The Longdendale Bypass & the Credit Crunch - is this the end of the road?

Today is somewhat of a watershed for this blog, because we finally got ourselves in newsprint. Yes, the MEN even asked us for a quote! The story was the one we broke nearly 2 weeks ago, about the massive projected cost increase of the Bypass.

But it's also bad news for other areas - the Government has approved the Cheshire (A34) bypass, and has pretty much underwritten it by pouring in £48 million (94%) of the total £51 million needed for the scheme. One can't imagine the government throwing £295 million at the Longdendale Bypass, and indeed, they have no intention of doing so.

So with an ever-widening 'funding gap' (between what Central Government will throw in and what the North West Local Authorities must find themselves) , the longer this whole thing plays out the better the chance this scheme - and others - will never see the light of day. In the coming months, expect to see the Longdendale Overlord Roy Oldham scuttling around government ministers and laying down the law at the North West Regional Assembly to get his pet project through.

But there is a wider context to all of this. As the costs increase paper outlines, road construction price inflation has doubled since the previous estimates, no doubt largely due to the price of crude oil and inflation generally - old costing models no longer stack up, hence the huge cost rises when these are rationalised. Is it any wonder that Road Construction firms are moving to merge to weather the bad times, not to mention diversify*.

And another way of looking at this is in the context of the much vaunted (but plainly fucked) Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid in Greater Manchester - the projected maximum cost of the Bypass is 10% of the money in the TIF. The Longdendale Bypass plan is 5.7 km long - apparently, 'transforming public transport in Manchester' (their words, not ours) is only worth 57 km of roads like the bypass - or 3 years of UK funding for the Iraq war (it's a good job we don't think the TIF bid is the holy grail which will deliver the North West from climate change, like Liberal Bourgeois Greens do - clearly, crumbs for the masters table will suffice for some).

Finally, the top of this blog has the latest New Report from Channel M. At one point, the reporter, Richard 'monkeys might fly out of my' Butt, states that he can understand why people 'have been campaigning so hard and so long' for the road - making his point against a backdrop of freely-flowing traffic. Clearly, there's no need to get hold of Mike Flynn to wring a quote out of - he does the job himself.

*Carillion - the contractors for the bypass - bought Alfred McAlpine in December 2007. McAlpine had the contract for maintaining Sainsbury's supermarkets. What a coincidence then that Sainsbury's have now plainly stated their intentions to build a Large Superstore in Glossop...

'Hyder Consulting Crap'

...not our words, but those of a recent visitor to the blog who had been searching the internet, presumably for people with no good words to say about the Management Consultants employed to work on the bypass. How apt then that they landed here.

The searcher was using a computer belonging to Cantillon Capital Management, who are listed as as Independent Financial Advisers. Perhaps they'd just seen the new costings for the bypass (which we exclusively revealed last week - yet to be taken up by the press, though we did tell them).

One's thing's for sure - Hyder Consulting don't need financial advice - under the official figures, along with Carillion, they've so far been paid £9.5 million for producing an error-strewn, crappy scheme.

EXCLUSIVE: Bypass costs rise by between 20% - 70%

We have an exclusive here for you today: hot on the heels of the recent announcement that the Glossop Spur costs have risen by 54%, the Highways Agency has revealed that the cost of building the A628 Bypass have risen significantly.

This document outlines cost estimates on all major road schemes. The A628 Bypass comes in at between £223 million (minimum) and £315 million (maximum). This is an increase of between 21% to 71% on the costs increases announced in March 2007 in the Nichols Report (£184 million), and an increase of between 200% to 283% on the figures from 2003 (£90 million).

It's clear these costs are on a huge escalator, and cannot prove sustainable.

Will Cosmetic Energy Schemes Save the World?

The artful reader will see that there is only one reasonable answer to this question, and that would be "no"! But what kind of scheme is cosmetic, and likely to prevent real measures that are really responsible and necessary reactions to climate change? And what is wrong with Gordon Brown being allowed to feel good about himself, by committing to 15% renewable energy? Surely no right minded person would quarrel with that?

