Stockport Council News

£2.5 million going to be spent on bypass consultants (and often incompetent ones) in the next two years but there is no money for parks.

There was a secret meeting between Danny Alexander, Hunter and Stunell to agree the bypass, even though there was very little documentation in place regarding this proposed bypass – not even a business case!

Mrs Stevenson, who is, I think, project manager for the bypass, would appear to be in a terrible mess with her filing, which does not auger well. I asked for the SEMMMs meeting minutes – Mrs Stephenson should have them all neatly filed, preferably in her computer. But Mr Simon Oldfield, FOIA Officer at Stockport Council, says it would take 40 hours to locate them.

“Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 6444).

The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.

The initial request would result in over 18 hours of officer time. We asked for clarification/refinement which we hoped would have reduced the time element. As the clarification you provided was for all minutes – this did not refine the request.

Therefore the information you have requested in this request is exempt from disclosure under Section 12 (Fees) of the Freedom of Information Act.

It is anticipated that this request alone would take in excess of 40 hours to locate and retrieve the requested information……….”

“In the 2011 MTRU report, the need for an update was set out, and the following elements were listed as requiring attention:

1. Highway network and accompanying zones better suited to sustainable modes and town centres

2. Full consideration of trip generation from different employment and housing locations

3. Incorporation of travel plans (Smarter Choices) in the demand management effects

4. Recognition of the growing public transport role and its competition with travel by car

5. Understanding of how traffic growth has slowed down (even before the recession) and what the implications are for any future schemes

6. Understanding of the residual traffic generation, either by changing destination (redistribution) or making more trips (generation).

As far as can be seen from the documentation so far, some additional work has been undertaken under items 2 and 6. The rest are still not represented in the appraisal published to date.”

Keith Buchan’s critique

“Rather, it is recommended that the study area local authorities develop smaller and more appropriate scale road proposals along the protected alignments. These should be designed to provide relief for the study area communities affected by inappropriate through traffic, but not to provide a new strategic route of regional and potentially national significance.”

The proposed bypass provides most benefits for long distance traffic.

If SMBC take this Schweinerei of a roadscheme as far as public inquiry, they risk losing a further circa £25 million. Can Stockport afford to lose such huge sums on the vanities of not too bright panjandrums and local councillors?