Have had further contact with Halton Trading Standards re setting up a Lorry Watch scheme in the Halton View area. Although Halton is amalgamating with Warrington Trading Standards this year and resources are limited they are prepared to start a pilot run in September.
They'll be using systems already developed in other parts of the country although there will be some fine tuning of it to fit in with local conditions.
Halton Green Party will be funding the start up of the programme (ie providing leaflets) but after the pilot it's hoped that the Area Forum will financially back the scheme if it proves successful and there is sufficient community support.
In the meantime I'm going to contact Network Rail (as two railway bridges are on the routes the scheme will cover) to see if they might be able to cough up some funding.
Off to Wales for the next couple of weeks so probably this will be the last blog until end of August.
Happy holidays if your lucky enough to be able to get away!!
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
Bennetts Lane update
Following a residents meeting last night re the two new applications for a medium and low secure unit and a low secure unit at Bennetts Lane it was felt important for residents to write in objections right away (by 24th July) to these two applications. Objections should be made seperately one for the medium and low secure unit and another for the low secure unit.
Possible points to use in your letter/email:
Re: Application no. 08/00367/COU
Proposed medium and low secure Mental Health unit Meadow Lane Bennett’s Lane Widnes WA8 0GT.
And
Re: Application no. 08/00368/COU
Proposed low secure Mental Health unit Meadow lane Bennetts Lane Widnes
· LACK OF CONSULTATION AND MISLEADING INFORMATION
The lack of consultation by Montpellier, Priory and currently Velocity Care with residents in the area in relation to the units usage.
From its inception in 2005 until January 2007 Montpellier the developer and the then care partner Priory, the provider have deliberately kept information about its end use from local residents, council members and officials. I understand that when the chief executive of the Priory Group was asked why this lack of consultation had occurred his response was that it was owing to commercial reasons.
By their actions it would seem that Montpellier, Priory, and the current applicant Velocity Care consider commercial reasons/profit making as being more important than ensuring that the local community was made fully aware and consulted about the building of such a unit in Bennett’s Lane Widnes.
Velocity Care appears to be continuing this trend of not being open and honest re the end use of the unit. Recently they have sent material out to residents which is misleading in that it does not specify the type of patients that will be treated at the unit. It would also seem to be the case that there is some doubt that Velocity Care will actually be operating the facility if the application is successful. This fact of not really knowing who the end provider is going to be, does not inspire confidence amongst residents about the development.
· INAPPROPRIATE SITING OF THE UNIT
The siting of any care facility at Bennetts Lane is inappropriate owing to its position within the confines of a Control of Major Accidents Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999 regulated area. This is particularly the case in relation to a secure unit when, given a major incident which necessitated the evacuation of patients, there would be obvious security issues.
· CONCERN AND ANXIETY EXPERIENCED BY RESIDENTS
Bennett’s Lane is sited within close proximity to an area which includes young families. Residents have been and continue to be affected by anxiety regarding the possible end use of the care facility. Initially following the original decision for the site to be developed as a care unit people were concerned that it was going to become a drug rehabilitation unit and then assurances were given that this was not the case. Following this, for a period of time, there were many rumours circulating about its use and anxiety levels among residents continued to be high.
Given this background and the fact that residents are now fully aware of the proposed end use of this facility ie C2a, anxiety and concern will continue to be experienced by residents living close to the unit and this should be viewed as a material planning consideration. It is obvious that there is a need for such units but it would seem that to operate one so close to a residential area is not appropriate.
· QUESTIONNING THE ASSERTION THAT THE UNIT IS NEEDED REGIONALLY
Velocity Care’s view about the need for this unit being related to regional demands appears to be at odds with the Five Boroughs Strategic Health Partnership's (local health planning agency) position whose view is that such a proposed unit is unnecessary.
These are just some ideas - all objections will be considered given that they are reasonable and realistic.
Address to write to:
Planning and Policy Manager
Environmental and Regulatory Services Dept
Rutland House, Halton Lea, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 2GW
email: dev.control@halton-borough.gov.org.uk
Hopefully planning committee councillors will reject both applications - but it will be important to contact/lobby councillors on this committee - names and phone nos can be obtained from members services section at Halton Borough Council (0151 424 2061)
Its a shame that it has come to this - Firstly the planning committee consisting of members from all parties should never have agreed to the site being used for a care facility in the first place if this was at all possible.
