councillors and the Labour Party in general.

He clearly feels so strongly about this that he feels no need to put his "unanswerable case" before the Public Inquiry. He feels there in no case against the road, so much so that he doesn't need to answer any difficult questions. Or rather, that he doesn't want to. It seems he's a slimy as his former boss, James Purnell. He's been trained well. You'd have thought that a trainee solicitor would relish the opportunity - but not this one, it seems he's yellow.

Pro-bypass people of Longdendale - your councillors sold you out. After years of preaching the case for their bypass, they do not have the courage of their convictions. They deserve your contempt and outrage.

It seems that Councillor Reynolds has much more in common with Action Man than simply his looks. Yes, he has the dead eyes and thug haircut, if not the scar (which we've added using Photoshop skills much better than Purnell's), but he also clearly has no balls.

Village Green Preservation Society

There has been a lot of coverage in the press recently regarding the issue of housing in High Peak for younger persons from the locality who cannot get a foot on the housing ladder. MP Tom Levitt has added his voice to the debate, and put the boot in for good measure to the concept of Village Greens, which according to our MP have allowed a few selfish individuals to stop developments and sports halls in Buxton.

At first sight Mr Levitt’s indignation with such selfish individuals seems wholly in the right, but sometimes - or perhaps quite often in his case - it is worth looking that little bit further, and this seems one of those instances.

It is worth noting that there are many houses in High Peak, which are not in the complete sense of the word “homes” because they are wholly or mainly unoccupied. These are second homes or houses bought as investments. It is not unusual in fact to find a worryingly high percentage of the housing stock on many local streets out of effective circulation for one reason or another, predominantly due to absentee or landlord ownership.

This might not seem a relevant concern for Mr Levitt and the government when they advocate more local housing supply for local people. However it should be, as the policy described below indicates something of a contradiction in their position. Whilst bemoaning the lack of supply the government will from this April start increasing subsidy to such unused stock by cutting the capital gains tax on 2nd homes. This practice that can only inflate prices and reduce the availability for local people , so it does not sit well with Mr Levitt's complaint.

MSN Money reports, and we quote in case the the link seems dead -

Good news for landlords

This is great news for landlords and owners of a second non-residential property. Investors pay CGT on the difference between the price they paid for the asset and the price they sell it for. As it stands, the tax rate is 40% for the first three years of property ownership, falling by 2% a year to a minimum rate of 24% after 10 years of ownership. The new system means that the length of time a property has been owned will be irrelevant; someone who has owned a second home for one year will be taxed at the same rate as someone who has owned theirs for 20 years. The capital gains annual exemption will continue to apply which (in 2008/09) will mean the first £9,200 of the gain is exempt from the tax charge. As far as the buy-to-let market is concerned, landlords will certainly emerge as the winners of the situation, as they will see a significant reduction in tax should they decide to sell a property.

In fact the selfishness which Mr Levitt deplores in one case – assuming it is selfish to care about precious green open spaces and voluntarily make unpaid efforts to protect them– is being actively encouraged by fiscal measures promoted by his government to enable people to have more homes than they actually need, either as capital investment or for personal use.
It is a somewhat weak position to adopt really, trying to expand the new build on the back of the needs of local people yet at the same time allowing, in fact encouraging, the removal of large amounts of housing stock from the same local supply.

We believe Mr Levitt adopts such a cockeyed or contradictory approach towards housing supply - i.e. abetting private ownership yet seeking more social supply - because there is a subtext behind his utterances which we would spell out as follows

The subtext of Mr Levitt’s approach is to support the construction industry and developers at all costs, and use the plight of local people to do so. Also throw in a swipe at environmentalists if possible and try to undermine their legitimate use of village green legislation that developers see as obstructing invasion of rural areas for profits. Who suffers from this cockeyed thinking? Well above all the environment, which is generally overlooked by the politician, leaving it to allegedly selfish people to use their own time and unpaid labour to try and find ways to keep the area somewhere that people actually do want to live in. How very selfish of them!

