 |
| Home |
| Political News |
| Meet Your Local MP |
| Comment |
| Have Your Say |
| Campaigns |
| Theresa May |
| John Redwood |
| Martin Salter |
| Rob Wilson |
| Richard Benyon |
| Useful Links |
- AAT Courses
- Absolute Health and Safety Solutions Limited
- Business lead generation
- Customer testimonials
- Diamond drilling
- First page seo
- Information Drivers
- Kids in Berkshire
- LIVE answering service
- Mary Flavelle
- NRG Networks
- On this day in history
- Outbound telemarketing services
- Personal business coach
- Positive energy
- Promotional micro sites
- Sales force outsourcing
- Sales training consultancy
- Technical Concrete Cutting Limited
- Windsor Vehicle Leasing
|
Reading Borough Council called to account over IDR scheme
|
The One-way Inner Distribution Road (IDR) is an excuse for a land grab. It is not a solution to Reading’s traffic, transport and environment; it should be resisted.
It is foolhardy to progress further with the one-way IDR and we believe it is in the interest of the town to hold the cabinet to account through a formal investigation of the conduct of this project thus far. The Cabinet (19th March 2007) was given documentation by officers of the Council to consider whether the One-way IDR Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) should be sealed and whether there should be a public enquiry. The reasons given for the two considerations were because they formed part of Wokingham District Council’s argument for a judicial review. The sealing of the TRO now provides an opportunity for WDC and other interested parties to lodge a Statutory Objection to the scheme. As a result of analysis of the information provided to Cabinet, Professor Paul Bardos and Colin Lee, two campaigners against the One-Way IDR, have become even more concerned about the motives behind the project and the obvious lack of benefit the road scheme will deliver to residents and business within the Borough. In formalising their analysis in a critique made available to the media the campaigners issued a statement expressing concern at the conduct of the council in pushing through a less than robustly researched evaluation of the scheme. The statement reads as follows: Our belief that the Council’s one-way IDR plans should be validated by a public enquiry or by some kind of independent scrutiny has become more entrenched having seen and considered the evidence presented to Cabinet on the 19th March 2007 by its officers and listened to what seemed to be pre-planned debate which also appeared alienated from the facts and data. It is clear from our critique of Reading Borough Council’s evidence that the one-way IDR scheme is a long way short of being realistic in terms of meeting any of the Council’s stated objectives. The objectives, too, may be fatally flawed. Fundamentally, critical analysis of the evidence presented shows that it does not reliably conclude any significant improvement in journey times, nor in the air quality and noise pollution nor in the reduction of congestion on the IDR. Yet Councillor Howarth freely makes statements which are not backed up by the Council commissioned evidence. We are somewhat surprised by Cllr Howarth and other cabinet members accepting a low standard of evidence to support what is a major infrastructure change within the town. While the council is culpable, consultants and officers are working to a brief established by the lead cabinet member for transport who, following his resignation, now walks away. The evidence presented to Cabinet should have come with a public health warning which urges caution as the modelling is not up-to-date enough to produce robust information; it does not even cover the complete rush hour periods, let alone the majority of the time in any week. The evidence includes no real consideration of the impacts of the scheme on the people who live in the town, bar a cursory social economic assessment in the Environmental Statement. Furthermore, there is no attempt to provide an analysis of the scheme’s costs versus benefits, which is regarded as unnecessary. There has been little attempt at dialogue with the people of Reading or the businesses of Reading. The Council’s sealing of the TRO and their dismissal of the many calls made for a public enquiry seems to us little more than a ploy to avoid scrutiny and rush the scheme through no matter how poor the planning and evidence for it is. We are deeply concerned that the project, once building starts, is irreversible and will have a significant and detrimental effect on business and the economic prosperity of Reading. There was no evaluation placed before cabinet which suggests that there will be a favourable impact on retailing and other commercial sectors. Retailers correctly express concern that a one-way scheme will deter shoppers and alter shopping habits. This linked with the Council’s determination to push traffic away from Reading encourages the growth of towns like Basingstoke and Bracknell as the preferred shopping destination. We are aware that retailers’ concerns are significant and find it curious that those at the coal face of the town’s economic prosperity are as frustrated and disturbed by developments as much as the people of the town. We are outraged by the lack of transparency and by the willingness of the Cabinet to acknowledge that the vast proportion of Reading are opposed to their ideas which see minority interests developed masquerading as a benefit to the town. The Council claims that the small number of objectors arising from their consultation suggests public support of their actions instead of facing up to the fact that their consultation has been inadequate to assess the level of concern about the scheme. We wonder whether this is an honest mistake, or a cynical one. We highlight the lack of transparency and the methodology and timings of consultations against an incomplete scheme. The public have no means to comment on the full proposals and that is entirely scandalous; not withstanding that they are still not available for inspection. This raises a broader issue which relates to our democracy and that is the fundamental right to ensure that our councillors are working in the best interest of the community and the town. We have sometimes been challenged with three questions: 1 Why are Reading Borough Council doing this? – Answer, given the lack of reliable evidence that the scheme will bring either less congestion or less pollution, and the dubious nature of the other claimed benefits; the conclusion we are led to is that it benefits a number of major development projects in the town. Circumstantial evidence for this is that the funding of the scheme will rely a good deal on “Section 108” money released by development projects. Any claim that it is to improve transport or the environment for people in Reading Borough let alone “greater” Reading is simply window dressing. 2 What is the alternative to a one-way IDR? – Answer, what is the alternative to a plan that makes the current situation worse 3 Surely something must be done about congestion in Reading? - Answer, we agree, but rather than a half-baked plan to satisfy developers’ interests for only part of the Reading area, let us have a well planned evidence-based approach that is shared between all the local authorities responsible for the “greater” Reading area. We urge the people and businesses to make their voices heard now that we are entering a six week period during which statutory objections can be made to the scheme. We are appalled that the Cabinet chose to avoid, through their orchestrated debate, a public enquiry which would expose any weaknesses in their approach in an independent arena. The One-way IDR is an excuse for a land grab. It is not a solution to Reading’s traffic, transport and environment; it should be resisted. It is foolhardy to progress further with the one-way IDR and we believe it is in the interest of the town to hold the cabinet to account through a formal investigation of the conduct of this project thus far. 10/04/07 |
|
Wordtracker |
|
|
