peanuts Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) i see one of the charlton way nimbys has tried to drop a little handgrenade in the rarely wrong chron letters page ! where does it say or show the cycle path crossing clayton ? having viewed the plan it doesent bloody scare mongerer ! does one suspect he brought it up this late to try to influence the planning application hmmmmmmmmmm ? Edited November 12, 2007 by peanuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 One would use the word '' in response to the NIMBY. I would hope that he turns up on Wednesday, to see the application passed with a seal of approval! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyoafc Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Did you see the letter in the chron on friday? Apparently the apartments will soon become a ghetto with drug dealers and murderers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I think I've guessed the author without actually seeing the Chron yet. Not that Hewitt chap is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) Yep, its Hewitt, again. Edited November 12, 2007 by sheridans_world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Since when did a 4 metre wide cycle track become a "Highway." He makes it sound like the A627M is going to be extended through a footbal pitch. PMSL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I would hope that he turns up on Wednesday, to see the application passed with a seal of approval! my inner pessimist baulks at such optimism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Yep, its Hewitt, again. Is he the spokesperson for this "group" they have or is he just a one man moan machine? I knew when peanuts put "charlton" should be Carlton but meh that it'd be him. I'm expecting to read many more of his letters in the coming months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Did you see the letter in the chron on friday? Apparently the apartments will soon become a ghetto with drug dealers and murderers. I particularly like how he was trying to compare 1960's and 1970's council housing estates to the private apartments (the like of which are selling for outrageous sums of money all over the centre of Manchester). WTF?! The problem is that these boneheads will try and drag anything up - even if it's complete - to try and support their argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forte_Baby Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I particularly like how he was trying to compare 1960's and 1970's council housing estates to the private apartments (the like of which are selling for outrageous sums of money all over the centre of Manchester). WTF?! The problem is that these boneheads will try and drag anything up - even if it's complete - to try and support their argument. [/quote Tried to type into rivals but having server problems. The guy is a . He goes on about being a so called "Latics" supporter but does his best to prevent everything we do to redevelop BP. Hopefully the council will tell him to stick his views where the sun does not shine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Since when did a 4 metre wide cycle track become a "Highway." He makes it sound like the A627M is going to be extended through a footbal pitch. PMSL I felt the need to reply to both of these objectors. This is my email to the Chronicle - I wonder if they'll publish it without censure? Having read the letters from Derek Dyson on Friday 9th of November, and from Simon Hewitt on Monday 12th, I feel compelled to reply. Mr Dyson’s letter compared the new apartment blocks to ‘communal’ properties on Sholver, Shaw Road, Primrose Back and Crete Street. This comparison is grossly unfair in view of the fact that the new apartments will be private dwellings - the like of which are selling for hundreds of thousands of pounds across much of Manchester and across the borough of Oldham - not primarily council properties in relatively deprived areas of Oldham. Perhaps it’s a good job that Mr Dyson is now retired from Oldham Councils Housing Department in view of his archaic views? In response to Mr Hewitt’s points, it’s irresponsible and frankly childish of him to suggest that OAFC plan to build a public highway, particularly as he’s using ‘selective quotes’ from the planning application, which have been taken out of context, to add weight to his scare-mongering. The fact is that the ‘public highway’to which Mr Hewitt refers, is an existing cycle path which would, as part of the councils conditions have to be improved by Athletic to help to reduce the traffic impact of the proposed scheme. Mr Hewitt also fails to mention the fact that the club will also be contributing to the improvement of the pedestrian crossing facilities in the locality of Sheepfoot Lane and Oldham Road - a point which is addressed in the very same paragraph from which he lifted his ‘selected quotes’. Sadly it comes as no surprise that these scare tactics are being employed at the 11th hour by the NIMBY’s of Carlton Way and the roads surrounding Boundary Park, even after the club has conceded on a number of points and made extensive changes to the plans after consultation with the residents. If the development is not granted on the back of these unfounded objections it signals the death knell for a once great club which simply can’t survive in it’s current state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brookfield_blue Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Mr. Dyson also asks what provision will be made for the people that use the car park on Sheepfoot Lane. Is'nt this the car park that is owned by Latics and is used free apart from matchdays. Why should they provide free parking on their own land! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 I'd love it if we got the go ahead on Weds, that after a few "We love you Oldham's etc" the song "Simon Hewitt, you're a , you're a !" goes around. That :censored:er has been against us since day one! The prick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 I felt the need to reply to both of these objectors. This is my email to the Chronicle - I wonder if they'll publish it without censure? Having read the letters from Derek Dyson on Friday 9th of November, and from Simon Hewitt on Monday 12th, I feel compelled to reply. Mr Dyson’s letter compared the new apartment blocks to ‘communal’ properties on Sholver, Shaw Road, Primrose Back and Crete Street. This comparison is grossly unfair in view of the fact that the new apartments will be private dwellings - the like of which are selling for hundreds of thousands of pounds across much of Manchester and across the borough of Oldham - not primarily council properties in relatively deprived areas of Oldham. Perhaps it’s a good job that Mr Dyson is now retired from Oldham Councils Housing Department in view of his archaic views? In response to Mr Hewitt’s points, it’s irresponsible and frankly childish of him to suggest that OAFC plan to build a public highway, particularly as he’s using ‘selective quotes’ from the planning application, which have been taken out of context, to add weight to his scare-mongering. The fact is that the ‘public highway’to which Mr Hewitt refers, is an existing cycle path which