And this really is the crux of the issue, because assuming that new build is given a free rein on village greens and the green belt, and the current attitude towards housing as capital rather than a home is continued, it begs an interesting question.

14,000 homes on down the line - and that is the plan for High Peak in the coming years - will anyone, local or otherwise, very much want to live in High Peak Borough anymore. There is after all a distinct lack of buyer enthusiasm for over housed places like Droylsden or Dukinfield. Sadly such a sorry outcome can be the only outcome of Mr Levitt’s position, which is why it must be resisted. Despite the many shots of beauty on the MP’s web site these are simply gratuitous in this case, and the vital remit to protect the environment remains the remit of unselfish volunteers, who deserve our full thanks

With regard to Village Greens, they require our utter support and it is very important that they are assisted and this legislation safeguarded. It is meanwhile it is time locally and nationally that a coherent and environmentally responsible policy in the field of housing is developed, where local people can enjoy a local home without being forced to sign up to environmental destruction to get it. If we can’t have a reasonably buoyant economy without environmental destruction then there is something seriously amiss.

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.

Free Speech for the Dumb or 'If you don't like bad news, don't shoot the messenger'

Our spies have reported that Longdendale's biggest mouth, Roy Oldham (after his brother-in-law Mike Flynn) has been throwing his weight around again.

At the last full Council meeting on 14th February, Roy Oldham poured scorn on the recent Manchester Evening News article about TMBC's costs for the Glossop Spur. He reportedly said that the MEN journalist Brian Lashley was 'biased' and that he should 'reconsider his job' and also said that he would be 'speaking to the editor'.

The MEN get a lot of shit from both sides for their bypass coverage - including us, for differing reasons. But just who does Oldham think he is? He's so brazen that he thinks he can call for the resignation of a journalist on a regional newspaper for merely reporting how much TMBC have spent on their pet scheme.

But we're not going to call for Oldham to resign or even shut up. Because these bully-boy tactics can only further tarnish his already shitty reputation as an intimidating gobshite ... and help us and our cause.

Much more of this crap and we'll be mounting a campaign to defend Brian Lashley.

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.

Carillion's big visit

Around the time of the visits to the blog about James Purnell last week, we had one particular visit that really stood out. Carillion - contractors for the bypass (and not an 80s prog-rock group) - spent a lot of time on this blog, checking all the contributors out (to no avail) and also trawling through our archive. Yes, they spent nearly 90 minutes here.

If only they knew the time (and money) we spent trying to get the correct matching typeface to détourne their logo (info for font nerds: ITC Giovanni).

Incident on the Snake Pass...

Perhaps not what you were expecting, but to celebrate the re-opening of the Snake Pass, here's a little helping of the wonderful John Shuttleworth (aka Jilted John) with his song 'Incident on the the Snake Pass':

Lots & lots of visitors...

Well well well. It seems we've attracted a lot of attention today from lots of different quarters, and mostly all landing on the same post. Guess which one?

It seems that lots of interesting visitors are into the story about Purnell, Parker-Perry & Co. What's helped is being linked to from a very popular weblog. But the devil is in the details, so let's press on.

Firstly, 3 visits from the Houses of Parliament. Here, here and here. Friends coming to mourn, or foes gathering for the feast?

Secondly, our natural enemies - Sean Parker-Perry himself and good old Tameside. Are you afraid Sean? Time to build up that Olive Air Freshener business (a feature is coming along soon...).

Thirdly, the media. So far, Associated Newspapers & British Sky Broadcasting. Yum!

It also looks likes vultures are sniffing around. Two PR firms have turned up - Randall's Parliamentary Service and 'Good Relations'. Time to make the call James, good job you sold the house, you may need the cash...