Secondly more digging for information should have taken place at the beginning when Montpellier and Priory were not coming clean about its end use. It seems that in other local authority areas there was greater questioning of Montpellier's and Priory's motives and that consequently planning permission was refused right from the word go.
Possible points to use in your letter/email:
Re: Application no. 08/00367/COU
Proposed medium and low secure Mental Health unit Meadow Lane Bennett’s Lane Widnes WA8 0GT.
And
Re: Application no. 08/00368/COU
Proposed low secure Mental Health unit Meadow lane Bennetts Lane Widnes
· LACK OF CONSULTATION AND MISLEADING INFORMATION
The lack of consultation by Montpellier, Priory and currently Velocity Care with residents in the area in relation to the units usage.
From its inception in 2005 until January 2007 Montpellier the developer and the then care partner Priory, the provider have deliberately kept information about its end use from local residents, council members and officials. I understand that when the chief executive of the Priory Group was asked why this lack of consultation had occurred his response was that it was owing to commercial reasons.
By their actions it would seem that Montpellier, Priory, and the current applicant Velocity Care consider commercial reasons/profit making as being more important than ensuring that the local community was made fully aware and consulted about the building of such a unit in Bennett’s Lane Widnes.
Velocity Care appears to be continuing this trend of not being open and honest re the end use of the unit. Recently they have sent material out to residents which is misleading in that it does not specify the type of patients that will be treated at the unit. It would also seem to be the case that there is some doubt that Velocity Care will actually be operating the facility if the application is successful. This fact of not really knowing who the end provider is going to be, does not inspire confidence amongst residents about the development.
· INAPPROPRIATE SITING OF THE UNIT
The siting of any care facility at Bennetts Lane is inappropriate owing to its position within the confines of a Control of Major Accidents Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999 regulated area. This is particularly the case in relation to a secure unit when, given a major incident which necessitated the evacuation of patients, there would be obvious security issues.
· CONCERN AND ANXIETY EXPERIENCED BY RESIDENTS
Bennett’s Lane is sited within close proximity to an area which includes young families. Residents have been and continue to be affected by anxiety regarding the possible end use of the care facility. Initially following the original decision for the site to be developed as a care unit people were concerned that it was going to become a drug rehabilitation unit and then assurances were given that this was not the case. Following this, for a period of time, there were many rumours circulating about its use and anxiety levels among residents continued to be high.
Given this background and the fact that residents are now fully aware of the proposed end use of this facility ie C2a, anxiety and concern will continue to be experienced by residents living close to the unit and this should be viewed as a material planning consideration. It is obvious that there is a need for such units but it would seem that to operate one so close to a residential area is not appropriate.
· QUESTIONNING THE ASSERTION THAT THE UNIT IS NEEDED REGIONALLY
Velocity Care’s view about the need for this unit being related to regional demands appears to be at odds with the Five Boroughs Strategic Health Partnership's (local health planning agency) position whose view is that such a proposed unit is unnecessary.
These are just some ideas - all objections will be considered given that they are reasonable and realistic.
Address to write to:
Planning and Policy Manager
Environmental and Regulatory Services Dept
Rutland House, Halton Lea, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 2GW
email: dev.control@halton-borough.gov.org.uk
Hopefully planning committee councillors will reject both applications - but it will be important to contact/lobby councillors on this committee - names and phone nos can be obtained from members services section at Halton Borough Council (0151 424 2061)
Its a shame that it has come to this - Firstly the planning committee consisting of members from all parties should never have agreed to the site being used for a care facility in the first place if this was at all possible.
Secondly more digging for information should have taken place at the beginning when Montpellier and Priory were not coming clean about its end use. It seems that in other local authority areas there was greater questioning of Montpellier's and Priory's motives and that consequently planning permission was refused right from the word go.
Monday, 14 July 2008
UK Anti Incineration Petition
In the Halton area there are now 3 planning applications for energy from waste incinerators in the pipeline.
Such incineratos mean more dangerous toxins being released in an area already overpopulated with dangerous chemical emissions.
