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!

Deal, or no deal?

The ongoing issue of the costs of the Longdendale Bypass was raised in the House of Commons yesterday.

Answering questions on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport Ruth Kelly, the Parliamentary Under Secretary Tom Harris revealed the following (emphasis added):

The A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass public inquiry started in June 2007. Since award of contract in August 2004 the scheme has incurred costs of £15,000,000. This includes design costs for the scheme, publication of draft orders, preparation and publication of the environmental statement, traffic modelling, legal costs, Highways Agency staff costs and the public inquiry. The specific costs for the public inquiry itself are not recorded separately.

Naturally, we're slightly suspicious about such a nice round figure like that. But if we accept that it's accurate, then it means that £1.2 million has been spent in the last 7 months. It's also way behind our counter which you'll find at the top of this blog, which was based upon the cost accruals in the latest period for which data was available. We may have to adjust it, as we promised we would, but in the meantime, we'll prefer to await the release of proper fully-documented information.

There's not really much else left to say that hasn't been said before, so perhaps we should await the obligatory press articles which will follow, much as Roy Oldham awaits the call from the banker...

No deal methinks.

Four more years...

...of Sean Parker-Perry. That's what Longdendale voted for last Thursday. Or did it?

To give Sean some credit, after our lambasting him for not campaigning on the bypass issue, he did talk about it in his statement which appeared in the local Reporter Group Newspapers publications. Whether or not he went door-to-door on the issue, we have no information. But we have been told that James Purnell was seen delivering leaflets in Longdendale 6 days before the election - when was the last time you heard of a Government Secretary of State out helping a local councillor to retain his seat?

This tells us 3 things - that the Government is in the shit. That Parker-Perry is in the shit. And that James Purnell is also in the shit. Indeed, on Thursday night's election programme, there was a report that projected that were the same voting patterns repeated at a General Election, Purnell would have lost his seat. Amen to that, the sooner he's back in Islington, the better.

So Sean will probably now claim that he has a mandate as a councillor, and that those electing him voted for the bypass. Apart from the fact that people vote for all kinds of reasons, and that his leaflet mentioned ASBOs, IKEA and cheap Council Tax and not the bypass, how do the stats stack up?

Firstly, his majority. Sean had 259 votes more than his nearest rival (Sue Barker, the Tory candidate with 1057 votes to Sean's 1316). Hardly a convincing margin of success. Indeed, if 130 of those people had voted for Sue, Sean would have been out.

Secondly, the turnout. A total of 2895 people turned out, with 7 spoiling their ballot papers. This is 37.6% of the (registered) Longdendale electorate. Hence, 6376 people didn't vote for Sean (or anyone else) - 83%. So if, as he alleges, all of Longdendale are screaming for a bypass and see Sean as the answer, he must be disappointed. Using these percentages, Sean's 'majority' is 3% of Longdendale's electorate.

Thirdly, following on from that, let's play devil's advocate. Let's pretend Sean's majority voted for him solely on the bypass issue. If it's the case that 83% didn't vote for Sean on any issue, then clearly only 17% may have voted for him on the bypass issue. How often are Longdendale Siege - of whom Sean is a member - quoting that 90-odd percent of people in Longdendale want a bypass? So often, we've lost count. The truth is that they're clearly neither motivated to vote for it, nor for a politician who has personally identified himself with the campaign for it.

So from now on, let's hear Siege quote their figures in the following way - 17% of people in Longdendale might be in favour of the bypass. Because that's the only thing they can say with any degree of certainty.

As for Sean, we're looking forward to the next 4 years. With his track record, he can only make things a lot worse, and you will read all about it here.

With friends like these...

If the truth be told, we don't get that many comments on the blog, but we get the odd interesting one from time to time. So a comment left yesterday on an old post is especially interesting. So much so, we've decided to feature it here.

