| JOIN THE DEBATE | |  | | | | | NEWS | | | | | | WEST HAM | | | | SOUTHEND UNITED | | |
|
|
|
Updated: Priory Crescent rethink
 |
| Saved -- the Saxon king site |
SOUTHEND Council has ordered a complete rethink of the controversial Priory Crescent widening scheme and slashed its costs in half.
Leader Nigel Holdcroft admitted there was "no hope in the foreseeable future" of completing the project, which had been agreed after a three-week public inquiry nearly two years ago.
Costs for the proposed dual carriageway had escalated to about £20million, but a new plan will reduce this to an estimated £10.8million. The new proposal has been worked up by Mr Holdcroft and Anna Waite, former council leader and now cabinet member for planning.
Under the scheme, the dual carriageway in Priory Crescent would only extend from Cuckoo Corner to the Lookers garage site, and will not affect the former burial ground of the Saxon king - where "Camp Bling" protesters have set up.
Beyond Lookers, the road will be single carriageway, meaning there will be no need for a new railway bridge as originally planned.
Mrs Waite said: "We have had talks with senior officers from the Department for Transport, who have indicated that the scheme should be acceptable and funding should be available.
"I have made it clear this is not the end of the needs we have in Southend and we will be coming forward in the future with proposals for other improvements at junctions along the A127.
"Upgrading Southend's transport infrastructure is vitally important for the future of our town.
"However, as well as looking at this, we want to safeguard and enhance the site of the Saxon king's burial as a commemorative area for the town. Protecting our heritage is one of our key concerns."
Mr Holdcroft added: "I and my colleagues have recently had considerable concerns about the effect of the proposed road on the Saxon King burial site.
"While the actual burial chamber is no longer there, we are proud of its significance in the history of the town and it is now our intention to preserve it for the future of the town."
He said a suitable piece of art reflecting the history of the Saxon king would be commissioned for the spot, and it would be landscaped appropriately.
He added: "It is possible there will need to be other achaeological explorations of the site."
FULL REACTION AND ANALYSIS IN THURSDAY'S ECHO
9:51am Thursday 21st June 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Mike, Southend on 10:06am Wed 20 Jun 07
What? A U-turn by Southend Council? Listening to the people? I'm in total shock, and happy that they appear to have seen sense...
What? A U-turn by Southend Council? Listening to the people? I'm in total shock, and happy that they appear to have seen sense...
Posted by: Ladysmith, Southend on 10:09am Wed 20 Jun 07
So the proesters have won. Southend Council has no backbone at all. The silent majority of people in the town believe the road scheme should go ahead. Where is the council that stands up for ths silent majority?
So the proesters have won. Southend Council has no backbone at all. The silent majority of people in the town believe the road scheme should go ahead. Where is the council that stands up for ths silent majority?
Posted by: Mr Picky, Southend on Sea on 10:35am Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Ladysmith[/bold] wrote:
So the proesters have won. Southend Council has no backbone at all. The silent majority of people in the town believe the road scheme should go ahead. Where is the council that stands up for ths silent majority?[/quote] How do you know the majority of people in the town want the scheme ?
Have you been round knocking at everyone's doors asking them all ?
Ladysmith wrote:
So the proesters have won. Southend Council has no backbone at all. The silent majority of people in the town believe the road scheme should go ahead. Where is the council that stands up for ths silent majority?
How do you know the majority of people in the town want the scheme ?
Have you been round knocking at everyone's doors asking them all ?
Posted by: Mr Picky, Southend on Sea on 10:37am Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Mike[/bold] wrote:
What? A U-turn by Southend Council? Listening to the people? I'm in total shock, and happy that they appear to have seen sense...[/quote] Don't lets rejoice yet Mike, Southend Council quite often "speak with forked tongue" !!!!
Mike wrote:
What? A U-turn by Southend Council? Listening to the people? I'm in total shock, and happy that they appear to have seen sense...
Don't lets rejoice yet Mike, Southend Council quite often "speak with forked tongue" !!!!
Posted by: Ian G, Southend on 10:46am Wed 20 Jun 07
I doubt if the council saw sense. They just knew the government wouldn't release the money, and quite right too.
Complete waste of time and effort. Huge cost, huge environmental damage, very little gain.
Everyone but the Tories on Southend council have been able to see that for ages.
I doubt if the council saw sense. They just knew the government wouldn't release the money, and quite right too.
Complete waste of time and effort. Huge cost, huge environmental damage, very little gain.
Everyone but the Tories on Southend council have been able to see that for ages.
Posted by: traffic queue, cuckoo corner on 10:54am Wed 20 Jun 07
how can anyone comment on this without seeing what the revised plans are? come on echo give us a bit more info!
how can anyone comment on this without seeing what the revised plans are? come on echo give us a bit more info!
Posted by: Dan, north leigh on 11:12am Wed 20 Jun 07
'major changes'? Hopefully that means it will still go ahead in some form then?
'major changes'? Hopefully that means it will still go ahead in some form then?
Posted by: m the tory on 11:31am Wed 20 Jun 07
Ah ha,
It will still go ahead, in a way that will cut costs so it slides through the politically run Dept of Transport. The DoT is more interested in scummy little labour voting protesters than a road and the people of the east end of this town. How could we develop Fossetts without a decent road. This would be seen as madness anywhere in the world! They will revise the plans enough to get funding and the road will go through, unless the Tories will nationally then the scabby protesters will be bulldozed. Oh, I await that day.
Ah ha,
It will still go ahead, in a way that will cut costs so it slides through the politically run Dept of Transport. The DoT is more interested in scummy little labour voting protesters than a road and the people of the east end of this town. How could we develop Fossetts without a decent road. This would be seen as madness anywhere in the world! They will revise the plans enough to get funding and the road will go through, unless the Tories will nationally then the scabby protesters will be bulldozed. Oh, I await that day.
Posted by: The Hunk, Southend on 11:45am Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Ian G[/bold] wrote:
I doubt if the council saw sense. They just knew the government wouldn't release the money, and quite right too. Complete waste of time and effort. Huge cost, huge environmental damage, very little gain. Everyone but the Tories on Southend council have been able to see that for ages.[/quote] Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally.
When the torys got in they proceded with the plans only for the two faced lib & labs to start bleating on about the loss of the park.
Ian G wrote:
I doubt if the council saw sense. They just knew the government wouldn't release the money, and quite right too. Complete waste of time and effort. Huge cost, huge environmental damage, very little gain. Everyone but the Tories on Southend council have been able to see that for ages.
Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally.
When the torys got in they proceded with the plans only for the two faced lib & labs to start bleating on about the loss of the park.
Posted by: Julian Ware-Lane, Leigh-on-Sea on 12:41pm Wed 20 Jun 07
I am pleased that the Saxon burial ground is to be left alone. However, there is still the issue of whether the integrity of Priory Park will be guaranteed. Any scheme is likely to lead to the loss of trees and I would like to see a promise for a compensating tree-planting regime.
I am pleased that the Saxon burial ground is to be left alone. However, there is still the issue of whether the integrity of Priory Park will be guaranteed. Any scheme is likely to lead to the loss of trees and I would like to see a promise for a compensating tree-planting regime.
Posted by: Cityboy, Southend on 12:52pm Wed 20 Jun 07
This is always a tough one as we do need the road very badly but on the otherhand the park was a gift to the town and we should not continually chip away at the few open spaces the town has.It is a shame funds are not available for an underpass or to cut and cover?Is this unrealistic?
This is always a tough one as we do need the road very badly but on the otherhand the park was a gift to the town and we should not continually chip away at the few open spaces the town has.It is a shame funds are not available for an underpass or to cut and cover?Is this unrealistic?
Posted by: leo, westcliff on 12:57pm Wed 20 Jun 07
if you are opposed to the road and want the site of Saxon King preserved yes for the future kids and people from around the world could come and look haw much cash will that bring in to the town ....Southend's traffic problems?stop billding houses one houes = 1 to 2+ cars im disliexik and thats what i see
if you are opposed to the road and want the site of Saxon King preserved yes for the future kids and people from around the world could come and look haw much cash will that bring in to the town ....Southend's traffic problems?stop billding houses one houes = 1 to 2+ cars im disliexik and thats what i see
Posted by: Gary, Southchurch on 1:08pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Rather puzzled why anyone would want to travel across the world to see a hole thats as empty as the Camp Bling supporters clubs arguments. If they were really concerned about the trees how come they've damaged those within their protest area by building huts etc in them ?
