Stop the A57/A628 Bypass (Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth & Tintwistle Bypass)

Bingham's Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons today

2010-12-21T20:59:00.002Z

Bingham secures Adjournment Debate on the Bypass

2010-12-20T20:19:00.001Z

Thanks once again to NMB contributor Kirtle Green for another blog, which can be read below.

Andrew Bingham, Enemy of the Peak District, has secured an imminent pre-Christmas Adjournment Debate on the Bypass, which will take place tomorrow in the House of Commons. An Adjournment Debate traditionally takes place as we understand it not before the Full House, but “in camera” as it were with any interested parties present, and a Ministerial representative from the Dept of Transport.

Incidentally, we don’t feel the MP has done much homework on the Bypass, so it will be interesting to know which version he turns up supporting, dependent perhaps on how he has been briefed (by whoever is lobbying him on all of this.) After all, there are plentiful versions of the road out there. Which one he is talking about – something he has never troubled himself to elaborate on up till now - may at last become clear. Mind you we wouldn’t bet on it! Over the past 12 months, Bingham has variously called the scheme the 'Glossop Bypass', 'Tintwistle Bypass' and now the 'Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass'. Little details like “where a particular road is to go” or the probable impacts on his constituents don’t really seem to matter in the remote and somewhat un-thought-out governmental world of Andrew Bingham MP.

At the outset we called the MP an “Enemy” because nobody who is not in some way adverse to iconic countryside would want to touch one blade of grass or animal habitat of the fragile Peak District, let alone plan to drive a road and urban sprawl through it. Its future seems far from secure whilst this guy is touting his trade.

Ironically, Bingham said in his maiden speech that he felt he represented the most “beautiful constituency” in the UK. We would not quite agree with that superlative but it is certainly one of the finest – I moved here 27 years ago and as it stands in a bypass-less state, I have never found anywhere better to live. Go out in the snowy wilderness now and who could be failed by such icy splendour.

I therefore marvel at his eagerness to undermine its status and make it mundane, suburban or desolate like so many of the urban areas it sits between. There is no accounting for MPs really - except perhaps expenses accounting - as it wasn’t any different with the late great Tom Levitt . They seem to talk up the beauty of their constituency and then lay plans for its demise.

Mr Bingham of course with his gracious lady companion, the MEP Emma McClarkin, did a foot tour of the constituency in his opposition days. Those wilderness years were very considerable, so Mr Bingham being a bit of a one trick pony, this may be one one reason why he seeks to placate the road lobby to prolong his sinecure. No doubt in his travels he came across some very scenic and ecologically important scenes which he marked down then with a note “come back and destroy in the future”.

He probably identified all kinds of spectacular areas. Take my word for it, some of the proposed bypass routes under any sane constitution would have years ago been placed under conservation orders or put in the National Park. This should still be the case now, but our elected officials have quite other thoughts in mind. One could perhaps perceive Mr Bingham on his travels keeping his beady bespectacled eye open for particularly important landscapes such as these for some deforestation, or bulldozer work for a road. Now his time has come as MP, and seemingly nowhere is safe in the Peak District as he has pledged “not to let this issue rest”.

Well done Andrew Bingham, statesman and orator, what a great spectacle you are!

Tesco Values: the role of the Highways Agency in the Hattersley Tesco

2010-11-27T22:31:00.002Z

Many thanks to NMB reader and occasional contributor kirtlegreen for this analysis of the role of the Highways Agency in relation to the Hattersley Tesco:

The Highways Agency are the Statutory Authority for trunk roads in the UK, so where a retail application might impact upon the national network, it is incumbent upon them to form and take a position as a key Statutory Consultee. In this role the Highways Agency duly placed a holding Objection on the Hattersley Tesco Extra application around May of last year, with the proposed store being adjacent to the highly congested M67 roundabout. This hold was pending closer examination of the matter and could, I believe, have been maintained indefinitely until the Agency were fully satisfied that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the trunk route East and West of the location (M67/A57/A628).

Had the Highways Agency Holding Objection been maintained, firstly, it would have been hard for Tameside to even hear the application let alone legally pass it. It would certainly have established the matter as one of national importance for the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Eric Pickles. Whilst accepting there are numerous other issues with this store, I would venture to suggest therefore that their powers made the Highways Agency the “key or decisive witness” and their actions as a public body particularly worthy of scrutiny.

The Highways Agency in their role as statutory consultee employed Halcrow as consultants to review the evidence supplied by Waterman Boreham on behalf of the applicant, CTP (for Tesco). The evidence Halcrow looked at was based on work commissioned by Tameside Council (a retail study by White Young & Green) with projections employed - rather than facts - by Waterman Boreham to make traffic behaviour assumptions. In this rather circular way (considering the multiple involvement of Tameside Council) all the various transport consultants involved - Waterman Boreham, Halcrow and ultimately the Agency - reached the same very surprising conclusion.

Far from being the obvious traffic nightmare there would be a net reduction in trips at the M67 corridor as a result of the application for a Tesco at Hattersley! The more than dubious case, made on the basis of some hypotheses, was that reduction of outward journeys from Hattersley would offset any increase of inward traffic resulting in a benign outcome for the M67 corridor. A particular test of the M67 roundabout in this scenario was, as I have read it, thus considered an unnecessary further step.

This happens to be completely the opposite of what everyone could possibly expect to be the case, as witnessed by letters in the press and objections sent to the Planning Authority and the Secretary of State, who all see things in a far less favourable light. The general consensus in this area is that these findings simply cannot be right and a very sizeable consensus it is too, with over 2,500 people. Everyone apart from these traffic agencies/consultants seem to prefer the evidence of their own eyes, rather than guesswork and extrapolations within a retail study. They seem to think that a store with over 525 parking places in a road system operating at full capacity does not make any sense in planning or any other terms you care to think of. They appear to feel - with it must be said some considerable logic - that they will suffer adversely in many ways, with respect to falling property values, and a very considerable deterioration of quality of life, due to continual slow moving traffic in the area, i.e. gridlock. This is to the extent that people are talking about upping sticks and moving away. However once the Highways Agency, as representative of the Secretary of State, adopted the position given by Halcrow, the traffic implications of the Hattersley Tesco were suddenly going to be virtually impossible to challenge; the influence of the Highways Agency, whether contrary to obvious sense or not, being decisive in these considerations.

The issue therefore seems to be whether the Highways Agency are expected to follow some safe pattern of assessment, and whether that assessment is fully independent, complete and cannot be connected with the applicant in any way and is thus shown to be fundamentally sound - or not. Also, if the Agency has skimped the job - for whatever reason - by not conducting their own survey, or in view of the congestion have conducted only a low level study, then how are the interests of the public within their remit protected?

Either we live in a despotic state, where the the public fund a planning process which is simply a facade, or the Highways Agency as Statutory Consultee to the process for its transport element should be able and willing to indicate adherence to a clear and satisfactory set of assessment guidelines, which are not ad hoc but firmly applicable in all cases. It would seem extraordinary if such guidelines do not exist for them and that in this case it cannot be demonstrated minutely, with full documentation, to show how they have been followed. The public, through representatives or themselves, would seem to have a clear right to scrutinise and test this process to satisfy themselves, particularly where such doubt exists as to the conclusions - as in this case.

There therefore remain questions to be answered, of perhaps both local and national importance here, regarding the transparency of the Highways Agency as a public body. Perhaps answering those questions will help in this particular matter?

Second Siege crossing protest a failure - as their own video demonstrates!

2010-11-25T16:44:00.002Z

We've yet to write a proper feature on the second pedestrian crossing protest by the Longdendale Siege Committee, although one is in the works along with a video, but in the meantime we thought we'd reverse-engineer their own propaganda. The above video is from the MEN's YouTube page, and is linked to from Siege's website. The only problem is, it clearly illustrates the failure of their protest: traffic is not even queuing back from the lights at the junction of the A628 & A57 in the near-distance for any significant length of time...

'Medieval Dramatists' Longdendale Siege appear on Andy Crane's Radio show - bring back Edd the Duck

2010-11-25T15:09:00.004Z

Now we're sure there are some readers out there that have fond memories of the BBC's Andy Crane in his days in the BBC's broom cupboard with his sidekick hand puppet Edd the Duck. But after last Monday's lunchtime show, we really wished he was still presenting the junction slots on Children's BBC.

A large part of his show was dedicated to discussing that morning's protest by Longdendale Siege, and Brian Butler from Siege was awarded a slot to call for the bypass. Along the way, we also had a contribution from someone called Pat who lives in Broadbottom, who pointed out that Siege have nothing to say about the Hattersley Tesco and pointed out the lack of local consultation about the plans for the store. Whilst Pat intimated she supported the Bypass, it's clear that her main concern, like everyone who lives in and around the area, is traffic - and she doesn't see how the construction of the Tesco is going to help.

Andy Crane himself revealed his clear bias on this issue by wittering on and on about how bad the traffic was, although it was interesting how he couldn't get the BBC traffic expert to agree that it was one of the worst places in Greater Manchester for traffic hold ups. We're informed that Crane lives in Charlesworth.

Unlike with other audio presentations on this blog, we just cannot be bothered transcribing the key bits - an mp3 of the 'highlights' appears below.

Campaign for Better Transport can't see the wood for the trees

2010-11-18T22:45:00.001Z

In his latest blog over at the Campaign for Better Transport website, Roads and Climate Change campaigner Richard George makes a convincing case for why Tameside MBC should just give up the fight for any kind of Bypass through the Longdendale Valley. Tameside's silence over recent weeks was this week exposed as not the result of being stunned by the government's cutting of the scheme, but because they are seeking money from elsewhere to fund the road.

But he's missing the point, and big time. Perhaps it's because he's detached from the situation on the ground, but the reason the campaign for a Bypass now has new impetus is because of the issue that won't go away: the issue that has been tracked by this blog for nearly 3 years now, and the issue that most anti-Bypass campaigners are hiding from - Tesco, and their now government approved megastore at Hattersley.

So it's hardly surprising that Tameside carry on with their zombie Bypass - the facts on the ground are changing the discourse. We're aware that it's probably not the remit of the CFBT to campaign against Tesco, but unless a serious challenge is posed to the government's decision to allow Tesco to build this store - and soon - any words against this Bypass will start to ring more and more hollow and lack credibility.

Rant over.

UPDATE: Richard George has replied to this blog, along with other contributors - please see the comments.

Unelected and unrepresentative Lord Pendry speaks out on the bypass cut

2010-11-13T21:15:00.001Z

Despite Jonathan Reynolds' intervention the other day on the Bypass issue, there has been little noise from Tameside's politicians about the cutting of government funding for the Bypass. The motives for this remain a matter of conjecture, but we're betting that if there is a chance to use other government funding streams to bring about Bypass 2.0, then they don't particularly want to put the government's nose out of joint.

So in the meantime we have Lord Pendry, the former Stalybridge and Hyde MP, being wheeled out to moan and groan. How convenient - someone whose political stature cannot be affected by the whole affair, since he is unelected and can't be toppled.

Pendry gave an interview to the Glossop Chronic's pro-bypass journalist David Jones this week, and a little potted history of his failure to get government ministers of all stripes to build a road over the years.

It's also an example of some of the most contrarian and idiotic reasoning you'll find anywhere. Pendry describes the visit of Fred Mulley, the Labour Minister of Transport between 1974-75, someone who apparently doubted the attractiveness of Longdendale, but agreed with Pendry having stayed there for the weekend after Pendry invited him. Pendry finds it so attractive that he wanted to build another road through it.

Mulley apparently wouldn't be seen driving a car during his tenure as Transport Minister, perhaps to counter any accusations he favoured the road lobby. Perhaps the reason the Longdendale Bypass was never granted during his tenure was because he realised how 'attractive' it was. Nevertheless, he did end up having a road named after him.

We then get another example of Pendry's failure to convince a Minister with the example of Glenda Jackson being almost flattened by a lorry crossing Manchester Road in Tinsle during her tenure as Transport Minister. This is perhaps why the pedestrian crossing later appeared on said road!

But surely the best line here is Pendry's quote about Tesco: “Traffic has increased and it will get even worse in this area when Tesco open their supermarket in Hattersley.” So there we are, there is at least one politician who's prepared to admit Tesco will make things a whole lot worse.

Read the full Pendry interview after the read more link below.

BYPASS BATTLE MUST CONTINUE

A MAN who has spearheaded the fight for the Longdendale Bypass for more than 30 years is not giving up the battle.

In an exclusive interview with the Reporter and Chronicle, Lord Tom Pendry has pledged the battle will go on.

He told us: “The need for a bypass (through Tintwistle, Hollingworth and Mottram) is greater than ever.

“Traffic has increased and it will get even worse in this area when Tesco open their supermarket in Hattersley.”

Lord Pendry - who during his days as Stalybridge and Hyde MP lived in Tintwistle and Hollingworth - started his battle for a bypass in 1974.

At the time, Labour’s Fred Mulley was the Minister of Transport and one of his responsibilities was building relief roads.

Lord Pendry said: “I asked him about a bypass for Longdendale.

“He said it wasn’t a particularly attractive area, so I invited him up to spend a weekend with me in Tintwistle.

“He came with his wife and his dog. We all went for a walk in the valley. He saw how attractive it was and it made him eat his words.”

This was the first of six visits to Longdendale by Ministers of Transport at the invitation of the then MP.

All saw the beauty of the valley and how it and the lives of the people who lived there were being badly affected by the constant stream of traffic.

Lord Pendry remembers all the visits, in particular one by Linda Chalker.

“We were waiting for her, but she turned up an hour late,” Lord Pendry went on.

“She apologised and said it was due to the heavy traffic.”

Lord Pendry smiled and told the minister that was exactly why she had been invited.

Another high powered visitor was former film star and subsequent Transport Minister Glenda Jackson.

The ex-actress was trying to cross Manchester Road to attend a meeting in the then Tintwistle Parish Council offices when she almost got knocked down by a truck.

In the years that followed, Lord Pendry joined forces with Tameside Council leader, the late Cllr Roy Oldham, to take their fight to Westminster.

They led deputations to see more roads’ ministers, including Stephen Ladyman, all to push Longdendale’s case.

It’s a fight that the Labour peer is keen to continue.

Speaking from the House of Lords, Lord Pendry said he had already pushed the case with a junior minister.

With the help of local MPs and Longdendale Siege group leader Mike Flynn, he promises more action.

Speaking about the recent release which revealed that the Longdendale Bypass wasn’t on the current spending list, Lord Pendry said: “I hope the government will think again, they have said not said directly that there won’t be a bypass and we need one.”

Jonathan Reynolds speaks about Tesco - at last - and calls traffic concerns a 'Red Herring'

2010-11-09T21:43:00.007Z

As part of all the mewling and puking from the roads lobby last week surrounding the government decision to cut the Mottram Bypass, the Stalybridge and Hyde MP, Jonathan Reynolds, saw an opportunity to burnish his pro-bypass credentials with his disillusioned electorate. He issued a press release and appeared on BBC Radio Manchester's 'Beswick at Breakfast' show last Thursday.

Now we've been lambasting Reynolds over his failure to address the concerns of his electorate regarding the Hattersley Tesco Extra for a while now. For months now, there has been a perfect silence about the issue from him, even through the General Election campaign. But his appearance on Alan Beswick's show left him vulnerable to being asked any question, and the astute Beswick took the opportunity to corner him on Tesco.

You can listen to the segment of the show and read a full transcript of the interview after the 'read more' link below. But what interests us are Reynolds' comments about Tesco, and these need to be highlighted here.

Firstly, Reynolds admits that the store "will have an impact on traffic". But later, he seeks to dilute this admission, by saying that "there won't be that different a change to the traffic flows ... in the area". It seems to us that he can't have it both ways. As Beswick implies, Tesco have chosen this site because of the proximity to the motorway and trunk road network, in order to maximise access and thereby profit. As we've always stated, the plan for the store anticipated the Bypass, but with the Bypass now on hold for an indeterminate length of time, it will now seek to precipitate it. All Reynolds can do is to state that the traffic problems of the A628/A57/M67 exist in a bubble, and that development in Tameside cannot make any difference. Isn't it funny that Roy Oldham's refrain was always that 'development in Glossop and High Peak' was responsible for increased traffic on this road? Not Tameside though, just Glossop and High Peak.

Secondly, Reynolds seeks to differentiate the store from the Bypass by stating that the Tesco is part of the 'regeneration' of Hattersley. 'Regeneration' in this context is code for the furtherance of the goals of sectors of private capital over social considerations. So the maintenance of existing housing can only be brought about by awarding massive concessions to a private company. We've seen another example of this today with the revelation that Tesco are secretly funding public infrastructure in Salford in return for being given the go-ahead on massive planning projects.

Thirdly, Reynolds seeks to downplay the scale of the Tesco store. The 525 car parking spaces go unmentioned, and Reynolds says, ridiculously, "There's a lot of controversy as to whether it would be described as a Tesco Extra - the size of the site is not comparable to some of the Tesco Extras we have seen in other parts of the country". There is no controversy - the artists impression of the store shows quite plainly the Tesco Extra logo emblazoned upon it! In addition, the Tesco Extra is the largest type of store that Tesco construct - at 95,000 square feet, the Hattersley store will be only 15% smaller than the store at Portwood in Stockport.

But Reynolds can afford to be blase - because Tesco seem to have won. With that twat Eric Pickles ignoring this issue, it seems the group set up to oppose the store plan have surrendered (at least if the disappearance of their website is anything to go by). With Siege upping their profile again, it seems that the future belongs to Tesco, if not the responsibility for the traffic, and Tameside MBC's silence regarding the road funding announcement is ominous: perhaps Tesco have thrown some money at reviving Bypass 2.0 behind the scenes?

