This is quite an interesting response from Alec Shelbrooke MP. Whether what he is stating has come about as a result of recent changes I don't know, but we have been told on several occasions that the council does not have any responsibility for speeding, nor does it have any powers to do anything about it.
There's nothing to suggest that any action will be taken, but it does put a different complexion upon things.
"............ I have spoken with colleagues in the Department for Transport this week to get some clarification on this for you.
Under the previous Government, local authorities received funding from central government specifically for speed cameras. This is no longer the case.
Ministers state that local authorities, police and safer road partnerships can still use speed cameras if they wish – however, Ministers will not mandate either the installation or decommissioning of speed cameras. I understand that it is up to these organisations to decide whether to install or decommission speed cameras, and how to use their own funding in this area.
The Government is clear that local government needs increased flexibility to take decisions locally to deliver the solutions that suit them best. Through removing ring-fencing of budgets, I understand that local authorities are now free to determine their own spending priorities and to make decisions on how to achieve cost savings.
If you have been told by Council officers that the Government now prevent them from installing speed cameras then this is incorrect and I would hope that Cllr Bruce would be able to look into this and see than in future only correct information is relayed."
Monday 19 December 2011
Tuesday 20 September 2011
Back to square one!
Recent posts have made mention of a meeting with Karen Bruce, and possibly a Leeds City Council executive board member. Unfortunately we are being asked for the umpteenth time to spell out what the problems are, and what it is we hope to acheive. For the casual observer this might seem to be a minor irritation, but what it effectively means is that inspite of 6 years of campaigning, nothing we have said or done has registered.
Monday 22 August 2011
Local Forum
Not directly related to traffic issues but the writer recently came across this local Forum
http://www.ls26.org.uk/forum/index.php
Within the Politically Speaking section there are some interesting views and opinions about the work of local councillors.
http://www.ls26.org.uk/forum/index.php
Within the Politically Speaking section there are some interesting views and opinions about the work of local councillors.
Monday 1 August 2011
MP Support - What support?
Almost exactly two years ago to the day a small delegation met, on Leeds Hill, with the then Shadow Transport Minister, Robert Goodwill. The meeting was reported as follows:
On Monday 3rd August, a small delegation of local residents had a brief and informal meeting with Alec Shelbrooke, Conservative parliamentary candidate for this area, and Robert Goodwill MP, Shadow Transport Minister. The meeting was held in a lay-by on Leeds Road and above the noise of the traffic, and within feet of speeding HGV's, the concerns of local residents were outlined to Robert Goodwill who listened and commented understandingly.
During the meeting, not only was the the lack of action from the councillors condemned, but much was said about what the Conservatives would do about road safety, and the concerns of local communities, if they were in government. Well now they are in government (sort of), and what differences have we seen..........!
In the last email correspondence from Alec Shelbrooke he makes the following comment:
'Having Cllr Bruce on board can only, hopefully, help the situation. I am hopeful that being a member of the ruling administration, senior Councillor and officers will listen to Cllr Bruce as they have clearly not been listening to what I have been saying.'
A consistent level of effectiveness regardless of political party.
On Monday 3rd August, a small delegation of local residents had a brief and informal meeting with Alec Shelbrooke, Conservative parliamentary candidate for this area, and Robert Goodwill MP, Shadow Transport Minister. The meeting was held in a lay-by on Leeds Road and above the noise of the traffic, and within feet of speeding HGV's, the concerns of local residents were outlined to Robert Goodwill who listened and commented understandingly.
During the meeting, not only was the the lack of action from the councillors condemned, but much was said about what the Conservatives would do about road safety, and the concerns of local communities, if they were in government. Well now they are in government (sort of), and what differences have we seen..........!
In the last email correspondence from Alec Shelbrooke he makes the following comment:
'Having Cllr Bruce on board can only, hopefully, help the situation. I am hopeful that being a member of the ruling administration, senior Councillor and officers will listen to Cllr Bruce as they have clearly not been listening to what I have been saying.'
A consistent level of effectiveness regardless of political party.
Proposed meeting date still to be confirmed
There have been a number of queries as to whether the August meeting has been arranged - Due to individuals being away on holiday no date has been confirmed, contact will be made with all interested parties as soon as something is known.
Thursday 23 June 2011
Ward councillor support - Update
Karen Bruce has made the following statement of support for inclusion in a short article expected to appear in the July issue of the Rothwell and District Record:
"I recognise that speeding traffic and lorries are a very serious issue within the ward which has long needed tackling and I will support residents to try to do what I can to help."
The purpose of the article is to show that the campaign continues, and to attract more active support.