Let us start our search for the right green energy strategy locally, with the Torrs Hydro Project and be as fair minded as possible. In New Mills, Tom Levitt has put his considerable parliamentary clout - although in the above video nobody seems to take much notice of him speaking, and the Speaker has to call the House to order to allow him to do so - to bring to the Nations attention a hydro-electric scheme in New Mills. Apparently this scheme can generate enough power for a few hundred homes - hardly a major impact on the 10,000 inhabitants of New Mills then and maybe why Jack Straw saw the funny side and can be seen laughing and joking throughout!

Although it is dubbed a "community project" it is probably safe to assume the energy would be simply handed straight over for a payment to the national grid, so where is the community in that - except the impact on the community resource of the Torrs, where visitors will apparently have an Archimedean Screw to negotiate?

So our verdict on the project, without wishing to be harsh, is that is probably more than a little "cosmetic" when one considers its size and the disproportionate amount one hears about it even at National Level. Why Tom Levitt has latched onto it with such vigour is fairly clear, as I will explain below, but it is worth pointing out that it would be not the only hydro electric plant in his constituency, perhaps not the most productive, but seemingly the one he likes to talk up his green credentials with.

And make no mistake Tom Levitt, whilst being a supporter of the highly un-environmental A628 Bypass, is very keen to be portrayed as an Environmentalist, taking pride in his roots as an erstwhile teacher of environmental science. As such, Tom Levitt is in our view completely symptomatic of the current national malaise of political groups stealing the green clothes of the "Eco movement" now that environmental concerns have suddenly become pressing, or as these people probably see it "fashionable". They like the idea of small unproductive projects simply because they allow development in green belt areas and allow them to avoid "biting the bullet" (as Tom would say) that one day will have to be bit - of reducing car and plane emissions.

In my view, a major part of Gordon Brown's entire "renewable energy strategy" is to offer respectability and careers to silence green groups that call for emissions cuts in transport, and who can be found to support cosmetic schemes at the expense of the countryside and the planet in terms of putting off what really needs doing.

My understanding is that there is a component of off-shore wind farms within the Bill that has a grain of sense in it, and that will be meaningfully productive, and to these I would cautiously lend support. However this component is completely undermined as I see it by the specious attempt of the Strategy - in partnership with the dangerous Planning Reform Bill - to gain infrastructure and planning access for developers into hitherto restricted open countryside and green belt.

The fact of the parliamentary exchange between Tom and Gordon Brown - set up through mention of the "tiny" New Mills scheme to allow the PM to put on his "green suit" again - is to my eyes a seriously worrying assault on the intelligence of the nation. Hopefully people are too smart to fall for this. Otherwise cue the "greying of the UK" courtesy of the Grey PM and his grey MPs, a "greying" where every sustainable project has to have a hidden agenda of allowing motorway junction expansion, or releasing some coveted but previously unattainable beauty spot to the JCBs.

EXCLUSIVE: Glossop Spur costs rise by 54%

Exclusive news courtesy of the Campaign for Better Transport and trailed in today's Guardian. The cost of road schemes are going through the roof, and the Longdendale Bypass - or in this case the Glossop Spur is no exception.

If you read page 3 of this table (opens PDF), you'll see that the original estimated cost of the Glossop Spur was £7.18 million. That's now risen to £11.07 million - a 54% increase since December 2000.

However, worryingly for Roy Oldham and Tameside MBC, the currently agreed Department for Transport contribution remains at £7.18 million.

How will Roy & Co. find the money in these times of Financial crisis?

Showdown at the Showground - the end of 'Mottram' Show

The above photo shows the magnificent view of the Longdendale Valley from the Mottram Showground, home of the Mottram Show, during a show in 2002. The bypass route goes right through the Showground (photo credit: spaceless.com)

You may remember our post from a couple of weeks ago about the behind-the-scenes horse-trading going on during the Public Inquiry Recess. We mentioned that the Mottram Show Committee is split, not least because Roy Oldham has made it clear that were the Committee to object to the bypass, they could kiss goodbye to a new venue for their show. Access to the Supporter/Objector list shows that amongst the 6 Committee members listed on this page, there are 2 objectors and 1 supporter (J Swann, Supporter No. 866). The other people named have not taken a formal view. Whatever happened to people standing up with their consciences displayed? What power does Oldham have that he can buy their silence?