It's important that as many people express their objections to any efw incinerators whereever sited. This is particularly the case when there are now other recylcing systems which do not rely on incineration which are able to deal with house hold waste and are marginally more cost effective than incinerators.
If you want to object log on to the PM's website http:/petitions.pm.gov.uk/UK-Incineration/
Such incineratos mean more dangerous toxins being released in an area already overpopulated with dangerous chemical emissions.
It's important that as many people express their objections to any efw incinerators whereever sited. This is particularly the case when there are now other recylcing systems which do not rely on incineration which are able to deal with house hold waste and are marginally more cost effective than incinerators.
If you want to object log on to the PM's website http:/petitions.pm.gov.uk/UK-Incineration/
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Bennetts Lane Unit - have we been here before?
Velocity Healthcare has put in two new applications for secure care and treatment units for people with mental illness. One is for a unit which would cater for low secure mentally ill people and the other for low secure and medium secure mentally ill patients. So we're back to square one!
There is to be a meeting at Moorfield Sports and Social club Moorfield Rd on Monday14th July at 7pm to find out more about the situation and discuss what we can do as individuals and as a community re objecting to the new proposals.
Obviously the more residents attending the better as it will send out a signal to the council and Velocity Healthcare that the vast majority of residents continue to be opposed to the development. Please try to make it!
The Green Party's position is that although there is an obvious need for such units its inappropriate that any sort of care unit should be operating on the site at Bennetts Lane because of its proximity to chemical plants. The original decision by the council to allow such a development there of any sort of care facility was to say the least questionnable.
There is to be a meeting at Moorfield Sports and Social club Moorfield Rd on Monday14th July at 7pm to find out more about the situation and discuss what we can do as individuals and as a community re objecting to the new proposals.
Obviously the more residents attending the better as it will send out a signal to the council and Velocity Healthcare that the vast majority of residents continue to be opposed to the development. Please try to make it!
The Green Party's position is that although there is an obvious need for such units its inappropriate that any sort of care unit should be operating on the site at Bennetts Lane because of its proximity to chemical plants. The original decision by the council to allow such a development there of any sort of care facility was to say the least questionnable.
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Halton Greens position on proposed 2mx
Halton Green Party has always advocated that other alternatives to reduce congestion on the Silver Jubilee bridge ought to be looked at before spending over half a billion pounds of public money on a second crossing. The council have admitted that they have not allocated any serious resources to looking at alternatives.
Local Greens oppose the current application on the following
grounds:
Proponents of the project suggest that the proposed second crossing will bring economic benefits to residents in Halton. Research indicates that the economic advantages of road/bridge developments in relation to local areas is debatable (See Roads Jobs and the Economy Eco Logic Ltd 1994 Professor John Whitelegg). Also the Standing and Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on considering the economic advantages of a range of bridges and roads concluded that “The state of the art of this important field is poorly developed and the results do not offer convincing general evidence of the size, nature or direction of local economic impacts”. (para 11 p7 in ‘Transport and the Economy Standing Committee, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment’ DETR 1999).
Halton has some of the worst health and mortality rates in the country. Reports have identified a heavy pollution load and a heritage of contaminated land, air and water from many chemical industries which have grown up over the last 150 years. This project will disturb contaminated sediments in the river and this could risk aggravating the health problems of residents in Halton.
Proponents of the new bridge argue that air borne pollution in Halton will be reduced because of less peak time congestion. However the short term gains of a reduction in traffic at peak times will be outweighed by the estimated 40% increase in traffic in the area. This will have an impact on the state of health in Halton which currently has one of the highest rates of lung disease in the country
The argument that a second Mersey crossing will reduce congestion is questionable. There is evidence to support the fact that the building of more roads does not affect congestion. A good example of this is the M6 motorway where congestion is increasing when experts considered that the new toll road extension would reduce the problem. Experience shows that if you build more roads (bridges) traffic increases in the area in which you build them and congestion,relatively,does not decrease in the longer term. Research in the United States shows that for every 10% increase in ‘lane’ mile capacity there is a potential for a corresponding 9% increase in traffic. (see www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/induced.pdf). Also the idea that congestion will disappear if the proposed second crossing goes ahead is a myth. Any major incident on any of the Mersey crossings would affect traffic flow in the area.