Outraged of Tunbridge Wells (via Hyde)

As folk both locally and nationally will have noticed, it's not been a good few months for James Purnell, with this last week being no exception. Now you may think that this blog is just about the bypass, and other pressing environmental issues in Longdendale & Glossopdale, and you'd be right. But in for a penny, in for a pound...

So firstly, people with a short memories (and with a press cutting library less extensive than ours) may be surprised to learn that Mike Doherty is not the only one of Purnell's staff members to write into the press to support his boss, when it seems his constituents are less than supportive on an issue.

Just over 12 months ago (14th December 2006 to be precise), another member of Purnell's staff called Barbara Charlesworth (that's her with Sean & Mike above, presumably taken by James) wrote to support Purnell following a letter from an anti-bypass campaigner which criticised Purnell's contradictory stance on environmental issues and his support for the bypass.



Let's hope that Barbara hasn't decided to conceal her real address, like Doherty has - we'll let interested readers look into that one for us.

And a week earlier (7th December 2006), someone else wrote in too.

This time, it's John Bibby, son of the former Longdendale Councillor Peter, who we understand has also worked for Purnell. The latter comments of his about people "in the villages deciding what happens here" is presumably one of the reasons why Purnell has now decided to flog his London mansion and set up shop in Broadbottom (66 Mottram Road according to his 2005 Election nomination - whoops, there's Barbara again!). Well, one of several hundred thousand (if not million) reasons no doubt...

Regarding Purnell's tax dodge, there's been much talk of it being perfectly legal. That may be, but that doesn't make it right. But are we truly surprised by this man's latest actions? Really? This man's record increasingly speaks for itself - you only have to read his wikipedia entry (occasionally edited by his Girlfriend Lucy Walker and also his Parliamentary Political Operative/Gopher/Fluffer Sean Parker Perry), plus the talk pages of said entry to see what he is made of.

But perhaps the most vile fact about this yuppie twerp goes unmentioned in most places. In May 2006, he helped Cherie Blair to auction a copy of the Hutton report she had signed to raise money for the Labour Party. Yes, that's the report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly. Need we say more? Truly vile...

(NB - the link to the 2005 General Election nomination page no longer works, but the archive has it here)

'Squire' Bywaters - meet Ned Ludd

Last week, the Glossop Chronicle covered another of our scoops. Yes, they had news that Stephen Greenhalgh has left the Highways Agency team in charge of the Bypass. and that Alex Bywaters has taken over.

The Chronicle has a most unlikely quote from a Highways Agency official, who states that Greenhalgh has been asked to take on other 'new schemes' in the Agency. We'll do our best to keep our eye on this, it should provide a laugh if nothing else.

But Bywaters has a pedigree. It seems he was leader of the 'North Team' which has presided over moves to widen the M1 motorway. This is a scheme that has met fierce resistance, with the police employing methods worthy of the Gestapo against those opposed to it. It's also been notorious as swallowing huge amounts of money - the Observer reported that the scheme was costing £21 million per mile last year (perhaps we need a new counter in the side column to illustrate how similarly expensive our bypass is?).

Regular readers know how much we love the contradictions that are often thrown up by the whole bypass issue. But here's one that relates specifically to Bywaters. We can reveal* that he is the 'squire' of a troupe of Morris Dancers called Slubbing Billys, based in West Yorkshire. The symbolism they use consciously references the huge social and economic upheavals brought about by the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th & early 19th centuries. The symbolism is that of the Luddites - too often portrayed as merely reactionary, anti-technologists. But enlightened radicals (and not necessarily those on the left) know they represented the militant wing of a popular struggle against early industrial capitalism. They - correctly - identified technology as having a far from 'neutral' role in industrial relations and the rise of capital. They were fighting to retain a degree of control over their living and working conditions, and by extension their lives - from relative autonomy to an utter dependence upon the mill owners (in such huge numbers that the British State employed more soldiers to fight them than Napoleon). Technology facilitated the capitalists' designs of comparative enslavement. Technology was not - and is not - neutral. And it remains a legitimate target.