Well there are now rumours circulating around Longdendale that the deal has been done - and that the new home of the Mottram Show will be - Gee Cross. Or at least a patch of land alongside Stockport Road. This is clearly in Hyde, but the physical Geography of the location suggests that the Mottram Show will no longer belong to neither Mottram nor Longdendale. Along Stockport Road, it's possible to view the hills that form the valley, but not the valley itself - significantly, it also won't be possible to see the bypass. We've created a custom map, which is at the foot of this post which illustrates the Geograhical dislocation of this tradition from the whole area.

So the Mottram Show is cut off from its rightful home, and it's not even possible to view where it was from its new location. The brutal psychology at work in this deal should not be underestimated. The fact that the A560, fastest road in the area at 50 mph, runs through the land here is also highly ironic, as is the fact that the construction of the Bypass will entail a 15% increase in traffic along this road by 2015, and a 25% increase by 2030. Maybe by then, even the Gee Cross show - as it's sure to become known - will still not be safe from calls for a new road. But those on the Mottram Show Committee who have chosen to keep silent may well be pushing up daisies by then, along with the architect of the destruction of the Mottram Show and the Longdendale Valley, Roy Oldham.


View Larger Map

Since we published this post, we have learned the actual venue for the Show, as well as further interesting details. Read here for more details.

(This place, is comin' like a ) Ghost Town

A few weeks ago I blogged about the Glossop Vision situation, which appears to mean huge, burnt out or mothballed mill regeneration schemes in the main. I qualified this criticism by pointing out the more acceptable facelifts in terms of pavements and station surround improvements, though the general consensus has been that these were implemented in a way designed to seriously inconvenience the local population and hit the local retail industry particularly hard. It is only reasonable to say that the town continues to look “like a ghost town” as the Howard Town mill project currently has the authentic air of the “Marie Celeste”, as if abandoned suddenly with all hands on deck.

Anyway, Glossop Vision are unrepentant, flagging up the next phase of their projects, and seeking new members to help Glossop submit to the latest dose of “regeneration”. There appears to be only Woods Mill left in terms of the usual approach but no doubt there are plenty of opportunities there for similar “white elephants”. Many will be wondering what is coming next.

Of course there is a disused railway line – currently a trail in an area that is not exactly spoilt for choice in terms of countryside facilities – but would that be the kind of thing that Glossop Vision is interested in? . Would it be a money spinner (quite possibly actually!)? But it does look old economy and that is always a problem with the “vision” people, who usually want “business as usual” 1990s style. As a colleague recently wrote, the “Vision” seems to favour enterprise that takes money out of the town into large corporate concerns.

Fortunately for the Council there seems to be no shortage of hapless individuals in the firing line recently to deflect public attention, so they can happily pursue their Vision line without embarrassment. Stories like those of the Dainty Deli repeatedly inspected by the Health and Safety Inspectorate, and ultimately closed with damning verdict by a Crown Court Judge make the Council look good, as a protector of public standards or safety without damaging any major interests.

The previous week it was Councillor Ivan Bell, labelled a “bully” by the Standards Committee amidst a deluge of expensive explanatory paperwork but strangely having to stand trial without the plaintiff being present. That seemed a little disrespectful of the process somehow, or even disrespectful of Councillor Bell whose reputation was after all at stake. The irony was that the accusation of “disrespect” was the very one levelled at Councillor Bell, and in fact one he had the courage to own up to.

And following that, bid farewell to the Dainty Deli - the latest casualty of Glossop’s High Street West. Whilst not being a patron of the store, it is worth saying that this appeared to be a quite a pleasant, busy, old-fashioned little business, in keeping with the town’s character, and likely to blend well with the tourist trade. Sometimes businesses like these struggle to comply with the new demands of health and safety regulations and need a lot of support to maintain their business in the current retail climate.

Whilst realising the Food Hygiene Officers repeatedly advised them of the need to radically improve and that they failed, seeing another local business with High Street frontage go down does not warm the heart. While in the formal sense the owners apparently missed their chance to improve, whether the Hygiene Officers did everything possible to keep the business afloat is not made clear from the newspaper reports. One would have liked to feel that a small local business got the same repeated second, third and fourth chances handed out to the regeneration projects.

Similar censure of the ill-fated Regeneration Policy is not to be heard and the questions regarding this seem hidden under press coverage of matters of ultimately less importance - under in fact what could be something of a fine web of spin?