Rather puzzled why anyone would want to travel across the world to see a hole thats as empty as the Camp Bling supporters clubs arguments. If they were really concerned about the trees how come they've damaged those within their protest area by building huts etc in them ?
Posted by: Maree on 1:23pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Some realism needs to be seen here. On one hand we have road protesters who have come to the town and are not a national campaign to stop road expansion. These are supported by some genuine people (usually not living in the East end of town), and people with an interest in not seeing the road expanded.
On the other hand you have the people of the East end of town who are often caught in traffic on Priory Crescent on weekends, rush hours and other times. You never know how long it is going to take to get around the Crescent. One day it will be three minutes, and another twenty minutes. The East of town also needs good roads for economic expansion. In what country does one expand development for employment (Fossetts) without fixing the roads? The shopping centres will be choaked by traffic caught on Priory Crescent.
As for the Saxon King, was he not removed? So, what do we have there now, a hole in the ground? Using that logic, as a historian I can recommend we dig up half of Southend and London for the sake of history. The reality is that we have always built over history. At least now we take care to remove anything important and preserve it.
Since when was that little bit of land a park? As far as I know, there is vacant land with rubbish all over it (called Camp Bling), and a car dealership, an industrial estate and some houses. The park is on the other side of the road. Thus, what is the loss?
About time some common sense shone through and we had appropriate development similar to all modern economies instead of interest groups highjacking the future of others for political campaigns.
The road would have been promised to the developers who have moved into the East of town, thus it will happen. Lets just get on with it and turn Southend into a fantastic place for families to grow up, live and work. For what we need development.
Some realism needs to be seen here. On one hand we have road protesters who have come to the town and are not a national campaign to stop road expansion. These are supported by some genuine people (usually not living in the East end of town), and people with an interest in not seeing the road expanded.
On the other hand you have the people of the East end of town who are often caught in traffic on Priory Crescent on weekends, rush hours and other times. You never know how long it is going to take to get around the Crescent. One day it will be three minutes, and another twenty minutes. The East of town also needs good roads for economic expansion. In what country does one expand development for employment (Fossetts) without fixing the roads? The shopping centres will be choaked by traffic caught on Priory Crescent.
As for the Saxon King, was he not removed? So, what do we have there now, a hole in the ground? Using that logic, as a historian I can recommend we dig up half of Southend and London for the sake of history. The reality is that we have always built over history. At least now we take care to remove anything important and preserve it.
Since when was that little bit of land a park? As far as I know, there is vacant land with rubbish all over it (called Camp Bling), and a car dealership, an industrial estate and some houses. The park is on the other side of the road. Thus, what is the loss?
About time some common sense shone through and we had appropriate development similar to all modern economies instead of interest groups highjacking the future of others for political campaigns.
The road would have been promised to the developers who have moved into the East of town, thus it will happen. Lets just get on with it and turn Southend into a fantastic place for families to grow up, live and work. For what we need development.
Posted by: G Public, Southend on 2:01pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Perhaps I'm being stupid but will someone please explain to me how it will help the traffic congestion to dual a short stretch of road, which when completed will still leave people stuck at the lights at The Bell?
When I drive on the A127 at busy times, that stretch of road is the least of my worries. The A127 is clogged to death as it is. Spending a fortune dualling one small part is never going to stop that - getting rid of (somehow) some of the traffic lights will.
Progress Road coming into town is far worse that Priory Crescent.
Perhaps I'm being stupid but will someone please explain to me how it will help the traffic congestion to dual a short stretch of road, which when completed will still leave people stuck at the lights at The Bell?
When I drive on the A127 at busy times, that stretch of road is the least of my worries. The A127 is clogged to death as it is. Spending a fortune dualling one small part is never going to stop that - getting rid of (somehow) some of the traffic lights will.
Progress Road coming into town is far worse that Priory Crescent.
Posted by: Stuart, Leigh on 2:02pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Hmm. So much there that isn't true!
First, Priory Park IS affected. All the mature trees between the park and the current road are scheduled for the chop. It's pretty obvious when you think about it - the extra lane is hardly going to be in the front gardens of the houses on the other side of the road!
Secondly, people from all over the town, east and west, wish to save the trees and the park. It doesn't mean that they like the congestion, or don't want to solve it - but this is the wrong plan. It's is stunningly incorrect to assume that only those in the East are affected, and should therefore be the only ones allowed an opinion.
In my opinion, something needs to be done, but this isn't it. Sorting out Priory Crescent will just move the problem to the Bell. And we also have peak-time problems further down the road, too - Tesco, Kent Elms & Progress Road for example.
That's not to say that the alternatives are much better. A northern relief road seems like a good idea, but it would have to go well north of Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford and would have to join up with the A130. Would anyone use it to go to the east of Southend from the A127 & A13?
A cut and cover at Priory Park, or a series of underpasses, will cut Southend in two. Eastwood is already a little isolated across Kent Elms, and will only become more so if the A127 is one long underpass. I don't think we have the road space for the necessary slip roads, either.
We need some more innovative solutions, and public transport could form part of these. Going to Chelmsford? How about a rail link from between Benfleet & Pitsea going north to Chelmsford? How about a Canvey spur / station? Could we bury a road along the seafront? How about a man-made lagoon created by a "sea road"? Some of these are expensive, some may be completely impractical - but all, I suggest, are better than the proposal we have got
Hmm. So much there that isn't true!
First, Priory Park IS affected. All the mature trees between the park and the current road are scheduled for the chop. It's pretty obvious when you think about it - the extra lane is hardly going to be in the front gardens of the houses on the other side of the road!
Secondly, people from all over the town, east and west, wish to save the trees and the park. It doesn't mean that they like the congestion, or don't want to solve it - but this is the wrong plan. It's is stunningly incorrect to assume that only those in the East are affected, and should therefore be the only ones allowed an opinion.
In my opinion, something needs to be done, but this isn't it. Sorting out Priory Crescent will just move the problem to the Bell. And we also have peak-time problems further down the road, too - Tesco, Kent Elms & Progress Road for example.
That's not to say that the alternatives are much better. A northern relief road seems like a good idea, but it would have to go well north of Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford and would have to join up with the A130. Would anyone use it to go to the east of Southend from the A127 & A13?
A cut and cover at Priory Park, or a series of underpasses, will cut Southend in two. Eastwood is already a little isolated across Kent Elms, and will only become more so if the A127 is one long underpass. I don't think we have the road space for the necessary slip roads, either.
We need some more innovative solutions, and public transport could form part of these. Going to Chelmsford? How about a rail link from between Benfleet & Pitsea going north to Chelmsford? How about a Canvey spur / station? Could we bury a road along the seafront? How about a man-made lagoon created by a "sea road"? Some of these are expensive, some may be completely impractical - but all, I suggest, are better than the proposal we have got
Posted by: The Hunk, Southend on 2:11pm Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Julian Ware-Lane[/bold] wrote:
I am pleased that the Saxon burial ground is to be left alone. However, there is still the issue of whether the integrity of Priory Park will be guaranteed. Any scheme is likely to lead to the loss of trees and I would like to see a promise for a compensating tree-planting regime.[/quote] For anyone who has actually followed the story and just just jumping on the populist bandwaggon on the anti protest you will knopw that the Torys said that for every one tree cut down TWO would be planted thus dubbling the number of trees.
As for the Saxon King the site was toumb site was cleard of remains there is nothing left in that plot.
Camp bling residents are desicrating the site by living on it in thire shanty town, these people do not have the right to live on the site and should be evicted, they make that part of town look like a third world refugee camp, they dont speak for me or anyone I know the sooner we see the back of the tree huggers the better, sadly they will probably just move on to the next big building project and cause havoc there.
Julian Ware-Lane wrote:
I am pleased that the Saxon burial ground is to be left alone. However, there is still the issue of whether the integrity of Priory Park will be guaranteed. Any scheme is likely to lead to the loss of trees and I would like to see a promise for a compensating tree-planting regime.
