Meacher against level of residential development.

[Diego_Sideburns]

Michael Meacher M.P., takes the side of the residents in his comment in the Advertiser:

 

Michael Meacher MP, Oldham West and Royton, said: "I’m very much in support of a new stadium but only with a level of development which is comfortable for local residents. I don’t think the two positions are unbridgeable, however, there has to be negotiations. The level of housing proposed is extremely high. There is a desperate need for affordable housing in Oldham where around 11,000 are on the waiting list, but this type of housing seems to be about maximising revenue to fund the stadium."

 

The fact is that the two positions ARE unbridgeable! We keep coming back to the point that the funding of the stadium redevelopment is the crux of the issue.

[garcon]

So, Meacher - like his fellow councillors - is putting the votes of a hundred or so residents ahead of the town's future. That and the fact he always feels he has to disagree with Woolas.

[slurms mckenzie]

Michael Meacher M.P., takes the side of the residents in his comment in the Advertiser:

 

Michael Meacher MP, Oldham West and Royton, said: "I’m very much in support of a new stadium but only with a level of development which is comfortable for local residents. I don’t think the two positions are unbridgeable, however, there has to be negotiations. The level of housing proposed is extremely high. There is a desperate need for affordable housing in Oldham where around 11,000 are on the waiting list, but this type of housing seems to be about maximising revenue to fund the stadium."

 

The fact is that the two positions ARE unbridgeable! We keep coming back to the point that the funding of the stadium redevelopment is the crux of the issue.

 

I detest that hypocrite with a vengence. He cut down trees to build tennis courts in his countryside manor house, whilst he was environment minister. What an ignorant, detestable human being. He's one of those new labour politicians who are opposed to individual wealth unless it applies to himself. If I lived in his area, I would prefer to vote liberal/tory than him. This is just a further indication of his ignorance.

[Corporal_Jones]

I detest that hypocrite with a vengence. He cut down trees to build tennis courts in his countryside manor house, whilst he was environment minister. What an ignorant, detestable human being. He's one of those new labour politicians who are opposed to individual wealth unless it applies to himself. If I lived in his area, I would prefer to vote liberal/tory than him. This is just a further indication of his ignorance.

 

Fortunately, in our case at least, the opinion of Woolas counts for more than that of Meacher these days.

[leeslover]

Fortunately, in our case at least, the opinion of Woolas counts for more than that of Meacher these days.

What? Meacher is Prime Ministerial material. His mirror told him so during the Labour leadership campaign earlier this year.

[oafc0000]

Fortunately, in our case at least, the opinion of Woolas counts for more than that of Meacher these days.

 

Meacher not supporting us is a big blow....

[singe]

Michael Meacher M.P., takes the side of the residents in his comment in the Advertiser:

 

Michael Meacher MP, Oldham West and Royton, said: "I’m very much in support of a new stadium but only with a level of development which is comfortable for local residents. I don’t think the two positions are unbridgeable, however, there has to be negotiations. The level of housing proposed is extremely high. There is a desperate need for affordable housing in Oldham where around 11,000 are on the waiting list, but this type of housing seems to be about maximising revenue to fund the stadium."

 

The fact is that the two positions ARE unbridgeable! We keep coming back to the point that the funding of the stadium redevelopment is the crux of the issue.

It is quite stunning that he acknowledges 11,000 people are short of accommodation, and yet something like 1000-1200 of those places can be provided on a brownfield site. Yet he still thinks it should be reduced.

 

Typical politicians answer, trying to hedge his bets.

 

I wonder how many of the development are ear marked for key workers, it would be interesting to know.

 

Is there any mileage in having the houses are leasehold, so that we have an income in perpetuity?

[chickers]

Just received this

 

All replies to

11 Church Lane

Oldham OL1 3AN Tel-0161 626 5779

 

 

 

To whom it may concern:

 

 

Thank you for your comments in support of Oldham Athletic’s recent planning application.

 

As a Member of Parliament I am not in position to get too closely involved with planning applications, as planning matters are a quasi judicial process and all applications have to be approved or dismissed by the Planning Committee, consisting of local councillors.

 

However, I, along with the other two MPs in the borough, recently met with the Council Leadership to try and work towards bringing about a submission that will meet the concerns of local residents in Royton and also meets the expectations of the club.

 

My understanding at this stage is that a modified planning application will be presented to the Planning Committee on Tuesday the 11 December; I certainly hope this planning application will be more acceptable to all parties.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rt Hon Michael Meacher

Oldham West & Royton

[chickers]

Copycat........ :laught16::laught16:

if its good enough for the counsellors then its good enough for me!! hahaha!

[beag_teeets]

aye, I got that too and so did Neal Eardley.

[jorvik_latic]

aye, I got that too and so did Neal Eardley.

Isn't he out on the lash as we speak?

[Ricardo]

Meacher has never done anything for Oldham and it has always surprised me why the useless prat has kept his seat for so long; sooner he is out the better so we could get a better representative for the town.

[ghostofcecere]

Isn't he out on the lash as we speak?

Did he get on the field for Wales or was he an un-used sub?

[leeslover]

I detect a hint of thread drift going on here

[oafc_ok]

I wonder how many of the development are ear marked for key workers, it would be interesting to know.

 

According to the Application Report there are "140 key worker dwellings". It also says they are communal. I'm not sure if that means there are 140 beds, or 140 Communal units (which would obviously house significantly more than 140 key workers).

[leeslover]

I took that to mean like Uni student flats in halls. Group of 6 en-suite (Shower, WC, basin) flats with one shared kitchen and a lounge area. Could be wrong but now a common model for maximising space.

So that could mean 140 units of 6 beds each. Given the promiscuity of people who live in flats, there are likely to be at least 3 people sleeping in each bed. This equates to a minimum of 2520 people, therefore at least 5796 cars driving up Sheepfoot Lane at exactly the same time each morning. Even those who work at the Hospital.

[laticsrblue]

The key worker flats were also reported to be suitable only for health workers, not sure why that should be but it could be that they don't have any car park spaces.

I only counted 550ish on the plan (their are 553 residential units and 140 key worker units) Don't tell the residents though, they will be complaining about there not being enough parking spaces on the plan and that people will be parking outside their houses.

Edited November 22, 2007 by laticsrblue

[LeylandLatic]

So that could mean 140 units of 6 beds each. Given the promiscuity of people who live in flats, there are likely to be at least 3 people sleeping in each bed. This equates to a minimum of 2520 people, therefore at least 5796 cars driving up Sheepfoot Lane at exactly the same time each morning. Even those who work at the Hospital.

 

 

I love those figures Bashforth dreamed up about how many cars would be on the road at once . What was it? 2000 cars for 1000 adults?

 

I think as someone else suggested a 'tow a car to work day' might be a good way to mock this fool.

Edited November 23, 2007 by LeylandLatic

[Diego_Sideburns]

I love those figures Bashforth dreamed up about how many cars would be on the road at once . What was it? 2000 cars for 1000 adults?

 

I think as someone else suggested a 'tow a car to work day' might be a good way to mock this fool.

 

Not forgetting all the cars with people attending the stag and hen parties in the flats.

[LeylandLatic]

Not forgetting all the cars with people attending the stag and hen parties in the flats.

 

Don't mention that to the residents! They will be claiming that the development will see an increase in drink driving!