Have the pro-bypass lobby snatched victory from the jaws of defeat? Unfortunately, it now seems that only time will tell.

Jonathan Reynolds: I've actually lived on this road, in the area, both in Hollingworth and Mottram, so I do know it very well: people, when they ask me where I'm the MP for, they tend to say one of two things; first of all they'll say "is the Buffet Bar still open at Stalybridge Station?", which I'm pleased to say it is, and then they'll say "do you represent that bit where you're coming from Sheffield or you're getting to the end of the M67 where there is always a traffic jam?" - and there always is. When you see the list of projects that's gone through, and some bypasses obviously have been approved, I think it is reasonable for me to ask "what is the criteria (sic), and why is this not figuring at all..."

Alan Beswick: Why do you think it is, and why do you think it's been left off?

JR: When you look at the motorway network, it's hard to see why this problem wasn't envisaged when we started building motorways in this country. You look at the pattern of them across the country and you could probably point to this point on the map and say "this is going to be a problem, in this area where the motorway stops". It is difficult, there have been obviously the original bypass plans tapered out into the Peak Park and that triggered the opposition and I understand that, I thought that was a little bit unreasonable given the majority of the scheme wasn't there and people maybe didn't get that, but I accept that there were problems with the Public Inquiry and the evidence that went in - I fought, and like Roy Oldham, really tried to push this forward when he looked for a smaller scheme, tried to speak to partners in the area about that because everyone wants a solution, we don't just want to push it elsewhere. But really, you talk to a lot of my constituents and they've got conspiracy theories that this hasn't been...

AB: There are always conspiracy theories - the truth is that your party in government didn't do anything about it.

JR: Well, Alan I won't hesitate to say, frankly, this should have been built decades ago, and there've been periods of Labour government, and yes, it should have been built in that time and I don't think anyone could say anything else. One thing I would say on that though is there was never a problem with getting people to come and look at the problem. To be honest, to be fair to the previous Conservative government pre-1997, several of their Secretaries of State came up to Mottram and saw this problem as well. I think Roy memorably told me once story where somebody came up and promised a Bypass and had been sacked by the time he got back to London!

AB: That's politics, as you well know!

JR: Absolutely, yes!

AB: In the meantime, what do you think the go-ahead for the Hattersley Tesco Extra's going to do? OK, it's 400 jobs, and I'm sure everyone in the area welcomes that, but, it means that the traffic could get worse, one presumes?

JR: It will have an impact on traffic. I see this as a bit of a red herring though generally Alan because why would people sit through the Longdendale Traffic to go to Tesco when there's one at Glossop anyway? I mean there will be some impact on the roads around it but the regeneration of Hattersley is something very dear to my heart and I think obviously we want a solution to this traffic problem decades ago, but to halt the regeneration programme in Hattersley because we haven't got this sorted would not be a fair or reasonable step to take, basically. And of course I can appreciate that there are some concerns in the wider area but we need a solution to this traffic problem regardless of what investment goes into the area, as is stands now anyway.

AB: But in the past - and certainly not very far from there - in the past, in Stockport for example, major retail developments have been delayed because of the traffic structure.

JR: Yes, but if you're talking about some of the developments around the M60 in Stockport, this is not on the same scheme as that, this is the...

AB: I know it's not on the same scheme, I'm just offering it as an example, and you know, it's a Tesco Extra - they're gigantic!

JR: There's a lot of controversy as to whether it would be described as a Tesco Extra - the size of the site is not comparable to some of the Tesco Extras we have seen in other parts of the country...

AB: You're in a cleft stick aren't you, there's the truth of it? You don't want to say 'we can't have this development' - you're getting it anyway - you don't want to criticise the development because of the jobs but, probably, you must think it'll have some effect on the traffic, otherwise they wouldn't be building it - they're not daft Tescos...

JR: Well, don't forget, it's a Tesco and new District Centre - there's a library and community centre as well, and that's why...

AB: Well that's not going to reduce the traffic, I mean even drivers read!

JR: Yes, but what I'm saying is, if you look at the problems of the traffic in Mottram, this is regional traffic flows, it's not caused by local developments in Tameside. If we don’t go ahead with the development like this, there won't be that different a change to the traffic flows anyway, in the area. We need a solution to the traffic problem coming through the area as people go between Sheffield and Manchester and avoid the M62.

STOP PRESS: Government approves Hattersley Tesco

2010-11-03T19:51:00.000Z

According to a press release issued by Tameside MBC today, the Government Office of the North West have 'no objection' to the plan for a Tesco Extra at Hattersley. To say that this announcement eclipses the quiet death of the Bypass scheme the other day would be something of an understatement.

We'll have more news and opinion as it becomes available.

The last rites for Bypass & Bypass 2.0 - it's over (for now)

2010-10-27T20:07:00.002+01:00

Here's a link to the Department for Transport announcement made late yesterday afternoon about the future funding of road schemes.

There's no mention of both the original Bypass scheme, nor Bypass 2.0. Since the statement contains details of all the schemes and projects being considered, that means that both the Bypass 1.0 and Bypass 2.0 projects have finally faded from history. It's all over.

Curiously, there were no questions and comments from the local MPs that have made all the hue and cry over the past few years - neither Jonathan Reynolds, Andrew Bingham, nor Andrew Gwynne made a murmur. Gwynne's silence was particularly interesting, since he's now a shadow transport minister, but not even his twitter carried a mention of the Bypass schemes being given the last rites.

In the title of this blog, we've said that it's over 'for now' - that's because we're still awaiting a decision from the DCLG about 'calling-in' the Hattersley Tesco application. Failure to do so guarantees traffic hell, at least without a widespread and radical plan to halt Tesco, which will doubtless ensure calls for a bypass from certain quarters.

The days are now counting down to that decision. Apart from anything else, if it goes the right way, we get to pack up and go home at last....

Shock horror: previously loyal Glossop Chronicle labels Siege protest a "failure"

2010-10-08T19:17:00.003+01:00

We're pretty stunned with the report of the Siege protest in this week's Glossop Chronic. Despite using a similar excuse to the Advertiser that a "fire at the Peniston (sic) end" meant traffic wasn't as heavy as expected (so vehicles heading North on the M1 weren't re-routing via the A616 then?), the papers agrees that "traffic flowed normally through to Mottram and on into Tameside. There were no problems either in Glossop".

Even better, the usual Bypass cheerleader and exemplar of partial journalism David Jones deals a crippling blow to Siege's credibility with the opening paragraph "a demonstration designed to bring rush hour traffic to a standstill failed" (our emphasis).

Worse still, Mike Flynn is quoted as being disappointed that "only five members of the public turned out to support us at Tintwistle".

Well it's hardly surprising - as we pointed out yesterday, Bypass 2.0 offers absolutely nothing to those living in Tintwistle (& Hollingworth) that want a road solution.

But perhaps the real shock here is the complete contrast with the article in this week's Advertiser papers. They said "traffic came to a standstill", quoting Mike Flynn as saying "I think it was very successful and we were very pleased with how it came off" which is the complete opposite of his comment in the Chronic that "it's very disappointing". The Advertiser put the people taking part as "70". On the day, our contact counted around 6 people at Mottram, Flynn himself says five turned up at Tinsle, and the photo of protesters at Mottram in the Chronic has about 14 glum-looking individuals (is that Sean Parker-Perry at the back?), a total of around 25. Now we've always been the first to point out how the virtual TMBC house-journal that is the Advertiser purposefully distorts the news (as well as occasionally stealing our stories, without credit, natch), but the contrast between fantasy and reality can be well and truly appreciated in this little controlled experiment in the manufacture of consent.

We must leave you with a priceless quote from an unnamed Siege protester "we may be back on Monday when the traffic will hopefully be heavier" - from our point of view, if the traffic is too sparse to justify a protest to stop it, then it's clearly far too sparse to justify a bypass to 'solve' a non-existent problem.

Never mind Hattersley, there's already a Tesco in Hollingworth

2010-10-07T22:34:00.000+01:00

Bet you didn't know that? It is entirely the case though, that Tesco already have a store in Longdendale. Yes, Tesco own the One-Stop chain of convenience stores, an example of which can be found on Market Street in Hollingworth.

An article in the Times earlier this year highlighted how One-Stop have prices that are often much higher (14%) than those in Tesco stores. These stores flout unfair competition laws, usually because they are often too small to come within the remit of the legislation, and tend to operate in areas where there is less local competition.

Not content with stores in Glossop, Stalybridge and Gee Cross, Tesco have an undercover store in Hollingworth - and are now planning a megastore at Hattersley. The area clearly belongs to Tesco.

Congratulations to Sean & Sian - just don't tell the wife!

2010-10-07T22:08:00.001+01:00

Well, it's rare that one of the talked about turns up to talk to us, but it may well be that we have an exclusive. You may remember in a post last week we mentioned that Sean Parker-Perry's mistress - a certain Sian Dominey - has seemingly changed her name on facebook to Sian Parker-Perry (try not to laugh).

Well now the lady in question - or at least someone masquerading as her - left a comment on the post with the following news:

I will be Sian Parker-Perry as of next summer when we get married! Thanks

Of course, this is all very lovely: but there is the small inconvenience in the fact that Sean is still married to someone else - Baron (Tom) Pendry's daughter, Fiona. At this rate, Miss Dominey will be lucky not to be named as co-respondent in the no doubt impending divorce proceedings...

Longdendale Siege's dismal protest failure

2010-10-07T20:44:00.006+01:00

Longdendale Siege Committee's protest on Wednesday morning was by all accounts a dismal failure (worthy of failblog, hence the picture). But you wouldn't know it if you'd read the new online article that has appeared on the Advertiser website. They put the apparent lack of westbound traffic in evidence yesterday at Tintwistle down to 'a fire near to Sheffield'. (Incidentally, we love the cretinous banner in the middle of the picture which says "The Best HGV Ban is a Bypass" - HGVs are not planned to be banned from the Bypass).

Skip back in time to this time last week, and Siege Chair Mike Flynn and his mouthpiece at the Glossop Chronicle, David Jones, was predicting gridlock in all directions, in particular from Hollingworth to Glossop via Woolley Lane. Yet pictures taken by a contact of ours show quite clearly, no congested traffic along the A57 at Brookfield at 9.14 a.m., and similarly uncongested traffic at Woolley Lane at 9.25 a.m. Looking in a Western direction directly up Mottram Moor, and there is sparse traffic coming to down the moor at 9.29 a.m. How many times have Tameside politicians told us - in particular the late Roy Oldham - that the traffic problem is down to traffic from the High Peak? On this evidence, that's a myth.

All in all, our contacts tell us that the road was no more congested than it usually is at this time on a weekday morning. The clear implication for the Longdendale Siege Committee is that if they need to set off pedestrian crossings to cause traffic jams then it suggests the jams are not there in the first place. So what exactly are they campaigning for? If the traffic jams do exist at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, then why the need to activate pedestrian crossings? What difference did it make? The evidence suggests none at all.

But what Siege must also explain, is why they are activating pedestrian crossings at Hollingworth and Tintwistle, when the new plans for Bypass 2.0 offer nothing to either of those villages - it is a Bypass of Mottram only.

Siege are threatening to protest again in a similar manner soon. Perhaps, if they have the courage of their convictions, they should stage a sit-down protest to properly stop the traffic - because the evidence suggests that pedestrian crossings being activated don't make that much difference when the traffic is relatively free-flowing anyway.

No Mottram Bypass would like to encourage all those who feel able to contribute to the documentation of Siege's future protests to send us any pictures, films and reports. We are sure there are some people with time on their hands who would be willing to make the effort!

Longdendale Siege plan 'pedestrian crossing' demonstration next week

2010-10-01T21:51:00.000+01:00

Longdendale Siege's Mike Flynn gives the exclusive to this week's Glossop Chronic that he and his chums are planning a novel demonstration next Wednesday morning: they plan to stand at pedestrian crossings along the route of the A57 and A628 throughout Longdendale, constantly activating them in order to create massive tailbacks of traffic between 9.00 and 9.30 a.m. Siege realise that time is running out for Bypass 2.0, since the Comprehensive Spending Review that is due on 20th October may well cut this scheme, as well the original bypass program, which is currently shelved.

This is not a new idea: similar protests were reported in May in Dorset, where some people used the tactic to protest about HGV traffic going through small villages. Now Dorset is one of the few English Counties that has no motorways running through it, and it's not clear that the protestors in that case were calling for new roads to be built. But is must be remembered that Longdendale Siege have continually refused to back calls for a HGV ban along the road, which demonstrates their insincerity about seeking a solution to the problems with congestion.

Of course, the irony is that Longdendale Siege's main constituency has been a mythical one - 'the motorist'. But although we don't believe there is such a thing, from their perspective, it seems a bit daft to alienate those you most rely on for support. If they agree with the government that money is tight, and if they are so desperate, then why not call for a HGV ban? In the Chron article, Flynn mentions the Hattersley Tesco almost as an afterthought, no doubt hoping to attract some passing anger and link the two up.

In the Dorset case, the response to the protest from persons unknown was swift. The button that activated the pedestrian crossing was glued tight. Now there's an idea...

Local Tesco ructions, Local Elections and Local morons

2010-09-30T21:16:00.002+01:00

Regular readers may have noticed that some time has passed between the last post and this one. We can only apologise for that, but it’s obvious that posting to this blog has become occasional of late, so you know what to expect in future.

Well, there’s lots to catch up on. But rather than split all of this material up into different posts, and be pushed to provide a customarily apposite image for each one, we’ve decided to ramble on at length and weave it into one continuous thread. So here goes.

Since we last reported on the Hattersley & Mottram Tesco, we’ve been treated to one of the most hilarious official documents we’ve had the pleasure of witnessing since the days of the Public Inquiry into the Bypass 1.0. As part of their application, the developer for Tesco (CTP) published their mammoth transport assessment. We won’t bore you with an in-depth analysis, but suffice to say, they found that overall, constructing a 95,000 square foot supermarket with 525 car-parking spaces would actually reduce the traffic flowing through the area! Furthermore, they also decided that since the impact on traffic would be negligible, there was no need to conduct a pollution assessment. So there we are. Tameside’s Planning Committee duly ratified the plan three weeks ago.

Thankfully, that’s not the end of the matter. Because Tameside have effectively torn up their own Local Plan and therefore have to ask the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, for a decision. Will he ‘call in’ the application for a Public Inquiry? Or will he wave it through, like his decision this week to reverse a call-in and allow a Tesco Extra at Trafford (yet another one tied into other development, this time Lancashire County Cricket Ground)?

Last Sunday saw the start of a popular movement against Tesco, under the auspices of the newly-formed Longdendale Community Group, with a packed meeting in Mottram full of people venting their feelings. And whilst we wouldn’t support the paragraph in their standard ‘call-in’ letter that suggests locals want a bypass, the irony is that by fighting the Tesco, they are making a future bypass far less likely. One announcement at the meeting seems to suggest that a more notorious group – the Longdendale Siege Committee – have not fully realised this: although it’s not exactly a secret, they have not so far chosen to openly publicise that they are planning a protest march – ostensibly against the traffic the new Tesco will bring – from Hollingworth to the building site at Mottram on Wednesday 6th October, the date being chosen in order that it doesn’t upset their usual power base in the local Labour Party, and confirming rumours we’d heard before that some of them are very much disenchanted with Labour. You heard it here first - although, as we were writing this blog, a comment popped up from a Mrs Bradley announcing it! In that case, they announced it here first!

More irony comes in the fact that this whole kerfuffle has broken out towards the end of a local election campaign, for the vacant Council seat previously occupied by Roy Oldham (the candidates addresses can be seen here). The silence of the local Labour Party on the Tesco issue has been deafening, although the local MP, Jonathan Reynolds, brought Eric Pickles’ opposite number John Denham to look at the ‘regeneration’ of Hattersley, with much trumpeting of ‘government money unleashing private investment’, a veiled reference to Tesco getting exactly what they wanted for peanuts (it’s also untrue because no government money is being put directly into this - they simply underwrote the deal). Meanwhile, the local Tories have come out strongly against the Tesco, after testing the water with this leaflet: the responses they got seem to have convinced them that campaigning against it could work in their favour, although only a few weeks before, one of their Hattersley members expressed support for the Tesco proposal (the same individual has seemingly had a damascene conversion and set up the Tories’ anti-Tesco group on facebook). The latest leaflet goes for Labour's jugular on the issue, as they've clearly smelled blood here.

At the ‘not a cat-in-hell’s’ chance end of the candidates, we find the BNP and the Green Party. The Tameside BNP Führer, Anthony David Jones, wants to give people a local ‘plebiscite’ on the bypass (presumably because he thinks they are plebs). How this would resurrect a dead road scheme he doesn’t explain. Jones can regularly be found over at the Tameside Citizen blog, which serves as a village pump/water cooler for all the assorted right-wing pricks in the area. Jones fancies himself as a historian, and is a regular on the Nazi stormfront message board. If all else fails, Jones probably proposes to resurrect the Organisation Todt to and use ‘untermensch’ to build it by forced labour.

Melanie Roberts of the Green Party doesn’t mention any local issues – such as the Bypass or Tesco – at all in her election address, following the example of Ruth Bergan during the General Election campaign, giving no one a reason to vote for her.