No doubt the further excellence awards for our visionary council are not going to be handed out just yet but it is probably just a matter of time. Meanwhile one wonders just how much more Vision Glossop can take?

(Editors note: One retail chain has recommenced trade from the ground floor at Wrens Nest)

Passing the buck?

It seems that the local media has only just noticed the correspondence from the Public Inquiry that we broke last week, and today there are a couple of articles in the press about the delays to the PI, with some putting the possible resumption back to this time next year. The best bit is surely Brian Lashley's revelation that Roy Oldham's much mooted meeting with Tom Harris, the under Secretary of State for Transport, has still not taken place. It seems Roy doesn't find the favour he once did.

The Manchester Evening News also features a couple of 'outraged' quotes from both pro and anti bypass folk, but there is another side to this that everyone is missing. Clearly, the Government does not want to make a decision about this road, and that may well be because they don't want to be the ones to quash it. With an increasingly hostile political climate for the Labour Party, the last thing they'd want to do is nix a scheme that is the pet project of a strong Labour Local Authority, and one in the constituencies of 2 Labour MPs, one being a Secretary of State. It's much better to leave the decision to a future Conservative government, and to let them take the flak - locally and nationally - if they decide against it.

But that's a big 'if'. We should all remember that this scheme survived Labour's cull of Tory road schemes upon their coming to power in 1997. It could well do so again.

Our call for John Watson to go was certainly tongue in cheek. In fact, in reality we're happy for this charade to go on as long as possible - the chances are that the delays and increased costs will really stuff things up for the whole scheme. We'll drink to that.

John Watson - resign, do it Monday!

The Highways Agency have taken all of the 7 days John Watson gave them this time last week to to respond to the questions he posed to them last week. Below are the questions posed by Watson (bold), and the answers provided by the HA (italics):

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

It is still the Highways Agency’s current intention 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?

Our current developing programme still indicates that revised evidence will be
available in October 2008.

The Highways Agency have ignored the pre-amble to Watson's original questions which are the most revealing thing here, to wit:

(In March 2008) ... it was the Highways Agency's intention to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry, to produce revised traffic forecast for the Bypass and the Spur by the end of May 2008 and to make available at the end of May 2008 a firm programme for the submission of revised evidence to the Inquiry...

But why should they respond to this? After all, it is Watson's fault for not making this part of his question. To the less than casual observer, it is quite clear from the Highways Agency's answer that the timetable has slipped massively - again. Whereas in March they undertook to produce traffic forecasts and have a timetable for the submission of revised evidence by May, their answers today show that they now will only commit to submitting revised evidence by October 2008. In the meantime, we have to assume John Watson won't have to remind them again and live without a timetable.

As far as we're concerned, we're now changing tack - we've been easy on Watson up until now, but it is time for him to go. It's for his own good - this charade is surely holding back his career - and his professional integrity looks a bit suspect too. After all, the Highways Agency are blatantly 'driving' this Inquiry in a most flagrant manner.

It's no good - he has to go.

Reader's letters #1: should we all go back to the iron age?

We do get emails from time to time, and as far as I'm concerned, whatever mail is received is between you and us unless you state otherwise (and unless you're a particularly juicy specimen of our opponents). So when we were challenged to publish an email we received the other day, it has to be fair game to do so. A gentleman by the name of David Bridge sent this email, so below we'll outline the questions asked (bold) with my response (italics):

You appear to be against everything that Glossop wants to progress in modern society

No one knows what 'Glossop wants' because, as far as we are aware, no one has asked the people of Glossop. Or at least asked in a way that elicits a truthful and considered answer. What Glossop wants, is not the same thing as what High Peak Borough Council wants, nor what David Jones at the Glossop Chronic wants, nor anything that comes out of the mouths of the local bourgeoisie. If progression means the slow strangulation of the High Street and the construction of ugly, offensive Corporate warehouses that bring nothing to the area and take all of the profit from it, then I am are clearly against 'progress' as you label it. I suspect a lot of residents feel the same way. I don't want to live on Ashton Moss, or in a look-alike suburb of Manchester. If you do, then move there.

It takes me 20 minutes extra to travel in my car during the week than it does at the weekend from Glossop to Mottram. What does that do to my carbon footprint!!!!