So Bywaters belongs to a group that pay homage to Luddites, whilst working for the Highways Agency. The Car Industry is to modern capitalism what the spinning and weaving machines were to early industrial capitalism. No doubt that one has passed him by...

Our message to Bywaters is clear - now that Greenhalgh has gone, you're next. The folk of Lancashire will once again sing the achievements of General Ludd!

They said Ned Ludd was an idiot boy
That all he could do was wreck and destroy, and
He turned to his workmates and said: Death to Machines
They tread on our future and they stamp on our dreams...

* we have absolute verification of this fact, but you'll have to take our word for it for now...

Travelodge/Submarine plan vanishes...(or sinks without trace)

We were going to write about this in depth (approximately 4 fathoms), especially after David Jones' gushing article in last week's Glossop Chronicle. But it seems that Cllr Anthony McKeown has told us that Shepherd Developments has withdrawn it's plan for a Submersible Travelodge in Hadfield, presumably now that the Environment Agency have objected once again.

So for now, we can only sit back and smile at David Jones' blurb saying that High Peak Borough Council is 'committed to promoting Glossop as a holiday destination' - yes, lots of people want to stay at a 'luxury' hotel that is slap bang next to a huge roundabout & main road (Glossop Spur) and not far from a load of ugly grey industrial development (Etherow & Rossington Park). Lots of business people needing a stop off a (soon to be) motorway on their way to somewhere else that is...

There's little doubt that Shepherd Developments will re-submit their application again - this project is pinned to hopes that the Glossop Spur planning application will be renewed by the end of this year. How that can happen with the increasing risk of regular floods - and the opposition that will be mustered by anti-bypass activists - remains to be seen.

Ruth Kelly is number crunching

Better Transport has news (on their 1st February blog) that Ruth Kelly and the Department for Transport are spending a lot of time pouring over the relative costs of various road schemes around the country. 'Cost Escalation' is now an issue, so here's a quote:

"Over the next couple of months I will be taking a firm view of what roads are being prioritised. It's absolutely the case there are tough choices to be made. We will have to look right across the roads programme to see what is desirable. What we need to do is have a rigorous look at the figures and be clear about what we can afford and what we cannot afford… I hope to be in a position in the next few months to make a definitive statement about where we are on cost and which roads we are committed to seeing delivered"

So it's not really a surprise when our spies report that Roy Oldham stated at the last full Council meeting of TMBC that he was seeking an urgent meeting with Kelly. Remember the news the other week that he was also seeking a meeting with Tom Harris? There's clearly going to be a lot of lobbying going on from TMBC and Purnell & Co to keep this scheme on track.

In the meantime, we'd like to point Oldham, Flynn etc towards our little device in the top left-hand corner of this blog that is tracking the 'cost escalation'. 25p per second Roy...

Longdendale Bypass secretly opened?

We were quite shocked to discover this week that the Longdendale Bypass has secretly opened. Here we are, in the midst of fighting it with the opposition foaming at the mouth over the Public Inquiry delays, and it seems the Highways Agency's Doozers have been at work constructing it.

Not only that, but Tameside have renamed one of the villages.

The evidence? This article in the Manchester Evening News about bad weather contained this line:

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police confirmed that the wind also caused the A57 Snake Pass, between Manchester and Sheffield, and the A628 Mottram-Tintwhistle bypass to be closed this morning.


MEN journalist John Scheerhout clearly has inside information, unless he talked to Mike Flynn who is now content to issue black propaganda. Nothing would surprise us anymore...

Purnell - scouring the Shire with his trusty 'staff'

We're way behind with things here. But we're slowly catching up on visitors, and going back a couple of weeks, we had a most intriguing visit.

It seems someone from Trader Media Ltd (an arm of the Guardian Media Group) had landed on our site after searching google with the phrase "Purnell's staff". Whatever could they mean?

