Get involved...
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Updated: Priory Crescent rethink
9:51am Thursday 21st June 2007
Comments (103) Have your say »
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
Your Say YourEcho
Ladysmith, Southend says...
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?
Mr Picky, Southend on Sea says...
10:35am Wed 20 Jun 07
Ladysmith wrote:How do you know the majority of people in the town want the scheme ?
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?
Have you been round knocking at everyone's doors asking them all ?
Mr Picky, Southend on Sea says...
10:37am Wed 20 Jun 07
Mike wrote:Don't lets rejoice yet Mike, Southend Council quite often "speak with forked tongue" !!!!
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...
Ian G, Southend says...
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.
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.
traffic queue, cuckoo corner says...
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!
Dan, north leigh says...
11:12am Wed 20 Jun 07
'major changes'? Hopefully that means it will still go ahead in some form then?
m the tory, says...
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.
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.
The Hunk, Southend says...
11:45am Wed 20 Jun 07
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.
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.
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.
Julian Ware-Lane, Leigh-on-Sea says...
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.
Cityboy, Southend says...
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?
leo, westcliff says...
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
Gary, Southchurch says...
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 ?
Maree, says...
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.
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.
G Public, Southend says...
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.
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.
Stuart, Leigh says...
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
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
The Hunk, Southend says...
2:11pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Julian Ware-Lane wrote: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.
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.
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.
G Public, Southend says...
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.
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.
Maree, says...
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.
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.
Dan, north leigh says...
2:52pm Wed 20 Jun 07
leo wrote: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.
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
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.
Stuart, Leigh says...
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.
Cutting down mature trees and replacing them with immature trees, whether two or ten, is not the same thing at all.
Dave, Southend says...
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.
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.
Dissapointed, Southend says...
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?
Denis Walker, Prittlewell says...
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!
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!
Mike Newton former Tory, Shoeburyness says...
4:08pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Denis Walker wrote: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.
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!
Brian, Thorpe Bay says...
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.
Paul Frankman, Southend, Southend says...
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."
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
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
R.Burrill, Southend says...
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.
G Public, southend says...
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.
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.
Mark Stimpson, Leigh, Leigh says...
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
maree, says...
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.
Ian G, Southend says...
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.
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.
Denis Walker, Prittlewell says...
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.
Stuart, Leigh says...
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.
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.
Stuart, Leigh says...
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.
Denis Walker, Prittlewell says...
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 something in order to try and save face.
b, says...
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.
Maree, says...
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?
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?
maree, says...
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.
Insider, Southend says...
5:22pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Ian G wrote: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.
"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.
Mike, Southend says...
5:25pm Wed 20 Jun 07
maree wrote:Talk about paranoia....If it goes against what you want you just revert to cheating tactics. Tory voter by any chance??
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.
Maree, says...
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!
The Hunk, Southend says...
6:20pm Wed 20 Jun 07
Insider wrote: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!)
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.
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.
FredaG, southend says...
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.
Maree, says...
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!
manintheshed, says...
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.
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.
Maree, says...
11:47pm Wed 20 Jun 07
manintheshed wrote:Please explain what you mean by your oneway system. Two lanes going oneway, then how do you get back though Priory Cres?
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.
maree, says...
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
Good idea though
Council worker, Southend says...
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.
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.
ML, says...
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.
JB, Southchurch says...
4:50am Thu 21 Jun 07
m the tory wrote: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.
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.
Janet, southchurch says...
4:56am Thu 21 Jun 07
FredaG wrote: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?
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.
Sue, thorpe bay says...
4:59am Thu 21 Jun 07
Ian G wrote: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.
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.
Maree, says...
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.
Andrew, Great Wakering says...
5:13am Thu 21 Jun 07
Stuart wrote:So wine and cheese. Pie in the sky. Real solutions for now..Build our road. Why is this so hard in England?
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.
Mike, says...
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.
Beanie, Leigh-on-Sea says...
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?
A Ratepayer, says...
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 !
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 !
Shirley Smith, Southend says...
9:08am Thu 21 Jun 07
I don't see this as a U turn at all. It's fantastic that the Saxon site will be saved, but creating a bottleneck will make the traffic worse at that spot; and will we still lose part of our park?
The best idea all round would be to introduce a one way system around the park which would cost even less!
The best idea all round would be to introduce a one way system around the park which would cost even less!
shoebueylad, shoebury says...
