Widening of the pavement on Railway Road - Rose Hill

[jimblob]

Well folks.... it appears the building compromising our partially widened pavement on Railway Road was indeed erected without any planning permission.....
Marple Area Commitee and NPS need to come up with some answers me thinks.... or do I mean excuses?

msg for Wheels..... knowing how keen you are on regulations (I think back to your stance on the Norfolk Arms). You have argued that the work was "essential", isn't it now essential that the legalities are correctly sorted?

[jimblob]

the funding was half by Stockport MBC (ie us!) and half by Sustrans through a lottery grant through the Cycle Route 55 scheme.

[Jo Scarlett]

I thought this work was also related to the new Rose Hill primary. SMBC have been advertising the pub carpark as a place to park and stride from on the school run in a bid to ease traffic around adjoining roads for local residents. With this in mind maybe some off the funding came out of a different pot?

[wheels]

It is such an obvious benefit in terms of road safety I am amazed you need it explaining or justifying.

[jimblob]

Still waiting wheels.... 

[jimblob]

Why keep side-stepping my question.... why was the work on Railway Road essential?
cummon Wheels.... stand by your statement

As for discussing the statement on Sustrans any further, it would be innapropriate to divulge any further information. Doesn't take a genius to work out the inference though eh?

[wheels]

I assume you mean why are Sustrans like the Taliban....  I was quoting, these aren't my words so I don't know why?
Wheels, you still haven't stated why you consider the work essential? please tell....

Why quote something you don't understand or are able to justify?

[bluebelly]

went to the car boot on sunday,if that path has cost all that money,then it is an absolute disgrace.who hands out theses contracts.....?

[jimblob]

I assume you mean why are Sustrans like the Taliban....  I was quoting, these aren't my words so I don't know why?
Wheels, you still haven't stated why you consider the work essential? please tell....

[wheels]

Why

[jimblob]

And no I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't have declared a conflict of interests. The very fact however that they chose not to comment because of Sustrans raises questions however about the methods of the organisation. (fact btw, not rumour)..... phrases like "I support the building of off road cycleways but not Sustrans methods. They are to cycling what the Taliban is to peace and harmony." do make one wonder what is going on.

[jimblob]

Why is it essential?

[wheels]

But the work was "Essential" I'm told by Wheels, although this sounds very much like a para-phrased version of the response I got from our illustrious councillors who support the scheme, (those of them at least who felt prepared to comment because they hadn't already decelared a conflict of interest with Sustrans!).

So now your suggesting they should not have declared an interested and should of acted in properly?

I repeat this is an essential piece of work and should be welcomed by all road users and CT payers.

[jimblob]

But the work was "Essential" I'm told by Wheels, although this sounds very much like a para-phrased version of the response I got from our illustrious councillors who support the scheme, (those of them at least who felt prepared to comment because they hadn't already decelared a conflict of interest with Sustrans!).

[chicken lady]

moving Josh Robinson's gravel sales pitch from the pavement on the corner is essential in my opinion, but as the scheme stands now, he has an even larger pitch to sell his wares.

I commented on this point a few weeks ago, regarding the safety of people crossing the road at the junction of the station car park and Railway Road. Not to worry though, the pedestrians will be on the road (as usual) while the cyclists sail past on their lovely new path.