Lastly, it wouldn’t be a decent NMB blog post if it didn’t mention our favourite Longdendale Councillor, Sean Parker-Perry. He now lives on Back Moor, perhaps hoping that some of Roy’s magic will rub off on him. But if the BNP had an arboreal wing, it seems he’d been a leading member. Those perusing the press of late may have noticed that he called for the felling of the much-loved Stockport Road Monkey puzzle tree on the grounds it was ‘an alien species’ from Chile. A war then erupted in the press in which Bill Johnson put him right about many other well-known ‘alien trees’ which are and have been part and parcel of our landscape and ecology for hundreds of years. Never mind, Sean has other things on his mind, specifically his latest girlfriend, who seems to have re-named herself Sian Parker-Perry (surely-shome-mistake?), despite the fact that he’s still married. Even better, Sean is planning a ‘Long Way Down’ style trip to Kenya on his motorbike, to raise money for Roy Oldham’s medical centre – and he’s created a lovely website which tracks the frankly appalling progress so far. It’s a laugh a minute. Why anyone would give Sean money given his past track record is beyond us, but stranger things have happened. He’ll need some ideas for a future career though, because we’ve heard on the grapevine that he won’t be selected as a Labour Party candidate next time he stands. Enjoy it while you can Sean!

Oldham's Wood - the new name for Swallow's Wood?

2010-08-28T00:27:00.003+01:00

If you've been paying a certain amount of attention to the local press in recent weeks, you may have noticed that there have been tentative ideas mooted about naming a Tameside Nature Reserve after the late Council Leader, Roy Oldham.

A local person, Margaret Smethurst, proposed that Haughton Dale Nature Reserve, near Denton, should be renamed the Roy Oldham Haughton Dale Local Nature Reserve at a recent District Assembly Meeting. The idea seems to be receiving serious consideration, in that the local rags are talking about it. Now whilst our friend John Hall may have something to say about the contradictions of the man most responsible for environmental pollution and the destruction of Green space in Denton being memorialised in the name of the local Nature Reserve, we feel we have a compromise solution that will keep everyone happy.

How about Roy Oldham's name being attached to the Nature Reserve at Swallow's Wood? We are serious! He never got to see his bypass built, but let's remember - this is a man that supposedly was 'aware of the beautiful countryside on his doorstep' - so what better tribute to his ultimate success in keeping Swallows Wood and the surrounding countryside preserved for the future (through his failure to erect a bypass)? Who knows, in decades to come, Roy Oldham may even secure his place in future 'Legends of Longdendale' as the man who saved the wood from the clutches of the evil road-men. After all, if the wood was to bear his name, what Tameside politician would ever dare to support a plan to put a road through it!

Sod Denton - let's have Roy Oldham's Wood here in Longdendale!

Reynolds rants about Bypass 2.0 in Parliament - and threatens civil disobedience!

2010-08-02T19:55:00.005+01:00

Last Tuesday, the new Stalybridge and Hyde MP Jonathan 'Jonny' Reynolds saw his opportunity to once again raise the profile of the doomed Mottram Bypass, this time in the House of Commons. The occasion was the Summer Adjournment of Parliament. The full text of his speech can be read at the link above, or by clicking through to the 'read more' link below.

We've taken some time to study what he's said, and here's our potted response:

This speech is the kind of 'debate' that a politician loves - because it's not a proper debate. Indeed, as far as we know, Reynolds has never taken part in any real, open debate about either the Longdendale Bypass, Glossop Spur or the new Bypass 2.0. Like many other politicians, Reynolds can rely on parliamentary privilege to effectively say what he likes in the House of Commons, without granting those whose opinions differ the opportunity to hold him to account.

As we remarked upon nearly 2 and a half years ago, Reynolds failed to put in an appearance at the Public Inquiry at the time (along with every other local politician who supported the Bypass). It would therefore be difficult for him to credibly point to his 'support' for this scheme at that time, for he didn't take an opportunity to speak up for it, and face questions from objectors. This is extraordinary - all the more so for the fact that no other politician took the opportunity to do so either, which would have put in ahead in the credibility stakes were he to have taken to opportunity to speak.

And for that matter, neither did the members of the Longdendale Siege Committee that he namechecks in his speech: neither Mike Flynn, Bob Haycock, nor David Moore could be arsed to speak in favour of the road that will remain forever 'virtual', and left it to other members of Longdendale Siege to stand up and be counted, individuals who are not among those that he points out. We're reliably informed that Siege are so disappointed with Reynolds performance, they're threatening to link up with the local Tories.

Longdendale Siege did not submit a petition with 9,000 signatures to Downing Street. By the counts conducted by our contacts who have viewed the petition, the number was just under 7,600, and a large proportion of those were from people outside of the area. This means that Reynolds has consciously inflated the figures by more than 15%. Furthermore, as he points out, the petition was submitted to Number 10 Downing Street in what was a public relations exercise, which also means that it is not available for public scrutiny, unlike petitions presented to Parliament. We blogged before on the yo-yo nature of the numbers for this petition.

We're wondering exactly what kind of statistical survey Reynolds has undertaken to support his bold statement "many objections were also raised by people who had never visited the area"? As far as we know, no-one has ever said that before, and it is utter crap. It may well be the case that a fair number of people do not live in the immediate area, but that is not the same thing as having never visited the area.

We stand to be corrected if we are wrong, but our recollection is that the PI did not fall on the fact that the Highways Agency (HA) had miscalculated the length of the Stocksbridge Bypass. The fact is that the HA's traffic figures and basic mathematics were an utter mess, a point rumbled by Save Swallows Wood in a devastating submission very early on. In any case, the PI remained adjourned for months on end, enough time for them to get it right one would have thought. The fact of the matter is that the promoters of this road simply failed to make a case for the bypass - they presented their case to the Inquiry and then admitted the plans were at fault, not even allowing objectors to state their case.

Mr Reynolds would do well to remember that the Longdendale Integrated Transport System - that he seems to think is only about a road, thanks for reminding everyone - is still a consultation exercise. Tameside MBC is asking for people's views, and Reynolds is effectively attempting to prejudice the consultation with his invitations to a Minister to come and view the congestion. And if he did that at the moment, it would be the wrong time from his point of view, for the fact is that now is a good illustration of the effect the 'school run' has on traffic, and the roads are very quiet indeed.

The most hilarious bit though is where Reynolds threatens civil disobedience if a new road is not forthcoming. Let’s be clear about this – he has threatened it, not merely intimated that some of his constituents (i.e. the three he mentions plus assorted hangers-on) may take part in it. If any of us were to have threatened civil disobedience in objecting to the road, no doubt the authorities will have come down on us like a ton of bricks. Yet Reynolds’ tough talk is possibly shielded by his parliamentary privilege.

Ultimately, as we have recently pointed out, this is all just politricks. Reynolds is well aware that he was returned with the smallest majority in his constituency for many years. He is eager to show that he has done all that he can to keep the Bypass alive, knowing full well that a Labour government would have had to have killed it off, as the Tories are about to do. By seemingly taking up Roy Oldham’s mantle as the political flag bearer for the Bypass, he thinks this may boost his popularity, at least among the few people left that both take politicians seriously and do not view them with contempt.

Reynolds’ speech, House of Commons, 27th July 2010

Before the House adjourns, I wish to place on the record the problems and concerns of my constituents as a result of road congestion through the villages of Mottram and Hollingworth, and mention the ongoing saga of the proposed Mottram-to-Tintwistle bypass. [Interruption.] I can see that there is a lot of immediate interest in the subject.

If any hon. Members have ever driven between Sheffield and Manchester, they will probably have been delayed in my constituency. The journey from the end of the M67 in Hattersley to the junction with the M1 in south Yorkshire is a nightmare. The Woodhead pass is a convenient route across the country that avoids the M62, but its popularity has meant total misery for my constituents in Longdendale. I remind the House of my standing declared interest as an elected member of Tameside metropolitan borough council.

The latest figures given to me by the House of Commons Library tell me that, on average, 34,000 vehicles a day pass through the Mottram Moor A road in Hollingworth. That is an astonishing amount of traffic for small villages to cope with. It means that people cannot leave their houses, that the noise is unbearable and that the pollution levels are completely unacceptable, particularly in the playground of Hollingworth primary school, of which I am still a governor.

Many Secretaries of State for Transport have visited us and promised improvements; in fact, I believe that one made the journey, promised us that something would be done, but unfortunately was sacked on his journey back to London. That may explain the reluctance of more recent Secretaries of State for Transport to visit the area.

I am sure that hon. Members are wondering about the legislative history of the problem. The plans for a bypass in the area date back to the 1990s. They were extolled in the Conservative Government's "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper in 1989, following a public consultation process. A preferred route was selected in October 1993, but work was suspended in 1996 following further Government reviews of the national road building programme.

In July 1998 the Labour Government published "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which also included the bypass. In November 2002 the Highways Agency submitted a report to the regional planning bodies, and the local communities affected by the congestion presented a petition with more than 9,000 signatures to Downing street a few months later. I was part of that local deputation. The preferred route for a bypass in the area was not without its opponents. The very tip of the new road would have entered the territory of the Peak District national park, whose representatives naturally raised concerns. However, many objections were also raised by people who had never visited the area and wrongly assumed that most of the new bypass would be in the park.

The public inquiry into the bypass opened on 26 June 2007. However, following several adjournments to consider the evidence submitted, the public inquiry was adjourned indefinitely in December 2008, following the submission of inaccurate data by the Highways Agency. I shall stand corrected if this is not the case, but I believe that it got the length of the Stocksbridge bypass wrong. That should be a concern, given that it is the Highways Agency. After further delays throughout 2008, the public inquiry was abandoned, as the cost of the scheme had gone up steadily in the intervening years and funding had been allocated elsewhere. I have to report that as a result, there is considerable bitterness in my constituency at the performance of the Highways Agency.

To move things forward, Tameside metropolitan borough council, my local authority, began working on a wider solution, which incorporated a smaller new road with other traffic restraining measures. The scheme currently has resources allocated to it from the regional funding allocation, but we await the comprehensive spending review to see whether they will still be there in October. Local campaigners have been very demoralised by the lack of progress. I pay tribute to Mike Flynn, Bob Haycock and David Moore for keeping the campaign going. They know that they will always have my support.

The problem is national, not local: the traffic congestion is not caused in my constituency or borough. The Government must recognise that the problem comes from outside our area, and allocate resources to find a solution. I am not prescriptive about what that should be, but I feel that some new road capacity in the area is essential if a solution is to be meaningful.

Some will say that any new road capacity increases pollution, as it makes a journey more favourable for other road users. For me, that misses the point; the important thing about pollution in any given area is the number of receptors of that pollution-who is breathing the pollution in. If there were an increase in traffic in the Longdendale valley as a whole, the receptors would be the vegetation along the side of the new bypass or similar road, and that would be far preferable to the current situation, in which the receptors are my constituents along Hyde road, Mottram Moor and Market street in Hollingworth, and the schoolchildren in Hollingworth primary school.

Other options have been suggested as a potential solution, including, most notably, a weight restriction on heavy goods vehicles using the Woodhead pass. I am open to any ideas that would provide a solution, but my concern with the weight restriction is that it would damage the local economy in Tameside, which seems unfair given that the problem comes from outside our area.

Whenever transport problems are raised, this question should always be asked: is a public transport solution available? In all honesty, when I look at the situation in Longdendale I cannot see how that can be the case. In addition, it cannot be denied that the coalition has given us a new ministerial team at the Department for Transport who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as having little interest in the subject generally. If the rumours are true, in October my constituents could face not only the loss of the money allocated to deal with the specific congestion problem but the loss of the new rolling stock for the railway in Greater Manchester, the loss of bus services in the area through the slashing of the bus operators grant, and rail fare increases of RPI plus 10%. That would be a very dark day for transport in this country, and it would cause significant economic damage to constituencies such as mine.

My constituents face an unbearable situation that the Government need to recognise and help to address. To refuse to do so-I say this quite genuinely-will lead to civil disobedience in the area. The status quo is not an option. I therefore ask the Deputy Leader of the House to make efforts to arrange for me and other local representatives to meet people from the Department for Transport prior to a spending review announcement, to encourage the Department to announce which A-roads it believes to be suffering from unacceptable levels of congestion and announce a strategy for dealing with them, and to ask a Minister from the Department for Transport to visit my constituency to see for themselves the intolerable situation that my constituents contend with on a daily basis.

How much did Tameside spend on their 'virtual' bypass?

2010-07-21T23:05:00.002+01:00

It's a question that needs answering, especially in the light of the revelations today (which are now reaching a national audience) about how Tameside MBC spent £36,000 to create a 'virtual council' on the online game Second Life.

It's hard to fathom exactly what they thought they were doing by throwing money down an online drain, but in reality Tameside spent much much more on their own 'virtual bypass', the Glossop Spur, to much less complaint in the media. The last we heard, the costs were £7 million.

Perhaps they should have planned to build a virtual bypass in their Second Life zone? Having spent a small amount of time mooching around their zone in SL ourselves before it was shut down, we could find no trace of it. Which is a shame, because it would be the perfect place for an avatar of the late Roy Oldham to hang out: he could cast his gaze over his bypass forever and ever - he could find the success for his project in his Second Life that he failed to find in reality.

Well, to a certain extent, the powers that be did create a virtual bypass. They employed a company to construct a virtual bypass (though not a Glossop Spur - you can see a screen grab from the virtual map above, showing the plans they had for Swallows Wood). If, like us, you are curious person(s), you will find a way to download the file that contains this map, and viewing software from the site.

On the map, there's a little car that permanently traverses the route - whizzing by every now and then. How misleading: the Highways Agency knew full well their new Bypass would be chock-a-block from day one. Tameside's virtual bypass was a lot like their zone in Second Life: no-one used it. It was an expensive waste of time, money and effort.

What is the closing date for objections to the Mottram Tesco?

2010-07-11T22:56:00.004+01:00

Visitors to the TMBC webpage for the Mottram Tesco application will be under the impression that the official closing date for objections is 15th July. This is also the case for those who saw the advert in the local newspapers.

But if you visit the potential building site for the store, the notices posted on lamp posts around the site make it clear that the closing date is 26th July. We think Tameside need to make clear to the public the relevant date. Given that the public notices mention the 26th July, we're pretty sure you are safe leaving it until this date to object if you cannot do this sooner.

Bypass 2.0 now placed on hold - coup de grace please?!

2010-07-09T18:47:00.000+01:00

With the Greater Manchester Transport Fund hitting the buffers, the good news today is that Bypass 2.0 has been named as one of the first schemes as part of that project to be placed on hold, according to the MEN.

We now all have to wait until the government's spending review in the autumn to discover if the axe is truly to fall. But it's interesting to contrast this news today with our blog three days ago that the old Bypass scheme still seems to be accruing more costs at an unprecedented rate.

Longdendale Labour Party member breaks ranks on Mottram Tesco

2010-07-08T22:08:00.002+01:00

Today's Tameside Reporter contains a letter from a Mr S Naz, voicing concerns about the proposed new Mottram Tesco store. We'll reproduce the letter in full below:

It'll cause chaos

Disgrace! That is the opinion of 99 per cent of people I have spoken to in regard to the plans that have been put forward for a new Tesco Extra on Stockport Road, Hattersley (at Mottram roundabout opposite the Macdonalds).

How, after decades of campaigning for a bypass due to severe traffic congestion in our area, can we allow this to happen?

This is one of the THE traffic hotspots in the UK. To build this store in this location would make the traffic situation much worse, leading to misery for thousands of commuters every day.

For the promise of around 200 jobs for local people? How can you balance that equation?

The other thing to consider is that there are small retailers in the Longdendale villages of Hollingworth, Mottram, Broadbottom and Hattersley whose livelihoods will be under severe threat from this development, some of whom will close forever.

Tesco will not hold out the hand of friendship to those local people and offer them compensation for the loss of their income and the goodwill of their businesses. These small business owners have invested their life savings, redundancy money and taken out huge loans to buy their businesses.

How many people working in these businesses will become unemployed?

Balance that against the number of jobs on offer! When the 80 per cent of local residents in Hattersley said 'yes' to the superstore, were they made aware of the repercussions?

How man residents in Hattersley attended the meetings in Hattersley? And why were the residents of all Longdendale not made fully aware of these meetings and why were they not held at times when a larger representation of residents could attend?

It makes me wonder; how about you?

Now many of the points of concern is Mr Naz's letter are things that we've been pointing out for some time. But what makes this more interesting is Mr Naz's political affiliations: we are reliably informed that he is a member of Longdendale Labour Party. Not only that, he is a delegate to the Constituency Labour Party. Now we can't assume that everyone within Longdendale Labour Party is in favour of the Tesco development, but we can assume that Roy Oldham is, since it was under his administration that the deal was done to bring this Hypermarket to the area, in return for the regeneration that is linked to it. No doubt Roy losing power has made members more confident to speak their minds. Has Mr Naz put his head on the chopping block, or will others now speak out?

Jonathan Reynolds snubbed by Transport Minister over Bypass plea

2010-07-07T20:13:00.003+01:00

Actually, that's the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, Norman Baker. Stalybridge & Hyde MP, Jonathan Reynolds, submitted a written question to him recently:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit the villages of Hollingworth and Mottram-in-Longdendale in Stalybridge and Hyde constituency to observe traffic congestion on the A59 (sic).

Norman Baker's reply yesterday was just about the biggest snub it was possible to deliver:

I understand Tameside metropolitan borough council is currently looking at options to address congestion in the villages of Hollingworth and Mottram-in-Longdendale in the constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde. I do not think it would be appropriate for me or the Secretary of State for Transport to visit the area to observe traffic congestion whilst this work is ongoing.

This is in stark contrast with the likes of Alistair Darling who visited the area to show support for the Bypass when he was Secretary of State for Transport . Putting aside Norman Baker's record in the past over environmental concerns (he turned up at at least one Climate Camp in the past few years), the signals are clear - the axemen at the DfT are not ruling anything out for the cuts, and to turn up to essentially show support for a possible road to then later on 'down the road' cut future funding for it would be a huge own goal.