Do they mean the mighty staff with which he is about to smite the most vulnerable sections of society (Nu Labour translation: "raising skills", "credible ladders of opportunity", "Arbeit Macht Frei" etc, ad nauseum)? Perhaps. Or were they looking for a pipsqueak (a now completely silent one at that). More likely.

The rest is a mystery to us. But watch this space.

Woolley Bridge Floods

This week's floods in the Glossop area have again been big news, with articles in both the Advertiser & Chronicle.

But the only hint of a wider view of this problem came in the Advertiser, with a quote from a resident of Woolley Lane:

"We told the council when a new house was built next door two years ago that this area was a flood plain"

Indeed. There's a new housing development being built not far from the flooded area, as well as a Hotel/Travelodge as we reported previously (and whose previously blocked planning proposal is being resurrected - a report will come soon).

So it'll be really interesting to see what happens if the Glossop Spur is built, because the river Etherow tends to burst its banks all along the area where the roundabout from the A57 will be. The picture above gives a projected view of what the possible road signs will need to indicate, because this is the third time major flooding has occurred here this century...

Exit Kojak, sorry Stephen Greenhalgh...

News has reached us that the Highways Agency's North Team, in charge of the Longdendale Bypass, has a new leader.

Correspondence sent out to certain objectors today is signed off by one Alex Bywaters, as Project Leader MP North Team M2 Manchester - Stephen Greenhalgh's old job.

So did he fall or was he pushed? Unlike his doppelganger Kojak, he didn't exactly exude confidence at the Public Inquiry. He came across as a rather clammy, insecure individual lacking in confidence. He's clearly had to fall on his sword for what could be a number of reasons - perhaps to satiate Roy Oldham's impatience, clearing the decks for a different approach when the PI resumes? Perhaps to create the impression that the delays are to do with incompetence, rather than other 'grand designs', as we've suggested recently.

Maybe if he'd stuck a lollipop in his mouth and drawled 'who loves ya baby' at John Watson things might have been different?

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

Roy Oldham's money shot

Trench warfare continues. Roy Oldham is clearly worried that he'll be pushing up daisies by the time work starts on the bypass.

So today, he has launched an offensive in the Manchester Evening News with the publication of this article.

If you don't want to read this crap, the gist of it is that the delays in the Public Inquiry (PI) are 'holding back business' (heaven forfend!).

In a world where the most important of all considerations is economic, the mask has slipped for Oldham: he loves money, as do his cronies. Those who live in the area - and who don't easily have the wool pulled over their eyes - are experiencing the 'economic prosperity' this bypass will bring, but not in an economic way. Go to Tintwistle and look across to Hadfield - straight at those awful grey sheds - Rossington Park and Bridge Mills. Go into Glossop and take a look at all the 'same as everywhere else' chain stores. The economic prosperity they bring (and who they bring it to) is debateable - what is sure is that they bring spiritual and environmental poverty to the people who have to live there.

The message of the filthy lucre-crew is clear - tell the government to wind up the PI, or to ignore it. We need a bypass to extend the M67 and bring more lorries through, and to build more warehouses in, the area.

What the hell has this got to do with 'relieving 3 villages of traffic'?

We plan to release more and more info over the coming weeks that will fully demonstrate Roy Oldham's love of money, much of it you will not have heard of before.

Here are the results of the Longdendale Siege Committee...

Older readers will remember the many japes we've had teasing the Longdendale Siege Committee about their pathetic pm.gov.uk petition. Over the months, they've gone to all sorts of lengths to get signatures on it - their friend David Jones at the Glossop Chronicle even did his best to make sure everyone knew about it.

So what's the status of the petition? Well, it's now closed. And - wait for it - it has the fantastically convincing number of - oh, 198 signatures...

Time to rehash the bullshit about their 9,000 manual signature petition then. I suppose this is the last we'll hear from them about the electronic petition - though not if we've got anything to do with it.