9:36am Thu 21 Jun 07
Firstly the council did not have a rethink and decide to cut the scheme - the government would not give them the money needed to do it. If the Government gave them the money we would have the dual carriage way all the way through.
HOWEVER you could have a 6 lane highway from shoebury to cuckoo corner it would not make a difference as long as there are roundabouts at cuckoo corner and the bell.
I think there are going to be a few red faces once this scheme is completed and people are still queuing to come out of priory crescent - the only way to end this problem is an under or over pass.
If any of you travel into london on the new a13 you'll see how quickly you can now travel from dagenham to Mile End - get to Mile End and the jams start again because of the junctions nad lights.
Id like to sit down with someone from the council and have it explained to me how this be the end to any traffic jams, persaonally I think this road is more to do with getting traffic to the new stadium/shoppong centre, which is bizarre as there's not going to be enough car parking spaces!!
HOWEVER you could have a 6 lane highway from shoebury to cuckoo corner it would not make a difference as long as there are roundabouts at cuckoo corner and the bell.
I think there are going to be a few red faces once this scheme is completed and people are still queuing to come out of priory crescent - the only way to end this problem is an under or over pass.
If any of you travel into london on the new a13 you'll see how quickly you can now travel from dagenham to Mile End - get to Mile End and the jams start again because of the junctions nad lights.
Id like to sit down with someone from the council and have it explained to me how this be the end to any traffic jams, persaonally I think this road is more to do with getting traffic to the new stadium/shoppong centre, which is bizarre as there's not going to be enough car parking spaces!!
gt, Southend says...
9:37am Thu 21 Jun 07
Some alternative headlines to this mornings ECHO front page:-
SILENT MAJORITY HELD HOSTAGE BY ECO MINORITY.
GUTLESS COUNCIL GIVE IN TO SELF INTEREST GROUP.
TOWN'S FUTURE THROWN DOWN A HOLE IN THE GROUND.
CLEAR UP, PACK UP AND GO
TOWN'S PROSPERITY TRIPPED UP BY EMPTY HOLE IN THE GROUND.
TAXPAYERS MONEY THROWN DOWN A HOLE.
ECO HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO BOUNDS.
SOUTHEND WEST CHOKES TO DEATH BY ECO STRANGLE HOLD.
SILENT MAJORITY HELD HOSTAGE BY ECO MINORITY.
GUTLESS COUNCIL GIVE IN TO SELF INTEREST GROUP.
TOWN'S FUTURE THROWN DOWN A HOLE IN THE GROUND.
CLEAR UP, PACK UP AND GO
TOWN'S PROSPERITY TRIPPED UP BY EMPTY HOLE IN THE GROUND.
TAXPAYERS MONEY THROWN DOWN A HOLE.
ECO HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO BOUNDS.
SOUTHEND WEST CHOKES TO DEATH BY ECO STRANGLE HOLD.
Michael, Southend says...
9:41am Thu 21 Jun 07
Is the Saxon site really empty? One hole dug, one grave found and removed. What else is there? Many graves were destroyed by non-archeological road builders when the original road was built (visit Southend Museum to see the remains). Roman finds have been found all over that site - now destroyed under Aldi's. What else is there still to be found/destroyed by this proposed road?
There is no point in either this new proposed scheme, or the original. Dualling the road doesn't get rid of the cause of the congestion, which is the roundabouts at either end (and volume of traffic). Road building at Priory Crescent is just car park creation for the traffic jam! Double the lanes and halve the length of the queue, which then travels at half the speed!
There are only two real solutions to the congestion problem; neither are being planned. They need to either ease the traffic flow along the whole A127/A1159 route by removing the roundabouts/places you have to stop; or reduce the traffic volume by getting people to not drive (i.e. invest in public transport).
Regards the "silent majority want the road" quote that keeps cropping up. I thought it was the other way round. The silent majority don't want the road but you don't hear them as they are silent. The only voices heard are the vocal minority who think that building new roads is the magic solution to their journey delays.
For what it's worth, I never encounter any congestion in Priory Crescent. Give me a wave next time you're there - I'll be either on my motorbike or bicycle and whizzing past all you car drivers :-D (yup, I made my congestion reducing choices long ago)
There is no point in either this new proposed scheme, or the original. Dualling the road doesn't get rid of the cause of the congestion, which is the roundabouts at either end (and volume of traffic). Road building at Priory Crescent is just car park creation for the traffic jam! Double the lanes and halve the length of the queue, which then travels at half the speed!
