As one farce ends...

Yes, we're back! But before NMB addicts get rather too excited, it's only because there's something worth reporting. We're now as thoroughly accustomed to not blogging as we were previously to constantly blogging. So we're sure readers will appreciate how hard it has been to write the latest post with the usual wit and humour that they may have become accustomed to (not to mention the artwork).

And it has to be said that the news won't surprise those with their fingers on the pulse.

So the first non-surprise is that the Highways Agency have finally got around to ending the farce that is the Public Inquiry. Advertisements appeared in the press last Thursday 23rd July and on the Public Inquiry website later in the day.

Of immediate interest is the power relationship inherent in the notice: note here that the respective Secretaries of State have cancelled the Inquiry. No doubt at some point the Inspector John Watson will process the formalities, but it's not his decision to make, as has been very little in this whole charade.

But the main issue here is one of costs, as we've noted all along. Exactly 4 months elapsed between the Highways Agency announcing on 23rd March of this year that they intended to withdraw and their fulfilment of that intention last week. We've already commented upon the supposed reasons for this delay (legal wranglings), but in a time of financial hardship and cut-backs we have the spectacle of a government department dragging their feet and doubtless accruing huge costs.

How much? We'll take the last cost estimate as our guide - you'll remember we blogged about it at the time. Since the costs accrued between November 13th 2008 and April 30th 2009 equated to a daily rate of £7,041.92, at that rate of reckoning, the 122 days that have elapsed since the Highways Agency's announcement of their intention to withdraw and their taking action to do so have seen the accrual in costs of a further £859,114.24 of our money.

Perhaps at some point in the near future, we'll become aware of exactly how much how this PI has cost, of how much John Watson was paid for his 15 days of sitting (out of 757 days the PI was open). But that's for another time.

Finally, there is a delicious irony in the costs of this PI. It's frankly fucking hilarious, but you'll have to take our word for it until we report back next time with our second piece of news. Ta ta for now...

Revealed - the cosy meeting to progress 'Bypass 2.0'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This one will run and run...

Public Inquiry - Bywaters leaps into action!

We have proof positive that the Highways Agency simply haven't been paying attention to a word the Public Inquiry Inspector says.

For the past couple of weeks, stalwart objector John Hall has been emailing Persona Associates reminding them of the wishes of the Inspector regarding the closure of the Public Inquiry (you'll remember our blog about it the other week).

Last week, the programme officer Brenda Taplin was forced to email the Highways Agency Bypass chief Alex Bywaters to get some movement. Brenda very handily passed the email, along with Bywater's reply, on to John Hall, and it's available to view here (opens PDF).

For those who don't want to open the PDF, Brenda reminds Bywaters of the Inspector's request, and stresses the urgency in a very 'scolding' manner.

Bywaters replies, portraying himself as piggy in the middle: he says that, from his end, the respective legal departments of the Treasury and the Department for Transport are 'debating' something. He then asks Brenda if the Planning Inspectorate know what's going on!

The immediate question is - does this mean that neither the people in charge of the Bypass project nor the programme officer for the PI know what's going on? On first impressions, it would seem not*.

The other observation we can make is that Bywaters has failed to update the programme officer about the reasons for the delay. She has to email him, and then only after being mithered by an objector. Bywater's closing line "I want and end to this as much as the Inspector!" is ridiculous given that Taplin has had to remind him of the Inspector's request. It would seem to us that neither of them are motivated unless prodded by someone else.

Given that this charade is currently costing more than £7,000 a day, you wonder what it will take to get someone somewhere to do something to end this farce...

*As for what the DfT and Treasury are debating - well, we'll blog about our own views on what that is in the days to come.

New bypass cost figures - going off the rails on a gravy train

Remember when we told you back in March that the deferral of the bypass funding would still entail costs of £1.1 million over the next 7 years?

Well the Highways Agency have now topped that. Yesterday saw a reply in Parliament to this question placed by the Shadow Transport Minister, Robert Goodwill MP:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to the answer of 13 November 2008, Official Report, columns 1286-87W, on the Longdendale bypass, what costs have been incurred in connection with the A57/A628 Mottram to Tintwistle bypass since 13 November 2008.