Now all of this suits the likes of 'Jonny' Reynolds, who's been very busy since he was elected desperately trying to look like he's doing something about the bypass. So if a Con-Dem government nix it, then he's able to blame it on his political rivals and 'Con-Dem' them...

Politricks, politricks, politricks.

New cost estimate for 'withdrawn' Mottram Bypass - £19.6 million

2010-07-06T19:36:00.006+01:00

Our old friend John Hall has been doing some digging. He recently requested from the Highways Agency information about the total cost of the original Bypass scheme to date in a Freedom of Information request.

Now you may remember that we have covered pretty much every twist and turn of the issue of costs over the past 3 years. The last time we reported was in May last year, when the accumulated cost was £17,176,000, this figure having leapt up by £1,176,000 in less than 6 months.

In this context, the reply to John Hall's Freedom of Information request in somewhat staggering - the cost now stands at £19.6 million (or £19,600,000 in longhand), meaning that £2.4 million has been added to the costs in just over 12 months. Whether this is as a result of a re-audit of the accounts, or that the abandoned scheme is still accruing costs is unclear, but you may remember that in March 2009, 4NW allowed the Highways Agency £1.1 million over the next seven years towards 'ongoing administrative costs'. For 2009-2010, the HA were apportioned £100,000 for this.

So one way or the other, the costs the scheme seems to have accrued have already swallowed up more than double the next seven years money in 12 months.

Now think about this: the media and politicians keep telling us that there's no money left, and that we must all face cuts to jobs, wages, services etc. At the same time, executive pay is up, banks are still paying bonuses, there's loads of money for useless wars - and the Highways Agency are still swallowing horrendous amounts of money for an 'abandoned' road scheme. You couldn't make it up.

Mottram Tesco poll results

2010-07-01T19:41:00.002+01:00

The results of our poll regarding the proposed Tesco Extra store at Mottram are in with 48 votes having been cast. We asked 'How do you feel about the possible new Tesco at Mottram?', and our respondents voted as follows:

Good idea - 3 (6%)

Bad idea - 35 (72%)

Don't care - 2 (4%)

Good idea, but worried about traffic - 8 (18%)

So not exactly a ringing endorsement. Now our poll is not exactly scientific, and you might not think it has much credibility, but then Tesco themselves also carried out a survey on Mottram and Hattersley, holding two 9-hour exhibitions, several static displays over a week, and delivering leaflets to 2,700 households, alongside posters and articles in local community newspapers. After all that money and effort, only 92 comment forms were received by them - and we received more than half that. You can read more details of the Tesco survey in this document they have submitted to the planning department at TMBC.

We'd like to receive your comments about the Tesco plan - please feel free to comment on this post, or contact us if you live locally and are concerned enough to want to do something about it.

Poll: how do you feel about the possible Mottram Tesco?

2010-06-23T22:18:00.001+01:00

According to our sitemeter, we're getting a lot of people visiting the site who are looking for information about the possible new Tesco at Mottram. So we thought we'd run a straw poll, which we think covers all the possible responses! It's in the top of the left hand column, so vote away...

Mottram & Hattersley Tesco plans are online

2010-06-16T21:10:00.000+01:00

The planning documents can be found here. Above and below are some images from the application which give you an idea of the absolutely massive size of this development which will have huge traffic implications for Mottram and the surrounding area.

Bingham makes his maiden speech - now it's the 'Tintwistle Bypass'!

2010-06-11T17:28:00.002+01:00

The new Tory MP for High Peak, Andrew Bingham, made his maiden speech in Parliament this week (which can be viewed on the video above). Bingham clearly had an attack of nerves, as he fluffs and stumbles through the 7 minute speech (The transcript (which reads much better than it was spoken) can be read here). But unlike his predecessor* Tom Levitt, he marks his card and mentions the Bypass.

Only this time it's the Tintwistle Bypass. Showing his unfamiliarity with the TMBC proposals, he states that "Tintwistle shudders and resounds to the thundering of wagons as they cross the Pennines" and therefore needs a Bypass - which is why Tintwistle does not form any part of the current plans! You may remember that during the election hustings on High Peak Radio, Bingham continually referred to the Bypass as the 'Glossop Bypass'.

Other than that, this speech surely ranks as one of the most embarrassing things we've heard in a long time, especially his shtick about being the 'Member of Parliament for Royston Vasey', FFS...

*at the beginning of the video, Bingham describes virtually everyone as his predecessor.

Kieran Quinn and the power of political double-think

2010-05-21T21:25:00.004+01:00

The new leader of Tameside MBC, Kieran Quinn, is making his mark already, giving an interview to the local press (otherwise known as issuing a press release). He's setting his stall out for his priorities.

Now pause there for a moment. Hands up who thought the end if the Oldham regime would signal some real changes? Did we think that Bypass 2.0 (aka Oldham Way) was only Roy's pet project and obsession? If you did, then look at what's second on Kieran's list:

"His priorities will include cutting the borough’s carbon footprint, pushing through the Mottram bypass..."

And then look at the first - cutting carbon footprints. One would have thought them mutually exclusive, but he wouldn't be the first politician to attempt to hold two contradictory views.

But is it any surprise? Quinn lives in Droylsden, at the address illustrated on Google Street view below (his are the evergreens in the garden). Have a pan around to see what his vision for Longdendale is (hint - the Snipe Retail Park and Ashton Moss are not too far to the East).

View Larger Map

Tesco planning application due in June for Mottram & Hattersley site

2010-05-21T19:04:00.002+01:00

Long-standing readers of this blog will know that we've been following the story of a planned Tesco development in Mottram & Hattersley for over 2 years (previous articles can be read here and here). But in the intervening period between writing our two articles, there's been very little news, and the site alongside the A560 Stockport Road has remained undeveloped since then, with virtually no signs of activity.

So it was with a little surprise this week that we learned the plans are moving forward. It seems that Tesco have begun one of their classic 'softening up' exercises by holding 'exhibitions' about their plans in certain parts of the affected locality. As is too often the case with these exhibitions, a press release about it is published in the local papers on the day it takes place, with the hours of the exhibition excluding most people anyway (8.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m and 3.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.). Then there's the question of how they find out - it seems that NMB contacts on the Eastern side of Mottram have not had any kind of notification. Since the latest exhibition appears to have been held at Arundale Primary School, one wonders if the only people who do know are the parents whose children attend that school.

The press release tells us that a planning application will now follow in June, hoping for a decision in October. The artist's impression tells us straight away that this will be a massive store - Tesco Extra stores are much bigger than a standard sized supermarket. It is bound to generate massive amounts of traffic, all adding to the calls for a bypass.

We will post links to the plans as soon as we find out more information.

Tameside Council dumps Roy Oldham - Kieran Quinn is now leader

2010-05-16T15:47:00.000+01:00

The breaking news is that Tameside Council has dumped Roy Oldham from his leadership post and selected Kieran Quinn. Does this mean all bets on Bypass 2.0 are now off?

Jonathan 'Jonny' Reynolds wins in Stalybridge & Hyde - lock up your virgin daughters...

2010-05-07T07:00:00.002+01:00

No surprises here - Jonathan 'Jonny' Reynolds wins in Stalybridge & Hyde. We've heard that James Purnell didn't even stick around to congratulate his successor and is already hanging out in London, but the son of Dracula now holds his safe seat after all kinds of dubious shenanigans to get him there and attempts on his political life from pipsqueaks in the same Party, albeit with a vastly reduced majority (hardly a massive endorsement).

Andrew 'Tweedledumber' Bingham wins in High Peak

2010-05-07T02:53:00.003+01:00

High Peak Councillor (and blogger) Anthony McKeown broke the news of the High Peak election result first on Twitter - and the winner is the Tory Andrew Bingham. It's High Peak Labour Party's own fault - they failed miserably by not taking swift and decisive action over the expenses fiddles of the crook Tom Levitt.

We're sure some very odd people would like to extend their congratulations to Bingham, 'Tweedledumber' in our parlance due to his non-difference from Tom Levitt regarding the Bypass, but the choice on this issue between all the three main candidates was a non-choice for us. Nevertheless, this writer regards Bingham as the natural enemy and we intend to be ruthless.

Oldham in desperate "I'll deliver Bypass 2.0" pledge - the Old Goat has shot his bolt

2010-05-06T21:39:00.000+01:00

Predictably, Roy Oldham is using his secret weapon in a last ditch move to shore up any wavering voters in Longdendale. The best bit about the leaflet is that Oldham is saying that Bypass 2.0 will follow public consultation, almost like night follows day. Now we think this seems to be a case of him prejudging the issue, which could have serious consequences for him. We understand both Longdendale Siege and Longdendale Labour have chosen this moment to pounce because the Tory candidate Peter Hayes has been making it quite clear that he can't make any promises regarding Bypass 2.0

Meanwhile, the man who made all the promises for years on end and didn't deliver is making more of them. The Old Goat has shot his bolt.

Labour, Conservative & Liberal Democrat High Peak candidates declare war on their constituency

2010-05-05T22:03:00.001+01:00

Well, we did promise to examine last week's High Peak Radio hustings in more detail, so we're returning to dissect the words of the three main candidates that featured in that debate (the audio is once again at the bottom on the post) - Labour's Caitlin Bisknell, the Liberal Democrat Alistair Stevens and the Tory Andrew Bingham.

47 seconds in, the debate turns to the housing targets imposed by the Government of the East Midlands upon High Peak Borough Council. All three candidates turn this into a call for affordable housing, but readers need to be aware that this is coded language and does not necessarily mean the same thing as Social Housing (which is actually being slowly dismantled), with affordable housing actually meaning affordable to those on an average wage, something which those in most need of housing can only dream about. It also increasingly means that these homes are 'shared ownership' (i.e. mixed mortgage/rent), a sector which is currently somewhat problematic given the complete lack of mortgages available to anyone on a low income (something which is likely to continue long into the future). In addition, readers should know that the housing targets specify that only a small proportion of the planned units must be 'affordable'.

Thus what we're seeing here is an attempt to justify large scale development on Greenbelt land for a 'projected need', and not necessarily current need, which could arguably be accommodated by the occupation of existing empty homes and the use of recognisably brownfield sites.

The contributions can be summarised thus: Bisknell calls for building on the Green Belt (contrary to local development plans), Stevens thinks the targets aren't high enough (but then he's an estate agent!) and calls for a political united front.

At 2:28, the issue of Cowdale Quarry is raised. In essence, this is a crackpot scheme which, on the surface, seeks to turn a long disused Quarry (over 62 years) into a bottled water plant, but is actually an asset-stripping environmental outrage. Both Bingham and Bisknell decline to comment on the basis that a planning decision has yet to be made, and if they are not elected as the High Peak candidate, as members of the Council they have to make a decision about it.

Which is interesting. Because keen readers will also know that the planning permission awarded by HPBC for the High Peak end of the Glossop Spur has now expired and, if Roy Oldham and Co. are serious, will need to be renewed again in future. Since later in the debate, they both declared enthusiasm for Bypass 2.0, we can only assume they have prejudiced this application.

At 3:39, we get a long rant from all three candidates about the need for Bypass 2.0. Bisknell's support seems not exactly unequivocal, but she goes on to mention the need for a Bypass for Fairfield near Buxton, which is a new one on us ('No Fairfield Bypass' anyone?). Bingham refers to Bypass 2.0 as the 'Glossopdale Bypass', and speaks in favour of it, but makes no promises about funding, saying he will 'fight very hard' for it if elected - Game On then Tweedledumber! The Estate Agent agrees.

The final section is the one we mentioned in our last post - yes, it's our question which we emailed in (though High Peak Radio chose not to mention that, or the blog), and it went as follows:

The 3 main candidates go on and on about reducing Carbon emissions, yet they all support the construction of a Bypass, along the lines of the discredited Longdendale Bypass, but now through Mottram and down into Glossop. The old plan would have seen Carbon emissions increase in this area by 15,000 tons each year. Doesn't this make a nonsense of their claims to be 'environmentally friendly'? Surely the best way to be green is not to pollute the area with more traffic and CO2?

And of course we then had Alistair Stevens telling us to 'get real' because the road would be used for 'green cars' (apparently powered by wind turbines). He must know about these things, after all he's an Estate Agent...

That just about wraps up our little contribution to the 2010 General Election. Just remember: whoever you vote for, the government always gets in. Voting for any of this lot ensures business as usual, which also means a war on the local environment, and that's a war that will not go unanswered in the years to come.

Ruth Bergan & the Tameside Green Party position on Bypass 2.0

2010-05-05T19:55:00.002+01:00

If you haven't been following the comments on a recent blog post, you'll know that we've been having what Mrs Merton would call a 'mass debate' (all four of us) about the position of Tameside Green Party and the Stalybridge & Hyde candidate Ruth Bergan regarding Bypass 2.0.

Ruth has sent us a copy of the latest Green Party leaflet (you can view a larger version of the leaflet by clicking on the image on the left) which states that Tameside Green Party members have been involved in fighting to stop the destruction of Swallows Wood by the old Bypass plans. We can't necessarily begrudge anyone taking credit for that victory, least of the thousands that took time to formally object, amongst whom are some of the members of Tameside Green Party (just to remind Longdendale Siege and any pro-bypass folk out there, objections outnumbered supporters by a ratio of 2:1).

And to underline her and her Party's opposition to Bypass 2.0, Ruth said the following in her last comment on this site (emphasis added):

"To make our position clear, Tameside Green Party is opposed to the builiding of any bypass. We believe it is a scandal that the Labour council are so hell-bent on destroying our natural heritage. Traffic levels will grow to fill the road space, reducing air quality and increasing CO2 emissions. A bypass is not the answer..."

This is what we'd wanted to hear. Let's hope that we now hear that continuously (& loudly) echoed by the party - in public - for as long as TMBC choose to pursue the plan. If we were cheeky, we'd ask for a link to this blog too.

Well, we're glad that's settled...

Pure propaganda - Roy Oldham "aware of the beautiful countryside on his doorstep"

2010-05-04T21:10:00.003+01:00

One of our contacts has passed us Roy Oldham's latest election leaflet for the local Council Elections, and it's a gem.

You can see the full leaflet here and here. Note that the only line about the Bypass is a solitary sentence - "In Longdendale, the Bypass is going through its procedures", which makes it sound like it's some kind of independent sentient being. We're willing to bet that behind closed doors, Roy carries on conversations with the Bypass - for all we know, he may even believe he sleeps with it, which perhaps may go some way to explaining his dogged persistent devotion to the "idea" over the years.

Equally bizarre though is the small series of vignettes which illustrate how Roy is 'working for you', and in particular the one on the left. Apparently, Roy is very aware of the "beautiful countryside on his doorstep". The problem is that Roy wants to introduce his jealous lover Bypass to the beautiful countryside - it's one of Roy's sick, twisted fantasies - and we know how it's going to end folks don't we? Yes, the perverted Bypass will have his wicked way with 'beautiful countryside', making her tired, ugly and degraded - a shadow of her former self.

Now you would have thought that a perfect backdrop to illustrate Roy's love for the countryside would be - the countryside of Longdendale! The only problem with that is that many of the views you could pick would be spoiled forever by the Bypass. So Roy's played it safe and posed against the park at the junction of the A57 and A628 in Hollingworth.

We think this is no small accident: for politicians like Oldham, the mitigation for projects that entail environmental degradation and the destruction of open spaces in the countryside is the provision of dead, paved, ecological deserts such as the park in the photograph. We know which we prefer.

We hear that Roy's facing a showdown with Kieran Quinn on May 16th, only 9 days after the results of the Council Elections. He may have plenty of time to spend in his park after that.

Ruth Bergan - don't mention the Bypass(?)

2010-05-02T22:57:00.007+01:00

Now in this post we're not going to do any transcribing of the interview Saddleworth News has made with the Green Party candidate for Stalybridge & Hyde, Ruth Bergan. The reason being is that there's no mention of the Bypass.

We're not entirely sure why this is, but we'll posit some possibilities:

The interviewer didn't ask. So, far, the only other candidate who has not been asked about it is the Nazi David Jones, but you would have thought it was the ideal question to ask a Green candidate. But it's a strong possibility.
The interviewer did ask, but Ruth refused to answer and/or asked to have her words deleted from the interview. Seems highly unlikely, but a possibility.
Ruth thought it was best not to mention it. Although there were chances to raise the issue herself, in relation to transport for example, Ruth thought better of it for fear of 'losing votes'. This is also a strong possibility.
Ruth thinks it's irrelevant - she simply doesn't think it's an issue in Stalybridge and Hyde. Inconceivable.

Historically, Green candidates in Tameside - and even Tameside Green Party itself - have been fainthearts in relation to this issue: it's simply not been an issue that they have taken up at a political level in the area. Indeed, at the Public Inquiry, a representative from Friends of the Earth in Stockport was the only person from a mainstream Green organisation to be combative about the issue and subject the promoters to scrutiny. In her local election address in this week's local papers, the prospective Green Party Council candidate for Longdendale - Melanie Roberts - makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to Bypass 2.0.

Politicians of all stripes are usually more than keen to tell us both what they are for and what they are against. You would have thought that the issue of a road scarring the beautiful landscape of Longdendale & Glossopdale, promoting more traffic and attendant pollution would be something a Green candidate would have something to say about. But not in the case of Ruth Bergan and Tameside Green Party.

UPDATE 5th May 2010: Ruth Bergan has responded personally to this blog post, and you can follow the discussion by going to the comments. We have offered her an opportunity to make clear her opposition to Bypass 2.0, and she has now taken us up on the offer - you can read the blog post about it here.