There are only two real solutions to the congestion problem; neither are being planned. They need to either ease the traffic flow along the whole A127/A1159 route by removing the roundabouts/places you have to stop; or reduce the traffic volume by getting people to not drive (i.e. invest in public transport).
Regards the "silent majority want the road" quote that keeps cropping up. I thought it was the other way round. The silent majority don't want the road but you don't hear them as they are silent. The only voices heard are the vocal minority who think that building new roads is the magic solution to their journey delays.
For what it's worth, I never encounter any congestion in Priory Crescent. Give me a wave next time you're there - I'll be either on my motorbike or bicycle and whizzing past all you car drivers :-D (yup, I made my congestion reducing choices long ago)
The Hunk, Southend says...
9:54am Thu 21 Jun 07
See the front page of the echo is proclaming a great victory for camp smelly things,
They have not won a thing, sadly the echo has always been siding with the anti brigade, they hardly ever give a truely balanced view its the same with thier political view.
The tree huggers go on about the Saxon King site being built over but it is them that are desecrating the site by living in a squalid shanty town on his grave!
They have not won a thing, sadly the echo has always been siding with the anti brigade, they hardly ever give a truely balanced view its the same with thier political view.
The tree huggers go on about the Saxon King site being built over but it is them that are desecrating the site by living in a squalid shanty town on his grave!
Stuart, Leigh says...
10:00am Thu 21 Jun 07
Andrew,
Call it Pie in the Sky if you want, but if we don't have any big visions we end up with the wrong solutions - and make no mistake about it, the proposal for Priory Crescent is the wrong solution. In a couple of years it will be as bad as it is now and we will then spend the next ten years deciding what piffling small improvement we could make next... and so on ad infinitum.
The reason that it is hard to build new roads in England is that we have an acute shortage of land on which to do it - at least, not if we actually want to keep any green space (and no I don't think we should be building millions of new houses either, but that's another story)
Notice that I'm not sticking my head in the ground and saying that there's no problem, like some people, nor am I saying that we must all go by bus, because clearly we can't or won't. I'm not even blaming one side or the other in Council or government, whatever my political persuasion.
What I am saying, though, is that we need some vision for what we want, and then we need to go out and get it. What we emphatically DON'T need is some half-baked half-measure.
Call it Pie in the Sky if you want, but if we don't have any big visions we end up with the wrong solutions - and make no mistake about it, the proposal for Priory Crescent is the wrong solution. In a couple of years it will be as bad as it is now and we will then spend the next ten years deciding what piffling small improvement we could make next... and so on ad infinitum.
The reason that it is hard to build new roads in England is that we have an acute shortage of land on which to do it - at least, not if we actually want to keep any green space (and no I don't think we should be building millions of new houses either, but that's another story)
Notice that I'm not sticking my head in the ground and saying that there's no problem, like some people, nor am I saying that we must all go by bus, because clearly we can't or won't. I'm not even blaming one side or the other in Council or government, whatever my political persuasion.
What I am saying, though, is that we need some vision for what we want, and then we need to go out and get it. What we emphatically DON'T need is some half-baked half-measure.
Adamant, Southend says...
10:17am Thu 21 Jun 07
Michael wrote:The silent majority represents those who did not sign the Camp Bling petition (most of them were from people living outside Southend) or those who did not formally object to the scheme at the various consultations including a public inquiry. That is about 99 per cent of the people living in the town.
Is the Saxon site really empty? One hole dug, one grave found and removed. What else is there? Many graves were destroyed by non-archeological road builders when the original road was built (visit Southend Museum to see the remains). Roman finds have been found all over that site - now destroyed under Aldi's. What else is there still to be found/destroyed by this proposed road? There is no point in either this new proposed scheme, or the original. Dualling the road doesn't get rid of the cause of the congestion, which is the roundabouts at either end (and volume of traffic). Road building at Priory Crescent is just car park creation for the traffic jam! Double the lanes and halve the length of the queue, which then travels at half the speed! There are only two real solutions to the congestion problem; neither are being planned. They need to either ease the traffic flow along the whole A127/A1159 route by removing the roundabouts/places you have to stop; or reduce the traffic volume by getting people to not drive (i.e. invest in public transport). Regards the "silent majority want the road" quote that keeps cropping up. I thought it was the other way round. The silent majority don't want the road but you don't hear them as they are silent. The only voices heard are the vocal minority who think that building new roads is the magic solution to their journey delays. For what it's worth, I never encounter any congestion in Priory Crescent. Give me a wave next time you're there - I'll be either on my motorbike or bicycle and whizzing past all you car drivers :-D (yup, I made my congestion reducing choices long ago)
One wonders actually how much all the to-ing and fro-ing has cost. How much in council officers' time, how much putting on the public inquiry?
