Tonight's Chronicle

[Diego_Sideburns]

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!!!

 

Because people who could do the job properly do not have the time or inclination to seek election.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Woolas is absolutely right about this issue. The land will be developed whether or not the club survives, so by complaining the residents are cutting their own throats as well as the club's.

 

The land around BP is used once every fortnight, say, and is therefore a dead asset. The population is going up and people need housing in the borough if they are going to stay there, and they need leisure facilities too. Making money off property to fund the club (or even to make a profit) is clearly and obviously the right thing to do. The Chron was spineless for not pointing out these salient facts, and the residents can just suck it up and stop their whining.

 

I actually still can't believe what happened.

[oafc0000]

Because people who could do the job properly do not have the time or inclination to seek election.

 

So true !

[BP1960]

Because people who could do the job properly do not have the time or inclination to seek election.

 

Any volunteers ?

[Diego_Sideburns]

Woolas is absolutely right about this issue. The land will be developed whether or not the club survives, so by complaining the residents are cutting their own throats as well as the club's.

 

The land around BP is used once every fortnight, say, and is therefore a dead asset. The population is going up and people need housing in the borough if they are going to stay there, and they need leisure facilities too. Making money off property to fund the club (or even to make a profit) is clearly and obviously the right thing to do. The Chron was spineless for not pointing out these salient facts, and the residents can just suck it up and stop their whining.

 

I actually still can't believe what happened.

 

I've pointed out the rarely wrong Chron's failings but in fairness the editor's comment includes the very point you are complaing about and does say that the residents may be worse off if the Club goes.

[Diego_Sideburns]

Any volunteers ?

 

I think it's covered on the Charlton thread.

[boundaryblue80]

"Councillor Bashforth said: “I have never told residents I would come down one way or another or given them advice."

 

LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE!

 

WTF then is arranging the meetings for Residents Together, sorting out the printing of the leaflets with your name on and then sitting in the Chair of the meeting and illegally ripping into the evidence, which has to be replied upon, in order to bias the vote against the right outcome???

 

ing prick!

Edited November 17, 2007 by wardlelatic

[boundaryblue80]

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.

 

Indeed.....just reading another email I've received....I'm guessing it is the standard one but just want to air this anyway because it proves overall he hasn't any objections to the 8 storey flats that are proposed and it simply is the traffic, which the HA report had to be accepted and relied upon (thus making his vote illegal IMO).....

 

"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;

 

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."

[RoytonBlueLad]

I've pointed out the rarely wrong Chron's failings but in fairness the editor's comment includes the very point you are complaing about and does say that the residents may be worse off if the Club goes.

 

I said that months back when they started the serious moaning.

 

This really is the lesser of two evils for them. They can either stick with it the way it is, cut the moaning and cuddling up to councillors OR they can have rid of us and have even more properties than this plan could have ever managed put on the site.

 

Like I said a while back what the hell do they think will happen, should God forbid we ever disappear as a club. A ground just left to decay with a huge car park? I don't think so some how.

[BP1960]

If any councillor on the planning committee has discussed the application with either party at any time (the residents or Latics) they should have declared an interest and stood down to show they had no bias.

That is the moral thing to do IMO.

[BP1960]

A ground just left to decay with a huge car park?

 

Don't go putting ideas in their heads , they will want a park and ride at BP to keep cars away from the town centre. (not free of course).

[OminousPoultry]

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.

 

His lack of ability with maths is his problem (aka stupidity). Earlier we saw the quote "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".

 

Hang on - 693 apartments with 1000 adults who each have 2 cars?

 

That's why he can't believe the surveys (done to defined national standards) show that 1 extra car per queue will result from the development. I haven't seen the data but I'd guess that 600 cars on site would result in a minor increase in average traffic delay.

[RoytonBlueLad]

Don't go putting ideas in their heads , they will want a park and ride at BP to keep cars away from the town centre. (not free of course).

 

The land is far too valuable for nothing to be done. One way or another something will happen on that land. With any luck it'll be in our favour. If it's not, I can see them being even more disappointed.

[jorvik_latic]

Hang on - 693 apartments with 1000 adults who each have 2 cars?

 

Has anyone else picked up on this point? For 2000 cars, that's an average of 2.9 cars per apartment. Idiot!

[garcon]

If it's not, I can see them being even more disappointed.

Except for those who'd be in on the deal, of course...

[garcon]

Allegedly.

[Diego_Sideburns]

Hang on - 693 apartments with 1000 adults who each have 2 cars?