But first, some context. You may remember that in August last year, the Highways Agency published several alternative proposals (opens PDF) to the bypass that had been drawn up in consultation with individuals. We posted at the time about the irony of the way the Highways Agency were concerned to firmly state their green credentials in ensuring the booklet was produced in an environmentally conscious manner (unlike their proposed dirty great proto-motorway through our valley), as well as the content of the booklet, and the bizarre routes outlined within it.

Yesterday, one of the people responsible for two of those routes left a comment on that post to highlight his experience with the people at Hyder Consulting in drawing up 2 of those proposals. We'll let him speak in his own words:

I was 'responsible' for alternatives 2 and 3 in the HA document. I say responsible, but the alternatives presented in this document bear very little relationship to those I actually submitted, and to those which I agreed with the 'nice chaps' from Hyder.

The first point I should make is that I submitted my alternatives as a sort of 'why not consider going in this general direction'. I in no way advocated a 920m tunnel, I realise this is as stupid as everyone else does. However, my 'rough line on a map' has been interpreted in this way, rather than the general suggestion intended. All the traffic control measures were added after I signed the plans off and some changes have also been made after that time. None of the notes I added have been included which explain the thinking behind this suggestion and in general I believe my alternatives have been made to look as bad as possible. I'm also not allowed any comeback on this - unlike the HA I can't revise my proposal and the only way I can 'correct' it is by presenting rebuttal evidence.

My general position is that I feel a Mottram bypass is necessary, but I don't feel that bypassing beyond here is appropriate. However, the other thing I wasn't happy about is that we could only present alternatives that were a 'complete alternative to the proposal'. We could not offer a better route in to Glossop and alternative measures for beyond which is what I would have preferred. My suggestions for a stepped plan including public transport improvements were also not deemed suitable for inclusion.

It seems the only alternative that will be considered to this bypass is another bypass and now that the main alternative route beyond Hollingworth has been built over there seems little point in even considering any alternative.

Well, how interesting is that? It seems that the Highway Agency/Hyder are so obsessed with their project, they even seek to ruin projects that are largely in sympathy, like some kind of jealous lover. It's not enough to change subtle details here and there, they have to embellish and even transform someone else's work without consulting them in an effort to make their own crappy disaster of a road look pre-eminent.

These are actually quite serious allegations (or should be) and we urge 'Stephen' to present that rebuttal evidence to the Inquiry. For all of those who still think the bypass is a project to alleviate Mottram of traffic and pollution, here is evidence that the Highways Agency are loath to co-operate on any other options, even if they are road-based.

Friends in high places...

Our ongoing series of features on visitors to the blog shows that certain folk are being sought out by one of the biggest engineering & road building firms in the UK. Perhaps they know something that we don't about Carillion? It seems that after years of being courted by Carillion (who even turn up at their meetings), Costain are searching the internet for the Longdendale Siege Committee and Mike Flynn - see the screen grab from our sitemeter here.

How ironic they landed on our site and not the official abortion of a website that our old friend Bob Haycock is responsible for...happy hunting roadmunkeys!

One Man and His Poodles

Not sure how you are managing with the Council Tax increases, plus paying this Winter's power bills, but some are doing fantastically at getting money out of TMBC, to the tune of £500 million plus - yes, £500 million plus! So who is this giant money-making Company, and how is it happening?

Well, nearly £200 million came from the Longdendale Bypass contract, and now another £300 million contract - placed by ONE TMBC Decision maker - for the Tameside Schools programme.

Remember Carillion, the construction Company named last week by the Office of Fair Trading for being associated with manipulating contracts, or otherwise being bent? Their appeal for mercy was obviously lodged to try to get a potentially large financial penalty reduced.

But hang on, within recent weeks Carillion were awarded another massive contract by none other than your Councillor Roy Oldham, who was described (see page 1, opens PDF) as the "Decision Maker", the contract being appropriately signed by him.

Now, to attain this important role Roy Oldham was instrumental in starting another Advisory Quango (see page 9, opens PDF) for the purpose of giving him so-called 'advice' before he took this £300 million plus decision. Now I ask you - do you really fall for this, that Roy Oldham required advice from a carefully selected TMBC quango before he flexes his Dictatorial "I'm in charge" decision-making stance? But he did, and the known contract-manipulating Mowlem/Carillion were handed your money to the tune of £500 million plus in total.