John Cooke's Truck Driver Divorce

2010-05-02T21:30:00.006+01:00

Who cares what UKIP think about the bypass? Or anything else for that matter? Well, you can't accuse Saddleworth News of being inconsistent (although there's no mention of the bypass in the interview with the Tameside BNP Führer and Gollum soundalike David Jones), so he asks Tameside's UKIP afterbirth John Cooke (aka "Rubber Duck") what he thinks. So let's be even handed and give the bloke five minutes shall we?

Well, it's a very short interview and the bit about the bypass is even shorter. So short we'll simply quote in full rather than leave it to the end. C'mon Rubber Duck:

Erm, I'm 100% in favour of the Mottram Bypass, erm, I used to run a transport company. It's possible for a lorry to get across to Sheffield in 45 minutes, erm, except for the traffic jams. The traffic jams need to be got rid of, it's doing nobody's health any good having thousands of vehicles sat ticking over, belching fumes into the air, so I would like to see the Mottram Bypass completed as quickly as possible.

Appropriately, Cooke's interview appears to have been conducted in the street, and the sound of traffic is constant. Anyway, at this point, there's precious little else to write about, so here's some lyrics from Frank Zappa's Truck Driver Divorce which seem apt:

Truck driver divorce!
It's very sad
(Steel guitars Usually weepall over it)
The bold & intelligent MASTERS OF THE ROAD,
With their Secret Language,
And their GIANT OVER-SIZED MECHANICAL TRANS-CONTINENTAL HOBBY-HORSE!

Indeed...

Rob Adlard's "rural feeling"

2010-05-02T20:25:00.002+01:00

Another candidate for Stalybridge and Hyde interviewed by Saddleworth News is the Tory Rob Adlard. As you'd expect, our interest lies with what he has to say about the Bypass, and once again, we've produced an mp3 from the edited interview and have also transcribed it - both of these appear below.

As with Jonny Reynolds, there appears to be precious little comment from Adlard about the Bypass in other media. Even his own website's transport policy section has no specific mention of the Bypass. So Saddleworth News has done a good job of dragging what little these politicians have to say about the issue out of them.

And what does he say? Well, he's definitely for a bypass, although most of the time is spent attacking Roy Oldham's failure to deliver the road, which is in tune with the approach taken by Longdendale Conservatives. But his words about the 'majority' wanting a bypass concur with the perorations of other politicians - i.e. uninformed and without presenting any empirical evidence to support this assertion.

Adlard's record on the matter also speaks for itself: he did not write to the Public Inquiry to support the Bypass, nor schedule an appearance to speak in favour at said enquiry. You could say he's shown absolutely no interest in the matter, other than to play political football with it at election time: the same could be said of the Tory candidate for Longdendale Peter Hayes (whose fence-sitting blather about the bypass can be read here) - another one who thought the issue was so crucial to the people in the area that he decided not to register an opinion at the Public Inquiry. It's called having your cake and eating it.

Still, in a constituency that's been Labour since 1945 it's unlikely Adlard and Co. will ever get to the main course.

Interviewer:

Now one other erm issue that's important locally is erm the issue of the Bypass which is one that's erm rumbled on for a long time? Where do you stand on that?

Adlard:

It's an interesting and enormous issue, I mean, erm, you know it's something that's been going on for 30 years and it certainly divides the community here, erm - the majority of people want to have some kind of bypass. Erm, the village just up the road from me, Mottram, is absolutely split in two, er, by the problem with the roads right now and they're very upset about it - the majority of people up there want it, apart from the people who live on the outskirts, on the more sort of - erm - rural feeling, areas and they're very much more against it, er, and to be honest there are good arguments on either side.

When I started, erm, having a role to play in politics in this area, started to research, er, again the beginnings of the bypass and all the things that had gone on, we started by having a campaign to trying to get, erm, Roy Oldham the Council leader here to be more open and we were calling for more honesty erm on the issue, and use that as a starting point, and it was interesting when we began to do that, and we found that y'know there was a sort of spike in activity and promises about the bypass at election times. Recently he's just been holding -erm - consultations across all the villages in Longdendale, erm, y'know it's very very close to an election time er after the scheme fell through and he claims that it was because the Highways Agency, you know, withdrew the money and it was all their fault, and all the rest of it, and it was to do with the environmental campaigners, and it's not: I mean he never really had an argument to satisfy the environmental campaigners and just, you know, treated them as if they didn't have a point to make, and they clearly did have a point to make because, er, a lot of people were upset about that and it did cause ructions, but actually, that wasn't what stopped it. What stopped it was that the Highways Agency said it had the least strategic fit, it was the least suitable plan, the least well thought out plan, and the money went elsewhere, to other road schemes.

So, we need to start again, I think we need to look at it, erm, again from scratch - the scheme that Roy Oldham's proposing right now, we just shift the problem a little bit further down the road, away from his house in Mottram, and down into Hollingworth.

Jonny Reynolds interviewed about Bypass 2.0

2010-05-01T22:34:00.024+01:00

Whilst it seems that any public pronouncements backing the Bypass in print from the Stalybridge and Hyde candidates are thin on the ground, the Saddleworth News website has been carrying interviews where it has been mentioned. Most interesting is their interview with Jonathan 'Jonny' Reynolds which appeared on their site recently.

Now the sound file for this interview is rather large, so we hope the editor of the site doesn't mind that we've altered it to save our readers/listeners the hassle of downloading it and wading through the other bilge to get to the relevant bit - the edited mp3 can be heard on the player below, along with our transcription of Reynolds' words.

But what's really fascinating about this interview is how much Reynolds gives away about the true reasons for this road. He makes a pitch aimed at the local electorate using the conventional justification about 'relieving locals of traffic' (although Bypass 2 is now only 'helping' Mottram), and wraps this around the true aim: that the bypass is part of a strategic route improvement, ultimately aimed at facilitating the motorway network, as part of a trans-European route (you may remember that we have written extensively in the past about the plans Tameside had for a North European Trade Axis).

Other interesting points are:

How Reynolds corrects himself when talking about opposition to the original bypass plan - changing it to the well-worn myth propogated by the local roads lobby that it was "opposition outside the area".
How Reynolds calls the new Bypass proposal 'Bypass 2' - a term first used on this website which now seems to have entered the official lexicon.
How thoroughly middle class Reynolds is (and likely to become ruling class by May 7th if he's elected).

Interviewer:

Now one other erm issue that's been rumbling on here for er em really rather a long time is the issue of the Bypass, erm, where do you stand on that?

Reynolds:

I used to live on Mottram Moor in Hollingworth, I'm the Longdendale Councillor, so you won't be surprised to know I'm very much in favour of the Bypass. You know I'm not someone who believes that building roads is always the answer to traffic problems but if you look at the unique situation that we have with two motorways pointing towards each other, everything that I've seen, you know, there's not an easy public transport solution to this, and some of the more sort of, erm, distinctive ideas like a roll-on roll-off railway don't seem to have been a starter at all, er, in order to solve the traffic problem.

What annoys me the most as a Longdendale Councillor is the way that, you know, the funding allocations have come about in such a way as to, you know, be assigned in a way at a regional level, and I understand why across the North West for certain transport projects that makes sense, but really this is, you know, an essential piece of road infrastructure on the edge of a region - it's a national project because it links two regions together and it's something which has come about really through the National motorway network, creating the unique problems that we've got in Longdendale, and I think the government - all governments - going back many, many years should have recognised this and given us the funding, and we've got the busiest A-road in the country and we've got levels of pollution in Hollingworth outside the primary school which are in excess of anything that's recommended by, you know, the medical experts.

So, the funding should be given - I appreciate the original Bypass plan caused a lot of opposition because of, sorry a lot of opposition outside the area, because of what was perceived to be some sort of damage to the Peak Park as it came through at the end, that was a small piece of the, er, wider bypass that was proposed. At the minute what we're looking at is really what's been called Bypass 2 or a smaller initial option that would just bypass Mottram and come back across and use the Glossop Spur back to Woolley Bridge from the M67. That's still going to require a solution for Hollingworth, and road calming and maybe an HGV ban can be part of that, but I need to know in terms of being both a local Councillor and, er, a possible MP for the area that Hollingworth's going to get a solution as well as Mottram, and I'm very much committed as someone who lives in the area as well to getting, er you know, a system in place which relieves the residents of the traffic because what they're being asked to put up with at the minute is not acceptable at all.

High Peak Hustings - Bypass 2.0 is for "cars powered by wind turbines"

2010-04-30T03:07:00.010+01:00

Yesterday saw 3 of the candidates from the main political parties contesting the General Election take part in a 'hustings' event on High Peak Radio. NMB audio faeries whipped out their copies of Audacity to make a recording, and we've edited the 'lowlights' of the proclamations of the three candidates - i.e. the bit where they reveal their plans to trash the environment of the High Peak in numerous ways - and you can hear this at the foot of this post on the mp3 player.

We'll be back soon with a fuller analysis, but for the time being, we'll leave you with Alistair Stevens' (Lib Dem) bizarre The Day Today-esque response to a question we posed (which begins at 7:14) - the Bypass he wants to build will be for "cars powered by wind turbines". Whatever next...

Normal service will be restored shortly...

2010-04-15T21:38:00.001+01:00

If you're visiting, you may notice that things look a bit funny at the moment - after more than 3 years, it's time to update the design of the blog to make it more flexible and user-friendly, and easier on the eye. So please bear with us in the meantime...

UPDATE 16/04/2010: new design is now complete - we hope you enjoy it!

A future free from the Bypass?

2010-04-13T20:01:00.009+01:00

Now we don't pretend to have done a full survey of all the election literature circulating both Longdendale and the High Peak, but from what we have seen so far, it seems remarkably free of mention of Bypass 2.0.

In the High Peak, in leaflets mailed and posted by the successor to Tom 'Shiteman' Levitt - Caitlin Bisknell - there's no mention the Bypass anywhere. This is also the case in the examples of literature delivered on behalf of Andrew 'Tweedledumber' Bingham (we will try to post scans of these leaflets when we have time).

But the most interesting case is that of the Labour PPC in Stalybridge & Hyde, Jonathan Reynolds. A website has been erected for his campaign this week, by the looks of it in a rather hasty fashion. Here's what we noticed on a cursory glance:

It seems to contain rather a lot of press releases about James Purnell - in fact, it appears to be Purnell's website with a makeover - a bit like Reynolds himself.
Reynolds 'About me' spiel on the website makes no mention of Bypass 2.0, although there's plenty of talk about 'better transport by road and rail'.
Politicians and other folk publicly backing Reynolds on the site DO NOT include fellow Councillor Sean Parker-Perry (wonder why?) and, crucially, Tameside Council leader Roy Oldham.
As we've already said, this website appears to be James Purnell's redirected to a new domain name, and in the haste to get it online, Reynolds seems to have overlooked the fact that it does not contain his agent's details*, but does contain those of the General Sectretary of the Labour Party (Ray Collins) at the bottom (as a Labour MP's website often does). Those more well-versed in electoral law than ourselves may want to see if anything illegal is taking place.

Whilst we haven't seen Reynolds campaign literature yet, it seems clear that many of the major political parties in the area do not consider the Bypass to be a campaigning issue. How long this lasts for after the election remains to be seen.

*UPDATE, 22/04/2010: a recent article in Tribune magazine carries a description of what seems like internecine civil war within Stalybridge and Hyde Labour Party, being heavily critical of Reynolds and his 'backers'. It makes clear that Reynolds was struggling to find an election agent, but has now secured Mike Kane, who some may remember replaced Mike Doherty as James Purnell's Office Manager when Doherty was sacked for writing to the press to back Purnell without declaring that he worked for him. Reynolds website now names Kane as his agent, although bizarrely he seems to have been re-named 'Michel'.

Jonny Reynolds - entering a world of pain...

2010-03-30T19:47:00.000+01:00

Tameside Eye and Tameside Mafia are both breaking with the news that Councillor Jonathan 'Jonny' Reynolds has been selected as the Labour PPC for Stalybridge & Hyde. Just over a week ago, we reported how Reynolds' campaign was promising to deliver Bypass 2.0 for Longdendale.

In the words of Walter Sobchak, we'd like to say to Jonny that he's about to enter a 'world of pain'. Our advice: drop Bypass 2.0.

3 years young today

2010-03-27T22:47:00.002Z

On the occasion of our third birthday, we'd like to thank those who still read our increasingly occasional blogs. Let's hope Bypass 2.0 bites the dust soon and then we can all pack up and go home.

Purnell, Hoon and the Longdendale Bypass - multiple FAIL

2010-03-26T14:51:00.002Z

Amidst all this talk of reinstated road plans and re-electing politicians and parties, we'd like to contrast fantasy with reality. So here's a homage to failblog - and a re-hash of an image we used once before in a different way, updated to remind readers of the fate of Geoff Hoon, James Purnell and the Longdendale Bypass

Jonny Reynolds as Stalybridge & Hyde MP? - all mouth, no trousers...

2010-03-18T21:02:00.004Z

Since we last blogged, there's been a lot of bad blood flowing around Tameside Labour Party. Our old friend, the supreme fuckwit that is Sean Parker-Perry, has been doing his best to smear his rival, fellow Councillor Jonathan Reynolds. We'd have loved to have had the scoop on this story, and we would have thought that Parker-Perry would have learned something from his stupid little games on the internet which lost him his job some time ago. Nevertheless, his accusations look interesting and deserve to be followed up...

In the meantime, reports of the struggle facing Reynolds to get himself onto the local PPC candidate list have reached a national level. The Times has reported that Peter Mandelson intervened to ensure Reynolds was re-admitted to the candidate list, after initially being excluded, which provoked accusations of this being a breach of the rules.

So for the Stalybridge and Hyde Labour Party, now there's a choice between a self-publicist GP with some wacky views about the NHS, a think-tanker, a Blairite, a racist former immigration minister and little Jonny, the local (from the North East) wanabee lawyer, a party hack.

And now look what the wind has blown into our hands. Above you'll see Reynolds' campaign leaflet for the PPC post. Look more closely and you'll find the following:

Local Transport - we need significant investment in transport in Stalybridge and Hyde, and especially in the Mottram Bypass.

Should anyone take Reynolds seriously on this issue? We think not. After all, as we pointed out at the time, Reynolds joined both his fellow Councillors in Longdendale in utterly failing to make an appearance at the Public Inquiry. He clearly does not have the courage of his convictions, failing those in favour of a bypass in his constituency who were looking to him to represent their views. But he now expects them to take him seriously again!

Regular readers will know better than to expect us to show the time of day to any politicians, of any political stripe (even those campaigning against the bypass, who don't stand a cat in hells chance anyway) . We're not going to go into why, as there's plenty of other articles we've posted that expound our politics. But clearly, an outsider would be a more effective choice for Stalybridge and Hyde Labour Party - because they wouldn't have a track record of utter failure in representing them over the Bypass.

**UPDATE - the Times is now claiming that the think-tanker and the racist have pulled out, because of Mandelson's intervention.

Purnell quits: exit Faction Man - enter Action Man?

2010-02-19T22:18:00.001Z

This blog is the last place you'll hear it today, but the big news is the announcement from James Purnell that he will be standing down as an MP at the next General Election.

There's not much we can say about this that hasn't been said already all over the internet anyway. We're wholly unsurprised that this southern chancer has decided to duck out now before Labour take a beating next time.

But who will replace him? Well, the talk is that it's likely that the Longdendale Councillor Jonathan 'Jonny' Reynolds will be chosen by the CLP as a candidate, and we all know his track record regarding the bypass. But then there's also another factor: Reynolds is the Secretary of the Tameside Co-operative Labour Party, a faction which is backing Kieran Quinn to be the new leader of TMBC and led the revolt against Roy Oldham.

If Reynolds is chosen as the PPC for Stalybridge and Hyde, it's inconceivable that he won't publicly back the bypass, particularly as the Tory PPC has already done so. But like all politicians, what these people say in public is not necessarily the same as what's going on behind the scenes.

Reynolds can be assured that if he does stand for MP and wins, we'll be paying very close attention to him in future.

Anthony McKeown's thumbs-down for Bypass 2.0

2010-02-18T23:48:00.004Z

Regular readers will know that we've always paid a certain amount of attention to the self-styled blogging High Peak Borough Councillor, Anthony McKeown. Readers will also know that McKeown has always been a steadfast supporter of plans for the Bypass (although seemingly not enthusiastic enough to either formally express his support in writing to the promoter, nor do so at the Public Inquiry), faithfully backing the line of the Council, be it under Labour control, or more recently Tory.

He's also in the past been a bit of a cheerleader for the MP Tom Levitt - but all of that started to change around the time of the MPs expenses scandal, when McKeown became the first in his party to formally criticise Levitt's behaviour.

With a new blog the other day, it now seems that McKeown is inching away from support for a Bypass. Have a look at this quote (emphasis added):

"Now my initial thoughts on the proposals is whilst I still support the idea of full bypass between Mottram and Tintwistle, I’m not sure on the basis of the information so far that the proposals suggested will have enough of an effect for the cost, and that alternative options such as supporting the building of a new station at Gamesley may be a better way to go."

Firstly, let's put aside Ant's dewey-eyed words about the original bypass plan: surely only Roy Oldham now supports the original bypass plans, and a belief in that discredited idea is about as sincere as the faith the captain of the Titanic displayed in the integrity of his ship's hull. Have a closer look - yes, Ant is saying that alternatives are preferable to a road.

But the best bit is perhaps reserved for the next paragraph in his blog:

"I’m also aware that whilst various bits are suggested within Glossopdale so far neither the County nor the Borough Council’s have been fully consulted / involved in drawing up these proposals."

