Bash gives himself room

[LaticsPete]

... to manouvure.

In today's Advertiser , Coun Basgforth says that because he didn't see the traffics report until 4pm on the day of the meeting he didn't have chance to absorb some of the technical and complicated data. Notwithstanding the fact that he should have read it earlier , this may be a chance for him to shift his vote. Once he's had time to read it in detail etc (and someone explain it to him) then it wouldn't be surprising to hear him say "Ok, this stacks up, the traffic report is kosher, . Permission agreed".

 

Remember he has to be able to back down with justification.

Link :

 

http://www.oldhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1...n_on_the_latics

Edited November 21, 2007 by LaticsPete

[The Chaplain]

... to manouvure.

In today's Advertiser , Coun Basgforth says that because he didn't see the traffics report until 4pm on the day of the meeting he didn't have chance to absorb some of the technical and complicated data. Notwithstanding the fact that he should have read it earlier , this may be a chance for him to shift his vote. Once he's had time to read it in detail etc (and someone explain it to him) then it wouldn't be surprising to hear him say "Ok, this stacks up, the traffic report is kosher, . Permission agreed".

 

Remember he has to be able to back down with justification.

 

That's right. We have to allow these councillors room to save face - dreadful though that sounds. Yes even Cllr Bashforth. It's no good backing them into a corner.

 

Didn't someone say politics is the art of the possible? Bill Shankly probably.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leeslover]

Excellent point. Politicians tend to have formidable egos, so if he is being pressured from all sides he might be looking for a way out with some dignity. It still raises huge questions about his competence to sit on committee, let alone chair it. He didn’t read a document, throw out the proposal because he didn’t believe something he hadn’t read, and all of this for what was only an outline proposal. It’s no wonder he ended up with his 2000 cars fantasy, he really was making it up on the hoof.

[RoytonBlueLad]

What a plank.

 

This hole is just getting deeper isn't it

[daznathe]

didnt he say at the meeting that the report was only available at 4pm?

[leeslover]

didnt he say at the meeting that the report was only available at 4pm?

I would imagine that the detail of the report would make very little sense to anyone but a traffic report, it would be page after page of inter-related calculations. What a good job it is for the Councillors, who naturally are normal people like you and I, that they were given a summary report written by a traffic expert, and that he was on hand to confirm his conclusions were all in line with correct procedure and above board.

[garcon]

He did, but I think this is a valid point. Couched in terms of 'clarification' we need to try to ensure the committee members have read the report fully (they genuinely may not have had chance in the 2 hours before the meeting) and that any queries they have arising from that are answered.

[fleetwood Blue]

He did, but I think this is a valid point. Couched in terms of 'clarification' we need to try to ensure the committee members have read the report fully (they genuinely may not have had chance in the 2 hours before the meeting) and that any queries they have arising from that are answered.

 

 

How long do you think it will be before the decision is changed into our favour? TTA'S patience must be waring thin now

[Takemeanywhere]

I would imagine that the detail of the report would make very little sense to anyone but a traffic report, it would be page after page of inter-related calculations. What a good job it is for the Councillors, who naturally are normal people like you and I, that they were given a summary report written by a traffic expert, and that he was on hand to confirm his conclusions were all in line with correct procedure and above board.

 

Yes. Otherwise they may have rejected the application

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

That's right. We have to allow these councillors room to save face - dreadful though that sounds. Yes even Cllr Bashforth. It's no good backing them into a corner.

 

Didn't someone say politics is the art of the possible? Bill Shankly probably.

 

I don't believe that Bashforth and Co. need to be given room for anything. I personally would like to see them walk away from their duties and prompt by-elections; as a matter of fact, no humiliation suffered by Bashforth and co. would be enough for me.

 

Allow them room to save face? No thanks. Let's get them out.

 

During this fiasco, which gets dirtier the deeper you dig, the Bashforth Seven have proved themselves to be singularly unfit for public office. Their removal and humiliation will alone satisfy me.