Were there any others considered for this massive contract? Well, the two considered along with the extremely dodgy Carillion were Trillium and Interserve Project Services Limited. Trillium are not exactly a Construction/Building Company, but Interserve Project Services Limited were also on the OFT's named and shamed list last week. Out of interest, their Company Chairman is Lord Blackwell, previous Head of the Prime Ministers Policy Unit, but it gets better because he is also a Board Member for - the Office of Fair Trading!

Now I and others are getting pissed off at these so called revered people who administrate our lives and these known very dodgy Companies putting their hands in my pockets, your purses and wallets to the tune of £millions and laughing at you as you try and make ends meet each week. It's all a bloody disgrace, and that's why you need to know as much as I can discover.

A Freedom of Information request to TMBC, as to who else tendered other than Carillion, did not bring results until the TMBC Solicitor was informed that the information had passed to the Office for Fair Trading - then, lo and behold, the information was given immediately.

Remember how the cost of the Bypass job rocketed skyward after the contract was awarded? - and don't forget the Highways Agency's finger in this escalating financial costs scam.

Now you may well think this is mud raking, but if you are a soft touch to the tune of £500 million with these individuals and Companies doing their thing, then you must have a trusting mind beyond most peoples imagination.

Do you deserve to be conned? - I think not - and you deserve far better than being robbed
by those laughing at you.

I definitely have a feeling some people and some Companies are sitting on an already-lit time bomb. Lets wait and see!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally I am more intrigued by the additional funding aspect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We await August 2008 with interest.

Better than an Agatha Christie for YOU

It's the weekend. So being cold, wet, and with a bankrupt UK, here's a good mystery for you to solve with plenty of clues to assist you.

Carillion, one of the largest Building Contractors in the UK has now pleaded to the Office of Fair Trading for mercy because its been found to be ripping you off big time for deviously obtained contracts. So who is behind Carillion the rip off merchants? Well, for a start, we have Baroness Vanda Murray: not only an important person at Carillion, but also a Director of the North West Development Agency, who are big supporters of the Bypass scheme which is being built by - Carillion.

Appointed by Lord Sainsbury, the Baroness also declares her interests in the Cheshire Building Society, a Phone Company and, sod me, the UK Audit Commission. And, if you want to see how she manipulates money have a shufty here.

Now try and keep up, because who else is very important friend to the North West Development Agency? Well it's Councillor Roy Oldham of Tameside (who also wants the Bypass) which is being built for you by Carillion.

Now Carillion have been exposed by the Office of Fair Trading, the BBC, and the Press as being crooked and they really are in the shit deep, but never fear it gets better! Who gave the Bypass contract to Carillion (a Company who overcharges according to the OFT)? Well, using Freedom of Information legislation, I asked the Highways Agency in Manchester who the members of the Panel awarding the Bypass contract are. At first, they preferred to say "we won't tell you, it's not in the public interest" - well it's in my bloody interest to know because I am contributing to the soon to be a £200 million Bypass! So then after an appeal - because it is in the Public's interest according to common sense, out came the 4 names who decided to give the contract to Carillion (the crooked company).

First out of the trap is Stephen Greenhalgh, the infamous vanishing Bypass project leader who, everyone knows, became exceedingly skilled at apologising to the Public Inquiry almost every day because his evidence was exposed as absolute crap. But why should he be concerned? It's only YOUR money from YOUR pocket to the tune of £9.5 million to Carillion/Mowlem & Associates spent on totally useless error ridden evidence which stopped the Inquiry 5 times. Not to worry, Carillion and friends will be charging again for the new evidence it's taking a year to produce, so the past lot of evidence must have really been expensive shit thrown at the Public Inquiry.