Ivan Bell's right of reply

Hawk-eyed readers may have noticed that we had some comments from one of our subjects of ridicule over the past 12 months. Yes, Ivan Bell seems to have discovered this blog on New Year's day, and set about leaving comments on this post about SCC, and also on our 2007 round-up post.

On the SCC post, Bell is charitable enough to afford the (now quiet) protestors over Rossington Park some degree of success. He thinks that if they had not been active, even more sheds would now be present. And let's face it, he should know being a Councillor. We will discuss more about High Peak Borough Council's continuing environmental onslaught on this part of the High Peak in future posts, but for now, we'll agree with that statement.

The other comment is a mix of compliments, insults and absurd statements. The compliments are aimed at us for our 'interesting' views. Clearly, Bell didn't read our posts about him earlier in the year. The insult is where he says we should stand for election: if he'd read the blog closely enough, he'll know that our politics leave us with nothing but contempt for politicians of all kinds, along with the whole political and economic system of capitalism.

Absurd statements come in the form of his views of what should happen now about Rossington Park:

"our only chance is to try and get it more environmentally friendly"

We'd agree, but we're from the Jack Mansfield* school of views regarding eyesores: a stick of dynamite will do the job.

What Bell means - and it's the drum he's been banging for a long time - is that Rossington Park should be painted a different colour. He's been in the Glossop Chronicle with this familiar refrain only the other week. And we now agree - paint them Hi-Viz yellow. That way, the locals will sooner resort to the Jack Mansfield tactics these eyesores deserve. And the sooner someone calls him out for being the distraction from outrage that he is, the better.

But before we close this post, it's probably best to have a little tour of the skidmarks Ivan Bell has left on his travels around the internet. First stop is his lovely blogger user profile: he likes drinking 'real beer' (as opposed to false), and his favourite movie is 'Doctor Zivargo' (sic) and his favourite book is that well-known tome 'History Novels' (we'll be asking for that at the library next week).

Next is his lovely website. He promised to give us a link on here, and he has bless his heart. But wait, oh dear - his comments on the Peak District tourist logo:

"This is not the GAY site even if it is pink"

...except it's purple. Never mind Ivan, we're all as 'good as you'.

But have a look at his other links: "Soil Stabilization" (sic) ("Soil stabilization and erosion control and dust control products and services"). Hmmn, what about this - "Massage School" ("Best massage therapy school with latest techniques"), ahem...

We do so hope that Ivan stops by again. It's nice to be having a political debate, even if it's with a cretin who wears a hat too small for his head.

*Jack Mansfield was a lovely old Glossopian, very reminiscent of Compo, who publicly called for urban guerilla tactics to demolish the (still present) eyesore that is the Ferro Alloys chimney.

The case of the £13.7 million and the Freedom of Information request...

Part two of the post we promised over a week ago now follows (part one is here).

Anyone who has followed the Public Inquiry (PI) will know that one individual has been as tenacious as a terrier in his fight to uncover all of the sleaze, lies and obfuscation surrounding the bypass. John Hall gave us the lowdown on his attempts to get the figures from the Highways Agency in his own words:

1. I forwarded a FOI (Freedom of Information) request to the DfT (Department for Transport) on 7th November 2007.

2. After 10 days it was referred to the HA (Highways Agency) Manchester.

3. The HA tried to put me off by stating my request would cost too much and take up too much important time for them and asked me doctor my FOI to reduce its content.

4. I played their game and stipulated I wanted ALL communications between the DfT and HA between February 2007 and October 2007.

5. I received a response from the HA dated 21st December with the breakdown of the costs of the preparation and promotion of the PI evidence they submitted.

6. The letter which accompanied the page of costs is not the one on the HA website or the Persona Associates website but although it has no name and address, it refers to another objector's (A) FOI request submitted on November 7th. This is not accurate because I know that objector (A) never sought this FOI request and knew nothing of it.

7. Another objector (B) says they submitted a similar FOI request in October, but received the same December 21st HA response to themselves with the same reference number as objector (B) and acknowledging 'their request of November 7th'. How this could happen is anyone's guess but something doesn't ring true.