Now you'll remember that 13th November 2008 was the last time Goodwill made enquiries about the cost of the scheme, which then stood at £16 million. The reply, forthcoming from Paul Clark MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, is gobsmacking:

For the period of 13 November 2008 to 30 April 2009, the A57/A628 Mottram to Tintwistle bypass scheme has incurred costs of approximately £1,176,000.

Working it out, that's 167 days (just under 6 months) - so the costs incurred since then have been £7,041.92 per day. And in the second part of his answer, Clark reveals what this has been spent on:

The costs include general project management, preparation for closure of the Public Inquiry, responding to general inquiries, project governance, staff costs, costs associated with the contract and finalising documents for the postponement of the project.

It seems to us that the phrase 'preparation for the closure of the Public Inquiry' is a bit of an abstract concept. After all, the Inspector has made it look like he has tried his best to bring the things to a close, and the Highways Agency have ignored it. Clearly the Gravy Train has no brakes, and the Government is in no mood to derail it. 

When one considers the announcements made in the Budget two weeks ago, and all the speculation regarding possible cuts to all kinds of budgets, it beggars belief that this road to nowhere is still trundling along, costing you and I nearly £300 for each hour that passes.

What's the delay?

You may remember back in the dark distant past - 31st March actually - the Public Inquiry Inspector issuing document X21 to the Inquiry. In the document (entitled "Possible Closure of the Inquiry"), John Watson politely requested that the Highways Agency withdraw the draft Orders, and other such legal niceties, and confirm for him the date when they planned to formally withdraw from the Inquiry. He further requested that they do so by 15th April, unless it was their intention to provide such notice "within 4 weeks of the date of this note".

Well, we heard nothing from the Highways Agency by the 15th April and 4 weeks later, no such notice is forthcoming. Once again, the Highways Agency are prepared to waste money by prolonging matters to the utter limit, a limit which the Inspector is wholly reluctant to enforce. 

Could it be that something else is going on? We'll leave you to speculate.

Over-budget

We had a very interesting & suitably ironic visit today - budget day - which we'd like to tell you about.

It was a fleeting visit from renowned accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). They'd been searching the internet for the "public enquiry (sic) mottram" and landed on a blog item about the Public Inquiry.

Now this could be just a bored employee idling away some time at work, but then again, maybe someone has called the auditors in? One way or another, we'd love to find out exactly how much the Public Inquiry has cost, and how much our dear friend John Watson the Inspector has been paid for 15 days work. 

Watch this space.

The Inspector in his castle & the Inquiry that never was...

More interesting developments at the Public Inquiry. A new document has appeared at the Persona Website (can be found here - opens PDF) in which the Inspector, John Watson, virtually pleads with the Highways Agency & TMBC to withdraw the Draft Orders, which he considers will be the end of the Public Inquiry. What's amazing is that he's given them a 2 week deadline to get back to him. If they delay this long, that means the Inquiry will have rumbled on for 3 weeks after the HA stated their intention to withdraw. It's so much fun spending other people's money.

Watson comes across as so weak and subservient - he's not actually telling them to end the PI, instead he asks them to notify him of what they want to do. This reveals almost all you need to know about Public Inquiries. They are granted by the good grace of the State, and the State decides when they end, and even if it gives the PI a chance to conclude, it can (and frequently does) choose to ignore the 'recommendations'. 

So contrast Watson's pleadings with comments today in a letter to stalwart objector John Hall from the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Katrine Sporle (which you can read here in a PDF - the redacting and highlighting is ours). It is a response to a Freedom of Information request, but we feel the letter is more interesting than the information they refuse to release. 

Sporle says that the five-times adjourned Inquiry is "exceptional", and she goes further:

Indeed, I am not aware of this having occurred on any other case in recent years.

So much so that they are considering "issuing new guidance" to ensure that "all parties are fully prepared when they come to the Inquiry". She goes on to say that adjournments are necessary to ensure "natural justice" and that the Inspectorate does its best to avoid adjournments. 

