Guest oa_exile Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I have just recieved this latest e mail from Cllr Bashforth Dear Sir, I fully understand the depth of feeling with regard to this matter and sympathise with all of your views and in many ways feel the same but maybe for different reasons. Decisions made at planning are made on an item by item basis and are done freely and not under the party whip, planning is determined individually (the Chair has no influence over the voting of the other members, If you were to ask them if this was the case they will tell you in no uncertain terms that they make their own decisions). This is evident in the way the vote went, against were 3 Labour, 3 Lib-Dem and 1 Conservative. For were 3 Labour and 1 Lib-Dem. Decisions are made on the evidence given in the report, evidence given on the night (as in this case with the traffic report), subjective and objective argument and knowledge of the issue in hand, the effect on the town and your area. That is why it was a difficult decision to come too to vote against the second and more controversial application. The first application was fairly straight forward, new stand, banqueting facilities and so on, a much needed development for the future survival of the club. There would be a slight impact on traffic but that would mainly be on match days, some increase in other use outside match days that’s understandable but something I felt I could support and did so. The second application for the residential side was something entirely different in my opinion when looking at the full application. I rejected it for one reason altough other members of the committee quoted addition reason which had to be recorded. I was not convinced with the traffic survey that told me that 693 apartments would only generate 1 extra vehicle per traffic queue on Chadderton Way and make little difference to the traffic situation around the development and further a field. You only have to look at Broadway now at most times of the day but peak times especially to see that once the whole of the development was completed it would result in grid lock. Indeed there are times now when Broadway is queued all the way down to Shaw Road End and Oldham/Rochdale Road is bumper to bumper all the way from Shaw Road End to Featherstall Road North and up past the Queens pub. Daily congestion is experienced around the Elk Mill roundabout, Sheepfoot Lane and Furtherwood Road. It is important to note that I have no issues at all with match day traffic and said so in the committee meeting. Traffic has always been difficult on match days and always will be. It is the other days of the week that I am concerned with. In those apartments there could be in excess of 1000 adults, most families especially young professionals have two cars that could result in 2000 cars being on this site for residents alone. This could be the worst case scenario but that is what we were being asked to consider, 693 apartments. If we say that there would be 750 adults and two thirds have vehicles, which leaves us with 500 extra cars on the site for residents only, not to mention the hotel, fitness club and retail units. 500 cars at the peak time of 2 hours in the morning and again at night. There would be two exits, one at Sheepfoot Lane/Oldham Rd and Furtherwood Rd/Chadderton Way, that’s 250 going one way and 250 going the other or even worse many more going in one or other way. 250 cars equals 125 per hour at peak times or just over 2 cars per minute at either of those junctions and that’s if they leave at one minute intervals which I don’t believe they would. I, and 6 other members of the committee believe this to be a distinct possibility and could cause chaos on the surrounding highway network and the traffic report presented to us did not show how this extra traffic had been taken account of. I hope the owners do as they have said and stay the course bringing a revised acceptable plan to the earliest committee (possibly December) and make it one that we can all support. I for one want Latics to succeed and a fitting development to go on the site but it has to be one that fits the aspirations of all the people affected. I must point out that it is by no means unusual for a large and possibly controversial application like this to go through the planning process more than once. The obvious difference here is that the emotional response of fans who are very loyal to the club and love it's traditions and history. Yours sincerely, Steven Bashforth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Totally wrong!!!! Most apparentment builds come with ONE parking spot not TWO so these "young profesionals" would be very unlikely to have TWO cars you :censored:ing pleb! Chances are the majority will go to KEY WORKERS at the hospital and a resonable percentage will use public transport. I am guessing this is why the EXPERTS said it wouldnt cause traffic problems. WHAT A :censored:ING PLEB! Can you forward it to Alan if you already havent done so. Edited November 16, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The obvious difference here is that the emotional response of fans who are very loyal to the club and love it's traditions and history. WRONG, the difference here i that as a town we are sick of good developments NOT happening!