For anyone who has actually followed the story and just just jumping on the populist bandwaggon on the anti protest you will knopw that the Torys said that for every one tree cut down TWO would be planted thus dubbling the number of trees.
As for the Saxon King the site was toumb site was cleard of remains there is nothing left in that plot.
Camp bling residents are desicrating the site by living on it in thire shanty town, these people do not have the right to live on the site and should be evicted, they make that part of town look like a third world refugee camp, they dont speak for me or anyone I know the sooner we see the back of the tree huggers the better, sadly they will probably just move on to the next big building project and cause havoc there.
Posted by: G Public, Southend on 2:30pm Wed 20 Jun 07
The Hunk - are the 'tree huggers' not just taking action about something they really believe in? I give them respect for doing that.
I wouldn't say they were causing havoc there at all - although I did drive past the other day and saw one venturing outside his tent with his top off - you'd think that he'd show some respect for locals and stay inside ;-)
Maybe there should be a fresh poll on the subject online by the echo to see what percentage Do and Don't want the road to go ahead.
Your a Tory Boy so must have a feel about what the General Public want and not just what developers and brown envelopes want.
The Hunk - are the 'tree huggers' not just taking action about something they really believe in? I give them respect for doing that.
I wouldn't say they were causing havoc there at all - although I did drive past the other day and saw one venturing outside his tent with his top off - you'd think that he'd show some respect for locals and stay inside ;-)
Maybe there should be a fresh poll on the subject online by the echo to see what percentage Do and Don't want the road to go ahead.
Your a Tory Boy so must have a feel about what the General Public want and not just what developers and brown envelopes want.
Posted by: Maree on 2:51pm Wed 20 Jun 07
A poll is a great idea. The problem is that unless you make it compulsory for all residents of voting age, polls degerate into interest group polls. This is why in Australia it is compulsory for all people over the age of 18 to vote in every poll.
As for a newspaper having a poll, all you will get is interest groups (usually those who wish to stop something) mobilise and vote. The majority of voters never vote. This is why the polls are not taken seriously.
This was the case with the anti-road poll. No credible polster would have conducted it the way it was done. Road protester in the centre of town approaching people. Out of academic interest I watched it for a couple of hours while enjoying a coffee. They approached people, most told them where to go, some were convinced and signed. Do this long enough and you have 20000 anti votes out of a regional population of over 240000 adults. This is less than one in ten and not credible.
A poll is a great idea. The problem is that unless you make it compulsory for all residents of voting age, polls degerate into interest group polls. This is why in Australia it is compulsory for all people over the age of 18 to vote in every poll.
As for a newspaper having a poll, all you will get is interest groups (usually those who wish to stop something) mobilise and vote. The majority of voters never vote. This is why the polls are not taken seriously.
This was the case with the anti-road poll. No credible polster would have conducted it the way it was done. Road protester in the centre of town approaching people. Out of academic interest I watched it for a couple of hours while enjoying a coffee. They approached people, most told them where to go, some were convinced and signed. Do this long enough and you have 20000 anti votes out of a regional population of over 240000 adults. This is less than one in ten and not credible.
Posted by: Dan, north leigh on 2:52pm Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]leo[/bold] wrote:
if you are opposed to the road and want the site of Saxon King preserved yes for the future kids and people from around the world could come and look haw much cash will that bring in to the town ....Southend's traffic problems?stop billding houses one houes = 1 to 2+ cars im disliexik and thats what i see
[/quote] dyslexic or not, you have no vision for the long run. It is estimated 345,000 new homes have to be built in the UK each year in order to merely stabilise the ridiculously out of countrol housing market. You can't merely 'stop' building houses.
The area occupied by Camp Bling was never an integral part of the park, just an overgrown area. The saxon king and his artefacts have been removed to where they can be better appreciated and protected, and there is no real impediment to expanding the road other than expense.
G Public, there may still be the same problems with traffic lights as before, but in dualing the stretch of road, you still add the benefit of being able to have twice as many cars on the same length of road as before, thus reducing tailbacks and accommodating more vehicles, think about it.
leo wrote:
if you are opposed to the road and want the site of Saxon King preserved yes for the future kids and people from around the world could come and look haw much cash will that bring in to the town ....Southend's traffic problems?stop billding houses one houes = 1 to 2+ cars im disliexik and thats what i see
dyslexic or not, you have no vision for the long run. It is estimated 345,000 new homes have to be built in the UK each year in order to merely stabilise the ridiculously out of countrol housing market. You can't merely 'stop' building houses.
The area occupied by Camp Bling was never an integral part of the park, just an overgrown area. The saxon king and his artefacts have been removed to where they can be better appreciated and protected, and there is no real impediment to expanding the road other than expense.
G Public, there may still be the same problems with traffic lights as before, but in dualing the stretch of road, you still add the benefit of being able to have twice as many cars on the same length of road as before, thus reducing tailbacks and accommodating more vehicles, think about it.
Posted by: Stuart, Leigh on 3:21pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Hunk,
Cutting down mature trees and replacing them with immature trees, whether two or ten, is not the same thing at all.
Hunk,
Cutting down mature trees and replacing them with immature trees, whether two or ten, is not the same thing at all.
Posted by: Dave, Southend on 3:33pm Wed 20 Jun 07
As someone who lives within 300 yards of priory park and who uses the park every week Im still in favour of the development.
Just because the improvement wont fix all the issues of congestion into Southend doesnt mean it shouldnt go ahead.
After all the Rayleigh Weir didnt solve all the problems but who would have said that we shouldnt have made that change.
Build the road, I care nothing for the "burial site" which is empty, nor the loss of a few of the trees which will be replaced anyway.
The park can afford to lose its fringe.
As someone who lives within 300 yards of priory park and who uses the park every week Im still in favour of the development.
Just because the improvement wont fix all the issues of congestion into Southend doesnt mean it shouldnt go ahead.
After all the Rayleigh Weir didnt solve all the problems but who would have said that we shouldnt have made that change.
Build the road, I care nothing for the "burial site" which is empty, nor the loss of a few of the trees which will be replaced anyway.
The park can afford to lose its fringe.
Posted by: Dissapointed, Southend on 3:34pm Wed 20 Jun 07
If the Saxon burial area is now safe, evict the dole spungers from camp Bling! I suppose thats gonna cost us tax payers too?
If the Saxon burial area is now safe, evict the dole spungers from camp Bling! I suppose thats gonna cost us tax payers too?
Posted by: Denis Walker, Prittlewell on 4:01pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Having seen the (rather sketchy) new proposal that the Council has put forward today, I can only assume this is a rather feeble attempt to save face now they've realised the DfT aren't going to cough up £27m for the original proposal. They are proposing to dual only the stretch between Cuckoo Corner and the car dealership (formerly Lookers).
It was highly doubtful that the original scheme was going to do anything to improve the traffic flow on Priory Crescent. The new one definitely won't. It will, however, result in 47 trees being chopped down and something like £10m of tax payers' money being wasted.
As others have commented above, the traffic problems are created at the junctions, not the roads in between - and then, only at peak times. I was at Priory Crescent just after 2pm today (having my photo taken for this very story by an Echo photographer, in fact) and the traffic was flowing fine. It was only when the school run traffic started appearing at 3:30 that anyone was even having to slow down.
The solution is not to widen the road, but to reduce the number of vehicles using it. Just think what that £10m the Council wants to spend on 400m of road could do if it was spent on Southend's buses!
Having seen the (rather sketchy) new proposal that the Council has put forward today, I can only assume this is a rather feeble attempt to save face now they've realised the DfT aren't going to cough up £27m for the original proposal. They are proposing to dual only the stretch between Cuckoo Corner and the car dealership (formerly Lookers).
It was highly doubtful that the original scheme was going to do anything to improve the traffic flow on Priory Crescent. The new one definitely won't. It will, however, result in 47 trees being chopped down and something like £10m of tax payers' money being wasted.
As others have commented above, the traffic problems are created at the junctions, not the roads in between - and then, only at peak times. I was at Priory Crescent just after 2pm today (having my photo taken for this very story by an Echo photographer, in fact) and the traffic was flowing fine. It was only when the school run traffic started appearing at 3:30 that anyone was even having to slow down.