G Public, Southend says...
10:18am Thu 21 Jun 07
Stuart I agree with what you're saying.
There is definately a problem and I don't see the dualling of that small part as a solution.
As a taxpayer I object to a scheme costing millions that to me clearly isn't go to really work that well. I also don't care much for an empty grave but I do care about the environment and the needless destruction of trees.
I certainly won't object if a better scheme comes along that I can really see helping ease the congestion.
Once all the new houses are built in Shoebury on the new ranges it is only going to jam up that area even more whether you build the dual carriageway or not.
There is definately a problem and I don't see the dualling of that small part as a solution.
As a taxpayer I object to a scheme costing millions that to me clearly isn't go to really work that well. I also don't care much for an empty grave but I do care about the environment and the needless destruction of trees.
I certainly won't object if a better scheme comes along that I can really see helping ease the congestion.
Once all the new houses are built in Shoebury on the new ranges it is only going to jam up that area even more whether you build the dual carriageway or not.
Richard, Southend says...
10:35am Thu 21 Jun 07
The environmental terrorists seem to have enforced their views on the general public. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORCIBLY EVICTED IF NECESSARY !
shoeburylad, shoebury says...
11:10am Thu 21 Jun 07
Once all the new houses are built in Shoebury on the new ranges
there arent going to be any new houses on the ranges this was another waste of taxpayers money...
how do we get the council to sit down with the public (who by the way they are supposed to be working FOR) and explain how this is going to help anyone, other than waste more money.
Im in agreement with the above, we need a plan that looks to the future for the town not one that moves a traffic jam 50 yeards down the road
there arent going to be any new houses on the ranges this was another waste of taxpayers money...
how do we get the council to sit down with the public (who by the way they are supposed to be working FOR) and explain how this is going to help anyone, other than waste more money.
Im in agreement with the above, we need a plan that looks to the future for the town not one that moves a traffic jam 50 yeards down the road
maree, says...
11:33am Thu 21 Jun 07
Shirley Smith wrote:I now agree with you Shirley. Lets face it we need two lanes either way. I have it on reliable info that this plan was only developed as the Minister deliberately kept putting off the funding decision and failing to approve it over and over until the costs got so high it is hard to create value for money. This way, even though enquiry after inquiry has approved it, there would eventually be a reason to support their local labour colleagues, use our town for politcal games, and turn it down due to lacking value for money. Time for the one way system then.
I don't see this as a U turn at all. It's fantastic that the Saxon site will be saved, but creating a bottleneck will make the traffic worse at that spot; and will we still lose part of our park? The best idea all round would be to introduce a one way system around the park which would cost even less!
silent majority member, G.Wakering resident says...
11:39am Thu 21 Jun 07
Michael wrote:Yeh, until your bike becomes a portable coffin!
Is the Saxon site really empty? One hole dug, one grave found and removed. What else is there? Many graves were destroyed by non-archeological road builders when the original road was built (visit Southend Museum to see the remains). Roman finds have been found all over that site - now destroyed under Aldi's. What else is there still to be found/destroyed by this proposed road? There is no point in either this new proposed scheme, or the original. Dualling the road doesn't get rid of the cause of the congestion, which is the roundabouts at either end (and volume of traffic). Road building at Priory Crescent is just car park creation for the traffic jam! Double the lanes and halve the length of the queue, which then travels at half the speed! There are only two real solutions to the congestion problem; neither are being planned. They need to either ease the traffic flow along the whole A127/A1159 route by removing the roundabouts/places you have to stop; or reduce the traffic volume by getting people to not drive (i.e. invest in public transport). Regards the "silent majority want the road" quote that keeps cropping up. I thought it was the other way round. The silent majority don't want the road but you don't hear them as they are silent. The only voices heard are the vocal minority who think that building new roads is the magic solution to their journey delays. For what it's worth, I never encounter any congestion in Priory Crescent. Give me a wave next time you're there - I'll be either on my motorbike or bicycle and whizzing past all you car drivers :-D (yup, I made my congestion reducing choices long ago)
Idiot, the majority our end of town are car drivers and get jammed everyday in that lunacy. And you claim they are against fixing the road they get jammed in?