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nohairdontcare Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I had the same reply waiting for me this morning... Can't say I even read it all. I think I'll just send him another email this morning, just to keep his inbox ticking over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I have just recieved this latest e mail from Cllr Bashforth To be honest... a pretty fair reply.... pretty anal on the traffic front and in my opinion wrong, but fair.... If this is what he genuinely believes and TTA can amend the traffic report in december then we will all be singing.... however, the big caveat is that he had recorded statements to support the information in the traffic statement and the fact this wouldnt be a problem... how can we not assume that he will use what he clearly states to be personal opinion again over the views of experts... As i say, a fair reply, but it still doesnt add up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oa_exile Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Can you forward it to Alan if you already havent done so. Already done so , as well as the "Others" i had from him yesterday. Think Bashforth got the message LOUD ! and clear from The Exile yesterday ! Best e mail from him yesterday started with "Hi Again" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 So... now we know that Bashforth and his cronies who voted against have clubbed together to agree a standard worded reply - that's exactly the same wording Larkin used. Furthermore, a reply that I suspect was half-written before the meeting, but also displays what a moronic bunch of illiterate retards they really are. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is ammunition. I'm becoming convinced that our most effective recourse could be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oa_exile Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I think I'll just send him another email this morning, just to keep his inbox ticking over... Thats the one Mate , just make sure you keep it constructive Bet his Inbox was on meltdown yesterday (and today) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Best e mail from him yesterday started with "Hi Again" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Can anyone think of where you could develop in Oldham where you wouldnt have something of impact on the roads because I cant. So this ruleing pritty much says Oldham is closed for business!!! Short sighted prats! The roads wouldnt gridlock, the report proves that. Edited November 16, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oa_exile Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 So who has written this Bashford or Larkin? Haven't others had a similar response from Larkin? "I, and 6 other members of the committee believe this to be a distinct possibility and could cause chaos on the surrounding highway network and the traffic report presented to us did not show how this extra traffic had been taken account of." So you chose to ignore the HA report because you possibly no better because you are better qualified how exactly? Lets be honest you are guessing, forming an opinion not based upon the evidence presented in your to quote another member "quasi-judicial" position should you not base the decision on facts presented or defer to the cabinet. As for emotion you even miss the point on that. ITS ABOUT THE WHOLE TOWN not just Oldham Athletic Football Club. NO VISION FOR A PROSPEROUS FUTURE involving external investment. Self indulgent debate allowing Tameside, Rochdale to gain ground daily on OUR town. Perhaps you look back to days of cloth caps, Ricketts and a town thats long gone but some of us believe the positive impact this development will have could just spark some life into a town in rapid decline. Have you e mailed him / them ? , you should do voicing your concerns with his / their e mail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chaplain Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Perhaps you look back to days of cloth caps, Ricketts and a town thats long gone Hey! Rico's not been gone that long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 As explained at the Meeting, the two separate traffic assessments were based on national criteria, taking account of the experience gained from similar developments throughout the country, where the number of vehicles related to the proposed number of residential units has already been seen to affect existing traffic patterns. When the proposals were scrutinised by the Council's experts and the Highways Agency on two separate occasions, they were found to comply with the criteria. Therefore another survey could not be undertaken unless at the Council's (Council Tax Payers') expense, because it was totally unnecessary. What Cllr Bashforth and the other dissenting Councillors want is what the residents want - a reduction in the height of the blocks of flats to four storeys throughout the site, with the consequential reduction in the number of occupants/cars. Simon Corney had said he would continue to consult the residents on the issue of bulking and this was to be the subject of a detailed application in due course IF outline approval had been given. There would be '1001' things to be scrutinised on that future detailed application, but TTA needed to know that the development had received outline approval before proceeding with the approved first phase. That was the crux of the meeting where the dissenting Councillors were found to be acting contrary to the overwhelming evidence in favour of the development. The £1m question is are TTA prepared to lose that many units from the scheme? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The £1m question is are TTA prepared to lose that many units from the scheme? Exactly, that will at least half the profit if not more!