Does anyone believe this crap? Individuals have had nearly two years of their lives caught up in this charade, whilst an Agency of the State has sat back and laughed. That the Highways Agency would have suffered any "injustice" had the Inspector been much more firm with them, is a joke. Sporle continues:

We will however be reviewing the handling of the inquiry to see if there are any lessons to be learned from the process and, where appropriate, we will be sharing these with the Highways Agency and others.

Hmmn, yes I imagine that will take all of 5 minutes given that the new Planning Act that we warned about last year is now the law of the land.

On a more confusing note, Sporle says that the HA have "withdrawn from the Inquiry" today. Does she know something that Watson doesn't? Or is she confusing Watson's plea to the HA with the response everyone else wants?

We know of 2 objectors who have been challenging the Inspector over the previous past months as to the legality of the Inquiry. It's noticeable that no criticism has been levelled at Watson by supporters of the Bypass. They have tended to voice their 'frustration' in general terms, not even necessarily attacking the Highways Agency too vociferously for the supposed 'errors' that have produced the delays (although it now seems open season following their withdrawal). 

It's possible to speculate about the reasons why Watson has not come in for criticism. It may because he's seen as impartial. But as far as we're concerned, his handling of this Inquiry has been entirely partial from the start. We've written at length about this, but what concerns us lately is how Watson has essentially pulled up the drawbridge and silenced dissent of his running of the Inquiry, or at least prevented the outside world from seeing that dissent exists. 

John Watson made moves to essentially hide dissenting correspondence from public view. Late last year, a series of conditions were added to the website clarifying what kind of correspondence would be uploaded to it, and we quote:

The scope of the website is as follows:

1 Evidence submitted to the Inquiry that is relevant to the proposals and Orders that are before the Inquiry;

2 Transcripts;

3 Questions of clarification of evidence that are put in writing;

4 Legal submissions that are put to the Inquiry;

5 Documents issued by the Inspector;

6 Inquiry news and programme, and links to related websites; and,

7 It is also useful, so as to keep parties informed during the current adjournment, for the website to carry information from the Promoters regarding their current reviews of their cases (if such information is presented by them in the form of an Inquiry document). 

We can therefore see that, short of a legal challenge to the legitimacy of the Inquiry (which was beyond the means of most Objectors, and seemingly beyond the will if not the means of the larger statutory objectors), dissent as to the process itself was not be allowed to be displayed to the public. Watson created a fortress to buttress the complete sham that is his Public Inquiry. The walls are still standing, and he's still behind them.

The sham will seemingly continue until the Highways Agency decides it has had enough. Did anyone really expect anything else?

Councillors Wilcox, Wilkinson & 'Glossop Eastlands' - no thanks!

Although following yesterday's news we're hopefully now entering a different phase in the future of this blog, we have a few shots left to fire before we shut up shop.

You may remember our article a few weeks ago about how Derbyshire County Councillors Wilcox and Wilkinson had written to the Transport Secretary of State Geoff Who?/Hoon calling for the Public Inquiry to be halted and a new one reconvened. Now hold onto your immediate thoughts for one second and bear with us...

Stalwart Objector John Hall promptly issued a Freedom of Information request to obtain said letter, and it can be viewed here. Key amongst the bleatings of Potato-Head Wilkinson and Media-Tart Wilcox was their pointing out to Hoon that the bypass is important in the "economic regeneration of East Manchester". Well oh dear, what a shame the bypass has hit the brakes then! I envisage that most people who live in the area would like it to remain completely unlike Manchester - neither East, West, North nor South - and we like it that way. As we've said before, one only has to look around Glossopdale to see what havoc has been wrought by the Borough Council trying to transform it into something it isn't, without a word of complaint from the area's County Councillors. These two chimps may have wet dreams about warehouses but we'd like to offer them a one way ticket to Beswick...

Now then, when you read the first paragraph you were probably marvelling at the precognitive powers of Wilkinson/Wilcox in calling for at least half of what actually happened yesterday all the way back in February. We're more cynical than that. Unlike most of the area's other politicians, they haven't staked their reputations (unwittingly or otherwise) too publicly on the Bypass. All the better for them then to take a new stance and outflank the Bypass mob, no doubt because they heard one or two things on the grapevine about the road's chances. Savvy & cynical bastards indeed.