The solution is not to widen the road, but to reduce the number of vehicles using it. Just think what that £10m the Council wants to spend on 400m of road could do if it was spent on Southend's buses!
Posted by: Mike Newton former Tory, Shoeburyness on 4:08pm Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Denis Walker[/bold] wrote:
Having seen the (rather sketchy) new proposal that the Council has put forward today, I can only assume this is a rather feeble attempt to save face now they\'ve realised the DfT aren\'t going to cough up £27m for the original proposal. They are proposing to dual only the stretch between Cuckoo Corner and the car dealership (formerly Lookers). It was highly doubtful that the original scheme was going to do anything to improve the traffic flow on Priory Crescent. The new one definitely won\'t. It will, however, result in 47 trees being chopped down and something like £10m of tax payers\' money being wasted. As others have commented above, the traffic problems are created at the junctions, not the roads in between - and then, only at peak times. I was at Priory Crescent just after 2pm today (having my photo taken for this very story by an Echo photographer, in fact) and the traffic was flowing fine. It was only when the school run traffic started appearing at 3:30 that anyone was even having to slow down. The solution is not to widen the road, but to reduce the number of vehicles using it. Just think what that £10m the Council wants to spend on 400m of road could do if it was spent on Southend\'s buses![/quote] [bold]Spot on! The new leader of the council should be ashamed of himself. His own administration has, for the past 10 years, campaigned vigorously for this project, insisting there is no alternative. Tinkering with the current layout, which is planned, will do nothing. I wonder what Charles Latham and Roger Weaver, who both suffered significant abusive threats as a result of their support for this scheme have to say. It seems the new leader has sold the people of Southend East down the river. If the Labour government wanted to say no, that is one thing. But for our own tory council leader to do it on their behalf is simply wrong. Remember Mr Holdcroft Mrs Waite and Mr Foster were chucked out. You can be to.[/bold]
Denis Walker wrote:
Having seen the (rather sketchy) new proposal that the Council has put forward today, I can only assume this is a rather feeble attempt to save face now they\'ve realised the DfT aren\'t going to cough up £27m for the original proposal. They are proposing to dual only the stretch between Cuckoo Corner and the car dealership (formerly Lookers). It was highly doubtful that the original scheme was going to do anything to improve the traffic flow on Priory Crescent. The new one definitely won\'t. It will, however, result in 47 trees being chopped down and something like £10m of tax payers\' money being wasted. As others have commented above, the traffic problems are created at the junctions, not the roads in between - and then, only at peak times. I was at Priory Crescent just after 2pm today (having my photo taken for this very story by an Echo photographer, in fact) and the traffic was flowing fine. It was only when the school run traffic started appearing at 3:30 that anyone was even having to slow down. The solution is not to widen the road, but to reduce the number of vehicles using it. Just think what that £10m the Council wants to spend on 400m of road could do if it was spent on Southend\'s buses!
Spot on! The new leader of the council should be ashamed of himself. His own administration has, for the past 10 years, campaigned vigorously for this project, insisting there is no alternative. Tinkering with the current layout, which is planned, will do nothing. I wonder what Charles Latham and Roger Weaver, who both suffered significant abusive threats as a result of their support for this scheme have to say. It seems the new leader has sold the people of Southend East down the river. If the Labour government wanted to say no, that is one thing. But for our own tory council leader to do it on their behalf is simply wrong. Remember Mr Holdcroft Mrs Waite and Mr Foster were chucked out. You can be to. Posted by: Brian, Thorpe Bay on 4:16pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Priory Crescent must be widened. Surely the long term damange of static traffic churning out exhaust fumes will cause more environmental damage than flowing traffic. The loss of a few trees to the road development when there will still be so many in the park is irrelevant. As for Camp Bling we should pour concrete on that eyesore right now.
Priory Crescent must be widened. Surely the long term damange of static traffic churning out exhaust fumes will cause more environmental damage than flowing traffic. The loss of a few trees to the road development when there will still be so many in the park is irrelevant. As for Camp Bling we should pour concrete on that eyesore right now.
Posted by: Paul Frankman, Southend, Southend on 4:16pm Wed 20 Jun 07
"We also have major concerns about the loss of the Saxon King site and have listened to what the people of the town have been saying."
[bold]bold[/bold] YOU MEAN YOU HAVE CAVED IN TO THE PROTESTERS. TERRIBLE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE SILENT MAJORITY IN THIS TOWN BELIEVE THE ROAD SCHEME SHOULD GO AHEAD. THOSE AT CAMP BLING SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVICTED LONG AGO. THEY BREACH FIRE REGULATIONS, HAVE PUT UP ILLEGAL BUILDINGS AND EVEN HAVE KIDS LIVING THERE. THE COUNCIL HAS PROVED AGAIN THAT IT DOES NOT ACT FOR THE MAJORITY. HOLDCROFT IS WRONG. IF THE DUALLING OF PRIORY CRES IS NOT GRASPED THEN ALL THE TALK ABOUT SOLVING TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON THE A127 WILL NEVER HAPPEN
"We also have major concerns about the loss of the Saxon King site and have listened to what the people of the town have been saying."
YOU MEAN YOU HAVE CAVED IN TO THE PROTESTERS. TERRIBLE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE SILENT MAJORITY IN THIS TOWN BELIEVE THE ROAD SCHEME SHOULD GO AHEAD. THOSE AT CAMP BLING SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVICTED LONG AGO. THEY BREACH FIRE REGULATIONS, HAVE PUT UP ILLEGAL BUILDINGS AND EVEN HAVE KIDS LIVING THERE. THE COUNCIL HAS PROVED AGAIN THAT IT DOES NOT ACT FOR THE MAJORITY. HOLDCROFT IS WRONG. IF THE DUALLING OF PRIORY CRES IS NOT GRASPED THEN ALL THE TALK ABOUT SOLVING TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON THE A127 WILL NEVER HAPPEN
Posted by: R.Burrill, Southend on 4:21pm Wed 20 Jun 07
This is no u turn, this is defeat for the time being. In 2000 there was a bid for £14.5 million for the Priory Crescent scheme together with a new bus station and improvements to the A13 corridor. Cost increases to all three elements have since increased the gross total which was last reported publicly by the Council as £29.657 million in its second Local Transport Plan publised in July 2005. The Council has made an application to Gevernment for further funds and this is being considered on its merits and in the light of the appraisal criteria applied by the Department of Transport. So this Tory Council wants us to think that this is a u turn. It is not a u turn but a defeat until it is eventually approved. Tory Councils have never done anything worthwile for this town which I have seen decline since the last war.
This is no u turn, this is defeat for the time being. In 2000 there was a bid for £14.5 million for the Priory Crescent scheme together with a new bus station and improvements to the A13 corridor. Cost increases to all three elements have since increased the gross total which was last reported publicly by the Council as £29.657 million in its second Local Transport Plan publised in July 2005. The Council has made an application to Gevernment for further funds and this is being considered on its merits and in the light of the appraisal criteria applied by the Department of Transport. So this Tory Council wants us to think that this is a u turn. It is not a u turn but a defeat until it is eventually approved. Tory Councils have never done anything worthwile for this town which I have seen decline since the last war.
Posted by: G Public, southend on 4:30pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Dan North leigh - sorry mate call me a doofus but what you said still doesn't realy answer my question.
If you travel out of Southend and put more cars at cookoo corner by widening the road - the vast majority are going to go straight over onto the lights at the Bell and so on. How is that going to make congestion better? Also as most of the cars go straight over towards London- would not the majority of the lane turning right toward Rochford be very empty, while the left lane toward london is totally full - the same as what it is now. To pull out at that roundabout you have to be pretty quick on the pedal at peak times. I don't see widening that part curing the problem. Having 2 lanes going straight over would mean losing the slip road coming from Victoria avenue - causing congestion there.
Thats my ramble over anyway!
I think the problem lies elsewhere in my opinion.
Dan North leigh - sorry mate call me a doofus but what you said still doesn't realy answer my question.