A second crossing will generate more traffic which in turn will increase the volume of Co2 emissions and aggravate climate change problems. This is at a time when public policy is being directed towards reducing carbon emissions. If the government is seriously committed to meeting the targets set by the Kyoto agreement schemes like the second Mersey crossing need to be scrutinised in the light of this.
Conversely if future impacts of climate change require a reduction in road and air traffic, a scheme of this size and nature would effectively be reduced to the status of a very costly white elephant
Measures taken to reduce traffic over the Silver Jubilee Bridge have been few and half hearted and little imagination has been employed in considering options. Halton Borough Council has not looked at reducing traffic over the bridge except by means of public transport and has admitted the council could have done more in this respect. The council could have considered tolling the Silver Jubilee Bridge at peak times, remove signage on the M6 motorway which directs regional traffic over Silver Jubilee Bridge, implement school and business transport plans, improve public transport including light rail on Britannia Bridge, beef up car share schemes, encourage firms to provide ‘work at home days’ for employees using bridge etc
Costs of project - the estimated costs of the project has gone up recently from £390m to £561m. There are lessons to be learnt from Public Finance Initiatives in terms of escalating costs, responsibilities for maintenance expenditure and compensation/mitigation costs. If any aspect of funding present or future fails the resulting strain on local taxpayers and national Government will be incalculable.
The project will detrimentally affect residents living particularly in the Astmoor area of Runcorn where the elevated approach roads in places are to be sited within 100 yards of housing. The crossing itself will bring no immediate benefit to the local residents and the resulting extra pollution load (air quality, light, noise etc) will add to the social, health and environmental deprivation of the local area.
If you oppose the Mersey Gateway Planning application write to:
Environmental and Regulatory Services, Halton Borough Council, Rutland House Halton Lea Runcorn WA7 2GW
Local Greens oppose the current application on the following
grounds:
Proponents of the project suggest that the proposed second crossing will bring economic benefits to residents in Halton. Research indicates that the economic advantages of road/bridge developments in relation to local areas is debatable (See Roads Jobs and the Economy Eco Logic Ltd 1994 Professor John Whitelegg). Also the Standing and Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on considering the economic advantages of a range of bridges and roads concluded that “The state of the art of this important field is poorly developed and the results do not offer convincing general evidence of the size, nature or direction of local economic impacts”. (para 11 p7 in ‘Transport and the Economy Standing Committee, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment’ DETR 1999).
Halton has some of the worst health and mortality rates in the country. Reports have identified a heavy pollution load and a heritage of contaminated land, air and water from many chemical industries which have grown up over the last 150 years. This project will disturb contaminated sediments in the river and this could risk aggravating the health problems of residents in Halton.
Proponents of the new bridge argue that air borne pollution in Halton will be reduced because of less peak time congestion. However the short term gains of a reduction in traffic at peak times will be outweighed by the estimated 40% increase in traffic in the area. This will have an impact on the state of health in Halton which currently has one of the highest rates of lung disease in the country
The argument that a second Mersey crossing will reduce congestion is questionable. There is evidence to support the fact that the building of more roads does not affect congestion. A good example of this is the M6 motorway where congestion is increasing when experts considered that the new toll road extension would reduce the problem. Experience shows that if you build more roads (bridges) traffic increases in the area in which you build them and congestion,relatively,does not decrease in the longer term. Research in the United States shows that for every 10% increase in ‘lane’ mile capacity there is a potential for a corresponding 9% increase in traffic. (see www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/induced.pdf). Also the idea that congestion will disappear if the proposed second crossing goes ahead is a myth. Any major incident on any of the Mersey crossings would affect traffic flow in the area.
A second crossing will generate more traffic which in turn will increase the volume of Co2 emissions and aggravate climate change problems. This is at a time when public policy is being directed towards reducing carbon emissions. If the government is seriously committed to meeting the targets set by the Kyoto agreement schemes like the second Mersey crossing need to be scrutinised in the light of this.