EXCLUSIVE: Highways Agency pull out of Public Inquiry

The Highways Agency today issued a press release announcing their withdrawal from the Public Inquiry into the Longdendale Bypass. The text is below (bold is our emphasis, you'll see why):

The Highways Agency is withdrawing from the current Mottram-Tintwistle bypass Public Inquiry, it was announced today.

The decision has been taken after the Regional Leaders Forum, 4NW, informed the Department for Transport that after assessing its priorities for funding from the Regional Funding Allocation it wants to delay the proposed start of the scheme by at least four years, until 2016/17.

The decision also comes in view of the extended period of time between the publication of the draft proposals for the scheme in 2007 and the earliest date at which the Inquiry might be reconvened. It is important that all parties to the Inquiry have a fair opportunity to understand and test the evidence base for the scheme given that the traffic model, environmental statement and cost estimate will have changed since 2007. The additional delay to the scheme will now require further amendments to be made to the traffic model, environmental statement and cost estimate.

Work on the scheme had initially been planned to start in 2012, subject to the completion of statutory processes.

Announcing the withdrawal from the current Public Inquiry, the Highways Agency's Major Projects Director, Nirmal Kotecha, said:

"We would like to thank all those who have taken the time to express an opinion about the A57/A628 bypass scheme.

"Draft proposals for the scheme were published in 2007. Since then a Public Inquiry has been started and adjourned and there have been changes to the traffic model and the environmental statement. After careful consideration we therefore feel it is appropriate to withdraw from the current adjourned Inquiry and re-start statutory processes, subject to further advice to Ministers by 4NW. It is important that all parties to the Inquiry have a fair opportunity to understand and test the evidence base for the scheme."

Notice the use of the word 'current' before Public Inquiry. The "Notes to editors" at the foot of the press release are also very important:

Notes to Editors

The A57/A628 Mottram - Tintwistle bypass is a proposal to bypass the villages of Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle which currently suffer high volumes of traffic from the A628 trans-pennine trunk route between Sheffield and Manchester. A local authority scheme known as the Glossop Spur is being promoted by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council at the same time.

The joint PI considering both schemes commenced in June 2007. Pending production of revised traffic forecasts incorporating new national traffic growth forecasts and the Environmental Statement, the Inquiry was adjourned in December 2007.

In July 2008, the Department published updated scheme costs estimates for the HA Major Roads Programme, including a new range estimate for Mottram-Tintwistle of £223m to £315m with a central estimate of £270m.

4NW is the Regional Leaders Forum for the north west of England. It has responsibility for housing, planning, transport and economic development. 4NW has a board of members including council leaders from each of the five sub-regions, Cumbria, Cheshire, Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, along with seven representatives from the private, non-governmental sector such as Manchester Airport Group, North West Universities Association and the North West Trades Union Congress - people who are responsible for delivering the strategy proposals at local level in the north west.

4NW is due to submit further advice to Ministers in April on its latest priorities for funding from the Regional Funding Allocation.

If 4NW wants to progress the scheme, the Highways Agency will restart the statutory processes, including publication of Draft Orders and Environmental Statement.

It's possible to draw both positive and negative conclusions from this news, and were sure to have something to dissect as time goes by. In the meantime, the Manchester Evening News are carrying the story, as are the BBC.

UPDATE: James Purnell's office turned up for a look at the blog just before 1 p.m., presumably in search of the news (for an explanation into why we know this is JP's office, see this blog from last year).

You can listen to the report from BBC Radio Manchester on the mp3 player below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More news as we get it.

Roger Wilkinson - the potato-headed cuckoo in the Peak District's nest

The Buxton Advertiser has published what is presumably a press release for the Glossop South Derbyshire County Councillor Roger Wilkinson, who has written to Geoff Who? calling for the current Public Inquiry to be stopped, and a new one to commence following consultation. 