"I recognise that speeding traffic and lorries are a very serious issue within the ward which has long needed tackling and I will support residents to try to do what I can to help."
The purpose of the article is to show that the campaign continues, and to attract more active support.
Saturday 11 June 2011
Road map
One of the hot topics at the meeting with Karen Bruce was the issue of 24/7 HGV traffic travelling between Stourton and the M62. We have a catalogue of spurious reasons from council officers as to why nothing can be done about this, such as 'strategic routes', 'distance', 'access', and its worth just revisiting the road map to see what a 'load of cobblers' we are expected to believe.
Meeting with ward councillor, Karen Bruce
On Wednesday 8th of June a small group met with Karen Bruce, and her husband Stuart, to discuss the traffic issues causing greatest concern to the local community. Karen has actively supported the campaign in the past and is under no illusion that things have got better.
A number of fresh ideas were raised as to how things might be moved forward, and these will be reported upon as and when there is 'more meat on the bones'.
The meeting was encouraging, and thanks go out to Karen and Stuart, for their time, and input.
A further meeting is scheduled for July and dates and times will be posted once determined.
A number of fresh ideas were raised as to how things might be moved forward, and these will be reported upon as and when there is 'more meat on the bones'.
The meeting was encouraging, and thanks go out to Karen and Stuart, for their time, and input.
A further meeting is scheduled for July and dates and times will be posted once determined.
Saturday 28 May 2011
'NOISE'
There is a short series on TV at the moment, 'Windfarm Wars', about the impact windfarms can have upon individuals and local communities, and the losing battle that these people have with the windfarm developers, local authorities, and the planning system.
The 'jury is out' on the visual impact that windfarms have but of major concern to the windfarm battlers is the NOISE generated by the turbines and the rotor blades. The NOISE is apparently difficult to monitor, and not always perceptible, and in one dispute that went all the way to the High Court the case relied heavily upon the DISTURBANCE to the community that the NOISE would cause. The campaigners were unable to prove that the NOISE would be excessive, and lost the case, had it been proven then the probability is that the windfarm would not have been developed.
The correlation here is that on two separate occasions, on different properties along Leeds/Wakefield Road, perhaps an eigth of a mile apart, sound monitoring has been undertaken by the council, and on each occasion the results have shown "excessive" NOISE from traffic! On each occasion these results have had to be prised out of the council! Sound monitoring is undertaken to standards set down by the World Health Organisation, and their web site contains a mountain of information relative to NOISE and how injurious it can be to health and well-being, TRAFFIC NOISE is a major concern! NOISE has to be taken into account from a development perspective and there is a link on this page to the Planning guideline concerning NOISE and development.
What of the findings of the council? - This type of monitoring is often undertaken when a new housing development is proposed close by an existing busy road. The results from the monitoring would have meant that special consideration would have to have been given to the sound insulation of the houses, and sound defence walls would have to be built along the road to reduce the NOISE impact. If it couldn't be shown that NOISE impact could be sufficiently minimised, then development might be prevented.
Most of our properties were here long before the NOISE became "excessive".
The council must have amazingly thick carpets to be able to brush so much under them!
The 'jury is out' on the visual impact that windfarms have but of major concern to the windfarm battlers is the NOISE generated by the turbines and the rotor blades. The NOISE is apparently difficult to monitor, and not always perceptible, and in one dispute that went all the way to the High Court the case relied heavily upon the DISTURBANCE to the community that the NOISE would cause. The campaigners were unable to prove that the NOISE would be excessive, and lost the case, had it been proven then the probability is that the windfarm would not have been developed.
The correlation here is that on two separate occasions, on different properties along Leeds/Wakefield Road, perhaps an eigth of a mile apart, sound monitoring has been undertaken by the council, and on each occasion the results have shown "excessive" NOISE from traffic! On each occasion these results have had to be prised out of the council! Sound monitoring is undertaken to standards set down by the World Health Organisation, and their web site contains a mountain of information relative to NOISE and how injurious it can be to health and well-being, TRAFFIC NOISE is a major concern! NOISE has to be taken into account from a development perspective and there is a link on this page to the Planning guideline concerning NOISE and development.
What of the findings of the council? - This type of monitoring is often undertaken when a new housing development is proposed close by an existing busy road. The results from the monitoring would have meant that special consideration would have to have been given to the sound insulation of the houses, and sound defence walls would have to be built along the road to reduce the NOISE impact. If it couldn't be shown that NOISE impact could be sufficiently minimised, then development might be prevented.
Most of our properties were here long before the NOISE became "excessive".
The council must have amazingly thick carpets to be able to brush so much under them!