8. My letter dated 21st December 2007 from the HA includes the costs data we now all know. HOWEVER the letter states that my request for all correspondence & emails between the DfT and HA is being considered as inappropriate and as 'not being in the Public Interest' and will be answered in late January 2008.

9. The FOI Commissioner has now received all documents, emails etc relating to my November 7th 2007 request because (a) my request was not actioned within the appropriate statutory time limit, (b) has still not been fully dealt with, and because (c) the full information I require, other than the costs already received, is vitally important evidence required for the Public Inquiry. Furthermore, it "is" of Public Interest and I believe that the info the DfT/HA are now attempting to hide would be instrumental in proving duplicity and manipulations of a Public Inquiry instigated by the DfT. I now await the outcome of Information Commissioner's investigation and deliberations, but I will be fighting this 100% to get this important evidence to present to the Inspector.

So there you have it. Both the Inquiry and the blog will hear a lot more from John over the coming months.

Channel M on the £13 million: Wot no Mike Flynn?

Channel M have another of their reports on the bypass. They've found Tintwistle this time, rather than Brookfield in Glossop. But it's strange they haven't talked to Mike Flynn, and there's no statements from him. Is he camera shy? or are they a bit fed up of the usual soundbites he provides? Come on Mike, send us an email, let us know.

The bypass is costing £660,000 per month, and counting...

Well, we've been pipped to the post with this one. After scanning the Highways Agency website, as well as the Public Inquiry website, we became aware of some Freedom of Information releases which talked about an increase in costs. But there are so many things to write about at the moment, that we put it on hold for another night.

So the MEN have the scoop for a change. Today's big news is the massively escalating costs of the bypass.

Quoting the £13,782,505.24* figure is one thing, but there are other ways of looking at numbers. The Freedom of Info releases are here, here and here (all open PDFs), but for those who would like us to extrapolate, here is the info they provided:



The figures show the differing amounts paid to those involved on working on the bypass, for specific time periods. I have added the time periods in months. When you produce an average of those periods to produce monthly figures, this is what you get:

August 2004-January 2006 - £408,861.43 per month
February 2006-February 2007 - £309,710.17 per month
February 2007-June 2007 - £489,048.06 per month
June 2007-October 2007 - £658,956.50 per month

So the latter period has been the most costly. The Bypass is now costing over £150,000 each week. Roy Oldham's annual salary as Council leader was reported to be more than £40,000 just over 2 years ago - so the bypass is costing us a Roy Oldham every other day. Surely that's food for thought even for the most craven pro-bypass supporter (unless you happen to be related and invited to all the junkets, eh Mike Flynn)?

And if you read the comments on the MEN website, it's all our fault. Well boo hoo - that's fine with me. Because driving up the costs - by fair means or foul - kills road schemes. It is a legitimate tactic as far as we're concerned. And it is working.

In part two of this feature, we will reveal how this Freedom of Information release came about.

**Update, 14/01/2008. We've now rigged up a little counter to show the estimated costs so far. This little widget is based on the £13,782,505.24 figure being relevant from 31st October 2007 and that costs are accruing at the rate we calculated. It can be adjusted accordingly, but in the meantime will count down here for the forseeable future reminding people what a total rip-off this white elephant is!**

*if you were writing a cheque, you'd have to scribble "thirteen million, seven hundred and eighty-two thousand, five hundred and five pounds, twenty-four pence" onto the two lines they provide - see the above image for an idea

Levitt's 2008 predictions

In his column in last week's Glossop Chronicle (actually a regurgitation of his own New Year press release), Tom Levitt makes an astonishing prediction:

"We will find out the result of the Tintwistle Mottram bypass enquiry in 2008 and I am confident that, despite hiccups, the result will be in its favour"

One wonders how Levitt has arrived at this conclusion: looking back to the last sitting of the Public Inquiry (PI) on December 18th last year, The Highways Agency (HA) could only give a vague commitment about when they would be ready to tell the PI when they would be ready!