This is breaking new ground, as up until now, it has been Tameside politicians that have been content to urge the Highways Agency to 'hurry up'.  But Wilkinson and the notorious media-tart Councillor Dave Wilcox have now called for a new consultation, as well as a new Inquiry. Curiously, they are using the language of some of the opposition - that the facts on the ground have changed, and that means that if the plans have changed, then the whole process must start afresh. And they are clearly aware that the way the current PI process as been conducted will have legal implications too - "if an attempt is made to simply restart the old inquiry it is almost certain we will be in judicial review and further delay territory".

They've no doubt got their eye on the (now) Planning Reform Act, as we'd predicted in a blog late last year. No doubt they'd want the Bypass to be named as a 'National Infrastructure Project', meaning it would almost certainly be waved through without any kind of scrutiny at all. Wilkinson hints at this - "In the letter to Mr Hoon, a former Derbyshire Euro MP, the councillors have stressed the importance of the A628 bypass in regenerating East Manchester and Glossopdale" - this is coded language for their desire to see Glossopdale and Longdendale to become an enlarged retail strip and warehousing facility, as is already in evidence at Rossington Park in Hadfield. 

Of course, it's never been a secret that Derbyshire County Council are fully behind the bypass. But Wilkinson is a curiosity - he's a cuckoo in the nest of the Peak District National Park Authority -  as a body, they are opposed to the Bypass, but Wilkinson is a member. 

And perhaps some other kind of strange politics are in evidence here? The photo that accompanies the article shows Derbyshire County Councillor Wilkinson stood next to one of Longdendale Siege's 'Dick Turpin' roadsigns inTameside Lancashire, with a Manchester A-Z in his hands. Is he a stooge for Tameside, opening up a new front? Why should he care about regenerating East Manchester - Tameside's backyard? We think the answer is because Glossop's very own Mr Potato Head wants the type of regeneration pioneered by Tameside and Manchester City Council in the High Peak. I wonder what his 'ground swell of local opinion' - an abstract and unquantifiable concept if ever there was one - would think about that?

**UPDATE, 11th February 2009: both the Glossop and Tameside Advertiser are now running the article.

Public Inquiry update - "you're fired"(?)

The big news on the Public Inquiry front today is that the Programme Officer Chris Banks has been 'replaced' by a Brenda Taplin according to today's entry on the News section of the PI website.

Now then, is this the first sign that all is not well, or is it just something rather more mundane? One thing is clear from our contacts with objectors to the Public Inquiry is that Chris Banks did an excellent job. Chris, if you're reading us out there, get in touch and let us know what happened.

In the meantime, we did comment before that the Inspector John Watson resembled a clean-shaven Alan Sugar, so could it be that the resemblance is more than physical?

Are Persona non-grata?

If you pop over to Persona Associates homepage, you can view a list of all the Inquiries they have had a hand in recently. One thing that's immediately clear is that work seems to be a little thin on the ground at the moment. Indeed, other than our Public Inquiry for the Bypass, the only other ongoing Inquiry is the one for the Victoria Station Upgrade.

Further evidence that they seem to be falling on hard times can be evidenced here. Note that in 2008, they undertook 7 PIs, whereas in previous years they were extremely busy, with usually more than double this number in any one year.

What's the explanation? Is it the 'credit crunch' (isn't everything these days?), or is it the fact that Planning Law is due to change very shortly? Or could it be that the Longdendale Bypass PI has been a complete shambles, demonstrating Persona's complete subservience to the whims of the Highways Agency? We'd like to think it was the latter, but we know life is usually more complex than that.

Incidentally, we'd love to know whether or not the Chair and Managing Director of Persona Associates - a Graham Groom - is the same Graham Groom here: a one-time website designer and Doctor Who fan, who has a special interest in Page 3 models. If you know (Persona) Graham, drop us a line to confirm or deny.

(Readers may remember that we had an alternate take on the title of this post not long after the PI started when virtually everyone made Persona's link page - apart from us. It's still the case.)

Hoongate part 3: what was said to Geoff Who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One year on, the Comedy of Errors continues...