That's probably rush hour traffic. I'm not sure what your point is - surely setting off 20 minutes earlier would help? As for your CO2 'footprint', the Highways Agency have clearly stated that CO2 emissions will rise with the bypass from the static position they are at now (because the roads are at capacity). Creating extra roads will encourage further traffic, ensuring more CO2. That much is incontrovertible.

The traffic figures for the combined Bypass and Spur demonstrate that traffic congestion will subsequently increase in Glossopdale (by 21% along the A57 at Brookfield - your route out of Glossop presumably?). Did you notice that bit when you read their literature? Surely you must have read it if you are in favour of the Bypass/Spur, or couldn't you be bothered?

Yes, I do need a car for my work and yes I do take other people, so why are you totally against anyone trying to improve the infrastructure of Glossop.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. I also currently need a car for work - but I'd like a viable alternative for getting to and fro, and building more roads will not bring this. All of the that grief and destruction is not worth 40 minutes of your or my time each day. So I'm against building new roads. You live in the Peak District by the way...

The infrastructure of Glossop is not being improved. It is being made totally unsustainable. Have you not seen Rossington Park?

May I ask where you as an organiser live?

Yes, you may ask...

Now you are against Sainsbury's moving in, why?

Read this bloody blog post, and this one! How will building another Supermarket improve anything about this area? Can you not conceive of the horrendous traffic congestion that will result? Do you want to make Glossop a 'clone town'? Or do you get a little thrill every time Jamie Oliver's ads appear on TV?

You are now againt Lidl coming to Glossop, Why?

Again, you need to actually read what's written here & here - or are these rhetorical questions?

Should we all go back to the iron age.

This sounds philosophical. Shouldn't that be 'forward to another Iron Age'? We may have to if we carry on along your preferred path: the Iron Age was a time of increasing class stratification of society brought about by climatic changes and entailed fierce competition for resources - along with a hefty amount of violence. Sounds familiar? We'll see what happens when Peak Oil is reached (most likely within both of our lifetimes)...

As an organisation to stop a bypass I could possibly understand where you were coming from but now you just seem to be a left wing group set against the state, basically the opposite of the BNP.

You flatter me. I can only speak for myself, and not necessarily other contributors, but the 'opposite of the BNP' is where I'm at - I'm not a paranoid, nationalist, racist, fascist bonehead. As for my view of the State, I'll point you in the direction of Comrade Kropotkin's 'The State: Its Historic Role'*.

I would argue that meaningful and utterly radical change of the social and economic conditions we currently tolerate is no longer merely an issue of fairness or justice - it is actually becoming a prerequisite for the survival of Homo Sapiens on large parts of this planet. 'Get busy livin', or get busy dying' indeed...

What's clear from your email is that you do not have any kind of considered and coherent argument faced with the evidence and dialectic we have constructed here. Unfortunately someone with similar attributes tried doing a pro-bypass blog last year, otherwise we'd suggest you try that yourself.

I BET THIS LETTER NEVER APPEARS ON YOUR WEBSITE

Touché...

The one thing puzzling about this is why David just didn't leave a comment on a post? We accept anonymous comments, and they aren't moderated prior to publication. They appear verbatim as and when people post them.

*"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you!"

John Watson: "Get busy livin', or get busy dying"

John Watson sounds even more at the end of his tether now than he did back in March of this year. He issued another plea to the Highways Agency yesterday, asking them to tell him when they will be ready to re-start the Public Inquiry. That's right - when they will be ready. Clearly, if this had been an objector, the delays would not have been tolerated, and they would not have been indulged in this way.

He also sounds more and more desperate. Like a spurned lover, he's forced to leave more and more pathetic messages on the Highways Agency's answerphone "we used to be good together, we used to have fun - please get in touch".

A bigger political game is at foot here. In reality, Watson is at best "going through the motions", and all of this serves to do is underline his powerlessness. Will he take the rope, like Brooks, or will he choose escape, like Red? We'll see.

Regeneration in Glossopdale? What Went Wrong?

Not too long ago, High Peak Borough Council, as I recall, attended a handsome awards ceremony in a posh hotel somewhere in the capital where they received an award for their regeneration of Wrens Nest Mill. Today despite reconstruction work having begun some time ago Wrens Nest stands a burnt out hulk, the casualty of an arson attack. It is natural to ask what went wrong?