Tuesday 24 May 2011
Big thanks to the Rothwell and District Record
A big thanks goes out to the Rothwell and District Record for their continued support and interest in what we are up to.
The bad news is that unfortunately the writer missed the dead-line for the June 2011 issue, in which it had been intended that we let the local community know about the proposed meeting with the new councillor, Karen Bruce, asking if anyone would like to attend.
The good news is that many of the 'old' supporters have confirmed their interest in attending, and have also confirmed that they have neighbours who would like to voice their concerns.
Details of proposed dates and times will be posted here and will be circulated to those on th eemail circulation list.
The bad news is that unfortunately the writer missed the dead-line for the June 2011 issue, in which it had been intended that we let the local community know about the proposed meeting with the new councillor, Karen Bruce, asking if anyone would like to attend.
The good news is that many of the 'old' supporters have confirmed their interest in attending, and have also confirmed that they have neighbours who would like to voice their concerns.
Details of proposed dates and times will be posted here and will be circulated to those on th eemail circulation list.
Friday 20 May 2011
Thanks for the positive response.
The email that went out yesterday asking if any supporters would like to meet with newly elected councillor Karen Bruce was met with a very positive, response.
Proposed dates and times will be circulated as soon as available.
Proposed dates and times will be circulated as soon as available.
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Congratulations, and a glimmer of hope?
Congratulations to Karen Bruce, for her election as a ward councillor.
Karen has expressed her support for our cause in the past, and has offered to meet with us to discuss the problems in greater detail.
Further information will be posted when more details are available.
Karen has expressed her support for our cause in the past, and has offered to meet with us to discuss the problems in greater detail.
Further information will be posted when more details are available.
Friday 25 February 2011
Queries
In answer to a number of queries ....
NO - We still haven't received any response from councillors or MP, to our Decemeber email, or the letter in Rothwell and District Record.
YES - There is a 'Duty of Care' issue, but it's extremely doubtful that the full implications of this have been grasped!
NO - We still haven't received any response from councillors or MP, to our Decemeber email, or the letter in Rothwell and District Record.
YES - There is a 'Duty of Care' issue, but it's extremely doubtful that the full implications of this have been grasped!
Monday 14 February 2011
Trust?
LAWRRAG has no political allegiance, however on Thursday 6 August 2009 we posted the following:
Meeting with Shadow Transport Minister
On Monday 3rd August, a small delegation of local residents had a brief and informal meeting with Alec Shelbrooke, Conservative parliamentary candidate for this area, and Robert Goodwill MP, Shadow Transport Minister. The meeting was held in a lay-by on Leeds Road and above the noise of the traffic, and within feet of speeding HGV's, the concerns of local residents were outlined to Robert Goodwill who listened and commented understandingly.
Special thanks must be given to Alec Shelbrooke for arranging the meeting and for contributing positively on our behalf.
Both Robert Goodwill, and Alec Shelbrooke, were extremely scathing of the attitudes being shown by Leeds City Council, and the local Councillors, and if the Conservatives came to power things would be very different!
Meeting with Shadow Transport Minister
On Monday 3rd August, a small delegation of local residents had a brief and informal meeting with Alec Shelbrooke, Conservative parliamentary candidate for this area, and Robert Goodwill MP, Shadow Transport Minister. The meeting was held in a lay-by on Leeds Road and above the noise of the traffic, and within feet of speeding HGV's, the concerns of local residents were outlined to Robert Goodwill who listened and commented understandingly.
Special thanks must be given to Alec Shelbrooke for arranging the meeting and for contributing positively on our behalf.
Both Robert Goodwill, and Alec Shelbrooke, were extremely scathing of the attitudes being shown by Leeds City Council, and the local Councillors, and if the Conservatives came to power things would be very different!
Existing Guidelines and Policies
We have regularly made reference to existing guidelines and policies in place to protect individuals and communities from traffic noise and disturbance. Access to some of the key documents can be obtained through 'Useful Links' in the right hand column. At least one of our contributors works in the property development and design fields and is able to confirm that these policies are used on a daily basis by local authority planning departments throughout the country, to control development. One particularly relevent document is Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, and one simple and concise section from PPG 13 is section 46:
'...because of concerns over disturbance to residents'
Surely not the most difficult piece of text to understand?
Rothwell and District Record - Letter
We're pleased to say that the Rothwell and District Record still shows an interest in what we are doing. The following appeared as a letter in the February 2011 issue (Alec Shelbrook was asked for a comment on 22 December 2010, and the same email was also copied to Stewart Golton, neither has responded):
A642/A639 - What’s in store for 2011?