would, as part of the councils conditions have to be improved by Athletic to help to reduce the traffic impact of the proposed scheme. Mr Hewitt also fails to mention the fact that the club will also be contributing to the improvement of the pedestrian crossing facilities in the locality of Sheepfoot Lane and Oldham Road - a point which is addressed in the very same paragraph from which he lifted his ‘selected quotes’. Sadly it comes as no surprise that these scare tactics are being employed at the 11th hour by the NIMBY’s of Carlton Way and the roads surrounding Boundary Park, even after the club has conceded on a number of points and made extensive changes to the plans after consultation with the residents. If the development is not granted on the back of these unfounded objections it signals the death knell for a once great club which simply can’t survive in it’s current state. Great letter that Dan, I really hope the "rarely wrong" Chron publish it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Bare in mind that Mr Hewitt was VERY upset a few years ago that the cycle lane on the other side of Clayton had encroached onto the playing fields by a few inches which was against the rules of the town green status granted to the fields and demanded the cycle lane was dug up, because if it was left like that it would only leave to more development on the fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Bare in mind that Mr Hewitt was VERY upset a few years ago that the cycle lane on the other side of Clayton had encroached onto the playing fields by a few inches which was against the rules of the town green status granted to the fields and demanded the cycle lane was dug up, because if it was left like that it would only leave to more development on the fields. Mr. Hewitt writes in the rarely wrong Chron about his interpretation of the development proposals to mean that a public highway is to be built between Boadway and Furtherwood Road across the Town Green. The Planning Officer's Report on the detailed planning application refers to the residents' reference to infringement of existing legal covenants relating to the Clayton Playing Fields, which form part of the Town Green. The Report states: "It should be noted that the proposal does not impinge upon the Town Green. The proposal will not result in any significant physical alterations to the line of the existing public rights of way, except the area where Footpaths 184 and 126 converge close to the centre of the north car park. Works to the proposed hard surface car park may require diversion of these routes at this point which will need to be made under the appropriate Order. It is not considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact upon footpaths within the site." The Planning Officer's Report on the outline application states: "There will be no through routes created as part of the development proposals. Good pedestrian and cycle routes will be provided as part of the development and adequate cycle storage facilities will be provided." So Mr. Hewitt's point is clearly a green herring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 I felt the need to reply to both of these objectors. This is my email to the Chronicle - I wonder if they'll publish it without censure? Having read the letters from Derek Dyson on Friday 9th of November, and from Simon Hewitt on Monday 12th, I feel compelled to reply. Mr Dyson’s letter compared the new apartment blocks to ‘communal’ properties on Sholver, Shaw Road, Primrose Back and Crete Street. This comparison is grossly unfair in view of the fact that the new apartments will be private dwellings - the like of which are selling for hundreds of thousands of pounds across much of Manchester and across the borough of Oldham - not primarily council properties in relatively deprived areas of Oldham. Perhaps it’s a good job that Mr Dyson is now retired from Oldham Councils Housing Department in view of his archaic views? In response to Mr Hewitt’s points, it’s irresponsible and frankly childish of him to suggest that OAFC plan to build a public highway, particularly as he’s using ‘selective quotes’ from the planning application, which have been taken out of context, to add weight to his scare-mongering. The fact is that the ‘public highway’to which Mr Hewitt refers, is an existing cycle path which would, as part of the councils conditions have to be improved by Athletic to help to reduce the traffic impact of the proposed scheme. Mr Hewitt also fails to mention the fact that the club will also be contributing to the improvement of the pedestrian crossing facilities in the locality of Sheepfoot Lane and Oldham Road - a point which is addressed in the very same paragraph from which he lifted his ‘selected quotes’. Sadly it comes as no surprise that these scare tactics are being employed at the 11th hour by the NIMBY’s of Carlton Way and the roads surrounding Boundary Park, even after the club has conceded on a number of points and made extensive changes to the plans after consultation with the residents. If the development is not granted on the back of these unfounded objections it signals the death knell for a once great club which simply can’t survive in it’s current state. Good common sense comments Dan. That is why they wont get printed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Great letter that Dan, I really hope the "rarely wrong" Chron publish it. It's not in tonight's edition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 So Mr. Hewitt's point is clearly a green herring. At least its not a white elephant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 Mr. Dyson also asks what provision will be made for the people that use the car park on Sheepfoot Lane. Is'nt this the car park that is owned by Latics and is used free apart from matchdays. Why should they provide free parking on their own land! it aint free any longer now a revenue stream for the latics as it has an attendant all day good work the tta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 It's not in tonight's edition. I don't think that they usually print replies to specific letters on the following day, I think it's usually a couple of days later. mind you, if it's not in tomorrow then there'd be no point printing it as it was meant to be read prior to tomorrow's planning meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 I don't think that they usually print replies to specific letters on the following day, I think it's usually a couple of days later. mind you, if it's not in tomorrow then there'd be no point printing it as it was meant to be read prior to tomorrow's planning meeting. I believe they have some space on Thursday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Dan's letter is in tonight's rarely wrong Chron - just in time for the big decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Dan's letter is in tonight's rarely wrong Chron - just in time for the big decision. Ah yes. That should put the cat amongst the pigeons tonight then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatpaste Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 If the decision goes our way, do the nimby's have any sort of right to appeal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.