Across the town the next jewel in the Borough Council's Crown, the Howard Town Mill Development stands desolate and empty, in part construction, following a reported dispute between the various parties involved, which include Hurstwood Construction and B&R Developments. Again it is natural to ask what went wrong?

The idea of regenerating old mill sites into swish modern living apartments and shopping emporia (maybe!) seems in principle not a bad one. From an architectural point of view Wrens Nest is a big improvement on the disused derelict building which was there before, and the reconstruction in the main seems to have been sensitively achieved with regard to the wider landscape features of the area. Yet it has not worked out, and while one could say to have one regeneration planning disaster is misfortune, two smacks of carelessness!. Or maybe something beyond carelessness, such as bad karma.

Concepts such as karma seem a little ill fitting for a hard bitten satirical review like this blog spot but I would ask readers to bear with me. By all accounts, and I have to ask you to refer to back issues of the Chronic for the exact Inquiry findings, not all the proper procedures were in place at Wrens Nest or had been followed when it had been opened up for occupancy. The fact of the fire is indisputably a human tragedy, but apparently it may have been one that could have been prevented.

Similarly with the Howard Town Mill development it would have seemed advisable before disturbing the livelihood of existing traders both on the main street, and in the Howard Town complex to be sure that the funds were in place to complete the development. This seems to be the problem or 'karma' element that I am talking about. The Council Planners and Regeneration department have seemed to ignore the human element, considering their projects as purely computer models, to perhaps promote their own careers, irrespective of the human cost elsewhere. Sometimes when you implement schemes it does not serve too badly to show you have a heart, but the Council has not seemed to have much of one. And maybe this is why the human element has come back to haunt them.

Many people found the descent of an army of people in yellow Hi-Viz jackets on the High Street before Christmas an unwarranted invasion. Again, the end product of repaved streets and station forecourt modernisation probably needed to happen, but not in this insensitive way. There have been business casualties as a result of the disruption on the high street, and businesses and local traders in Howard Town Mill are apparently facing serious customer access problems to which now there seems no end in sight or on site!

However safely ensconced in the "planning bunker", as other contributors to this blog have termed it, the Planners offer little contrition for the seeming disaster that has befallen the town as a result of their efforts. Not all of the 'Vision for Glossop' seems to have been a bad thing, but the somewhat callous route taken over over people's livelihoods and everyday lives seems to have backfired in a big way.

One has to wonder if the right people are in post to deliver what Glossopdale and High Peak needs? Are these local inhabitants who have the local interest at heart (with "heart" being the operative word)? Or get rich quick merchants, of the boom and bust economy type who will deliver ill-fated disaster projects and environmental destruction, somewhere they do not live themselves, and that nobody much wants?

Meanwhile something that really would be "good for Glossop" and would count as a sustainable development delivering those much talked about local jobs - Glossop is an area of almost full employment incidentally- would be revitalisation of the Woodhead line for freight and perhaps passengers. However - surprise! surprise! - this does not seem to be part of the Regeneration rubric.

This surely needs to change. Climate change is part of the Council's core strategy discussion in the Local Development Framework , and for the Council to ignore such a fantastic sustainable opportunity on their very doorstep just because it looks "old economy" and not about more cars , higher CO2 emissions and supermarkets, would appear to be just the wrong decision. Sustainable development is too often about putting a couple of eyesore and largely inefficient windfarms in open countryside, rather than a real practical project that would deliver real CO2 reduction benefits. Obviously one cannot lay all the burden of social problems and malfunction and its practical consequences at the door of High Peak Borough Council, but their "bunker" mentality, and indifference to public concerns seems symptomatic of that malaise, so there seems some justification perhaps in doing so.

Can the Council learn from what seem very obvious and serious mistakes in ignoring the human element and improve their karmic standing? More big bucks projects that fall apart are not what the area need, but sensitive regeneration of the area through an appropriate revival of a sustainable transport alternative would be a very welcome change of direction.

In the meantime maybe they could hand back their architectural awards, because they look a little misplaced in hindsight and it would indicate an appreciation that there are big lessons to be learnt. Don't hold your breath though!