That's pretty devastating for any bypass believer, and clearly illustrates the lack of continuity between the old Bypass plans and Bypass 2.0. Given that McKeown is the Secretary of High Peak Labour Party, it looks like a sea-change, albeit a change in the views of the current opposition. Will the new Labour PPC for High Peak follow suit?

Roy Oldham's Downfall - is Bypass 2.0 in freefall?

2010-02-17T18:52:00.002Z

Some of our readers may have noticed the story on the Manchester Evening News website that Roy Oldham is not only facing a challenge to his leadership of Tameside MBC from fellow Councillor Kieran Quinn, but that his local constituency party in Stalybridge and Hyde is supporting Quinn.

Now this is not 'new' news, and was actually reported at the end of January by Tameside Eye (with the hilariously apposite video above added to the post). But the fact that the MEN are using the story brings it out into the open.

What can it mean for the Bypass? It's well known that the original Bypass and the new Bypass ('with Bumps') 2.0 are Oldham's babies. As we hinted in our blog last night, there's a strong chance Oldham's end will spell the end of the road.

There's more to this story than meets the eye, so stay tuned over the next few days for more.

Roy Oldham drops the bomb on Longdendale

2010-02-16T21:31:00.001Z

As a taster, here's a little sneaky peak at the real substance of the report prepared by TMBC about the 'Longdendale Integrated Transport System' - RoyOldham/Colonel Kurtz has scrawled his solution for Longdendale. Our sources are telling us that there is a Tameside equivalent of Captain Willard waiting in the wings to stick the knife in at the right moment, but will he take up Oldham's priorities and methods, or are they only the property of the old goat?

We need motivation to adopt our old blogging habits, but an exposition of the whole sorry, pathetic affair will appear here at some point (yes, we know we promised it before!).

TMBC call Bypass 2.0 meetings - but don't give any dates

2010-01-26T20:44:00.008Z

Some of you may have the seen the rather strange half-page adverts placed by TMBC in last week's Reporter/Chronicle newspapers. Billed as a 'public consultation' about the (almost semi-mythical) Longdendale Integrated Transport System (i.e. Bypass with speed bumps), Tameside have wasted a whole wedge of local taxpayer's money because the notices contained no specific dates. Also strange is the decision to not place similar adverts in the local free papers, which have a much wider circulation. Upon phoning the phone numbers provided, callers are told that the dates are 'to be finalised'. Do they actually want anyone to attend one wonders?

Well word has reached us that said meetings will take place in Hollingworth, Mottram, Broadbottom and Glossop, and today we have learned the dates for Hollingworth - the venue is Hollingworth Church (they need all the help they can get, even though Roy's going to hell) on Friday 12th and Saturday 13th February. More dates/cynicism as we can get it/can be bothered...

UPDATE 28/01/2010: two days after we publish this blog, and Tameside's website bursts into life with info about the LITS. There's now a dedicated website here, and we'll repeat the dates/times for the 'consultations' in all venues/areas:

Saturday 6th February - Mottram Community Centre, Church Brow, Mottram-in-Longdendale, Hyde SK14 6JJ (10 am to 5 pm)
Monday 8th February - Broadbottom Community Centre, Lower Market Street, Broadbottom, Hyde SK14 6AA (2 pm to 8.30 pm)
Thursday 11th February - Mottram Community Centre, Church Brow, Mottram-in-Longdendale, Hyde SK14 6JJ (2 pm to 8.30 pm)
Friday 12th February - St. Mary’s Church, Hollingworth, Market Street, Hollingworth SK14 8NE (12 pm to 8.30 pm)
Saturday 13th February - St. Mary’s Church, Hollingworth, Market Street, Hollingworth SK14 8NE (10 am to 5 pm)
Friday 19th February - Bradbury Community House, Market Street, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 8AR (12 pm to 8.30 pm)

2010 predictions

2010-01-01T09:00:00.057Z

It's now a tradition of this blog to make some sort of predictions for the coming year, and despite our absence and the relative quietness of the past 6 months, we feel the need to carry on with this convention.

Firstly, as usual, lets look at how successful we were last year:

Right

More Public Inquiry delays. It was delay, delay, delay - even the act of shutting it down was protracted. So we feel that was right, although it was hard to get this bit wrong.

The economic situation worsening. Again, another no-brainer. But this had the maximum effect of making 4NW drop the Longdendale Bypass from their spending plans early in the year.

Wrong

Everything else! Unfortunately, Roy Oldham has not stood down - although a little bird tells us that he may stand down as the leader of TMBC in 2010 to concentrate on trying to bring about Bypass 2.0. And of course, Geoff Hoon could not act on the bypass because he resigned as Secretary of State in June last year.

Predictions for the coming year:

Whoever is the next High Peak MP will back the bypass. Yes, thanks in no small part to the sterling work done on his expense claims over at the Tom Levitt's Expenses blog, Tom Levitt has decided to call it a day before he lost out to the Tories anyway - we don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Levitt may be made a peer, but expect it's more likely he will land some corporate post, perhaps connected with a developer, since he has done his best to concrete-ise the High Peak. Will a new face as the Labour candidate mean they retain the High Peak seat? Whatever happens, we expect the winner to back the bypass (we've already blogged about the Tory candidate Andrew Bingham). We'd expect James Purnell to retain his seat, but with a much reduced majority, and we know that the prospective Tory PPC is pro-bypass anyway.

Little progress with Bypass 2.0. Despite all the hullabaloo about this project since the demise of the Highways Agency project, we feel that the emperor has no clothes. TMBC have promised public consultation next year, so expect lots of 'artists impression'-style images of a quiet traffic-free Mottram, but no images of the hell this will cause elsewhere. We plan to do an extensive article about Bypass 2.0 in the New Year.

And that's your lot.

Review of 2009

2009-12-31T09:00:00.001Z

Contrary to what we said last year, it DOES seem rather a long time since we last compiled our review of the year. Perhaps that's because we've not been blogging much, but it means that this will be a rather truncated review. So here goes.

January

As has been customary, January started with our predictions for the coming year, and we'll be doing a little follow up on that in about 24 hours or so. We also took a little look at Tom Levitt's predictions too, or 'Mystic Lev' as we christened him.

We looked at Persona Associates a couple of times this month: first to muse on why their portfolio of Public Inquiries seemed rather slim, and second to wonder why the Programme Officer Chris Banks had moved on. At the time, it seemed more of a conspiracy than it does now.

Our old nemesis Sean Parker-Perry popped up in this month too. He'd been complaining about the introduction of fortnightly bin collections in Tameside, and we used to opportunity to take a look at the real motives behind the move towards this trend.

This month also saw a decision about Heathrow's third runway, and we took a swipe at Geoff Who?/Hoon, who at the time was the Secretary of State for Transport. We also criticised Tom Levitt who used the Heathrow decision as an opportunity to demonstrate his contradictory views about the environment - this time, he hailed the decision to discharge even greater volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere as having entirely the opposite effect.

It was in January that dark clouds started to appear on the horizon for bypass supporters. 4NW were running a consultation on spending priorities for transport, and they had handily pointed out that they were currently 35% over-budget. We worked out the Longdendale Bypass represented that 15% of the total budget, a fact which could expose it to being axed in future.

February

This month could be divided in roughly two ways - politicians and money.

Regarding money, the big news was a leak from the blog of Jim Dixon, Chief Executive of the Peak District National Park Authority, revealing that 4NW had decided not to fund the Longdendale Bypass in their budget to 2015. A week later, the media was beginning to pick it up.

Regarding politicians, we first stopped to look at the curious moves of Derbyshire County Councillors Wilkinson & Wilcox, who called for the Public Inquiry to be stopped early in the month. We also looked at Denton MP Andrew Gwynne's trip to Svalbard to have a look at the effects of climate change, clearly trying to get away from the M60 at Denton, which is a big contributor to it. Lastly, we focused on another politician who loves such contradictions, Tom Levitt MP, who decried 4NW's decision to drop the bypass funding.

Along the way we also had items on TMBC's latest bit of greenwash and an article from John Hall about how the local press prevents criticism of politicians.

March

March was about death and resurrection. It appeared this month that the Bypass was dying, and a mortal wound was inflicted when the Highways Agency decided to withdraw from the Public Inquiry. It looked increasingly like euthanasia too, with the emergence of the full 4NW report labelling the road as having the 'weakest' strategic justification, although it would be an expensive funeral, with the quango reserving over £1 million to preserve the corpse for the time being.

We also decided to call it a day, given the news about the Highways Agency, but we spoke too soon, and decided on a resurrection 3 days later after AGMA announced their plans for what we were the first to dub 'Bypass 2.0'. Also resurrected were the crusty old zombies of Longdendale Siege, on the warpath after the double-whammy of 4NW and Highways Agency decisions. Perhaps our blog taking the piss out of Mike Flynn had reverberations beyond the grave?

Prior to the news about the Highways Agency, earlier in the month, we'd spent some time looking at the politricks taking place at the Department for Transport, with the revelation that the then Minister Lord Adonis was the decision maker about the road. What we think was our best 'lolprats' photo accompanied the blog.

And the month would be incomplete without pointing out yet more contradictions in the public utterances of Tom 'Shiteman' Levitt MP.

April

Early in the month, we looked at the ridiculous bureaucracy which meant that the Public Inquiry was still rumbling on, despite the promoter or the scheme stating their intention to withdraw from it weeks beforehand. We also had our hands on a Freedom of Information request obtained by John Hall in which the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate seemed to criticise the way the Inquiry had been run. Later in the month, we once again noted that the Highways Agency were still dragging their feet in formally withdrawing, and that the Inspector was reluctant to get tough. We also noted how accountants Price Waterhouse Coopers had landed on the blog after searching Google for the Inquiry and mused that a thorough audit wouldn't go amiss.

April also brought more news about Bypass 2.0. There were more detailed discussions about it at TMBC's 'Executive Cabinet' (sounds so vainglorious, doesn't it?), and we'd mused about possible routes for the new road prior to these developments. We also noted that something seemed wrong with the sequencing of the traffic lights through Mottram, which may not be entirely coincidental.

We also took a little time to look at the Tory Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (and likely next High Peak MP), Andrew 'Tweedledumber' Bingham and his essential non-difference from Tom Levitt regarding the Longdendale Bypass.

May

Only 3 stories this month, and a sign that the days of blogging every few days was over, as well as having something to write about.

There were more revelations about the cost of the (now failed) Bypass - £1,176,000 between November 2008 and April 2009, which worked out at more than £7,000 per day. The costs accrual didn't seem to affect the sloth-like approach of the Highways Agency, and John Hall sent us copies of emails between Persona Associates and HA project leader Alex Bywaters which illustrated this.

Finally, we reported on a more-or-less secret meeting between the various bodies promoting the bypass to progress to 'phase 2' of the Bypass project, following AGMA's announcement about transport funding priorities.

June

This month we had more or less come to the conclusion that the blog should remain on hiatus for the foreseeable future, unless there were any major developments worth reporting.

July

We obviously couldn't ignore the big news this month, and it formed our only blog for this month - the news that the Highways Agency had brought the Public Inquiry to an end, 3 months after their announcement that they were withdrawing. The PI had sat for only 15 days out of the 757 that it had been officially running. We mused at the time on the likely costs of the whole farce, but there have been no revelations about this since we wrote.

August

We popped back very briefly this month to inform the world about TMBC issuing a tender for the new name for Bypass 2.0 - 'Longdendale Integrated Transport System'.

And that wrapped it up for the year.

Bypass 2.0 - is work in progress?

2009-08-22T20:10:00.007+01:00

Now we were hoping to get another detailed post together about the whole 'Longdendale Integrated Transport Strategy' currently being hyped by Roy Oldham and Tameside MBC here there and everywhere, but we'll put that to one side to bring you some breaking - but linked - news instead.

It seems that TMBC are seeking interest for a tender in the construction of Bypass 2.0, and the evidence can be seen here on the publictenders.net website.

Note the details - the deadline is the end of September 2009, and the sum under the contract is £90 million.

So far, in many people's minds, it's been a little hard to take all of the pronouncements about Bypass 2.0 seriously, but this development is a big 'heads up' to all involved...

As one farce ends...

2009-07-27T20:36:00.007+01:00

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...

Our hiatus

2009-06-11T17:50:00.006+01:00

Regular readers will have noticed that for the past month, No Mottram Bypass has been very quiet. Whilst we're not going to offer a fulsome explanation for our absence, suffice it to say that the blog has become a bit of an albatross around the necks of the editorial team.

We fully aware that there's no shortage of potential blog posts: the latest news (or lack of news) about Bypass 2.0, the resignation of both Geoff Who? and the slimy James Purnell from the government, a possible split in the pro-bypass lobby, the fact there's still no end in sight for the Public Inquiry. We could go on.

We have said before that the blog should not be an end in itself, and that informs our decision now to suspend No Mottram Bypass for the foreseeable future. To continue would be self-indulgent. We would rather this website reflects not just the news about the progress of the scheme, but also a concerted campaign against it. The latter is lacking in our view, and self-gratification does not motivate us.

We do and always have welcomed contributions from anyone who thinks they have something to say about the issues surrounding the bypass, so perhaps that's where we'll leave it for now. If you want to write a blog, or a series, or even a regular feature (as well as make a film, or contribute some art work), then all reasonable offers will be considered. But we're also sure that if, like us, you'll continue to oppose the road, that you'd much rather be in the trenches, getting your hands dirty.

Until then, la lutta continua...

Revealed - the cosy meeting to progress 'Bypass 2.0'

2009-05-12T21:59:00.008+01:00

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!

2009-05-11T19:34:00.008+01:00

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

2009-05-06T19:30:00.002+01:00

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?

2009-04-28T18:59:00.008+01:00

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

2009-04-22T19:19:00.003+01:00

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.

More info on "Bypass 2.0" - Tameside's sleight of hand

2009-04-16T18:25:00.003+01:00

Snippets of info are starting to emerge about Tameside MBC's plans for a bypass on the cheap.

Last week saw a press release about the possible scheme being published in Local Transport Today (our screen grab of the article can be viewed here). More information is amongst the agenda items for TMBC's Executive 'Cabinet' that met on 1st April (seriously!), and these can be read here (opens PDF). Regarding the bypass, this is all the info we get:

A bypass of Mottram passing to the north of the village crossing and linking to Roe Cross Road and Mottram Moor and from there along the line of the Glossop Spur to Woolly Bridge (sic)

So our prediction in a previous blog post about likely routes appears to be wrong. Instead, the route under consideration appears to be akin to the 'Grey Route', which was put forward for public consultation back in 1993, alongside the Brown Route which ended up in the shit as it were. We'd like to remind everyone why the Grey Route was rejected at that time (from the Highways Agency's history of the scheme published on the Public Inquiry website - opens PDF):

(The Grey Route) had an adverse impact on the built environment, cultural heritage, townscape and construction because it traversed most of the 'difficult' areas of poor ground conditions

Whilst not mentioning where the road will go after reaching Woolley Bridge, the maps showing all the historical routes makes clear the plan will be to forge through what is now Rossington Park en route towards Tintwistle. The plan seems to be to capitalise on opposition to Rossington Park, but how Tameside MBC, or High Peak BC for that matter, will justify subjecting the Nothern portion of Hadfield to a proto-motorway is another matter. Rossington Park is by no means a success, and there's nothing to say it will be there in years to come, unlike any new road that is constructed.

But the second part of Tameside's plans are the most interesting:

- A package of sustainable travel initiatives linked to the existing School Travel Plans.

- A package of public transport (bus) improvements on the bypassed/relieved roads

- Cycling and pedestrian improvements on the bypassed/relieved roads.

- A package of traffic calming/road safety and environmental street improvements on the bypassed/relieved roads,

- Selected rail station improvements

- A lorry ban for through traffic on the A628/A616 (Woodhead Pass) and the A57 (Snake Pass) which would probably require the de-trunking of the A628/A616. Possible extension of the lorry ban to the other trans-Pennine routes passing through the Peak District National Park.

- The re-opening of the Woodhead rail route for trans-Pennine freight and passenger traffic

What looks like a sweetener for a road project, may be just that. But anti-bypass activists must ignore this at their peril - it's an attempt to 'divide and rule'. By stealing the positive agenda of more than one local campaign, plus making overtures to the disaffected Peak District National Park Authority, Tameside MBC hope that everyone will forget the plan is still to build another road. And one that follows the route of the likely Eastwards extension of the M67 30-odd years ago.

Of course, there's still the issue of how this will be paid for, and this is also covered in the same minutes. But that's for another time...

Are Tameside MBC manipulating the Mottram traffic lights?

2009-04-07T09:00:00.002+01:00

We've heard reports - and experienced ourselves - delays caused by very noticeable changes in the traffic light sequence at Mottram over the past few days. Last week saw some extremely short sequences at the traffic lights between Market Street and Stalybridge Road, leading to long delays along the A57 in either direction - one contact reported that it took 2 hours to get from Denton into Glossopdale at rush hour evening one day last week.

This week has seen the sequences reversed, with long delays for local traffic between Broadbottom and Mottram.

We've reported on this seemingly deliberate manipulation of the traffic lights once before, but it does appear to be rather extreme of late, just as the prospects of the bypass begin to look shaky, and Tameside want to build their own version.

We welcome any insight that NMB readers can provide - if you have insider insight into these matters and have evidence that it is deliberate, let us know.

Andrew Bingham - Tweedledumber

2009-04-06T20:00:00.001+01:00

Last week's Glossop Advertiser saw a number of all-too-familiar letters from pro-bypass fuckwits decrying the Highways Agency's decision to withdraw from the Public Inquiry. But amongst them was nestled this letter from High Peak Borough Councillor Andrew Bingham, the Tories Parliamentary Candidate for the area.

