Messages

bump

There are other places you can use for such less informed commentary.

I take it you like muttering to yourself in this forum wasteland?   fair play... tara..

[so just how do we organise to remove them at the ballot box]

More proof of incompetence at the highest levels just keeps rolling in. They will not do the honourable thing and fall on their swords so just how do we organise to remove them at the ballot box ?

How about this for a novel idea.... PUT YOURSELF FORWARD instead of hiding at the back on anonymous internet fora that nobody reads chucking insults.... You think you can do a better job then step forward. People keep saying it's a Gravy Train so why not stick your snout in the trough too?

Is Number 6 complaining about Number 2's?

I found Punch Taverns planning application particularly wreckless when they suggested no road improvements were needed to the junction. I find that statement completely moronic

Is your comment in relation to them applying for a shop on the site of the car park? The size of the shop will attract no more traffic than what already takes place at peak times of school drop-off and pick-up by parents.  There can be upwards of 50 cars turning up at times with parents dropping off kids in a rush and they somehow seem to have managed to get back out onto the A4.  Not sure why the dribble of cars caused by shoppers would make that much of a difference.

[ever been in place]

Punch Taverns not either Claire or Shelly are responsible for the access in the car park, no formal or in-formal agreement has ever been in place for the use of this car park.

Well that's not true as the parents were kicked out the car park about three years ago in similar circumstances, when a pay and display scheme was introduced for a short period and signs went up saying offenders would be ticketed (or wheel clamped).  (I think some local pressure was brought to bear on the landlord in the end from his regular punters and that scheme was scrapped, but it focussed parents attention to the fact they were on private land.

I think you'll find that the fast food cafe/shop on Bridge Street put out planters, tables and chairs without approval from WBC.  The council officers went round to get them to remove them (which they did with the tables and chairs) but because the planters were so big and heavy the shop workers struggled to get them shifted.

As for blocking the pavement, the Disability Discrimination Act should ensure the police would take action against offenders where wheelchair users can't get past but in truth it's very hit and miss whether police officers will enforce (it's more 'miss' than 'hit').  But it's only the police that can do something about it as it stands.  Bringing in a blanket ban will cause as many problems as it resolves.  Reading BC do have a blanket ban on a number of their roads, which prevents damage to grass verges and prevents footpaths getting blocked, but the roads where this restriction is in place are wide enough to allow on-street parking to take place instead. I don't think they have gone down the route of introducing this ban in their narrower residential streets.

Was this another daft scheme dreamt up and supported by that idiot Pickles?

It's a Network Rail bridge and is owned and maintained by them (much like the 'road-space' between barriers on a level crossing would be). As far as they are concerned this is a 'like for like replacement' at this location (albeit that the replacement is a modern bridge able to accommodate their infrastructure and traffic which trundles underneath)

They have no reason to extend the length of time this bridge replacement project will take as that would impact on their network.  They also have no reason to increase the cost of the project by including additional works.  A wider bridge would be more expensive, would require additional widening of bridge supports, would require significant engineering and strengthening of ancient embankments and may even require land purchase to make it a two way bridge.  Why would they do that?  The fact that traffic is held up for a bit going across it is not their concern as it only affects car users....

But honestly, you're in a different dimension if you think adding another lane (making it twice the width) would 'cost very little - if anything at all' to the bridge replacement.   

It's 30 minutes FREE though isn't it?  If people are needing to be in town for longer than that, what's the problem with them using the car parks and keeping this area available for people wanting to 'pop in' to the shops or bank - especially when the centre is car-free during the day.

Its amazing how the council seem determined to pick the most popular parking sites and then put charges on them.

I take it you would rather they chose sites where NOBODY parked and then put charges on them?

;)

You mentioned this on the other local website and you were wrong there too Druidor. The branches were becoming much too large for a site like this.  The nursery were faced with three choices: 
1 - Ignore it and hope that one or more of the branches didn't give way under it's own weight or through damage from the various extreme weather incidents we're experiencing in recent years (Not great if kids are running around underneath, but could also cause other damage to the grounds or playpark anyway) In these days of risk assessments and liability concerns it would be difficult to argue the case for keeping it untouched.  I'm sure the nursery management don't fancy a period in Wormwood Scrubs for sticking their head in the sand.
2 - Get a tree surgeon in to remove it completely
3 - Get a tree surgeon in to cut back, or pollard, to allow new growth and therefore, over time, provide shade for the play area. 

If you park in a bay marked 'Permit Holders Only' and you don't have a permit then you get what you deserve.. ;D

I'm quite happy for WBC to be ticketing those chancers.  However from what I've seen when in that part of town there's hardly anyone ever parked in the bay, so again, if there's hardly any tickets issued it's hardly a 'nice little earner' 

The council have looked at that before but because of underground services, manhole covers BT lines and other impediments have not been able to safely install a removable bollard.  This entrance comes out from Camp Hopson car park.  They should be putting a barrier/bollard up  to stop vehicles illegally using this entrance into a pedestrian area.   

Drove a Maserati I seem to remember. Kudos.

He went by the name of VBird.  Oracle on every subject matter under the sun, even when he was wrong.  Threads could last for weeks while he was battling with other posters with contrary views....  (he beat most posters into submission by always needing to have the last word on every thread...)

[You're wrong]

Correct me if I'm wrong........... the snooker club members and guests continually suffer.

You're wrong :P

What was there before?  A single yellow line that meant NOBODY could use it during the day, so it didn't affect the snooker club or it's users at all. 

Now at least they've put a bay in for permit holders in that part of town. The West St residents opposite The Lion have had nowhere to park during the day for years but now they've been given an option.  The fact that only a couple may have bought a permit is a different matter.  I doubt it's a 'nice little earner'..