That's right, it's 365 days since the Inquiry last sat. And John Watson has chosen this anniversary to seemingly set out his stall for the coming months with the issuing today of a new document (opens PDF).

What's more interesting is that Watson seems to be trying to answer some of the questions we posed back in September. You may remember that we'd pondered the following:

1/ How can a public consultation on new evidence take place in the midst of an Inquiry into the original proposals?

2/ How can any new expression of support or any new objections be 'duly made' when the deadline for the submission of such correspondence passed years ago?

3/ If there is a new consultation and deadline, then where does this leave existing objectors? Are their objections still 'duly made'?

In answer to our question 1, Watson clearly isn't particularly troubled as long as Geoff Who? is similarly unconcerned. In paragraph 3b, he states that:

"If any new Orders, Notices of Intention or similar are promoted, then there should be evidence that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Inquiry should consider them, that the necessary statutory processes have been followed, and that all objections and representations received during the appropriate period are before the Inquiry"

But Watson seems to be making it pretty clear that anything new must go through the usual rigmarole, including any new Environmental Statement (para 4b). So that also seems to imply an answer to our question 2 - new evidence means new rigmarole, if not new Inquiry (as far as he's concerned). And Watson wants to be clear - in paragraph 3d, he asks for a list of all previously submitted evidence, with an indication of whether each item should remain or be withdrawn. One wonders what percentage of evidence will be withdrawn - and if it is above a certain percentage, how loudly will the official opposition call for the Inquiry to end?

But there also seems to be implications for our third question in there. How much is new and how much is revised will surely be a hot topic - because if it is substantially new, then all the existing objections will be invalid. 

In these circumstances, how can this Inquiry continue?

We'll leave that one hanging there ... in the meantime, it gets better. In paragraph 3f, Watson seeks a written undertaking from the Highways Agency that "(it) will not alter the evidence it has submitted". Or else?, you might be asking. Presumably, he'll then get very cross and give them another chance, as has been his usual pattern of behaviour.

What an interesting few months we had ahead of us then. Will the Highways Agency pay any attention to this apparently newly assertive Inspector? Has he subtly made it very difficult for them to move? And if they disobey, will he do the decent thing?

Hoongate part 2 - who said what to Geoff Who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bypass Talks Win New Momentum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Watsongate, now Hoongate...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCLUSIVE: Public Inquiry costs now stand at £16 million

**UPDATE: the MEN, and both the Glossop & Tameside Advertiser as well as the Glossop Chronicle are now carrying this story**

We report on an interesting question raised in Parliament on Thursday. Robert Goodwill MP  - the Shadow Transport Minister - asked the following:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Longdendale bypass public inquiry commenced; for how many days the inquiry has sat; and what the estimated cost is of the Longdendale bypass public inquiry process

The answer (from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Clark MP PPS and not the DfT which seems odd, presumably Adonis has better things to do) told us the dates and times most of us anoraks know, but then tagged the costs of the Public Inquiry on the end - and they apparently now stand at £16 million. You may remember that we covered a similar line of questioning from Goodwill in Parliament in May with the total then standing at £15 million, and so it seems 6 months later, the PI (such as it exists and does anything useful) has eaten up another £1 million of taxpayer's money. That's £39,000 per week.

Now this has the unfortunate effect of putting our Bypass cost counter (which you'll find at the top of the left-hand column) more than a little ahead of the official information, but we still stand by our line that until we have a proper breakdown, it will remain unadjusted.

Either way, that's still a hell of a lot of money for absolutely bugger all. And it's only going to get ever more expensive...

Playing the long game - the Planning Reform Bill & The Longdendale Bypass

Over the past few months, we've increasingly been forming conclusions about possible reasons why this Public Inquiry (PI) is facing the massive delays that it is. We think it's likely that the Labour Government - in the midst of a 'managed decline' - simply does not want to be the party to make a decision about this road - or at least the wrong decision for the Labour Party in Tameside, and the Labour MPs James Purnell and Tom Levitt. Much better to leave any decision to the Tories, and it will suit the propaganda of the local politicians.