In it, Bingham paints a picture all too familiar because it's the same one painted by Tom Levitt, the man whose job he's after: the Bypass as the key to capitalist prosperity for the High Peak, representing an alleviation of all the traffic problems in the area, supported by almost everyone (none of whom can actually be bothered to officially do so).

In our view, these non-differences between Labour and Conservative represent all that the political and economic system can offer here or anywhere else. They demonstrate the hollowness of both parties claims to an environmentally sound future where the infinite growth of markets is both necessary and desirable. Neither of them have anything to offer to anyone who believes in anything different.

You won't be surprised to learn that Bingham is as big a fan of the New Mills Torrs Hydro as is Levitt. For us, this speaks volumes about his credibility, but we won't labour the point lest it appear to be our hobby-horse.

Our sincere hope is that the legitimacy of the world of Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, as represented by Bingham and Levitt, is on it's way out. Since it would appear to be high likely that Bingham will replace Levitt at the next General Election, we'll be keeping our eyes on him over the coming months.

Possible "new" bypass 2.0 routes

2009-04-03T20:00:00.005+01:00

Despite all the fuss and brouhaha raised over the cancellation and vague "reinstatement" of plans for a bypass recently (bypass 2.0 as we'll now call it), firm details of any alternative plan for a road through Longdendale are thin on the ground.

But as far as we're concerned, there's no harm in speculating about what any eventual plan may look like. After locating details of alternative routes considered in past years, we can now reveal the most likely locations for any new road. And wherever it goes, it's bound to stir up new dissent, perhaps even amongst those who so far have been all for it.

Leading up to 1993, a total of 7 possible routes had been considered by the Highways Agency as possible schemes. You can view a plan of them all here. This document* has a written description of each route, plus reasons for rejection, along with a potted history (opens PDF, see pages 27-30). The route that was eventually chosen after consultation was the eventually ill-fated (but aptly named) 'Brown Route', shortlisted alongside but winning out over the 'Grey Route'.

We feel pretty safe in speculating that any 'new' route for a bypass will utilise plans already drawn up in order to keep down costs, and the 7 routes identified in past years presumably represent all the viable options open to roadbuilders. So the question is, which one is now the most likely?

A good place to start is what has already been said in public, and in private as far as we know. As we've already pointed out, back in November 2008, local MPs and Roy Oldham met with Geoff Hoon, and the possibility of alternative alignments which "hugged the conurbations more closely" was discussed. James Purnell was said to have commented that "such a route would be popular with neither residents nor environmentalists".

However, one has to consider that the MPs wanted movement on the Bypass proposals and the PI that existed back at the end of last year: like the heady days of Globalised Capitalism, that situation no longer exists. Being left with a new situation, we imagine the MPs and local councillors are now starting to think about what costs less in terms of money, if not any supposed public support.

The only point of detail that has emerged since then has been this article written by two MEN journalists which says that the new route will be "shorter". Looking again at the route plans, to our eyes there is only really one candidate which can be considered shorter than any of the other routes - that of the 'Blue route'. The bad news for the people of Tintwistle is that this route cuts around the South side of their village, leaving them surrounded by both the existing A628 to the North and the 'new' bypass to the South. It also comes a lot closer to Hollingworth than the 'Brown route' ever threatened.

We can only surmise that Longdendale Siege members like Mike Flynn and David Moore in Hollingworth and Pat Jenner in Tintwistle will be extremely unpopular with their fellow villagers should this be the case. Rest assured, we and others will be doing our utmost to make clear to local people the implications of these plans for the area when more clarity can be obtained.

* - as we write, this document is still available on the Public Inquiry website, but we will host the file when/if the PI website is taken offline

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

2009-04-01T20:13:00.009+01:00

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?

Longdendale Siege are back on the march...

2009-03-30T19:50:00.006+01:00

With immaculate timing, and at long last, the Longdendale Siege Committee have updated their website. It seems that nothing spurs them into action like the threat of the collapse of their beloved road.

Linked to from numerous points on the homepage is a three page newsletter, which can be viewed here (opens PDF), which Mike Flynn was seen distributing at weekend. Now we could spend all day taking this document apart, not least because of it's shocking grammar, but we'd rather highlight one or two issues that crop up in it that have been covered here on the blog in the past.

Firstly, you have the reference to the fact that the Smithy Surgery at Hollingworth wrote in to the Public Inquiry to support the bypass. We covered this in August 2007, and pointed out that the Highways Agency's own evidence shows that pollution levels will increase, and that far being from a detailed and reasoned analysis, the GPs preferred to merely state opinions (that they 'were told') rather than facts on an A5-sized compliment slip.

Secondly, the document regurgitates unreferenced & unsourced pollution statistics. We covered this in depth as well back in March 2008, by again outlining in detail how pollution would worsen with the bypass. We also noted that Longdendale Siege were not willing to present this data to the Public Inquiry so it could be subject to scrutiny.

The most laughable part of this document is the threat that direct action will be taken to obtain the road! How we'd love to see that - surely nothing would endear Siege less to their only constituency, the inpatient motorist.

But the most interesting part of the PDF is who's written it. If you go the file properties, it tells you the author is a David Moore. Remember him? Yes, we wrote a long article about this character back in February 2008. Moore is well known to anti-bypass objectors, at one time he frequently wrote in to local papers in support of the road, but what was less well known was that he was project manager for the Tameside MBC sponsored North European Trade Axis (NETA). This was a project to promote a 'trans-European transport network', linking the Humber ports with the Irish Sea ports, bringing HGV traffic from Europe, via Longdendale (& the bypass) to Ireland and back again. The website has since been taken down (how mysterious!), but the links to the pages we provided still work in the Internet Archive - you can view here David's lovely face and his contact details for the NETA project.

Siege are threatening to lobby 4NW - so that tells you who still holds the purse strings in this whole affair. But in the meantime, why not welcome them back by dropping them a line at their new email address - bypassnow09@googlemail.com - or give them a call on 07913 034896. Tell them we sent you and blow them a kiss...

It ain't over...

2009-03-30T18:47:00.008+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now, after 2 years, it's goodbye from him...

2009-03-27T09:00:00.001Z

2 years after the start of the blog and it looks like it's the end ("of our elaborate plans, the end"). Although there will doubtless be more bypass-related news (and views) to relate over the coming months, for the most part the battle looks won, and there will hopefully only now be the odd pile of bones to pick over. We always said that the blog should end rather than become an end in itself, and we intend to stick to that. Consequently, it's going to get A LOT quieter around here, starting from tomorrow.

But there's still a lot to be concerned about in Longdendale and Glossopdale, the 2 areas threatened with blight from the bypass, even if it won't necessarily be reflected on this particular corner of the Internet.

There's been no apparent progress with the planned Tesco supermarket development at Mottram, which we were led to believe was directly related to the progress of the bypass Public Inquiry. With the economic climate now very different from when the project started, will the plans change? And if the store does go ahead, it's bound to create further traffic problems and congestion, which will not exactly dampen calls from certain quarters for a bypass in the future, even if that is now much less likely.

There's also still a question mark over what will happen with Mottram Show. Regular readers will be familiar with our past coverage and also that Tameside MBC have already bought an alternative site that's nowhere near Mottram. Surely the show should now return to its rightful place, with the superb views of the now hopefully permanently bypass-free Longdendale Valley?

In High Peak, there's a Borough Council bent on concreting over the Green Belt - it is inevitable given their acceptance of the Housing targets imposed by the Government of the East Midlands. Though much of the past industrial and retail development in the area (such as hated Rossington Park) has been predicated on the construction of the bypass, and that may now be compromised given the combination of the end of the scheme and the recession, the potential construction of more housing will only add more traffic to the equation. Again, this is grist to the mill of Tom Levitt's calls for a bypass, presumably along with any successor of whatever political tendency that follows him once he's booted out at the next election.

There'll almost doubtless be an inquest into the amount of money spent on this scheme, which must surely now be pushing £20 million (we know our counter indicates even more, but we've been unable to update it as we've been waiting for 'hard data' about costs to emerge). That'll be one thing we're likely to return to look at in future months.

There are already (and hopefully will be) other groups and places to find out more information about these areas of concern. We will plug them where we feel promotion is needed, but in the meantime, it's worth having a look under 'local links' in the sidebar for more information and places to go.

Lastly, with the assistance of wordle.net, we've spent a little time putting together a 'word cloud' which has the 100 most frequently-used words on this blog over the past 2 years arranged into an interesting shape, with the most frequently-used words appearing largest. It can be found for a short time below our logo-banner or here if you want to see it larger still. Statisticians may be interested to learn that we've written just over 100,000 words* during the past 2 years (almost a thousand words a week!), spread over 260-odd blog posts. Also, we've probably spent as much time on artwork and images as we have on words. In due course, we may rig up a gallery of them all along the same lines as we did 2008 last December.

We are profoundly grateful for all the direct contributions, large or small, to this blog, as well as all the negative and positive inspiration along the way. You know who you are - 'without whom' etc...

So, for the time being at least, it's goodbye from him (whoever he was...)

La Lutta Continua!

* - that's enough to fill over 200 sides of A4 paper using a 12 point typeface!

"Scrapped" Bypass to cost £1.1 million over next 7 years...

2009-03-26T09:00:00.004Z

...despite the fact it's been deferred. Yes, in their finalised funding advice (not the draft - opens PDF), 4NW has recommended that the Highways Agency should still be paid up until 2016, and we quote:

"The revised spend profile includes a nominal £100,000 per annum to cover ongoing Highways Agency administrative costs during the deferral period (page 14)"

That's £100,000 per annum between 2009/2010 - 2014/2015 and a final payment of £500,000 in 2015/2016 before the "deferred" funding comes on stream again (see the table on page 17). Even the most convinced pro-bypass individual must surely agree this is on a par with Fred Goodwin's pension arrangements in terms of an outrageous waste of money?

The scheme must be completely scrapped, and any further allocation of fund completely cancelled forthwith.

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

2009-03-25T19:06:00.008Z

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

2009-03-24T16:30:00.008Z

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:

The Longdendale Bypass - 'the weakest link'

2009-03-12T21:02:00.005Z

Two weeks after their decision to defer funding for the Bypass, 4NW this week released the full text of their report presented to members to aid said decision being made. The document can be found here (opens PDF), and it makes troubling reading for those supporting the Bypass, both now and in the future.

Page 4 makes it clear that "there is a clear regional policy steer against sacrificing sustainable transport and essential maintenance schemes in favour of funding increased costs of major road schemes". The current economic crisis only serves to underline that ever more strongly.

On the same page, and onto page 5, the Bypass is described as "not a priority" for the Northern Way Growth Strategy". Ouch.

And the elephant in the room is highlighted further on, making it clear that the "scheme may conflict with ... the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas". This further highlights why High Peak's MP, Tom Levitt, is potentially the biggest environmental vandal in the High Peak and a threat to the first National Park.

The killer line is on page 6. The report identifies that in terms of "strategic justification" the Bypass "is the weakest" - link, goodbye!

Even better, we learn that 4NW are warning the members that "deferral will increase outturn costs due to inflation". They still voted to dump it though. Expect the costs to continue to climb ever on.

All of this must leave Mike Flynn and Longdendale Siege severely depressed. In last week's Glossop Chronicle, Flynn voiced his frustration at "various government people" that had let them down (join the queue!) . Like the bypass, he too is the weakest link. He's failed, and surely must resign his post if he has any dignity.

But he's right in his final comment in the article "the future of the bypass will be decided at the public inquiry". Indeed, where he's never taken the opportunity to stand up and speak in favour of the scheme. But he's right, that's where the focus moves now. We're sure there's much fun and games in store there...

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

2009-03-07T21:00:00.003Z

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.

Tom Levitt's latest greenwash

2009-03-06T22:52:00.006Z

He's at it again. Tom Levitt's 'green' pronunciations are starting to become a regular occurrence, along with those about the recession, and his latest bit of news sees the two converging in the usual ironic manner of his ham-fisted but contradictory announcements.

Levitt's helping to promote the East Midlands Regional Climate Change Programme which "details how regional, local and individual action can be co-ordinated to help tackle climate change". This is the same individual that only last week was declaring how furious he was that 4NW had put back funding for the Longdendale Bypass, the single most environmentally damaging project in his constituency, if not the whole of the East Midlands and North West.

To remind Tom, the same Programme of Action he is promoting commits (at 1.3) to "mitigating climate change" which means "reducing greenhouse gas emissions". Yet the Longdendale Bypass will increase CO2 emissions in the area by 15,480 tonnes per annum. Levitt is standing in the way of the progress that the document he is promoting wants to make!

But there's more irony in store. The same article shows him wittering on about the 'Moors for the Future' project which aims to restore the peat moorlands in the High Peak. Yet those same moorlands in Levitt's constituency are threatened by the increased CO2 emissions the bypass will bring.

The article also quotes a Lynne Cardwell, apparently Labour's spokesperson in New Mills and clearly born yesterday:

"As we know from the huge popular support for the Torrs Hydropower scheme, awareness of green issues is very high in New Mills"

Regular readers will know our views about the Torrs Hydro Project - we think it's a greenwash project, which explains Levitt's enthusiasm for it. It encapsulates the contradictions this man constantly promotes. You wouldn't expect a member of the local Labour Party to call out Levitt on his Greenwash, and Lynne Cardwell doesn't disappoint them in this respect. The toadies and lickspittles that surround Levitt help him to promote two contradictory viewpoints and the bullshit continues to issue forth. When will it end?

Bypass funding problems - latest media reports

2009-02-28T15:30:00.002Z

The wider media is now catching hold of the 4NW funding decision.

Transport Xtra reports on the detail of the 4NW decision - that an option to delay 3 schemes was rejected in favour of rejecting the Bypass (the article is here for subscribers or you can view the page here courtesy of our cheeky free trial screengrab).

Meanwhile, the MEN are their offshoot Channel M have also been reporting. As usual, Channel M's reporters labour the 'misery' being experienced by those living next to a congested road - albeit a road with relatively light free-flowing traffic, stationary at one point because the vehicles are at a red traffic light - but we're glad to see local Jenny Bostock talking some sense, alongside Emma from Save Swallows Wood. The same can't be said of Mike Flynn of Longdendale Siege - he and other road supporters have no arguments left, and his desire for a road and not transport solutions is more exposed than it has ever been (the video is embedded in this post - click here if you can't see it).

Tom Levitt - the bad egg is 'angry' and it's no yolk

2009-02-26T21:30:00.001Z

Well, our exclusive from nearly 6 days ago has started to filter out to the wider world at last. First the Campaign for Better Transport proclaim "National Park saved from damaging road"*, and Tom Levitt, the Politician that wants to both celebrate and begin the destruction of said National Park, gets himself all steamed up in a new press release.

Firstly, to clarify what's happened, 4NW did indeed vote to drop the funding for the Bypass beyond the 2015/2016 funding period - but they decided to drop this scheme alone and not others. This scheme is clearly now recognised as a bad egg. Furthermore, a very expensive and unpopular bad egg.

Much the same can be said of Tom Levitt, but his angry press release has meant that his mask has slipped, and it exposes the true reasons for this scheme plus the usual idiotic contradictions.

Firstly, the contradictions. At a time of economic crisis and recession turning into depression, Levitt chooses to berate the 4NW forum for not pushing the North West Region beyond the 35% they are already over budget. Or perhaps he feels that other schemes should suffer to enable the bypass? Does he think 4NW should have chosen to drop the Metrolink Renewals or Extensions? The Blackpool & Fleetwood Tramway upgrade? The Crewe Rail Gateway? Or Yellow School Buses? All public transport schemes a lot 'greener' than a proto-motorway which were also considered in the Regional Funding Allocation.

But Levitt's press release also exposes the truth of what the Bypass actually represents; one key phrase - "It is a road of strategic importance which must be built".

That's it there - never mind bollocks about relieving 3 villages of traffic congestion - it is of strategic importance. And the strategy is to enable goods and freight to travel more swiftly between the East and West ports along Trans-European routes and to Manchester Airport. Thanks for letting everyone finally know Tom!

The truth is that as well as being a bad egg, Levitt is a bad loser. 4NW weren't convinced by the arguments, or all the politicians throwing their weight around in the preceding months.

So what are Levitt & James Purnell to do now (the latter is so 'furious' about it that he hasn't even mentioned it on his website, unlike Tom)? Why, they're off the see the Transport Minister, huffing and puffing and throwing more weight around. Plus ça change...

*entry on 26th February

**UPDATE, 27/02/2009: The Buxton Advertiser has the first online copy, and yesterday's Glossop Chronicle has an extensive article which doesn't credit us with the scoop (quelle surprise!)

EXCLUSIVE - Longdendale Bypass funding cancelled - is this the end?

2009-02-21T11:11:00.005Z

We have a massive exclusive for you here - according to the blog of Jim Dixon, Chief Executive of the Peak District National Park Authority, at a meeting of 4NW - presumably regarding the Regional Funding allocations we highlighted last month - the North West Local Authorities "agreed not to fund the Mottram, Hollingworth & Tintwistle Bypass in the regional budgets for 2012-2015".

This appears to be a massive blow to the plans for a bypass, and we'll be reporting in more depth as soon as more news emerges...

'No Comments' - courtesy of the Advertiser, by John Hall

2009-02-16T19:50:00.000Z

Strange that local newspapers always enjoy printing the rhetoric which emerges from politicians, but what if a politician decides to utter unsubstantiated comments which are then printed in a newspaper? Do you have the right to challenge such misinformed comments? That would surely be freedom of speech and at that a reply which may well be more informative, offering confirmed facts to the public which may otherwise be withheld?