[Amsterdam_Blue]

This just gets better and better! Surely if someone doesn't have all the facts and relevant information they cannot make an informed and completely just decision. What a joke. This whole thing stinks of poor judgement and a complete lack of communication. I cannot believe that anyone can make a decision as important as this without knowing the ins and outs of the application.

 

I work for a construction recruiter myself and deal with Oldham councils planning and surveying department on a very regular basis, i have temporary memebers of staff working for the departments for me and my company and although i'm not an expert myself, i work with people who are and on hearing this i believe someone should take this further. I think someone needs to gather all these comments and send them to an Ombudsman.

 

What councillor bashforth is saying is he has made a decision without being 100% in lieu of the full facts of probably the most important piece of information compiled in the whole application. Councillor Bashforth has asked for a further traffic report to be done and than comes out and says he didn't have time to read through it fully. IMO this is not good enough. Keep the pressure on! This is injust and unprofessional and is typical of Oldham MBC.

[leeslover]

IF they hadn't fully digested the facts the truth is possibly they should have deferred a decision to December for clarification and further discussion with both sides.

Or more accurately they should have approved it, on the basis that it met every other criteria, with reservations regarding the traffic report. It only being at outline stage...

[Bertie_Dugger]

I was at the meeting. Bashforth did try to arrange another deferrment and during the 5-10 minute adjournment after discussing that possibility with the Council's legal team he was told that a decision had to be made that night. No deferment meant a vote had to be taken. We all saw how the meeting was guided to bring about some kind of doubt about the traffic surveys.

[GlossopLatic]

So how come the information was only recieved at 4pm on the day that the approval decison had to be delivered is this normal? I mean shouldn't they have had this information earlier?

[leeslover]

So how come the information was only recieved at 4pm on the day that the approval decison had to be delivered is this normal? I mean shouldn't they have had this information earlier?

I would suppose that the report had been considered in detail before the Planning officers decided to recommend it for approval - all the report is (should have been) needed for is if, after hearing the presentations, one of the committee asked how the development would affect traffic. The report is produced, they learn that it will only cause one car per rush hour traffic light phase, they decide this is insignificant, they move on. There's nothing more to be had from it.

[GlossopLatic]

I would suppose that the report had been considered in detail before the Planning officers decided to recommend it for approval - all the report is (should have been) needed for is if, after hearing the presentations, one of the committee asked how the development would affect traffic. The report is produced, they learn that it will only cause one car per rush hour traffic light phase, they decide this is insignificant, they move on. There's nothing more to be had from it.

 

So they knew what the traffic implicacations were really its just that now he realise that the wrong decision was made he's just trying to save face?

 

I wonder what said councilors would do if were part of a planning committee in glossop the valley is a nightmare for traffic with everything going from Manchester to Sheffield with no bypass.

[carloafc]

So how come the information was only recieved at 4pm on the day that the approval decison had to be delivered is this normal? I mean shouldn't they have had this information earlier?

 

Guys,

 

Don't want to say too much or get involved in a debate on here as, because of my position, I don't think it would a professional thing to do.

 

However, in the interests of clarifying this for everyone, read my article again more closely. You will see towards the bottom three pars that I clearly state that the traffic report carried out by the council officers - about the impact on the surrounding roads - was attached to the reports on the application which all planning commitee members received back in October.

 

A clerical error just meant it wasn't attached to the main agenda paperwork for last Wednesday, so it was simply re-attached onto the late list at 4pm. It was not, however, 'new'. They'd had it since October.

 

Carl Marsden

[RoytonBlueLad]

Guys,

 

Don't want to say too much or get involved in a debate on here as, because of my position, I don't think it would a professional thing to do.

 

However, in the interests of clarifying this for everyone, read my article again more closely. You will see towards the bottom three pars that I clearly state that the traffic report carried out by the council officers - about the impact on the surrounding roads - was attached to the reports on the application which all planning commitee members received back in October.

 

A clerical error just meant it wasn't attached to the main agenda paperwork for last Wednesday, so it was simply re-attached onto the late list at 4pm. It was not, however, 'new'. They'd had it since October.

 

Carl Marsden

 

It gets better

[oafc0000]

Knockout blow!