If you travel out of Southend and put more cars at cookoo corner by widening the road - the vast majority are going to go straight over onto the lights at the Bell and so on. How is that going to make congestion better? Also as most of the cars go straight over towards London- would not the majority of the lane turning right toward Rochford be very empty, while the left lane toward london is totally full - the same as what it is now. To pull out at that roundabout you have to be pretty quick on the pedal at peak times. I don't see widening that part curing the problem. Having 2 lanes going straight over would mean losing the slip road coming from Victoria avenue - causing congestion there.
Thats my ramble over anyway!
I think the problem lies elsewhere in my opinion.
Posted by: Mark Stimpson, Leigh, Leigh on 4:31pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Haven't the protesters built tunnels under the saxon king's burial ground anyway? DUAL-CARRIAGEWAY SHOULD GO AHEAD. DONT WASTE MONEY ON SHORT-TERM FIXES THAT WONT WORK
Haven't the protesters built tunnels under the saxon king's burial ground anyway? DUAL-CARRIAGEWAY SHOULD GO AHEAD. DONT WASTE MONEY ON SHORT-TERM FIXES THAT WONT WORK
Posted by: maree on 4:36pm Wed 20 Jun 07
The problem is the immense traffic that builds back along artillary way towards Fossetts Farm on Weekends or from 710 to 10am on weekdays, or evenings. It is a problem and a bottle neck that will only get much worse with with the development creating jobs and better services along by Fossetts. Time to solve it and build the road.
The problem is the immense traffic that builds back along artillary way towards Fossetts Farm on Weekends or from 710 to 10am on weekdays, or evenings. It is a problem and a bottle neck that will only get much worse with with the development creating jobs and better services along by Fossetts. Time to solve it and build the road.
Posted by: Ian G, Southend on 4:53pm Wed 20 Jun 07
"Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally."
When this was debated at a public meating prior to the 2001 election, current Labour group leader Chris Dandridge argued against and current Tory portfolio holder Anna Waite argued for. I guess time has shown who's right and who's wrong.
The simple fact is that the Tories have been defending the indefensible for years. I'd go so far as to say that no Labour councillor currently on Southend council has EVER supported this stupid idea.
"Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally."
When this was debated at a public meating prior to the 2001 election, current Labour group leader Chris Dandridge argued against and current Tory portfolio holder Anna Waite argued for. I guess time has shown who's right and who's wrong.
The simple fact is that the Tories have been defending the indefensible for years. I'd go so far as to say that no Labour councillor currently on Southend council has EVER supported this stupid idea.
Posted by: Denis Walker, Prittlewell on 4:54pm Wed 20 Jun 07
"Is Nigel Holdcroft right to scale back the Priory Crescent road widening scheme in Southend?" You seem to have missed out the "No, he should have scrapped it altogether" option.
"Is Nigel Holdcroft right to scale back the Priory Crescent road widening scheme in Southend?" You seem to have missed out the "No, he should have scrapped it altogether" option.
Posted by: Stuart, Leigh on 4:57pm Wed 20 Jun 07
I agree that there is a problem, Maree. I just don't agree that this is the solution. It is a short piece of road in an isolated place. Sure, it can hold twice as many cars as now, but those cars still need to get onto the roundabout at Cuckoo Corner, as G Public says. So you fill up your nice shiny road, and then what? Traffic jams again. Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but almost certainly the year after that! And that doesn't even begin to account for the knock-on effects at the Bell.
What is needed is an innovative solution, or more probably a mix of solutions, because one solution won't apply to everybody. So:
- do people need to drive? Where do they go? Could public transport (more / more frequent buses, trains, etc) be the answer? What about cycleways?
- could an underpass be built through the park, minimising the impact on the park (although not while it was being built!)
- if they do need to drive, are there alternative routes? Northern relief road, perhaps? Maybe a carrot & stick - tolled / congestion charged through the town to encourage traffic to take the longer, more out of the way, but faster road to the north?
- why go north? I floated the idea in an earlier message of a road out at sea. This could go from the Ness past the pierhead and join up with an upgraded Canvey Way and free-flow interchange with A13/A130. An additional junction on Canvey could also then be the start of a new Thames crossing past Gillingam onto the M2.
None of these things have been considered, so far as I can see - the road widening is the only scheme on the table - and they ought to be.
People like us - not just councillors and officials - ought to be encouraged to think up solutions like this, not solely roads-at-all-costs car solutions, but not anti-car either (we nearly all have one, even if we'd rather not). A mixed package would work, if we but had the courage to insist on one.
I agree that there is a problem, Maree. I just don't agree that this is the solution. It is a short piece of road in an isolated place. Sure, it can hold twice as many cars as now, but those cars still need to get onto the roundabout at Cuckoo Corner, as G Public says. So you fill up your nice shiny road, and then what? Traffic jams again. Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but almost certainly the year after that! And that doesn't even begin to account for the knock-on effects at the Bell.
What is needed is an innovative solution, or more probably a mix of solutions, because one solution won't apply to everybody. So:
- do people need to drive? Where do they go? Could public transport (more / more frequent buses, trains, etc) be the answer? What about cycleways?
- could an underpass be built through the park, minimising the impact on the park (although not while it was being built!)
- if they do need to drive, are there alternative routes? Northern relief road, perhaps? Maybe a carrot & stick - tolled / congestion charged through the town to encourage traffic to take the longer, more out of the way, but faster road to the north?
- why go north? I floated the idea in an earlier message of a road out at sea. This could go from the Ness past the pierhead and join up with an upgraded Canvey Way and free-flow interchange with A13/A130. An additional junction on Canvey could also then be the start of a new Thames crossing past Gillingam onto the M2.
None of these things have been considered, so far as I can see - the road widening is the only scheme on the table - and they ought to be.
People like us - not just councillors and officials - ought to be encouraged to think up solutions like this, not solely roads-at-all-costs car solutions, but not anti-car either (we nearly all have one, even if we'd rather not). A mixed package would work, if we but had the courage to insist on one.
Posted by: Stuart, Leigh on 4:59pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Oh, and I should have said that cost shouldn't be an issue - let's not mess around with half-schemes, let's design the thing properly and build it once.
Oh, and I should have said that cost shouldn't be an issue - let's not mess around with half-schemes, let's design the thing properly and build it once.
Posted by: Denis Walker, Prittlewell on 5:00pm Wed 20 Jun 07
@Ian G: This whole thing about the scheme being a "Lib/Lab" idea is a joke. It was one of over 40 ideas they put forward for consultation and have never supported it. As you say, it's the Tories who have been pushing this scheme all the way along and it's only now that the DfT have told them they can't have the money that they've had to do some quick thinking to come up with [bold]something[/bold] in order to try and save face.
@Ian G: This whole thing about the scheme being a "Lib/Lab" idea is a joke. It was one of over 40 ideas they put forward for consultation and have never supported it. As you say, it's the Tories who have been pushing this scheme all the way along and it's only now that the DfT have told them they can't have the money that they've had to do some quick thinking to come up with
something in order to try and save face.
Posted by: b on 5:10pm Wed 20 Jun 07
I cannot understand why the council does not make Priory Crescent into a one way system. The northern part of Priory Crescent for traffic moving to the east and the southern section for traffic moving west. I appreciate that the junctions with Victoria Avenue will need major alterations but it will cost a lot less than £27 million.
I cannot understand why the council does not make Priory Crescent into a one way system. The northern part of Priory Crescent for traffic moving to the east and the southern section for traffic moving west. I appreciate that the junctions with Victoria Avenue will need major alterations but it will cost a lot less than £27 million.
Posted by: Maree on 5:16pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Stuart, totally agree. The whole situation is a total mess. I don't understand why the intersection area at Progress Road is only two lanes. A few years back they did work on it but left it two lanes. In Australia it would be three lanes for the 1000 yards back towards Rayleigh to help traffic flow. Why are we so backwards but pay double the tax?
When you live down this end of town though, it is obvious Priory Cres needs doubling. You simply can't get around it to go anywhere. For example, I have stopped going to Tesco becuase of Priory Cres. What is going to happen with the new Comet, BandQ and other stores? I can't understand why it is such an issue. It takes years to build a building that is needed and years to build a road. Can't people see that this holds back the economy, jobs and a modern town?