It should be said at the outset that both Councillor Golton and, Alec Shelbrooke MP were asked for a comment prior to this being written, but one month on replies are still awaited.
As a result of local campaign, well documented on our blog site, www.lawrrag.blogspot.com, in December 2004, after 12 months of denial, senior council officers confirmed (as if it was needed!) that there was a ‘serious speeding problem’ along the A642/A639, and something should be done about it.
The intervening six years have seen traffic volumes rise, average speeds increase, still no safe crossing point for students walking to Royds School, noise levels increase, higher numbers of HGV vehicles, and as of now probably a five-fold increase in the number of night time HGV vehicles speeding through the area. In the face of local concern one council officer even suggested that the speed limit could be increased! Prior to the opening of the East Leeds link road we suggested that this would result in even more high speed, and HGV traffic, we were told by the ’experts’ that it wouldn’t ………….. IT HAS!
Be it through arrogance, ignorance, or denial, Leeds City Council heads, officers, and those elected to serve the community are able to ignore all government guidelines relative to Planning, Transport, Highways, and the Environment that are already in place to protect communities from the issues we face, and have shown nothing but contempt for the rights and concerns of scores of local residents.
We were advised at one stage that more council time and effort had gone into looking at (?) this road than any other in the area, and we are expected to be grateful for this, the flashing ‘slow down’ signs, that make no difference whatsoever, and the introduction last year of mobile speed cameras patrols.
With regard to the mobile speed cameras, when the camera van is there, traffic speed within 100metres of the van, is well within the limit, but this has raised a number of questions such as:
• As the van is there so infrequently is it accepted that it is OK to speed 99.99% of the time?
• If a mobile speed camera results in a reduction in speeding, why not simply stick a more cost effective speed camera up? Or even simpler, just park an empty ‘marked-up’ van there!
If you ignore a problem for long enough one of two things usually happens, the problem either goes away, or it worsens, and with the current lack of concern, responsibility, and duty of care, this problem continues to head in one direction only!
A642/A639 - What’s in store for 2011?
It should be said at the outset that both Councillor Golton and, Alec Shelbrooke MP were asked for a comment prior to this being written, but one month on replies are still awaited.
As a result of local campaign, well documented on our blog site, www.lawrrag.blogspot.com, in December 2004, after 12 months of denial, senior council officers confirmed (as if it was needed!) that there was a ‘serious speeding problem’ along the A642/A639, and something should be done about it.
The intervening six years have seen traffic volumes rise, average speeds increase, still no safe crossing point for students walking to Royds School, noise levels increase, higher numbers of HGV vehicles, and as of now probably a five-fold increase in the number of night time HGV vehicles speeding through the area. In the face of local concern one council officer even suggested that the speed limit could be increased! Prior to the opening of the East Leeds link road we suggested that this would result in even more high speed, and HGV traffic, we were told by the ’experts’ that it wouldn’t ………….. IT HAS!
Be it through arrogance, ignorance, or denial, Leeds City Council heads, officers, and those elected to serve the community are able to ignore all government guidelines relative to Planning, Transport, Highways, and the Environment that are already in place to protect communities from the issues we face, and have shown nothing but contempt for the rights and concerns of scores of local residents.
We were advised at one stage that more council time and effort had gone into looking at (?) this road than any other in the area, and we are expected to be grateful for this, the flashing ‘slow down’ signs, that make no difference whatsoever, and the introduction last year of mobile speed cameras patrols.
With regard to the mobile speed cameras, when the camera van is there, traffic speed within 100metres of the van, is well within the limit, but this has raised a number of questions such as:
• As the van is there so infrequently is it accepted that it is OK to speed 99.99% of the time?
• If a mobile speed camera results in a reduction in speeding, why not simply stick a more cost effective speed camera up? Or even simpler, just park an empty ‘marked-up’ van there!
If you ignore a problem for long enough one of two things usually happens, the problem either goes away, or it worsens, and with the current lack of concern, responsibility, and duty of care, this problem continues to head in one direction only!
Thursday 20 January 2011
'Why are councillors important?'
The constant reference to councillors and their lack of support and action may bemuse or even offend some people but the truth of the matter is that it is councillors that hold the key. This has been expressed by MPs, and confirmed by the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside, 'that is what councillors are there for' we were told. Full support and concern has been expressed at key times, usually pre-election, but we have seen one councillor respond (those were the days) negatively to one of our requests, as a Leeds City Council employee - "We at Leeds City Council etc etc.........", and not as someone elected to SERVE the community.
The following first appeared as a post in July 2009 but is just as valid today -
The locally elected councillors have a key role to play in campaigns such as ours, the following is an extract from the Leeds City Council web page Councillors' roles and responsibilities -
Why are councillors important?