Making you an offer you can't refuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote Re Ivan Bell Impeachment by Standards Committee

Regarding our previous story that we ran on Ivan Bell's imminent hearing before the Standards Committee regarding his conduct being allegedly at variance with the Council's Conduct Code we should have mentioned that Councillor Bell is a "prospective" - or as he tends to put it "perspective" -Independent Candidate for the High Peak at the next General Election.

It is also worth pointing out at this stage that we believe the Standards Committee to have been set up by none other than that paragon of official good conduct John Prescott during his time as the Minister for Environment, Transport and the Regions, or possibly as Deputy PM.

Although John Prescott was not averse using his offices and official time when in highly salaried position to dally with his Diary Secretary, Tracy Temple, he did not come before his own or any Standards Committee nor did he feel it necessary to resign from his post for using paid time in this way.

Is there a lesson there for Councillor Bell possibly? Choose your (alleged) misconduct more carefully perhaps or more probably make sure you get a top job at public expense, where you seem to be immune from having to comply with any kind of code of conduct at all when in office (barring possibly that of the Karma Sutra?)

Ivan Bell comes before the Standards Committee at 10am on Friday 6th June 2008. As far as we know the venue remains the Chinley Council Offices.

Ground Farce: Sean Parker-Perry's right of reply

Last week, the Tameside Reporter published an (unacknowledged) rejoinder to the articles we had published in April about Longdendale Councillor Sean Parker-Perry and his Active Longdendale (AL) project. Needless to say, the article did not acknowledge us directly, nor provide a reference point for where to read any alternative view of Parker-Perry's project.

Cllr Parker-Perry was scathing about criticisms the Active Longendale project had drawn from certain quarters recently. He said: “It has been hard work to set up this project which is for the good of the whole community. For the project to draw criticism from one individual who tries to remain anonymous and whose wild allegations are totally unfounded, is unfair. It is a pity these armchair critics do not utilize their energy by doing community work themselves, rather making outrageous allegations.”

'Certain quarters' is clearly us, and the spoof Active Longdendale blog. Our joint 'wild allegations' are merely a critical analysis of all of the information in the public domain about AL - an anathema to a politician, who hate being put under the spotlight. As for 'community work' we think this blog is just that, and Sean has no idea about what we get up to in our spare time - unlike him, we do not make it everyone's business. But his comments about the 'hard work' of setting up AL are a joke - it's been running for 18 months and in that time has carried out 3 'clean ups', published no material, has not met publicly, and used the services of voluntary rangers and a private company to conduct it's work. A piece of piss by anyone else's standards.

Following the successful retention of his seat as Councillor following the May 1st elections, Sean is clearly now conscious that he has to do a lot to whiten his reputation. However, we believe the article has merely served to bring up more questions than it does provide answers. Let's look at it in detail.

With a budget of £12,000 he has secured premises and a vast array of power tools for the benefit of locals

The article talks about "£12,000" of funding having being obtained - £3,600 more than we knew about. However, note that there's still no mention of the Awards for All Grant. The other implication is that the funding makes AL self-sufficient - that the cost of leasing the Railway arches is included. Sean's talk of negotiating a deal with Spacia may mean that he has negotiated a vastly reduced rent for the first year or two.

If that's the case, then Sean will have to recruit a lot of members to make up a future shortfall. Let's say he does need £6,000 per annum for the arch - that's 600 members in Longdendale renewing annual subs. He's certainly ambitious.

And also note that 'power tools' have crept into things. We understood the original purpose of the grant from o2 was the pay for gardening implements, not power tools. Speaking of tools, there's no mention that the 02 grant was meant to pay for tools - the article says they were 'borrowed from Tameside Council' - so was the grant spent on tools or not?

Residents wishing to benefit from the scheme will pay a token membership fee of £10 and then a small charge to use the tools as they need them

The article is full of the details of membership, but there still no details on how to become a member. And Sean's website still hasn't been updated since January.

Currently, Active Longdendale is seeking charitable status so it can be run more efficiently financially. It has also appointed auditors, an accountant and a committee that is required to comply with charitable status.

Sean's going legit. He'd better get a move on - the income in the last year was £12,000, and under the Charities Act 2006, registration is compulsory for charities with an annual income of over £5,000. We look forward to the AGM, plus the published accounts.