Stuart, totally agree. The whole situation is a total mess. I don't understand why the intersection area at Progress Road is only two lanes. A few years back they did work on it but left it two lanes. In Australia it would be three lanes for the 1000 yards back towards Rayleigh to help traffic flow. Why are we so backwards but pay double the tax?
When you live down this end of town though, it is obvious Priory Cres needs doubling. You simply can't get around it to go anywhere. For example, I have stopped going to Tesco becuase of Priory Cres. What is going to happen with the new Comet, BandQ and other stores? I can't understand why it is such an issue. It takes years to build a building that is needed and years to build a road. Can't people see that this holds back the economy, jobs and a modern town?
Posted by: maree on 5:19pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Ah, the poll now shows 2/3rds for scaling back the road. The protesting network is getting off the ground then! I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get thousands around England to click the button or rig a computer and keep signing in. In fact, I might do that and make it 100 percent against scaling the road back. Very easy.
Ah, the poll now shows 2/3rds for scaling back the road. The protesting network is getting off the ground then! I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get thousands around England to click the button or rig a computer and keep signing in. In fact, I might do that and make it 100 percent against scaling the road back. Very easy.
Posted by: Insider, Southend on 5:22pm Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Ian G[/bold] wrote:
"Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally." When this was debated at a public meating prior to the 2001 election, current Labour group leader Chris Dandridge argued against and current Tory portfolio holder Anna Waite argued for. I guess time has shown who's right and who's wrong. The simple fact is that the Tories have been defending the indefensible for years. I'd go so far as to say that no Labour councillor currently on Southend council has EVER supported this stupid idea.[/quote] Absolute rubbish. I remember back in the late 1990s when the leader of the Labour group on Southend Council sat through meetings on this very subject and said nothing. It's worth remembering that the Lib Dem/Labour administration lost their majority mainly because of the campaign against bus lanes on the A13 which they signed up to. Dualling Priory Crescent was part of this plan. They DID sign up to it. I remember the then Lib Dem chairman of the planning and transport cttee, jean sibley telling a public meeting that the dualling of priory crescent was one of three "evil" sins that had to be dealt with. Labour did not say anything against it when the scheme was proposed. Therefore because it was proposed by their administration, you would tend to think they would be in favour.It was only when they lost that Lib Dems and Labour turned their backs.
Ian G wrote:
"Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally." When this was debated at a public meating prior to the 2001 election, current Labour group leader Chris Dandridge argued against and current Tory portfolio holder Anna Waite argued for. I guess time has shown who's right and who's wrong. The simple fact is that the Tories have been defending the indefensible for years. I'd go so far as to say that no Labour councillor currently on Southend council has EVER supported this stupid idea.
Absolute rubbish. I remember back in the late 1990s when the leader of the Labour group on Southend Council sat through meetings on this very subject and said nothing. It's worth remembering that the Lib Dem/Labour administration lost their majority mainly because of the campaign against bus lanes on the A13 which they signed up to. Dualling Priory Crescent was part of this plan. They DID sign up to it. I remember the then Lib Dem chairman of the planning and transport cttee, jean sibley telling a public meeting that the dualling of priory crescent was one of three "evil" sins that had to be dealt with. Labour did not say anything against it when the scheme was proposed. Therefore because it was proposed by their administration, you would tend to think they would be in favour.It was only when they lost that Lib Dems and Labour turned their backs.
Posted by: Mike, Southend on 5:25pm Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]maree[/bold] wrote:
Ah, the poll now shows 2/3rds for scaling back the road. The protesting network is getting off the ground then! I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get thousands around England to click the button or rig a computer and keep signing in. In fact, I might do that and make it 100 percent against scaling the road back. Very easy.[/quote] Talk about paranoia....If it goes against what you want you just revert to cheating tactics. Tory voter by any chance??
maree wrote:
Ah, the poll now shows 2/3rds for scaling back the road. The protesting network is getting off the ground then! I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get thousands around England to click the button or rig a computer and keep signing in. In fact, I might do that and make it 100 percent against scaling the road back. Very easy.
Talk about paranoia....If it goes against what you want you just revert to cheating tactics. Tory voter by any chance??
Posted by: Maree on 5:31pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Not paranoia, but reality. Have you seen the website of those who wish to save Priory Park (although the park won't be touched). Well set up. Fake polls and pictures taken when, wow, no cars on Priory Cres. I am yet to see not a single car on Priory Cres. They must have been up at dawn in the middle of the summer holidays and very quickly took a shot between cars!
Not paranoia, but reality. Have you seen the website of those who wish to save Priory Park (although the park won't be touched). Well set up. Fake polls and pictures taken when, wow, no cars on Priory Cres. I am yet to see not a single car on Priory Cres. They must have been up at dawn in the middle of the summer holidays and very quickly took a shot between cars!
Posted by: The Hunk, Southend on 6:20pm Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Insider[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Ian G[/bold] wrote: \"Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally.\" When this was debated at a public meating prior to the 2001 election, current Labour group leader Chris Dandridge argued against and current Tory portfolio holder Anna Waite argued for. I guess time has shown who\'s right and who\'s wrong. The simple fact is that the Tories have been defending the indefensible for years. I\'d go so far as to say that no Labour councillor currently on Southend council has EVER supported this stupid idea.[/quote] Absolute rubbish. I remember back in the late 1990s when the leader of the Labour group on Southend Council sat through meetings on this very subject and said nothing. It\'s worth remembering that the Lib Dem/Labour administration lost their majority mainly because of the campaign against bus lanes on the A13 which they signed up to. Dualling Priory Crescent was part of this plan. They DID sign up to it. I remember the then Lib Dem chairman of the planning and transport cttee, jean sibley telling a public meeting that the dualling of priory crescent was one of three \"evil\" sins that had to be dealt with. Labour did not say anything against it when the scheme was proposed. Therefore because it was proposed by their administration, you would tend to think they would be in favour.It was only when they lost that Lib Dems and Labour turned their backs.[/quote] Thank You Insider, I am not the only one who knows who started the F5 project, people have selective memories and only rember the things that they want if its something they DONT like they re-wite history to suit themselfs (American war films!)
I was just about to go and sift through some of my old echos to check I was right, got some from the 70's still!
Typical of the Lib Lab to [bold]conveneniantly[/bold]forget it was thier parties that priginally proposed the road, like you said they were all for it untill they lost control of Southend.
Its about time that this fact was highlighted.
Insider wrote:
Ian G wrote: \"Could I point out the fact that when the town was under the dictatorship of the Lib-Lab pact it was actually them that put the proposals of the F5 road forward originally.\" When this was debated at a public meating prior to the 2001 election, current Labour group leader Chris Dandridge argued against and current Tory portfolio holder Anna Waite argued for. I guess time has shown who\'s right and who\'s wrong. The simple fact is that the Tories have been defending the indefensible for years. I\'d go so far as to say that no Labour councillor currently on Southend council has EVER supported this stupid idea.
Absolute rubbish. I remember back in the late 1990s when the leader of the Labour group on Southend Council sat through meetings on this very subject and said nothing. It\'s worth remembering that the Lib Dem/Labour administration lost their majority mainly because of the campaign against bus lanes on the A13 which they signed up to. Dualling Priory Crescent was part of this plan. They DID sign up to it. I remember the then Lib Dem chairman of the planning and transport cttee, jean sibley telling a public meeting that the dualling of priory crescent was one of three \"evil\" sins that had to be dealt with. Labour did not say anything against it when the scheme was proposed. Therefore because it was proposed by their administration, you would tend to think they would be in favour.It was only when they lost that Lib Dems and Labour turned their backs.
Thank You Insider, I am not the only one who knows who started the F5 project, people have selective memories and only rember the things that they want if its something they DONT like they re-wite history to suit themselfs (American war films!)
I was just about to go and sift through some of my old echos to check I was right, got some from the 70's still!
Typical of the Lib Lab to
conveneniantlyforget it was thier parties that priginally proposed the road, like you said they were all for it untill they lost control of Southend.
Its about time that this fact was highlighted.