[oafc0000]

A clerical error

 

 

Conspiracy theories begin.....

[carloafc]

Knockout blow!

 

And, I should perhaps have added, I have the paperwork supplied to the commitee for October's meeting (when a decision was deferred) in front of me now. It definitely contains the full local authority traffic report with the same figures and text etc that was supplied for last Wednesday. The ONLY difference between October and November's paperwork was that the former did not have the Highways Agency's report about the impact on the trunk roads.

 

Hope this makes things clearer.

 

Carl M

[singe]

And, I should perhaps have added, I have the paperwork supplied to the commitee for October's meeting (when a decision was deferred) in front of me now. It definitely contains the full local authority traffic report with the same figures and text etc that was supplied for last Wednesday. The ONLY difference between October and November's paperwork was that the former did not have the Highways Agency's report about the impact on the trunk roads.

 

Hope this makes things clearer.

 

Carl M

 

Did they have to have the whole planning decsion scheduled or could this decision have waited to be scheduled after they had received all part of the report.

ie could they have waited to schedule the meeting (having cancelled it once) or did it have to be discussed that night?

I know during the meeting it couldn't be deferred (it had already started) but if they didn;t have the trunk road impact surely they should have arranged the meeting after having all the details?

I now it doesn't always work like that

[Lags]

Carl hits home hard the complete shambles this planning committee performs at. The highways agency report on the effects to the trunk road the development would have wasn't the main reason for the apparent refusal of the application and the reason why the origianl planning meeting was deferred. The main reason given was the roads leading up to the trunk road. Now Carl higlights that Bashforths claim that they (him and the planning committee members) only recieved the survey to which he questioned the figures at 4pm that evening, is completely wrong. Thay had that survey to hand in the Octobers (original) planning meeting held. Yet he claims they didn't have sufficent time to digest it's contents and on hearing the snipet where the report claimed it would have the effect of adding one car to a traffic light sequence queue. he said it was all nonsense and he didn't believe it. He also disbelieved his expert hired hand (Les Harrison) thus bringing his ability into severe doubt and question , yet Les Harrison who had taken the time to read and digest the report clearly agreed with it and advised like all the other experts, including the Highways agency to approve the application.

Bashforth in his biased haste to refuse this application is tripping up every which turn. It's becoming abundantly clear his only aim was to refuse from the off and I suggest it's more to do with his narrow elected margin. Perhaps Phil Harrison is exactly the same and which the ex MP although trying to back these two inadvertantly confirms when she explains had the constituents nearby BP been Woolas voters he's would not backed the development like he is doing.

Edited November 21, 2007 by Lags

[Diego_Sideburns]

However, in the interests of clarifying this for everyone, read my article again more closely. You will see towards the bottom three pars that I clearly state that the traffic report carried out by the council officers - about the impact on the surrounding roads - was attached to the reports on the application which all planning commitee members received back in October.

 

A clerical error just meant it wasn't attached to the main agenda paperwork for last Wednesday, so it was simply re-attached onto the late list at 4pm. It was not, however, 'new'. They'd had it since October.

 

Carl Marsden

 

And that was said at the meeting, when explaining why more copies of the Agenda and supplementary reports had been printed that at the adjourned meeting in October.

 

The relevance to 4.00pm on the day of the meeting (two hours befre the start) is that it was only then that the Highways Agency had lifted its Holding Directive, thereby allowing the Applications to be discussed.

[Diego_Sideburns]

IF they hadn't fully digested the facts the truth is possibly they should have deferred a decision to December for clarification and further discussion with both sides. However when you look at OMBC as a whole its not functioning well is it!

 

The Old Town Hall always prompts ill feeling with me. It was in such poor repair it would have to be replaced by the Civic back in the 70's was the tale, but 30+ years later its still standing and NOTHING constructive has been done with it????

AND we still owe $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on the civic. Think the loan runs to 2043 if not mistaken most to Greyhound again if memory serves me but could be wrong.

 

Just a point of information. I worked for the Council until 1965 and the Civic Centre was already operational then, with some departments not yet transferred from the Town Hall.