When do you drive? I drive past there between 7am and 10am everyday (up to 20 min wait), between 330 and 630pm (10-15 minute wait) and try to get out on Sat and Sun (forget it, just sit there and wait!). You are very lucky to magically fly over the traffic.
Maree, says...
12:09pm Thu 21 Jun 07
There is a plan. The Council wanted to fix Priory Crescent, then all the intersections to Progress Road to sort the conjestion. The Government has failed to approve any of the plans of Southend to fix these problems. The Council is hoping that by scaling back the scheme, Labour will see fit to provide the funding to support all the road improvements needed along the A127 all the way to Progress Road.
This is a real mess. I have to say, how come this happens in England? It does not happen in Australia and would have been sorted years ago. Here a Labour national Government controls the cash and uses the town as a pawn to gain political influence for the lunitic labour Southend fringe. The traffic is a mess, sensible schemes have been approved but the Minister refuses to approve the money, even though his own inquiries have supported them. This is the scandal.
This is a real mess. I have to say, how come this happens in England? It does not happen in Australia and would have been sorted years ago. Here a Labour national Government controls the cash and uses the town as a pawn to gain political influence for the lunitic labour Southend fringe. The traffic is a mess, sensible schemes have been approved but the Minister refuses to approve the money, even though his own inquiries have supported them. This is the scandal.
G Public, Southend says...
12:25pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Maree
Could you tell me what the planned improvements are for the intersections after cookoo corner? Really interested to know what these are as i've not really heard much about it.
Cheers
Could you tell me what the planned improvements are for the intersections after cookoo corner? Really interested to know what these are as i've not really heard much about it.
Cheers
The Hunk, Southend says...
2:35pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Having just read the echos very one sided view of the ne wproposals it is now in the bottom of the cats litter tray!
Once again a paper that should give a fair throw of the dice to both sides but yet again it prints tree hugging propoganda.
Once again a paper that should give a fair throw of the dice to both sides but yet again it prints tree hugging propoganda.
PW, Priittlewell says...
2:36pm Thu 21 Jun 07
I've been involved in the campaign against this road from the outset. Although it's been a worthwhile and well-run campaign, I have to say that the Council have been defeated not by the protesters but by two unavoidable facts:-
1. There never was a compelling case to build the road and the Council's best estimate of 2 minutes off journey times shows how worthless it was;
2. The Government were never going to stump up the kind of money the Council needed.
Public opinion never swayed the Council - 20,000 signatures against the road to 16 in favour and still they wanted to go ahead;
Public opinion didn't sway the Inspector: in the Public Inquiry, he went ahead and supported the Council even though their plans breached all kinds of road building guidelines and the public were massively against them.
I'm afaid you have to blame a massively incompetent Council who backed a loser from the word go and never listened to good local advice when it was given to them. You have to ask what motivates them to hang on so long.
1. There never was a compelling case to build the road and the Council's best estimate of 2 minutes off journey times shows how worthless it was;
2. The Government were never going to stump up the kind of money the Council needed.
Public opinion never swayed the Council - 20,000 signatures against the road to 16 in favour and still they wanted to go ahead;
Public opinion didn't sway the Inspector: in the Public Inquiry, he went ahead and supported the Council even though their plans breached all kinds of road building guidelines and the public were massively against them.
I'm afaid you have to blame a massively incompetent Council who backed a loser from the word go and never listened to good local advice when it was given to them. You have to ask what motivates them to hang on so long.
Dan, north leigh says...
2:57pm Thu 21 Jun 07
G Public, fair point about the knock on effect of more traffic at Cuckoo Corner, but SOMETHING has to be done to enhance accessibility to the eastern side of town! I know it would be expensive and large scale, but removing the roundabout and creating something on the lines of Rayleigh Weir (a dual carriageway underpass surrounded by a ring road) would solve the bottleneck up there.
Stuart, plans for a northern relief road ARE what is needed for most effective access, but you can bet Rochford Council would fight them tooth and nail, and it'd take over a decade of consultation and planning before a decision was even made. As for the road in the middle of the sea beyond the pier, dream on!
Stuart, plans for a northern relief road ARE what is needed for most effective access, but you can bet Rochford Council would fight them tooth and nail, and it'd take over a decade of consultation and planning before a decision was even made. As for the road in the middle of the sea beyond the pier, dream on!
ML, says...