Isn't it funny that whilst the likes of Manchester Chamber of Commerce and the Longdendale Siege Committee mewl and puke over the slow progress of the PI, local MPs and politicians don't express their concerns in public, nor write to the Inspector or the Highways Agency to urge for progress in the way objectors do? Do they know something that we and the regional and local cannon fodder for their scheming don't?

Indeed, are there other reasons for the delays? Well, it seems to us that the quiet but sinister progress of a major piece of Planning legislation - the Planning Reform Bill - may shed some like on the surely tactical reasons for the delays in the resumption of the PI.

The Bill seeks to leave it to future Governments to declare 'National Policy Statements' which identify major developments that are in the 'National Interest'. A newly created 'Infrastructure Planning Commission' - unelected and unaccountable, natch - would make a final decision on these schemes, obviating the need for Public Inquiries. It's the stuff of the somewhat damp dreams of the otherwise impotent Longdendale Siege Committee.

Grey Gordon's Goons have trumpeted the Bill as being a way to cut cost and delays, and also as a way to push through 'Green' projects - Orwellian code words for Nuclear Power Stations and 'cosmetic energy projects' like (Pissing in the) Wind Farms.

And despite the fact that Bourgeois Reformists like Friends of the Earth have tried to persuade the Government otherwise, the Bill has now passed it's third reading in the House of Commons. Unless the Lords mangle it too much, it will become law by possibly next year. The failure of the reformist approach to this issue is writ large in FoE's 'hope' that another unelected and unaccountable lot - the House of Lords - will allow the great unwashed some 'climate change' sugar to coat the bitter 'planning' pill.

So what does this mean in the context of the Longdendale Bypass?

Firstly, although the PI has been dragged out by the State rather than the objectors (I make no apologies for delaying tactics!), we are already hearing a clamour about Red Tape, delays etc. To some, this PI entirely justifies the legislation.

It could also mean that another benefit of the 'long game' the Highways Agency are playing is that if the PI is somehow axed, then the Scheme will simply be resurrected under the new rules. Similarly, if a future Tory government drop the scheme and then decide to bring it back, a new planning environment will exist to speed it through. That really would be 'foul play'.

And the delays surely render the Inspector, John Watson, under suspicion. This is his first major PI, and he has served the system well by allowing the HA to ride it roughshod. Would it be cynical to suggest that he might be after a job in the future Infrastructure Planning Commission? If he is, then he's going about it the right way (excluding the objectors and the general public), albeit in the wrong fashion (slow, delays etc) - if you know what we mean.

We'll be keeping a watchful eye on the progress of the PRB, and we'll also be sure to contrast it with PI developments along the way.

Watsongate - the Highways Agency's secret meetings & John Watson's free time (at our expense)

We have an exclusive on the blog tonight. Leading Objector John Hall has contacted us owing to the frustrations he is experiencing getting information from the Highways Agency.

In August 2008 in this document (opens PDF), the Highways Agency revealed that they planned to meet with Statutory Objectors that month to discuss their new plans which they ominously called a 'compromise result'. 

John Hall then promptly wrote to the Highways Agency requesting copies of the minutes under a Freedom of Information request. Almost 3 months later and in contravention of the Statutory time limits, the minutes have still not materialised.

Excuses that have been given so far include:

- HA staff are on leave (including the Project Leader, Alex Bywaters)
- The person responsible for typing the minutes hasn't finished them yet!
- All those present have not agreed to the finalised minutes, which means they cannot be sent out

Whatever the truth is, there are no minutes being provided, despite John Hall's continued reminders. One certainly smells a rat, but of what kind is another matter. What was discussed? Would the release of info prejudice ongoing discussions? What have they got to hide?

In frustration, John tells us that he wrote to the PI Inspector, but was told that John Watson was not aware that any such meeting had taken place - this despite the fact that a document published by the Inquiry broke the news of the meeting in the first place! It seems that Watson does not read all the Inquiry documents, despite having ample time to do so - and these are delays that he himself has ordered & presided over.

Is it lies, or is it incompetence? Exactly who is fooling who? We'll keep you posted...