Next, is another member of the Highways Panel who awarded the contract to the crooks, and another Highways Agency associate of Stephen Greenhalgh - one John Hornagold (funny old Norfolk name but spelt the same as one of the UK's largest Building Contractors owned by an S Hornagold from Essex). He was closely involved with the Cumbrian Bypass scheme, which was handy because it's believed he resides in a very swish area called Arnside on the approach to The Lakes.

Number three on the Panel was Ziad El-Balbisi of the Highways Agency (not really an independant panel as yet!) - no known track record as yet.

The fourth member of this Panel who awarded the multi-million contracts for the Bypass was Irvin Peacock of Mott MacDonald (the Employers Agent), again one of the largest Contractors in the UK. Now Irvin is shown as being from Mott MacDonald Group Ltd Sheffield as a Project Engineer, so it's likely he knows all the major contractors such as Carillion (i.e. the bent ones) and he was also directly involved in the traffic surveys concerning the Bypass scheme via Mott MacDonald, which as we know turned out also to be crap.

So of the 4 members of the contract awarding Panel, 2 have created incorrect evidence for the Public Inquiry. Yet they are deemed able to award a £200 million contract to Carillion - is their efficiency to spend that £200 million of any merit ?

Well, it can only get more confusing regarding who knows who and in what context.

In addition to all this, the Public Inquiry Witness Brian Witten is also a Director of Matt Macdonald, so obviously it must presumed knows Irvin Peacock, the person involved in awarding HA contracts to large Construction Companies. Another Witness at the PI is Adrian Rowe from Carillion.

Then we have the assortment of Public Inquiry witnesses for the Bypass including:

John Greiller, a Director of Hyder Consulting
Stewart Lowther, another Director of Hyder Consulting
Robert Kitch of Hyder Consulting
J Hunter of Hyder Consulting
Sergio Solera of Hyder Consulting
Andrew Bean of Hyder Consulting
Adrian Rowe of Hyder Consulting

Now Hyder Consulting has connections with Carillion but let's leave that for the next time we blog.

But the following facts are also interesting:

At a Bypass Public Meeting in 2001, the Chair stated "SPITS have a remit to reduce traffic on quite a number of routes (in the Park). SPITS is responsible at the moment for the strategy on these routes. SPITS have explained how this improvement can be done. SPITS are seeking to transfer traffic onto the A628 to improve other areas of the Park." Does that mean that SPITS knows the real truth is being hidden?

The SPITS Business Plan (opens PDF) identifies the following aims:

"Traffic restraint e.g. speed reduction measures and traffic calming on all Trans-Pennine routes and class A And B roads south of the M62 and north of the A50 except the A57/A628/A616 corridor" (our emphasis).

So here comes your Trans Continental Road Route from Ireland, Liverpool, Manchester, M67, M1, Humberside Ports, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Baltic States, your Northern Corridor NETA Plan. So please don't tell me it's for the 3 Villages, that's pure spin as they force their route through the Peak District National Park and along the Longdendale Valley.

To end with a laugh: Peter Bibby, one-time Tameside Councillor for Longdendale stated at a Public Meeting in 2001:

"The Council supports a bypass ... this has been going on for 70 years and the M62 is overloaded".

Now which of you had a Car or a HGV in 1938 which was clogging up Mottram Moor? I want photographic evidence please!

Is the bypass contract rigged too?

Interesting news today that the Longdendale Bypass main contractor Carillion are one of the 112 construction firms accused by the Office of Fair Trading for colluding to inflate the prices of public sector contracts.

Could this go some way to explaining the ever-rising costs of the bypass? And is it also significant that Carillion also won contracts worth £164 million to transform secondary schools in Tameside (now valued at £300 million)?

This is going to be an interesting development to keep our eyes on...

Sean Parker-Perry - no Bypass Mandate

Sean Parker-Perry - along with the other Longdendale Labour candidates that support the Bypass - have always made much of their 'mandate' in the area. They trot out the typical refrain of politicians, that they 'campaigned on the bypass issue' and therefore they were also elected on the back of it, as if it is the only point in their manifesto, and as though the electorate have a huge choice to vote for those who oppose it (or at least actively oppose it, eh Green Party? - NOT).