Leeds councillors provide a voice to the people living in the ward that they represent. They are aware of the needs of their community and are in touch with the issues that local people face.
As well as influencing council decisions on funding and development, they work with other organisations, such as the police, local schools and health services to help bring about improvements to services and the environment for their community.
Worth reading more than once!
The email contact details for our councillors are:
Stewart Golton - stewart.golton@leeds.gov.uk
Steve Smith - steve.cllr.smith@leeds.gov.uk
Don Wilson - donald.wilson@leeds.gov.uk
or they can be contacted on your behalf through Lawrrag.
To find out what's 'hot' and what the councillors are doing for the community check out their web sites - Stewart Golton Steve Smith Don Wilson
The following first appeared as a post in July 2009 but is just as valid today -
The locally elected councillors have a key role to play in campaigns such as ours, the following is an extract from the Leeds City Council web page Councillors' roles and responsibilities -
Why are councillors important?
Leeds councillors provide a voice to the people living in the ward that they represent. They are aware of the needs of their community and are in touch with the issues that local people face.
As well as influencing council decisions on funding and development, they work with other organisations, such as the police, local schools and health services to help bring about improvements to services and the environment for their community.
Worth reading more than once!
The email contact details for our councillors are:
Stewart Golton - stewart.golton@leeds.gov.uk
Steve Smith - steve.cllr.smith@leeds.gov.uk
Don Wilson - donald.wilson@leeds.gov.uk
or they can be contacted on your behalf through Lawrrag.
To find out what's 'hot' and what the councillors are doing for the community check out their web sites - Stewart Golton Steve Smith Don Wilson
Communication breakdown?
The following is the text from an email sent on 22 December 2010 to Alec Shelbrooke MP, and copied to Councillor Golton -
We have been asked to write a piece for the Rothwell and District Record by way of an update …
But as 2010 draws to a close, the only thing I have to say is that exactly 6 years after Brian and Walker met with ‘senior’ council officers, where they confirmed that there actually was a problem with speeding along the A642/A639 (WOW it only took them a year to work it out!), we now have a greater volume of high speed traffic and greater numbers of speeding night-time HGV vehicles than we did when the problem was ‘serious’, and nobody elected to serve the community gives a damn!
Yes we have flashing ‘slow down’ signs (what a waste of money), and we have the occasional mobile speed camera, which will no doubt be one of the first things to go in the ludicrous cuts, but
.. we now have a greater volume of high speed traffic and greater numbers of speeding night-time HGV vehicles than we did when the problem was ‘serious’.
I can add that the mobile speed camera does result on a reduction in speed, some of it just in time, but the lack of joined up thinking continues to baffle sensible thinking folk –
- As the van is only there occasionally does that mean that it Is OK to speed 99% of the time?
- If a mobile speed camera results in a reduction in speeding, why not stick a speed camera up? Or even simpler, just park an empty ‘marked-up’ van there!
It would be nice not to have to dwell on the ignorance, contempt, and arrogance shown by those in the council with regard to such matters as Planning, Highways, and Environmental directives already in place to protect communities, and to be able to include something positive.
if a reply is ever received it will be posted!
We have been asked to write a piece for the Rothwell and District Record by way of an update …
But as 2010 draws to a close, the only thing I have to say is that exactly 6 years after Brian and Walker met with ‘senior’ council officers, where they confirmed that there actually was a problem with speeding along the A642/A639 (WOW it only took them a year to work it out!), we now have a greater volume of high speed traffic and greater numbers of speeding night-time HGV vehicles than we did when the problem was ‘serious’, and nobody elected to serve the community gives a damn!
Yes we have flashing ‘slow down’ signs (what a waste of money), and we have the occasional mobile speed camera, which will no doubt be one of the first things to go in the ludicrous cuts, but
.. we now have a greater volume of high speed traffic and greater numbers of speeding night-time HGV vehicles than we did when the problem was ‘serious’.
I can add that the mobile speed camera does result on a reduction in speed, some of it just in time, but the lack of joined up thinking continues to baffle sensible thinking folk –
- As the van is only there occasionally does that mean that it Is OK to speed 99% of the time?
- If a mobile speed camera results in a reduction in speeding, why not stick a speed camera up? Or even simpler, just park an empty ‘marked-up’ van there!
It would be nice not to have to dwell on the ignorance, contempt, and arrogance shown by those in the council with regard to such matters as Planning, Highways, and Environmental directives already in place to protect communities, and to be able to include something positive.
if a reply is ever received it will be posted!