If one imagines this is going to be 'after Easter 2008', then that would mean after 23rd March. So if we're being optimistic, it may be possible that the HA would be able to tell John Watson they would be ready by May this year - the first anniversary of the commencement of the PI.

Of course, all of their information may then have to be republished, and it's possible that another consultation period will then follow if the revisions are extensive. But even if this isn't the case, it's unlikely the PI will restart until June this year. Does Tom Levitt really think the PI will be concluded before December 31st 2008 and further that John Watson will make his decision before then? Really? Has he been following events closely at all? Is he - a former PPS to two Government Ministers/Secretaries of State - really that ignorant of the length of time consumed by statutory procedures such as this?

Is this man a cretin, or just incredibly optimistic? Answers on a postcard to the usual address...

Tesco comes to Mottram & Hattersley

Everyone has been puzzling about what motivation the Highways Agency have for the constant delays they have initiated in the Public Inquiry process.

But now, our sources in Tameside have new information which we believe helps us to provide an explanation.

You may remember the much-vaunted 'regeneration' of Hattersley from earlier last year - an injection of £250 million to transform (code word: 'gentrify') the area.

The details of the deal include the transfer of housing stock previously owned by Manchester City Council to the newly-created Peak Valley Housing Association. The terms of the deal ensured this was done at 'zero value'. Nevertheless, the new Housing Association still had to plug a £20 million hole to fund repairs and improvements to existing housing stock. TMBC's literature* makes it clear this was done by courting developers to the site.

Fostering this new (i.e. middle class) community has meant bourgeois totems have to be included. So as well as a police station and a new community centre (a 'sweetener' to buy off any potential dissent amongst local community activist/bureaucrats), Tameside's press releases & literature have coyly suggested that "options are also being explored for new retail development"** and "future development of the site will include a new retail food store"***. If the latter statement doesn't make it clear enough, then our sources tell us that the plan is for the construction of a new Tesco store on the site.

This is bolstered by the fact that CTP have been awarded the Retail contract, and they are the developers who brought the traffic disaster that is the Tesco store to Stalybridge. CTP list Tesco amongst their 'partners' in their online brochure (see also page 19).

The naive amongst you may well think this is justification enough. After all, don't they provide jobs and boost the local economy? The debate for the merits or otherwise of Tesco is clearly something we will have to save for future months, but the elephant in the living room in this case is of course the massive increases in traffic that will be entailed with the opening of this store. It will be much easier for Longdendale folk, as well as those from Hyde and even further afield (Gee Cross & Woodley) to access this store than travel to stores in other areas. Plus, if Tameside's plans for the Bypass succeed, then transpennine travellers who need to stock up on anything that takes their fancy will have massive supermarket a stones throw away from a major roundabout, as well as those who use the existing route in the meantime.

Oh yes - the traffic increases. Weren't they factored into the traffic flow data that the Highways Agency had collated for the Public Inquiry?

Of course not - the ink is still drying on this 'development' deal. Because TMBC are eager to attract capital to the area, it's possible that their greed had not anticipated this. So because the existing traffic figures will clearly not stand up to scrutiny, they clearly have to be factored in.

We feel this is the reason for the delays with the Public Inquiry.

But we're saving the biggest bombshell until last. Have you wondered why the Mottram side of Hattersley has lain empty for months after such a hasty demolition? This may be because our sources in Tameside tell us that the developers have been instructed by both TMBC and the Highways Agency to delay applying for planning permission until 'after April 2008'. Which funnily enough is the period that the Highways Agency have said it will take before they have an indication about their traffic models.

We'll be very interested to see how long this little hand grenade remains undiscovered by the wider local & national press...

* - (opens PDF - see page 3)
** - (opens PDF - see page 4)
*** - (opens PDF - see page 8)