Indeed, both Johnathan Reynolds and Parker-Perry have made their views known to the Inspector at the Public Inquiry, as has Roy Oldham (although rather oddly, his evidence has yet to appear online, though it is available for all to see in the library). So let's take a look at what they say.

First Reynolds. You can read his letter here. The best bit reads:

"...In addition, I would like to make a point about the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Longdendale. As a newly elected Councillor in 2007, who had until very recently lived on Mottram Moor, I made clear my unequivocal support for the bypass during my election campaign and the reasons for this. My support for the Bypass was the subject of a specific leaflet I produced and distributed in Hollingworth and Mottram. Despite claims from the organised opposition that local opinion is not in favour of the project going ahead, I received more votes than all the opposing candidates combined. If local people are against the bypass, as some would claim, then they are certainly not registering this view through the ballot box. In fact, quite the opposite is true."

Of course, as we've pointed out before, most people in Longdendale don't vote, and since most of the candidates are for the bypass, there's not really any choice if you don't support it. No doubt Reynolds would point out that if you don't take part then 'tough', but you can't crow about a 'mandate' if the majority of a minority of the total population voted for you.

And then we come to Sean's letter to John Watson, which you can read here. He doesn't waffle and come over all pro like Johnny, but here's his bit:

"The elected members of TMBC who represent the Longdendale Ward have done so on a mandate from the electorate of supporting the bypass. Both I and my ward colleagues have run campaigns of clear support for the Bypass at each election and we have been returned with increasing majorities." (our emphasis)

Well, it seems that isn't the case this time. Because we've had Sean's leaflet through our letterbox. We've looked high and low, and there's no sign of any mention of the Bypass, let alone transport. Most of it is about how low the Council Tax is and it brags about vile crap like ASBOs and IKEA, as if they are laudable achievements. If you want to scrutinise it, we've produced scans below (click through for larger versions).
















No doubt a lot of canvassing is going on, but you can bet that most of it is concentrated on known Labour voters. So if Sean wins this time, he won't be able to talk about a mandate, at least not with a straight face. We''ll be there to remind him - and everyone else at every opportunity...

An open letter to the Glossop Chronicle - not a 'hacker' but certainly 'hacked off'

Last week's Glossop Chronic showed how desperate the Longdendale Siege Committee are to keep themselves in the paper. Last week's article about the 'hacker' that somehow broke into Robert Haycock's email to send a message to his mate David Jones was reprised again!

It's often said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true, and that's what Siege and the Chronic are up to here. So we've decided to write to them both, and we'll display our email below:

Hello Bob & David

Well, it's very interesting to see how you are spinning the story of the 'hacker' who broke into Longdendale Siege's email address. Trying to stretch this story across 2 whole issues of the newspaper seems pretty desperate to us.

By us, I mean our blog - known either as 'No Mottram Bypass' or 'Stop the A57/A628 Bypass' - we've been writing on the bypass for over 12 months now and you've done your best to ignore us. Even when we provide you with material for stories, as we often do, we get no credit.

But there's no hard feelings. By the way, as you know, it was us that pulled the April Fool hoax. But before we look at your accusations about hacking, we must first remark that if Mr Haycock is so concerned about his email address being used by others, then why is it still displayed on the Longdendale Siege website as the contact address? Furthermore, the Bob contacted us with the exact same email address you say we 'hacked' and not the new one you mention in the article.

As for the 'hacking' - well, we wish we had such abilities. In truth we created an email address - bobhaycock@gmail.com - and then placed Bob's real email address (robert@haycock1.fsnet.co.uk) in the 'account name' section of the settings. All this meant was that instead of displaying a 'name', the email address was displayed. Merely a confidence trick.

You see David, we know you are trying to wind your readership up by taking more potshots at those opposed to the bypass. But we don't care - I'll wager more people from Glossop and Longdendale search Google daily than read the Chronicle each week. And if they search for information about the bypass, they have an excellent chance of landing on our website and reading all about the things that you ensure don't reach your readership.