 

This is oafc_ok's reply on this point:

 

I feel there are major flaws in your argument. As occurred on several occasions at the meeting a spurious 'fact' is brought up only with the intention of creating a negative impression of the proposals. The ridiculous and now infamous '1960s Russia' comment is an example from the meeting, as was the irrelevant, incaccurate and irresponsible totting up of the likely profit from the scheme. In my opinion the Chairman should have intervened on both occasions. Quoting from your letter the 'fact' is that "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." Can I just point out that 1000 families may well have in the region of 2000 cars , i.e. one each per adult. 1000 adults will more likely have one car each, thereby half the figure you argue. To claim that this is "an underestimation as we all know that we are a car owning economy" beggars belief. We are not yet a car owning economy to the extent that the average adult owns two cars! . I accept that your 'fag packet' calculation then uses the figure of 500 cars but even so this fails to take into account the fact that a proportion of the dwellings are intended as accommodation for hospital workers. It is clear to me that hospital workers by the nature of the profession, often work shifts and would therefore be unlikely to be leaving or arriving during peak hours. Perhaps more importantly, living immediately next door to the hospital means that they will walk to work, leaving their car at home. Refusal of the scheme forces these workers to live further afield, therefore making it necessary for them to drive to work. This will surely have the effect of increasing traffic, both in the immediate vicinity of the hospital and in other parts of the region.

 

Your letter only serves to re-inforce my view that decisions on traffic matters are best left to experts.

[leeslover]

It doesn't strictly speaking matter how many cars people own. Not even I'm clever enough to drive two of them at once, and I'm dead clever

[Diego_Sideburns]

It doesn't strictly speaking matter how many cars people own. Not even I'm clever enough to drive two of them at once, and I'm dead clever

 

People who have tried to drive both at once may be dead!

[RoytonBlueLad]

Allegedly.

 

Don't forget that bit garcon

 

I know

[oafc_ok]

People who have tried to drive both at once may be dead!

 

 

The first post on this thread uses the phrase 'you can't ride two horses with one arse'. Apparently, you can drive two cars, though!

 

 

I must admit, in my reply I was refuting the claim that 1000 adults would own 2000 cars. It didn't occur to me that he was also suggesting that 1000 adults would drive 2000 cars, all at the same time.

 

 

The man is unbelievable.

Edited November 16, 2007 by oafc_ok

[oafc_ok]

This is oafc_ok's reply on this point:

 

I feel there are major flaws in your argument. As occurred on several occasions at the meeting a spurious 'fact' is brought up only with the intention of creating a negative impression of the proposals. The ridiculous and now infamous '1960s Russia' comment is an example from the meeting, as was the irrelevant, incaccurate and irresponsible totting up of the likely profit from the scheme. In my opinion the Chairman should have intervened on both occasions. Quoting from your letter the 'fact' is that "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." Can I just point out that 1000 families may well have in the region of 2000 cars , i.e. one each per adult. 1000 adults will more likely have one car each, thereby half the figure you argue. To claim that this is "an underestimation as we all know that we are a car owning economy" beggars belief. We are not yet a car owning economy to the extent that the average adult owns two cars! . I accept that your 'fag packet' calculation then uses the figure of 500 cars but even so this fails to take into account the fact that a proportion of the dwellings are intended as accommodation for hospital workers. It is clear to me that hospital workers by the nature of the profession, often work shifts and would therefore be unlikely to be leaving or arriving during peak hours. Perhaps more importantly, living immediately next door to the hospital means that they will walk to work, leaving their car at home. Refusal of the scheme forces these workers to live further afield, therefore making it necessary for them to drive to work. This will surely have the effect of increasing traffic, both in the immediate vicinity of the hospital and in other parts of the region.

 

Your letter only serves to re-inforce my view that decisions on traffic matters are best left to experts.

 

 

I was so tempted to add my job title at the end. I'm a Transport Planner!

 

 

Unfortunately, I'm not the type that gets paid a fortune to plan road networks and traffic solutions, I'm the type that gets paid peanuts for planning deliveries to supermarkets !

[astottie]

The first post on this thread uses the phrase 'you can't ride two horses with one arse'. Apparently, you can drive two cars, though!

I must admit, in my reply I was refuting the claim that 1000 adults would own 2000 cars. It didn't occur to me that he was also suggesting that 1000 adults would drive 2000 cars, all at the same time.

The man is unbelievable.

 

 

 

But you'd have to be a big arse to do it.

Edited November 16, 2007 by astottie

[Diego_Sideburns]

But you'd have to be a big arse to do it.

 

Anyone know when Gregan is likely to be fit?

[OminousPoultry]

But you'd have to be a big arse to do it.

 

Allegedly it's common in Bashforth's vision for the future of Oldham