Posted by: FredaG, southend on 6:33pm Wed 20 Jun 07
A U-turn - I doubt it, this is Southend Council after all. Wait to see the revised plans. Why the fixation by the council on Priory Crescent anyway? It will only move the problem further up. Will they leave the trees - I wonder - remember Gunners Park! Seems to me the Council find somewhere that will give funding and try their best to find anything that fits it rather than thinking what the town really needs and then try to find the funding for it. This town needs a lot more than just a new road.
A U-turn - I doubt it, this is Southend Council after all. Wait to see the revised plans. Why the fixation by the council on Priory Crescent anyway? It will only move the problem further up. Will they leave the trees - I wonder - remember Gunners Park! Seems to me the Council find somewhere that will give funding and try their best to find anything that fits it rather than thinking what the town really needs and then try to find the funding for it. This town needs a lot more than just a new road.
Posted by: Maree on 6:48pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Just saw the tosser from the site on Look East. Don't give in Council. I pay my Council Tax and vote, that protesting tosser doesn't!
Just saw the tosser from the site on Look East. Don't give in Council. I pay my Council Tax and vote, that protesting tosser doesn't!
Posted by: manintheshed on 11:34pm Wed 20 Jun 07
the road may or may not relieve the congestion, you can be sure the cost will increase several times over if it is built. More roads only encourages use of cars at a time when, environmentally, this is a bad idea. The M25 was open only a short while before it became congested, extra lanes are being built but will soon be full, the same will happen here.
Why cant Priory Crescent be one way from Cuckoo corner to the railway bridge and one way from the bridge to the lights at the junction with Victoria ave/Fairfax Drive? This would ease congestion by providing two lanes each way and cheaper too AND save the trees, which are mature and replacement with saplings is not the same at all.
the road may or may not relieve the congestion, you can be sure the cost will increase several times over if it is built. More roads only encourages use of cars at a time when, environmentally, this is a bad idea. The M25 was open only a short while before it became congested, extra lanes are being built but will soon be full, the same will happen here.
Why cant Priory Crescent be one way from Cuckoo corner to the railway bridge and one way from the bridge to the lights at the junction with Victoria ave/Fairfax Drive? This would ease congestion by providing two lanes each way and cheaper too AND save the trees, which are mature and replacement with saplings is not the same at all.
Posted by: Maree on 11:47pm Wed 20 Jun 07
[quote][bold]manintheshed[/bold] wrote:
the road may or may not relieve the congestion, you can be sure the cost will increase several times over if it is built. More roads only encourages use of cars at a time when, environmentally, this is a bad idea. The M25 was open only a short while before it became congested, extra lanes are being built but will soon be full, the same will happen here. Why cant Priory Crescent be one way from Cuckoo corner to the railway bridge and one way from the bridge to the lights at the junction with Victoria ave/Fairfax Drive? This would ease congestion by providing two lanes each way and cheaper too AND save the trees, which are mature and replacement with saplings is not the same at all. [/quote] Please explain what you mean by your oneway system. Two lanes going oneway, then how do you get back though Priory Cres?
manintheshed wrote:
the road may or may not relieve the congestion, you can be sure the cost will increase several times over if it is built. More roads only encourages use of cars at a time when, environmentally, this is a bad idea. The M25 was open only a short while before it became congested, extra lanes are being built but will soon be full, the same will happen here. Why cant Priory Crescent be one way from Cuckoo corner to the railway bridge and one way from the bridge to the lights at the junction with Victoria ave/Fairfax Drive? This would ease congestion by providing two lanes each way and cheaper too AND save the trees, which are mature and replacement with saplings is not the same at all.
Please explain what you mean by your oneway system. Two lanes going oneway, then how do you get back though Priory Cres?
Posted by: maree on 11:54pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Ah yes, I see what you mean now I have read it twice. Alas, I can't see it happening as the people who would have a busy road diverted down their street would go bonkers and protest against the change in road designation. Secondly, they could win at the eventual planning inquiry due to how dangerous other roads like this are. Check out Central Avenue. Nutters use it as a rat run and it is designated a oneway B road out of town. It is only time until a kid is killed walking between parked cars and nutters driving down a narrow street at 40 or so miles an hour. Locals such as myself are lucky to drive down the road at 30 if lucky due to knowing the dangers.
Good idea though
Ah yes, I see what you mean now I have read it twice. Alas, I can't see it happening as the people who would have a busy road diverted down their street would go bonkers and protest against the change in road designation. Secondly, they could win at the eventual planning inquiry due to how dangerous other roads like this are. Check out Central Avenue. Nutters use it as a rat run and it is designated a oneway B road out of town. It is only time until a kid is killed walking between parked cars and nutters driving down a narrow street at 40 or so miles an hour. Locals such as myself are lucky to drive down the road at 30 if lucky due to knowing the dangers.
Good idea though
Posted by: Council worker, Southend on 1:02am Thu 21 Jun 07
So here we have the new Leader of the Council doing the Government's bidding. Nice of him to keep batting for Southend like he said he was going to do.
This is a symptom of the rotten state of Southend Borough Council. Instead of doing what is right and standing by his guns about Priory Crescent, the leader has simply caved into pressure from Whitehall mandarins and protesters at Camp Bling AT THE EXPENSE of what most people in Southend want and need. I am disgusted by this council I really am. We have a chief executive who is inward looking and obsessed by things that happen within the council rather than actually providing the services to the people that matter. Now we have a leader who is willing to concede defeat a the behest of the Labour gvnt which, let's face it, doesn't really to invest in Tory Southend.
I do believe the road scheme would have worked. It would have eased the congestion at cuckoo corner but i accept it would push the problem onto the Bell. But this council has had TEN years while the scheme was considered to come with a tangible plan to dovetail with it to deal with those other junctions. Unfortunately we have an inward looking council led by a very poor chief executive and now a Leader who gives the impression of being strong but is, at the firs stroke, willing to roll over for the Labour government at the expense of the people he represents. Holdcroft should be ashamed of himself.
So here we have the new Leader of the Council doing the Government's bidding. Nice of him to keep batting for Southend like he said he was going to do.
This is a symptom of the rotten state of Southend Borough Council. Instead of doing what is right and standing by his guns about Priory Crescent, the leader has simply caved into pressure from Whitehall mandarins and protesters at Camp Bling AT THE EXPENSE of what most people in Southend want and need. I am disgusted by this council I really am. We have a chief executive who is inward looking and obsessed by things that happen within the council rather than actually providing the services to the people that matter. Now we have a leader who is willing to concede defeat a the behest of the Labour gvnt which, let's face it, doesn't really to invest in Tory Southend.
I do believe the road scheme would have worked. It would have eased the congestion at cuckoo corner but i accept it would push the problem onto the Bell. But this council has had TEN years while the scheme was considered to come with a tangible plan to dovetail with it to deal with those other junctions. Unfortunately we have an inward looking council led by a very poor chief executive and now a Leader who gives the impression of being strong but is, at the firs stroke, willing to roll over for the Labour government at the expense of the people he represents. Holdcroft should be ashamed of himself.
Posted by: ML on 4:48am Thu 21 Jun 07
I have it on good authority that it does not matter how valid the need for the road is, and how many inquiries have approved of the road, the Labour dominated Department for Transport will never release the money as it needs it for the Labour London Boroughs for the Olympics. This is why our politicians are shaming us and coming up with this silly compramise. BULLDOZE THE AREA AND GIVE US OUR ROAD. DON'T LET MINORITY GROUPS WIN JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW.
I have it on good authority that it does not matter how valid the need for the road is, and how many inquiries have approved of the road, the Labour dominated Department for Transport will never release the money as it needs it for the Labour London Boroughs for the Olympics. This is why our politicians are shaming us and coming up with this silly compramise. BULLDOZE THE AREA AND GIVE US OUR ROAD. DON'T LET MINORITY GROUPS WIN JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW.