We know there isn't a cat in hell's chance of you printing this email. But it exists on our site, and anyone searching for Glossop Chronicle, Robert Haycock, Longdendale Siege and 'Hacker' will land here and read it.

Isn't all this such fun?! Until next time...

PS - David - how about a weekly column in the Chron? We'd charge much less than Anthony McKeown does to get his face in the Advertiser, as long as we can wear our balaclava for the photoshoot, it's OK by us...

Roadmunkey is Sean Parker-Perry - the evidence

Tonight, we present the evidence we have accumulated that the Longdendale Labour Councillor Sean Parker-Perry is more actively involved in the fight for the Longdendale Bypass than the occasional letter to the press or election leaflet would suggest.

Exactly 12 months ago today, a new weblog appeared called 'Support the Hollingworth Bypass'. Over the next 61 days, a series of posts appeared which attempted to lampoon and contradict posts appearing on this weblog, all the while displaying a cavalier sense of design and poor grasp of grammar.

Posts to the blog were signed by the contributor 'Roadmunkey', who left a comment on our very first blog post (scroll down to view). The link to his profile clicked through (and still does) to display info about him. Our first warning as to the existence of the blog came from a comment left on one of our posts by someone anonymous who wanted to bring attention to it (they plugged it again later on that month on this post). We kept following the link back to the profile, and eventually, on April 13th 2007, the blog appeared (the roadmunkey profile used to link to the blog, until it was removed).

With the appearance of this blog, the evidence started to form into a picture of the culprit. We had been tracking edits to wikipedia for some time, and it was clear that someone with a particular IP address - 83.104.50.161 - had been making lots and lots of edits, and had obsessions with subjects familiar and unfamiliar - but unsurprising (we later found out that someone else had decided to chronicle these edits on a separate weblog here).

In one of the more entertaining edits made by this IP address, someone purporting to be Sean Parker-Perry complained vigorously (highlighted in green) about edits made to his (and other fellow Councillor's) pages on wikipedia. The language and tone matched that of an article about these edits that appeared in the Glossop Chronicle on 7th June 2007. The article was instigated by someone outside our circle, seeking to bring the attention of the press to Sean's antics. It backfired - the Chronicle is virtually TMBC's house journal and it's chief journalist David Jones is a hack who mixes and matches with the Longdendale Labour mafia. The article was highly sympathetic to Sean, making him look whiter than white.

But all the while, we had the crucial evidence. Going back to the 'Roadmunkey' blog (since restored by us so anyone can read what he said), the user profile featured an email address - roadmunkey@hotmail.co.uk. We set about sending spoof emails with tracers attached to all of the email addresses linked to Sean as well as this one. They all came back with the following results (click through to see the tracer results):

roadmunkey@hotmail.co.uk
seanparkerperry@hotmail.com
parker-perrys@parliament.uk

We also sent an email to Sean's secretary at Tameside, and it was then forwarded to him, as this tracer shows. All the enquiries returned the same IP address - 83.104.50.161, the same IP address that edited the wikipedia pages. If you click through to this IP address, you get a login screen. This is because it is the server at James Purnell MP's office and presumably allows remote working (from home), and Sean clearly uses his office computer for all his activities, under whatever pseudonym he chooses.

So Sean was Roadmunkey and did edit wikipedia (and still does as far as we can tell). Whilst none of this is illegal, it certainly raises questions about his methods - he'll no doubt do all that he can to disassociate himself with anything that makes him look devious and spiteful.

And what about us? One of roadmunkey's accusations was that we are cowards - largely because we are anonymous. As far as we are concerned, the difference is that we are not running for office as a Councillor and do not claim to represent all the people in Longdendale.

It is far too easy for Politicians to say one thing in public, and do another in private. They are quite rightly held up to scrutiny, though not often enough in our view. It's not our fault that Sean chooses to leave dirty great skidmarks all over the internet, but why should those who point out that the emperor has no clothes have to take huge personal risks to do so?

The information is out there, and all that we are doing is bringing it to light. Watch out for more Sean Parker-Perry stories this month.