The only other thing worth noting is that the article has been written by our old friend Nigel Pivaro. We already noted the involvement of this (ahem) journalist once before, and he has made himself busy since writing several fawning articles about James Purnell. It seems Sean now has his ear, so we promise to display the banner (modelled on his Tameside Reporter column masthead) at the top of the blog each time he publishes an article worthy of the attention of our readers. Think of it as our bullshit detector (we'd do the same for David Jones, but we're having trouble finding a picture of Lord Longford).

Cllr Ivan Bell falls foul of Standards Committee

News about Ivan Bell the Controversial Councillor for Old Glossop

Ivan Bell, Councillor for Old Glossop is not everyone's cup of tea, though he has been elected successfully as Councillor for Old Glossop on two occasions, which is more than can be said about a lot of Labour councillors in their respective wards.

He does however walk a political tightrope that carries the threat of alienating both the mainstream and those dissenting voices that are traditionally aligned with the left and green issues. Speaking as a "man of the people" has not entirely endeared him to some of us at this particular hotspot of local political comment, as previous articles reveal, whilst now he has seriously fallen foul of the Council's Standards Officer and is apparently subject to some kind of "impeachment" process if that is the right word.

I would have been less than surprised if this "impeachment" had derived from Mr Bell's failure to wear the "bureau" suit look , without tie, as modelled by former Council Head Cllr Lomax in High Peak Connect. However it appears that Cllr Bell has not fallen foul of the authorities for such sartorial crimes, that might make him stand out from the council's uniform. We stress that wearing a somewhat battered cloth cap does not of itself incur any kind of penalty that is known of.

Nor apparently is Cllr Bell's offence related to the fact that he wished Councillors and Officers of the Council to sign up in its Code of Conduct to an enshrined commitment to "tell the truth to the public" in a new media section. The said Councillors and Officers apparently felt that a "tell the truth to the public" clause was not relevant to its code of conduct, though some might argue differently, and it was voted down.

Nor is there any overt indication that he has been "arraigned" for thinking or speaking for himself, and not being accountable to any particular party whip that might rein in his overactive tongue and man of the people stance. There is no overt indication that this is a crime in the UK today, obviously if that were the case serious questions might be asked about whether we truly live in a climate of free speech and democracy.

No apparently Mr Bell's alleged misdeamenour is of a more familiar type. We believe another Local Cllr, Les Wilcox - not to be confused with County Cllr David Wilcox OBE who has never been involved in similar controversy - a few years back, fell foul of similar allegations although that was before the Standards Committee existed, at least as I understand it.

On that occasion the perception of bullying and harassment (as I recall) raised so much concern that local MP Tom Levitt felt justified in using valuable parliamentary time to raise the matter in our national forum at Westminster, as being presumably of national concern. Judging from the newspaper reports a lot of political people were unhappy with Mr L Wilcox, who was coincidentally another Independent Councillor, unaccountable to a Party Whip. I believe Mr L Wilcox was removed from office.

On this occasion a Standards Committe is in place. The alleged misdemeanours are those of alleged "bullying and treating a female officer with disrespect". I should stress that this clearly very serious allegation was referred to an external Standards Board by the High Peak Standards Officer and it was re-referred for hearing, as it was felt externally that there was a case to answer. The Hearing is at this stage at the usual somewhat inaccessible central High Peak location of Chinley Offices, 10am Friday 6th June, though Cllr Ivan Bell wishes if possible to move the venue to Glossop so that his constituents can attend. We are not quite sure why this but could it be that Cllr Bell feels he wishes his defence to be heard by those he has striven to represent? We will see.


It does seem to us that it is reasonable to conclude that High Peak Borough Council's mainstream councillors and council struggle to work with unaffiliated politicians. Perhaps the other Independent Chris Webster might feel a little concerned, as potentially being in a somewhat isolated position.

In the meantime watch this space.

Lidl - bribing the public

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

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

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

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

Q - Why have you chosen this location?

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

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

Q - Will the store undermine Glossop Town Centre?

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

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

Q - How will the store look?

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

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

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

Glossopdale Supermarket sweep part 3: Tesco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glossopdale Supermarket sweep part 2: Sainsbury's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glossopdale supermarket sweep part 1: Lidl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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