oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 What ever way you look at it, the residents concerns are right, I have a big area of clear land infront of my house, if several 6 story flats were built there I would moan like they are, and most people would. The Chron has to represent them too. You should run for Oldham Council..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I don't think the editorial is that bad to be honest. It's not what I was expecting, as I thought it would be more in favour of the residents....I do agree that the compromise should be 6 storeys from the 8 planned. That's the only thing I wouldn't shift on and I know TTA won't. The thing that most riles me about the Editorial though is the completely infactual labelling that the TTA are Americans. How can a journalist get that wrong? Yes, they've made their money in America but they are about as American as I am Kenyan!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 What ever way you look at it, the residents concerns are right, I have a big area of clear land infront of my house, if several 6 story flats were built there I would moan like they are, and most people would. The Chron has to represent them too. But they're not building on a big area of clear land in front of anyone's house. The land is behind the houses and separated by Plumpton Clough which is to be protected and enhanced environmentally under the recommended conditions to be attached to the recommended outline planning permission, with all the details thrashed out at a later date when details are submitted. Obviously the proposed residential development will be seen from the backs of the residents' dwellings but, after all, they were built, purchased and occupied in full knowledge that there was a football stadium with lots of land which would be redeveloped one day. At the end of the day you buy a house/bungalow/flat but you don't buy the view. If the view worsens as part of the due planning process, laid down by the Government, then it's just as tough as everything else some of us don't agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 they are about as American as I am Kenyan!!! Jambo mwamba! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I've written to the editor... Editor, (not intended for publication) Firstly, may I congratulate you on the excellent coverage in today's paper. I respect the balanced approach, and the front page spread for the march is a huge boost to the club's loyal fans. However, I have to admit I was hoping for a more impassioned Comment which, although admirably fair, is more than a little cool. The time will come for the paper to nail its colours to the mast - it cannot rise above the town's biggest story for years and claim to be a neutral reporter forever. I also need to bring your attention to a factual error that appears twice in your Comment. The owners are not American. Their main business interests lie in the US, but Simon, Simon and Danny are British. You should know that, and I fear calling them American may give an unhelpful impression of their being outsiders to our more, er, narrow-minded townsfolk. Many thanks, .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 er, narrow-minded townsfolk. I think we need to be careful not to alienate the wider community! Otherwise really good letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 The centre pages have some cracking texts, letters in support, especially from Terry Doran re process. Woolas says the right things. Cllr Bashforth makes himself look even worse with his half page, says he has received threats, uses the word tripe, claims to want to back the club, appears not to understand the concept of 'Outline' permission and the detailed negotiations that follow. Just an idiot in my opinion and not fit to lead the planning meetings. Yes, page 12 is excellent coverage with all supporters' comments. Page 13 shows up Cllr Bashforth's ignorance and also covers the Woolas outburst. Why I red-carded Latics dreams STADIUM PLANS: in tatters after committee refusal by Richard Hooton UNDER-fire planning chairman Councillor Steven Bashforth revealed he has received threats as he defended the decision to turn down Latics’ plans. The Royton South councillor insisted a flawed traffic survey was to blame but claims football club bosses could easily iron out the problems and resubmit the proposals. He said he was upset after being sent abusive messages and threats but was happy to explain the controversial decision. He denied that Oldham Athletic had been told the plans would be approved and hit back at criticism that he favoured residents who opposed the plans. Councillor Bashforth said: “They should no better than that. In planning nothing is ever a done deal until the committee decides. “That’s an appalling accusation to make. To say a promise had been made is nonsense. “Even the most enthusiastic regeneration member would never tell anyone that something is a done deal. That’s just against planning law. I think they are being unfair. “All this talk about wanting to kill off Latics is just tripe. We want to help. We are not out to destroy sport, quite the opposite.” Councillor Bashforth said it was a difficult decision as the large development would be in a very busy area near to the hospital and major roads. One of the traffic reports concerned members as it said the development would increase queues of traffic by just one car, which they found absurd. The Labour councillor said: “It was asking members to accept that 693 apartments, a hotel, leisure centre and conference facilities would generate one extra car in Chadderton Way. I’m sorry but I find that difficult. “It was not clear to members that this report took into account additional traffic and it did not give us the confidence that the roads could cope. The report was not complete and needs to be redone. If they do that I’m sure it’s not a problem. “I would not like to put my name to something that would, in another two or three years time, cause absolute gridlock. Even the most ardent Latics fan would not be very pleased with being stuck in a traffic queue in a few years time. We want it, but we have to be sure that what’s proposed will not have a detrimental impact. “It’s a dreadfully difficult decision to make. I’m not blaming any of Oldham’s engineers as they did it on data provided by the applicant. “What the Latics have now is a free go. It gives them the opportunity now to iron out any difficulties or concerns that led to refusal and have another go at it. They need to submit it as soon as possible with a detailed traffic report and convince us the traffic is not a problem. “In principle I’m for what they are doing but it has to be right. It’s absolute and utter nonsense that we are against the Latics.” He pointed out the committee would be criticised if it approved a housing development without considering an increase in traffic. He said he had met residents, planning officers and Latics directors equally and refuted rumours he had paid for the printing of leaflets advertising residents’ meetings. Councillor Bashforth said: “I have never told residents I would come down one way or another or given them advice. He believes he has already been reported to the Standards Board but said: “I have not broken any rules. I know I will get a lot of grief over this because it’s a very emotive issue. It’s a massively emotional thing. “Football is the most passionate interest people have and if people are deemed to be against their team they get demonised.” In the words I've highlighted he's asking the club to pay for a third traffic survey and then all he wants them to prove from the same results is that black is white. Then he'll be happy to stick to his original decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I think we need to be careful not to alienate the wider community! Otherwise really good letter. That's why I put not intended for publication. I hope the editor will understand what I mean by it without taking offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 So if we prove that the traffic situation is OK, he has no further objections then? So no need to reduce the height of the flats (although that is obviously his real gripe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 So we pay for a THIRD survery it comes back with the SAME RESULTS and suddenly everything is ok ??? He keeps saying detail was missing ? WHAT DETAILS? ???? It was approved by the Highways Agency ffs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 In the words I've highlighted he's asking the club to pay for a third traffic survey and then all he wants them to prove from the same results is that black is white. Then he'll be happy to stick to his original decision. Yes he is asking for the Club to commission another Traffic Survey. And yet he says the previous two are flawed because they were commisioned by the Club. A juicy worm has been put on the hook and is wriggling. Sink or swim Councillor. Time to make up your mind and stop changing your story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Use this Bashforth, it'll help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 So we pay for a THIRD survery it comes back with the SAME RESULTS and suddenly everything is ok ??? No, everything would not be Ok - he goes on to say "and convince us the traffic is not a problem", but he's already said he will not be convinced by any survey which shows the traffic situation to be satisfactory under the national criteria, to which the Government works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Use this Bashforth, it'll help. Is that a pig shovel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) No, everything would not be Ok - he goes on to say "and convince us the traffic is not a problem", but he's already said he will not be convinced by any survey which shows the traffic situation to be satisfactory under the national criteria, to which the Government works. lol, I realise that! I was be sarcastic :P He is asking to do something we cant possible do! What more can we do but get an offical traffic survey done and vet it with the highways agency! He belives the traffic will be bad regardless of what experst say so it will be impossible to please him.....unless we reduce the number of houses....celver political game he is playing....and a totally pointless one as well... Edited November 16, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 We need to find out where the bodies are buried before we dig them up... Er... oops, wrong story... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 He would only be happy if he could get a survey carried out by the Council, where he tells them in advance what the results must be, but the Council cannot be seen to be wasting Council Tax Payers' money on such folly, when two independent surveys have been carried out and analysed by the Council, and the Highways Agency has carried out a survey to its satisfaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 lol, I realise that! I was be sarcastic :P He is asking to do something we cant possible do! What more can we do but get an offical traffic survey done and vet it with the highways agency! He belives the traffic will be bad regardless of what experst say so it will be impossible to please him.....unless we reduce the number of houses....celver political game he is playing....and a totally pointless one as well... It's not pointless if it results in TTA throwing in the towel in complete exasperation when dealing at great expense with such amateurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Copy of extract of email from Councillor Bashforth. "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". Why didn't he mention this in his reply to the Oldham Chronicle. Maybe because it's nonsense. He also says in the Chron; "I'm not any of blaming Oldham's engineers as they did it on data supplied by the applicant" I find that an an amazing comment What else could they work on but the development proposals, which were exactly the same as he was suppled with I assume ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astottie Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 I'm not sure the Chron's coverage is as supportive as a few correspondents have said on here. It is reportage rather that an analysis of the 2 sides to the argument. The editorial apart form being factually incorrect, are we aurprised?, is at least not anti the club and whilst not nailing the colours to the mast they do seem to be looking for a hammer. I am suprise at the large amount of coverage and that must be good but i will wait and see what happens next week. In my original e-mail I mentioned a front page article in the chron on Monday. Lo and behold today we have the opposite sides view. Let's see what happens on Monday or tuesday, a double page spread of resident's views i would wager. But you can' t ride two horses for very long . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Copy of extract of email from Councillor Bashforth. "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". Why didn't he mention this in his reply to the Oldham Chronicle. Maybe because it's nonsense. He also says in the Chron; "I'm not any of blaming Oldham's engineers as they did it on data supplied by the applicant" I find that an an amazing comment What else could they work on but the development proposals, which were exactly the same as he was suppled with I assume ? What kind of people does he think that the development will attract that they will have two cars each? The application is for 693 apartments, so he is talking more then 3 cars per apartment! He's on another planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 It's not pointless if it results in TTA throwing in the towel in complete exasperation when dealing at great expense with such amateurs. Yeah, thats what he wants I feel...... Why the feck cant we just have people on the council he give a dam about the town!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Jambo mwamba! Mau mau, let's keep this civil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Copy of extract of email from Councillor Bashforth. He also says in the Chron; "I'm not any of blaming Oldham's engineers as they did it on data supplied by the applicant" I find that an an amazing comment What else could they work on but the development proposals, which were exactly the same as he was suppled with I assume ? Every other traffic survey for large-scale developments already approved by Cllr Bashforth's Committee have been subjected to traffic surveys commissioned by the applicants, and they all use experts in that discipline, just as TTA have done. Then the Council's Officers go over the results with a fine tooth comb. I bet this is the only which has been rejected because Cllr Bashforth has a feeling that it can't be correct. He is not empowered to let his personal feelings get in the way of traffic and planning criteria. If that was the way the Government wanted local authorities to plan the country, it would end up with hotch-potch development like in some Third World country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Every other traffic survey for large-scale developments already approved by Cllr Bashforth's Committee have been subjected to traffic surveys commissioned by the applicants, and they all use experts in that discipline, just as TTA have done. Then the Council's Officers go over the results with a fine tooth comb. I bet this is the only which has been rejected because Cllr Bashforth has a feeling that it can't be correct. He is not empowered to let his personal feelings get in the way of traffic and planning criteria. If that was the way the Government wanted local authorities to plan the country, it would end up with hotch-potch development like in some Third World country. Oldham: like a third world country. I might copy that to the 6 word protest thread. 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.