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Keep up the pressure on the gonks who claim to be doing the best for the town. Need plenty of pressure on these fools. Let this just be the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oa_exile Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The email i'm sending to 15 elected representatives is a touch stronger in tone, factual content, and has been passed to my solicitor to check i'm on safe ground. I feel so strongly about this issue as it can effect EVERY resident in Oldham as quoted elsewhere IF the traffic is an issue OFF Broadway with first class links to the wider World. The town is closed for development. Will post it on here when sent but might be Monday. Nice one , that is what this has done to every Latics fan ............ brought out their feelings on this injustice. Think that OMBC are getting the message , Loud and Clear ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lincoln_latic Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I got the same reply from Bashforth. Mine starts with "Dear Melvin" when my name is Tony! The attention to detail just fills me with confidence!! KtF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lincoln_latic Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Having pointed out to Mr Bashforth that his standard reply had not answered my questions, and also pointing out that my name is not Melvin (see previous post), I have now received the following from him: Dear Mr Castle, I am at work in my day job at the moment and am finding it difficult to reply to emails and do my job, but I would be willing to call you and discuss this with you if you wish. Because of a number of very nasty and abusive phone calls I have received I am not using my home phone at the moment, but would be happy to call you at your convenience if you would leave me your number.Failing this I will try to answer fully your questions as soon as I can over the weekend. This brings up a couple of points. Anyone phoning his house with abusive remarks is not doing the club, fans, or Oldham any favours. They will not deal with anyone who refuses to carry out a constructive argument. Secondly I'm not sure how to progress the offer of a phone call. I'm not sure I could keep my cool, but also don't know where I would want to take the conversation. Has anyone else received this offer? If so how have you replied? Should I take him up on his offer, and if I do what should I expect to get out of it? Any ideas/comment would be appreciated. KtF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Having pointed out to Mr Bashforth that his standard reply had not answered my questions, and also pointing out that my name is not Melvin (see previous post), I have now received the following from him: Dear Mr Castle, I am at work in my day job at the moment and am finding it difficult to reply to emails and do my job, but I would be willing to call you and discuss this with you if you wish. Because of a number of very nasty and abusive phone calls I have received I am not using my home phone at the moment, but would be happy to call you at your convenience if you would leave me your number.Failing this I will try to answer fully your questions as soon as I can over the weekend. This brings up a couple of points. Anyone phoning his house with abusive remarks is not doing the club, fans, or Oldham any favours. They will not deal with anyone who refuses to carry out a constructive argument. Secondly I'm not sure how to progress the offer of a phone call. I'm not sure I could keep my cool, but also don't know where I would want to take the conversation. Has anyone else received this offer? If so how have you replied? Should I take him up on his offer, and if I do what should I expect to get out of it? Any ideas/comment would be appreciated. KtF Thats why I havent phoned any of them! I would very quickly get worked out and start with abuse! I find it much better to email them so I dont get worked up to much. Giving them abuse is not the way forward people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I must admit, there is a nasty side to me thats happy someone is giving a load of abuse though, because he bloody does deserve it! Hope he is feeling as bad as I am right now. That dosent mean we should be doing it though! It isnt going to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) We cannot condone abuse, but it's inevitable when feelings are running so high. You'd be surprised who has received abusive mails/calls too. Some who weren't even involved (and would have supported the scheme if they were!). Still.... Mr Bashforth knows what he can do if he wants it to stop. I'm tempted to send him a property paper for Kent... Edited November 16, 2007 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Nasty and abusive phone calls are not the way forward for any of us and can't be condoned. But do I believe him entirely. Why should I he does not appear to have been consistent in anything if previous reports ie the advertiser I will not vote etc are true. ??? as posted by Diego. Personally don't wish to speak to him as he has no credibility in my view having ignored OMBC planning, highways and the HA. Because he knows better! IF he thought my email was abusive as posted elsewhere on OWTB thats his opinion and his problem, but as we know from the meeting he forms his own opinion based upon ????? as he clearly ignored the evidence put to the meeting, choosing to decide it was flawed despite the "Quasi-judiscial" role where evidence is key. Resign from planning Cllr Bashford and do the town a favour, your credibility lies in ruin for this role as leader of such a an important area and flawed meeting. Absolutely Greganator. I'm afraid it is like the boy who cried "Wolf". The one thing for sure is that we should not be abusive or threatening (beyond reasonable debate). Doing so will only give him ammunition to claim "foul". 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.