Posted by: JB, Southchurch on 4:50am Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]m the tory[/bold] wrote:
Ah ha, It will still go ahead, in a way that will cut costs so it slides through the politically run Dept of Transport. The DoT is more interested in scummy little labour voting protesters than a road and the people of the east end of this town. How could we develop Fossetts without a decent road. This would be seen as madness anywhere in the world! They will revise the plans enough to get funding and the road will go through, unless the Tories will nationally then the scabby protesters will be bulldozed. Oh, I await that day.[/quote] Me to. I cant wait for the next local election. There is one scabby little Labour **** left in our ward. Time to get rid of that ******* to.
m the tory wrote:
Ah ha, It will still go ahead, in a way that will cut costs so it slides through the politically run Dept of Transport. The DoT is more interested in scummy little labour voting protesters than a road and the people of the east end of this town. How could we develop Fossetts without a decent road. This would be seen as madness anywhere in the world! They will revise the plans enough to get funding and the road will go through, unless the Tories will nationally then the scabby protesters will be bulldozed. Oh, I await that day.
Me to. I cant wait for the next local election. There is one scabby little Labour **** left in our ward. Time to get rid of that ******* to.
Posted by: Janet, southchurch on 4:56am Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]FredaG[/bold] wrote:
A U-turn - I doubt it, this is Southend Council after all. Wait to see the revised plans. Why the fixation by the council on Priory Crescent anyway? It will only move the problem further up. Will they leave the trees - I wonder - remember Gunners Park! Seems to me the Council find somewhere that will give funding and try their best to find anything that fits it rather than thinking what the town really needs and then try to find the funding for it. This town needs a lot more than just a new road.[/quote] Nice bullshit. How are u going to solve the jam around Priory Cres. Or don't you have to sit in it everyday with the threat of loosing your job if you are late?
FredaG wrote:
A U-turn - I doubt it, this is Southend Council after all. Wait to see the revised plans. Why the fixation by the council on Priory Crescent anyway? It will only move the problem further up. Will they leave the trees - I wonder - remember Gunners Park! Seems to me the Council find somewhere that will give funding and try their best to find anything that fits it rather than thinking what the town really needs and then try to find the funding for it. This town needs a lot more than just a new road.
Nice bullshit. How are u going to solve the jam around Priory Cres. Or don't you have to sit in it everyday with the threat of loosing your job if you are late?
Posted by: Sue, thorpe bay on 4:59am Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Ian G[/bold] wrote:
I doubt if the council saw sense. They just knew the government wouldn't release the money, and quite right too. Complete waste of time and effort. Huge cost, huge environmental damage, very little gain. Everyone but the Tories on Southend council have been able to see that for ages.[/quote] Well what do you suggest to solve the problem around Priory Crescent. I know, lets all catch buses. It is obvious it does not affect you so go away and take your little theories somewhere else.
Ian G wrote:
I doubt if the council saw sense. They just knew the government wouldn't release the money, and quite right too. Complete waste of time and effort. Huge cost, huge environmental damage, very little gain. Everyone but the Tories on Southend council have been able to see that for ages.
Well what do you suggest to solve the problem around Priory Crescent. I know, lets all catch buses. It is obvious it does not affect you so go away and take your little theories somewhere else.
Posted by: Maree on 5:02am Thu 21 Jun 07
Let me guess The Echo line on this. 'Successful protesters save town.' Oh, and let me guess, the town is against the road, the protesters have saved the day and the pictures of Priory Crescent show no cars on the Crescent! The local rag has its little story of the little guy standing up to 'the man.' Classic local rag story.
Let me guess The Echo line on this. 'Successful protesters save town.' Oh, and let me guess, the town is against the road, the protesters have saved the day and the pictures of Priory Crescent show no cars on the Crescent! The local rag has its little story of the little guy standing up to 'the man.' Classic local rag story.
Posted by: Andrew, Great Wakering on 5:13am Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Stuart[/bold] wrote:
I agree that there is a problem, Maree. I just don't agree that this is the solution. It is a short piece of road in an isolated place. Sure, it can hold twice as many cars as now, but those cars still need to get onto the roundabout at Cuckoo Corner, as G Public says. So you fill up your nice shiny road, and then what? Traffic jams again. Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but almost certainly the year after that! And that doesn't even begin to account for the knock-on effects at the Bell. What is needed is an innovative solution, or more probably a mix of solutions, because one solution won't apply to everybody. So: - do people need to drive? Where do they go? Could public transport (more / more frequent buses, trains, etc) be the answer? What about cycleways? - could an underpass be built through the park, minimising the impact on the park (although not while it was being built!) - if they do need to drive, are there alternative routes? Northern relief road, perhaps? Maybe a carrot & stick - tolled / congestion charged through the town to encourage traffic to take the longer, more out of the way, but faster road to the north? - why go north? I floated the idea in an earlier message of a road out at sea. This could go from the Ness past the pierhead and join up with an upgraded Canvey Way and free-flow interchange with A13/A130. An additional junction on Canvey could also then be the start of a new Thames crossing past Gillingam onto the M2. None of these things have been considered, so far as I can see - the road widening is the only scheme on the table - and they ought to be. People like us - not just councillors and officials - ought to be encouraged to think up solutions like this, not solely roads-at-all-costs car solutions, but not anti-car either (we nearly all have one, even if we'd rather not). A mixed package would work, if we but had the courage to insist on one.[/quote] So wine and cheese. Pie in the sky. Real solutions for now..Build our road. Why is this so hard in England?
Stuart wrote:
I agree that there is a problem, Maree. I just don't agree that this is the solution. It is a short piece of road in an isolated place. Sure, it can hold twice as many cars as now, but those cars still need to get onto the roundabout at Cuckoo Corner, as G Public says. So you fill up your nice shiny road, and then what? Traffic jams again. Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but almost certainly the year after that! And that doesn't even begin to account for the knock-on effects at the Bell. What is needed is an innovative solution, or more probably a mix of solutions, because one solution won't apply to everybody. So: - do people need to drive? Where do they go? Could public transport (more / more frequent buses, trains, etc) be the answer? What about cycleways? - could an underpass be built through the park, minimising the impact on the park (although not while it was being built!) - if they do need to drive, are there alternative routes? Northern relief road, perhaps? Maybe a carrot & stick - tolled / congestion charged through the town to encourage traffic to take the longer, more out of the way, but faster road to the north? - why go north? I floated the idea in an earlier message of a road out at sea. This could go from the Ness past the pierhead and join up with an upgraded Canvey Way and free-flow interchange with A13/A130. An additional junction on Canvey could also then be the start of a new Thames crossing past Gillingam onto the M2. None of these things have been considered, so far as I can see - the road widening is the only scheme on the table - and they ought to be. People like us - not just councillors and officials - ought to be encouraged to think up solutions like this, not solely roads-at-all-costs car solutions, but not anti-car either (we nearly all have one, even if we'd rather not). A mixed package would work, if we but had the courage to insist on one.
So wine and cheese. Pie in the sky. Real solutions for now..Build our road. Why is this so hard in England?
Posted by: Mike on 5:17am Thu 21 Jun 07
Where are our little protesters at this hour? I am up getting ready to beat the traffic around Priory Crescent. Where are those little ****s. Give us our road and don't give the protesters what they want. It is a disgrace the Council might be acting like cowards.
Where are our little protesters at this hour? I am up getting ready to beat the traffic around Priory Crescent. Where are those little ****s. Give us our road and don't give the protesters what they want. It is a disgrace the Council might be acting like cowards.
Posted by: Beanie, Leigh-on-Sea on 7:25am Thu 21 Jun 07
I think this scheme will produce virtually no benefit. At each end of the road is a roundabout. It is these roudnabouts (especially the one at Cuckoo corner) that causes the problem. Dualing this section meands more cars get to the roundabouts more quickly. Do the dualing plans include modifications to the Cuckoo Corner roundabout?
I think this scheme will produce virtually no benefit. At each end of the road is a roundabout. It is these roudnabouts (especially the one at Cuckoo corner) that causes the problem. Dualing this section meands more cars get to the roundabouts more quickly. Do the dualing plans include modifications to the Cuckoo Corner roundabout?
Posted by: A Ratepayer on 7:52am Thu 21 Jun 07
Having read the updated article it would appear that the costs have been reduced by half because only half of Priory Crescent will be dual carriageway !
Beyond Lookers it will be a single carriageway.
What is the point ? It won't solve anything like this.
Either do it properly or don't bother. We don't need another half arsed scheme.
Its such a ridiculous idea that I am surprised Renaissance Southend didn't think it up after spending £200k on consultants !
Having read the updated article it would appear that the costs have been reduced by half beca