So where do you challenge such misleading comments? Well that certainly is the problem, especially when dealing with local press editors in Tameside because their objective is to persist with press photographs of local politicians, especially when they are in power, and they ensure as many column inches as are needed are made available to promote those press-privileged politicians, thereby creating a partnership which may well be advantageous to them both - but indicates contempt for the public.

So the question is do local editorial staff and reporters have the right to exclude important substantiated facts by denying the public the right to respond to misleading comments made by close political partners of the Press - no they do NOT. But do they actually? YES they do!

Over a two year period, the Advertiser Group & Reporter Group newspapers in Tameside have indicated a bias towards the Mottram Bypass political cartel promoting the road scheme, and constantly feed the same picture into their reports of traffic hold-ups. The latest example is their publication of rhetoric from a Politician - Derbyshire County Councillor David Wilkinson - who does not even attend the Public Inquiry to consider the emerging facts.

The latest example of editorial sabotage concerns my submitted online comments concerning said article and politician which was obviously binned in the Editorial Office.

My submission to the press contained conclusive and substantiated facts, not simply rhetoric, but the barricades went up because Editors prefer political rhetoric not facts, especially if it might disturb their political allegiances and contacts.

It is therefore unfortunate that the press are depriving essential details being made known to the 220,000 people in Tameside, and the only source of complaint they refer you to is the Press Complaints Commission.

So is it State Control? Stalinism? Fascism? Dictatorship? 1984? or just deceptive administrations which surround us now in Tameside - and are the press completely under the influence and have they become simply sycophantic puppets?

It's for you to decide if the message gets to you or maybe you could find out for yourselves like I tried when I contacted the Editor as to why my comments were not included ... NO RESPONSE WAS RETURNED.

John Hall, Denton

Andrew Gwynne the Eco-Tourist

2009-02-13T20:25:00.002Z

We've rarely considered political figures beyond Longdendale and High Peak, since they are often shouting the loudest in favour of the Longdendale Bypass. But some new revelations lead us to turn the spotlight tonight on Andrew Gwynne, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, another big supporter of the Bypass.

The reason is that it came to light a couple of weeks ago that Gwynne took a trip last year to Svalbard, islands in the Arctic Ocean, and part of Norwegian territory. According to an article in the Tameside Advertiser, Gwynne and the party he journeyed with were invited by the Royal Norwegian Assembly to survey the damage being done to the island by climate change in April last year. The top of the article describes Gwynne as an 'Eco MP'. We'll demonstrate that he is actually at best an Eco-Tourist.

Now you may remember some time ago that one of David Cameron's first jaunts as leader of the Tory party was to go on a holiday - sorry! - fact-finding trip to Svalbard for similar purposes. So it's in vogue for the political class to go and look how bad things are somewhere else rather than looking closer to home. The fact of the matter is that Gwynne was so concerned about what he found in the Arctic that he didn't bother to report his trip at the time it took place and make the most of the publicity, only when he had to declare it to the Parliamentary authorities for the Register of Member's interests 7 months later. This was clearly more of a holiday/junket than anything else - if you type "Andrew Gwynne" and "Svalbard" into Google, all you'll find is the Advertiser article and articles about the entry in the Register of Member's Interests - there are no articles to be found in foreign press, tourist board websites, environmental journals and the like.

This is not the case for the other MPs taking the trip. Jamie Reed MP had an article on a local newspaper website within a month of the trip. Kerry McCarthy MP blogged about the trip within a week. Not be outdone, Jo Swinson MP did a podcast whilst she was there! (see entry 7th April). Only Tory Boy Greg Hands MP and Gwynne failed to mention it, demonstrating the depth of their sincerity/pathetic PR strategy (delete as appropriate)

Regarding his 'eco credentials', putting aside the bypass, we find that Gwynne is a strong supporter of Manchester Airport, and if one wants to know his position on Heathrow, visit his voting record page on publicwhip.org.uk and use your browser to search for 'Heathrow' - you'll find Gwynne, like Tom Levitt, is completely loyal to the Government's position in favour of expansion. And of course, we all know about his support for the Bypass. So how exactly can Gwynne be realistically described as an 'Eco MP'? At least Tom Levitt can bleat in support of a local Hydro Electric Power plant (however lacking in credibility said plant is) - Gwynne presides over the Junction 24 M60 Roundabout at Denton, a site which has disastrous health implications for his constituents, yet he wants more of the same for the area - the construction of the Longdendale Bypass will massively expand road traffic congestion in this part of his constituency, as will any expansion of Manchester Airport for air traffic.

If Gwynne was sincere about accepting his invitation from the Norwegian Government to see what Climate Change is doing to Svalbard, perhaps he should invite Norwegian officials to Denton to show them how sincere he is about making their situation much worse. Not to mention ours.

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

2009-02-06T22:05:00.002Z

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.

Tameside's Woodland Greenwash

2009-02-06T20:54:00.003Z

Above is the latest edition of Tameside MBC's "60 second news" (actually 120 seconds long). The first item (at 30 seconds into the video) is truly the best wind-up we've heard from TMBC in some time. For those who'd rather see it in Black and White, we have a transcript below:

Countryside lovers can explore Tameside's 18 Woodlands secure in the knowledge they are also being safeguarded for future generations to enjoy. The Council has achieved the UK Woodland Assurance Standard which acknowledges its commitment to managing the woods sustainably while making them as accessible as possible for local people

Excuse us while we do a double take - this is the same Council that wants to blight Longdendale with a bypass and destroy Swallow's Wood. You may remember that we commented on the irony of Tameside's 'plant a tree' campaign last December, but this is one better (or worse) than that. The line 'safeguarded for future generations' particularly sticks in the craw.

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

2009-01-30T19:03:00.006Z

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?

Tom Levitt, Geoff Hoon and the logic of capitalism

2009-01-30T18:39:00.002Z

As you'll see in the above extract from the House of Commons debate on Heathrow this Wednesday, Tom Levitt did his duty and supported Geoff Who?, as he had done previously in the local press. We'll regurgitate Hansard below in case you'd prefer to see the words spoken:

Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most polluting and wasteful practice by Heathrow is stacking, in which aeroplanes have to wait to come into land? That is because the runways are used at 99 per cent. capacity, which causes problems with the reliability of services. Is it not the case that the first impact of a third runway would be to reduce carbon emissions through the reduction and even abolition of stacking?

Hoon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and one that was completely ignored by the hon. Lady. At any given time, there can be as many as four stacks of aircraft waiting to land. The average delay at Heathrow—caused by the capacity problems—is some 19 minutes, and some aircraft are delayed for far longer. Therefore it is necessary to address the question of capacity, in carbon terms as much as for any other reason.

The logic used is the same as used by the proponents of the Longdendale Bypass, which of course includes Levitt. That congestion - be it in the air or on the roads - causes pollution (in this case CO2 emissions) and the best way to treat this is by increasing capacity. The perverse and contradictory logic on display is their worldview turned on its head. They support capitalism, and support the infinite growth it seeks. But in this case, they seek to cloak that logic in the clothes of environmentalism. The truth is that expanding capacity will simply serve to increase demand - more planes in the air (or cars on the road) equals more pollution.

The North West can't afford a bypass...

2009-01-27T18:46:00.006Z

At various points over the last few months, we've been harping on about how money (or more specifically the lack of it) may play a part in ending the proposals for the Bypass and Glossop Spur. Some campaigners believe that moment may now have arrived. 4NW (part of the North West Regional Development Agency) are consulting on the Regional Funding Allocation - i.e. how the money assigned to transport schemes in the North West will be allocated for the next few years. The consultation ends on 30th January (this Friday).

In their recent report, 4NW admit the Regional Funding Allocation is now 35% over budget in terms of the schemes it wants to progress. The Government allows a 20% overspend (how ironic given the current state of the economy), but clearly the process is 15% over budget. Guess how much of the budget the Longdendale Bypass represents over the next 10 yearly spending periods? You guessed it, 15% (£242m of £1.5bn). And why not? After all, of late the government loves throwing public money at hopeless causes...

Furthermore, the report also tells us that 3 trunk road schemes represent 70% of the over-allocation. Their priorities are clear. Quelle surprise.

So is there any way they can be influenced to change their minds and throw it all at public transport? Some believe they can, and the CAMPAIGN group Save Swallows Wood have set up an online lobbying contraption that will allow you to ask 4NW to use their money for some other purpose. If you're more inclined to use snail mail, then they also provide a PDF pro-forma for you to do that. Fuller details of the whole shebang can be found on their special webpage (not special fried rice). Go on then, be off with you.

We'll be interested to see if hope triumphs over experience.

Tom Levitt - Shite man speak with forked tongue

2009-01-19T21:15:00.002Z

You may remember an article we published in July last year about how Tom Levitt was attaching himself to the Torrs Hydro Energy scheme in New Mills, hoping that some of it's apparent Green-ness would rub off onto him.

His first column in the Glossop Chronicle for 2009 is entitled 'Tackling Climate Change' - ahem - and with a completely straight face, goes on to say "reducing carbon emissions quite literally saves the planet"* and pays tribute again to the Torrs Hydro project. The irony that the Torrs Hydro project has cut a deal to provide energy for a local supermarket is completely lost on Levitt, as it probably will be on most people.

But nonetheless, just re-read Levitt's words in the light of last week's announcement from Geoff Who?/Hoon about Heathrow - on the same day it appears in the local newspaper, Who? craps great blobs of Carbon all over Tom's lovely Greenwashed masterpiece.We wonder what went through Tom's mind? I wonder if he's forgotten that he also supports the Longdendale Bypass and the nigh on 15,500 extra tons of CO2 it will belch into the atmosphere?

Levitt is perhaps one of the most perfectly formed examples of a walking contradiction we've come across.

But it gets better. Just as we've been writing this, his column for this week's Chronicle has popped up on his website. And guess what it's about? Heathrow's third runway.

Tom's keen to tell us he was so eager to support it that he signed a motion for it BEFORE Hoon declared war on the environment last week. We'll let you read this drivel yourself, but Levitt finishes it with a classic Orwellian doublespeak phrase "the greenest action is not always the obvious one" - he presumably thinks that the construction of a third runway at Heathrow and a proto-motorway here is somehow evened up by a Greenwash project that powers a supermarket.

Is that what he means by obvious?

WILL SOMEONE TELL US EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS?

*We think Tom means 'humanity's future' here - the planet will sort itself out, whatever we throw at it, but we may not be able to dodge what it throws at us.

Sean Parker-Perry the rubbish rebel

2009-01-17T21:25:00.000Z

Here's us thinking that Longdendale Councillor Sean Parker-Perry's career is virtually over and he sets himself firmly on the political centre stage in Tameside - at least for now. Not only that, but his 'green credentials' (such as they exist) are again at the centre of it all.

What are we talking about? Well Sean's decided to come over all rebellious regarding the recent conversion of Tameside MBC towards fortnightly bin collections. But as is usually the case with these things, you have to read between the lines.

The Tameside Advertiser article makes it clear that Sean favours a weekly collection, but smaller bins which it says will 'force people to divide rubbish'. The current plan sees Tameside residents receiving a number of containers for different types of rubbish. Also, Sean says that recycling facilities in various parts of Tameside have disappeared.

And Sean seems to have hit a nerve - in the Reporter/Chronicle, there's a whole page devoted to the issue, with letters of support for Sean's stance. Or is there? The praise seems to have come from those who think the collections should stay weekly, rather than Sean's idea of smaller bins 'forcing' people to recycle.

It might be easier if we get out own views on the subject out of the way first before we move onto the implications of this kerfuffle.

Firstly, there's the issue of Public Services. The move to a less frequent collection is clearly an attack on a vital Public Service. There has been an increasing tendency over the past couple of years for Local Authorities to contract out their waste management services to private companies, with all the usual and predictable results, both for the public and employees in the public sector. Sean doesn't mention this, so presumably he's in favour of it. The idea that this is a clash of political ideologies is absurd - all the political parties agree with the continued privatisation of Public Services.

Secondly, in this 'debate' there is a complete absence of analysis, both at the local and national level. Who is talking about the commodification of waste for example? 4 multinational corporations - whose turnover number in the billions of pounds - control three quarters of all refuse collection contracts (many of which are to last for 25 years). Rubbish is very big business. And whilst the contracts keep political responsibility for waste management with Local Authorities, they do not allow them to keep any direct operational control. That is determined by only multinational corporations in response to national regulations.

Local Authorities simply have no power, and on a local level neither the Tories, Liberal Democrats or Labour can do anything about it. And last time I looked, none of them were arguing for returning waste management services to Local Authority control.

And this brings us on to you and I, and our 'responsibility' for recycling and waste management. We are continually told that 'we have to take more responsibility' for 'our' waste. That this is an individual problem, even a moral problem (i.e. it is we that are 'lazy' or 'wasteful'). But all of that misses the point completely and is in fact a smokescreen for what it actually happening. The fact of the matter is that 'we' have no control - not only do we not produce the waste (excessive packaging, junk mail etc etc) but also it is actually the Local Authorities that have swallowed the government (Tory and then Labour) line on the commodification of waste and awarded lucrative and long-term contracts to private companies that can do exactly as they please.

Waste management policy wants to make rubbish into a profitable commodity. This is why the onus for sorting waste is being put onto us, and the collections are happening less frequently - so that capitalist enterprises don't have to employ as many workers to sort the rubbish and collect it on a regular basis. Which is in order for them to widen their profit margins. It has nothing to do with us becoming 'greener' or becoming more 'environmentally aware'.

We don't see Sean Parker-Perry, or anyone else for that matter, talking about any of that.

So what is this argument really about? Roy Oldham's career is clearly in it's twilight months now. This could also be true of Sean - his credibility in the local Labour Party has nose dived in the past 12 months, what with his sacking from James Purnell's team, and the foundering of his relationship with the daughter of one of Tameside's most powerful political figures. It's do or die, and what better way to revive his fortunes - with a slanging match in the press with the leader of the Council over an issue neither of them have control over.

What a load of rubbish...

Cloth-eared 'Who?' declares war, again...

2009-01-16T15:51:00.006Z

Is anyone actually surprised that Geoff Who? yesterday approved plans for a third runway at Heathrow? Particularly given that the Guardian reports that he regards climate change as "a load of tree-hugging hoolah" (a new slogan for our blog). And can anyone now doubt exactly what's in store for Longdendale, at least as long as this Government is in charge of Transport policy?

Hoon wants a war: a war on the environment to match his ruthless decision to join in the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan. So let's give him one. We'll need old tactics, and also new ones. Let's have less of the ridiculous tactics of self-imposed imprisonment that were in evidence at Manchester Airport the other night. and may well be used at Heathrow tomorrow now that the details are public. Let's also drop the Liberal cant about non-violence - self-defence is always justifiable & in war there are always casualties. Individual tactics should not be adopted as wholesale strategy, unless we want to lose. Liberal hand-wringing about damage to property must be dismissed - this type of action is needed, and is a justifiable response when one considers the Government is going to demolish 700 homes and remove 10,000 people from Sipson and the surrounding area. Sipson is BAA's Lidice. We won't allow it.

Furthermore, every action in opposition to unnecessary infrastructure development now has a new reason to thrive. The government may have radicalised a whole section of society, allowing them to develop a more cogent and realistic analysis of the problems we face and develop suitable responses which do not echo the redundant reformist measures of old.

Are Persona non-grata?

2009-01-11T22:00:00.002Z

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.)

Ways to interact with us

2009-01-07T20:02:00.007Z

In case you're the casual visitor who doesn't look down the left-hand sidebar too often, we thought we'd spend some time introducing you to the ways you can interact with us here at No Mottram Bypass. There is more to us than this blog!

Want to read our new posts without visiting the site? Then subscribe to receive an email containing our blogs whenever the site is updated - details are at the top and bottom of the sidebar. Or, if you know about and use an rss reader, subscribe to our rss feed here.

If you like to use social networking sites, there are a couple of ways to interact. We have a myspace here, and we also have a facebook page. Over at facebook, we also have a group which you can join to show support and receive mailings from time to time.

We micro-blog now and again at Twitter, and our page is here. We plan to use this feature more in future - how and why will be revealed at the appropriate moment! (If you want stay up to date with our twitter feed but don't have or want a Twitter account, the rss feed is here)

Lastly, we have a very popular page over at YouTube (nearly 57,000 video views as I write!), which hosts some of the videos we use on this website as well as others we have uploaded to track other campaigns.

(There are vague plans to have an occasional dead tree/old school version of No Mottram Bypass at some point in the future. Again, more on this as the plans bear fruit)

Mystic Lev's 2009 Predictions

2009-01-03T23:55:00.002Z

At this time of year, we're usually poking fun at Tom Levitt's predictions for the coming year. We'd like to remind you of Tom's words in previous years:

2007 - The summer will also bring the long awaited public enquiry into the Tintwistle Mottram bypass. I am confident it will give the plan the ‘green light’

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

For two years on the run, this plonker has been plain wrong. We poured scorn on his words last year, when it should have been plainly obvious to, of all people, a politician that the statutory process made it unlikely the Inquiry would complete in 2008, and that was before all the hiccups that emerged through last year.

So it's perhaps unsurprising that Levitt doesn't mention the Bypass in his 'predictions' column this year - as he says "Economic uncertainties continue to dominate the agenda". Despite the motivational guff put on show for his cadre in the 'Hoongate' newsletter, Levitt clearly does not wish to cast a clout about the success of the Bypass when he knows the money may go elsewhere.

Is this a sign - does Mystic Lev know something that we don't?