Conversely if future impacts of climate change require a reduction in road and air traffic, a scheme of this size and nature would effectively be reduced to the status of a very costly white elephant
Measures taken to reduce traffic over the Silver Jubilee Bridge have been few and half hearted and little imagination has been employed in considering options. Halton Borough Council has not looked at reducing traffic over the bridge except by means of public transport and has admitted the council could have done more in this respect. The council could have considered tolling the Silver Jubilee Bridge at peak times, remove signage on the M6 motorway which directs regional traffic over Silver Jubilee Bridge, implement school and business transport plans, improve public transport including light rail on Britannia Bridge, beef up car share schemes, encourage firms to provide ‘work at home days’ for employees using bridge etc
Costs of project - the estimated costs of the project has gone up recently from £390m to £561m. There are lessons to be learnt from Public Finance Initiatives in terms of escalating costs, responsibilities for maintenance expenditure and compensation/mitigation costs. If any aspect of funding present or future fails the resulting strain on local taxpayers and national Government will be incalculable.
The project will detrimentally affect residents living particularly in the Astmoor area of Runcorn where the elevated approach roads in places are to be sited within 100 yards of housing. The crossing itself will bring no immediate benefit to the local residents and the resulting extra pollution load (air quality, light, noise etc) will add to the social, health and environmental deprivation of the local area.
If you oppose the Mersey Gateway Planning application write to:
Environmental and Regulatory Services, Halton Borough Council, Rutland House Halton Lea Runcorn WA7 2GW
Monday, 23 June 2008
HGV's Barrows Green Lane - developments
I received this email from Jamie Simmons Police Community Support officer today about the setting up of a Lorry Watch scheme in the area and what the police have been doing about the HGV problem in Barrows Green Lane and Moorfield Road:
"I have emailed the council who originally stated that the council may possibly be able to do some observations under the Lorry Watch Idea without any bias. I have emailed them again today just to confirm this and also to mention that i would like the residents to remain a large part of the Lorry Watch also...
Our Road Policing Unit have paid some more attention to Barrows Green Lane and Moorfield Road in recent weeks and it seems either people are aware that they are there or the problems have not been as bad recently because after recieving an email from our RPU Liason officer she states that no tickets or warnings had been issued for any offences".
I must say that the area has been a little quiter of late but maybe I've not been around as much. Can any one else comment on this?
The police are wanting to know if anyone in Barrows Green Lane is interested in getting involved in a lorry watch scheme - so if there's any one out there who would be prepared to help (reporting incidents of HGV's on the road) please let us know!
Although it will be better if we get the full support of the council and police there's no reason why we couldn't set the scheme up ourselves if this doesn't work out.
"I have emailed the council who originally stated that the council may possibly be able to do some observations under the Lorry Watch Idea without any bias. I have emailed them again today just to confirm this and also to mention that i would like the residents to remain a large part of the Lorry Watch also...
Our Road Policing Unit have paid some more attention to Barrows Green Lane and Moorfield Road in recent weeks and it seems either people are aware that they are there or the problems have not been as bad recently because after recieving an email from our RPU Liason officer she states that no tickets or warnings had been issued for any offences".
I must say that the area has been a little quiter of late but maybe I've not been around as much. Can any one else comment on this?
The police are wanting to know if anyone in Barrows Green Lane is interested in getting involved in a lorry watch scheme - so if there's any one out there who would be prepared to help (reporting incidents of HGV's on the road) please let us know!
Although it will be better if we get the full support of the council and police there's no reason why we couldn't set the scheme up ourselves if this doesn't work out.
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Pedestrian Crossing Marzahn Way
We contacted the council in March (see blog in March) about the issue of a controlled crossing on Marzahn Way. The pedestrian route from Page Lane requires people to cross Marzahn Way near a very busy island.
The council have replied stating that they do not have plans for crossing facilities at that point and suggest that residents walk up Denton Street and access the crossing at Marzahn Way/Albert Road junction - this obviously means walking a longer distance.
I have suggested to residents in the area that if they want to pursue the matter that they need as individuals to write in to the council and also to get a petition up. I said I'd assist if necessary.
The council have replied stating that they do not have plans for crossing facilities at that point and suggest that residents walk up Denton Street and access the crossing at Marzahn Way/Albert Road junction - this obviously means walking a longer distance.
I have suggested to residents in the area that if they want to pursue the matter that they need as individuals to write in to the council and also to get a petition up. I said I'd assist if necessary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)