3:04pm Thu 21 Jun 07
PW wrote:LEAVE OUR TOWN YOU POLITICALLY MOTIVATED NUTTER. TAKE YOUR ROAD PROTESTS SOMEWHERE ELSE. OH, LET ME SEE, YOU BETTER FIND A COMMUNITY THAT WANTS YOU ******* FIRST. 20000 OUT OF A REGIONAL POPULATION OF 500000. NOT VALID BY ANY ACCOUNT. ANYONE WHO SAW YOU NUTTERS TAKING YOUR SURVEY SAW THE TRUTH. ONLY THOSE WHO WANTED TO SIGN AGAINST SIGNED. THE REST TOLD YOU WHERE TO GO. THIS WAS ALSO PRESENTED TO THE INQUIRY.
I've been involved in the campaign against this road from the outset. Although it's been a worthwhile and well-run campaign, I have to say that the Council have been defeated not by the protesters but by two unavoidable facts:- 1. There never was a compelling case to build the road and the Council's best estimate of 2 minutes off journey times shows how worthless it was; 2. The Government were never going to stump up the kind of money the Council needed. Public opinion never swayed the Council - 20,000 signatures against the road to 16 in favour and still they wanted to go ahead; Public opinion didn't sway the Inspector: in the Public Inquiry, he went ahead and supported the Council even though their plans breached all kinds of road building guidelines and the public were massively against them. I'm afaid you have to blame a massively incompetent Council who backed a loser from the word go and never listened to good local advice when it was given to them. You have to ask what motivates them to hang on so long.
AT LEAST OUR COUNCIL IS TRYING TO SOLVE TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK SO PEOPLE CAN USE THE NEW SHOPS ETC IN THE EAST END OF TOWN THUS CREATING EMPLOYMENT. YOU KNOW! SOMETHING YOU LOT HAVE NEVER HEARD OF.... BUGGER OFF AND LEAVE OUR TOWN ALONE.... LET US PROGRESS.
Maree, says...
3:10pm Thu 21 Jun 07
The plan as far as I know is traffic lights at the Cockoo Roundabout to give better access for peds, as well as timing the lights for better traffic flow in and out of town during peak hours. At present the engineering report points out that the traffic partly builds due to the inward flow of traffic (tourists) on weekends, snarling traffic for a couple of miles back upto Fossetts. During weekdays, workers driving into Southend snarl up the roundabout due to right of way, blocking in the Priory traffic. With this change, and the part dueling, the Council feels this will part solve the problem. The extra carriageway and the new light sequencing will allow outward traffic flow before it builds to far back.
Other improvements are in the traffic plans for The Bell, and all intersections back to Progress Road. All available on the Council website. If you work for the Civil Service you know what doco titles to look for.
Other improvements are in the traffic plans for The Bell, and all intersections back to Progress Road. All available on the Council website. If you work for the Civil Service you know what doco titles to look for.
The Hunk, Southend (A real Resident) says...
3:27pm Thu 21 Jun 07
ML wrote:100% behind you nobody apart from the TAX payers of Southend should be protesting or supporting the road plan, the tree huggers alway move on to a protest site from from 100s of miles away nobody from Rochford, baildon, canvey or anywhere out side the borough of SOuthend has the right to support or protest against the plans.
PW wrote: I've been involved in the campaign against this road from the outset. Although it's been a worthwhile and well-run campaign, I have to say that the Council have been defeated not by the protesters but by two unavoidable facts:- 1. There never was a compelling case to build the road and the Council's best estimate of 2 minutes off journey times shows how worthless it was; 2. The Government were never going to stump up the kind of money the Council needed. Public opinion never swayed the Council - 20,000 signatures against the road to 16 in favour and still they wanted to go ahead; Public opinion didn't sway the Inspector: in the Public Inquiry, he went ahead and supported the Council even though their plans breached all kinds of road building guidelines and the public were massively against them. I'm afaid you have to blame a massively incompetent Council who backed a loser from the word go and never listened to good local advice when it was given to them. You have to ask what motivates them to hang on so long.LEAVE OUR TOWN YOU POLITICALLY MOTIVATED NUTTER. TAKE YOUR ROAD PROTESTS SOMEWHERE ELSE. OH, LET ME SEE, YOU BETTER FIND A COMMUNITY THAT WANTS YOU ******* FIRST. 20000 OUT OF A REGIONAL POPULATION OF 500000. NOT VALID BY ANY ACCOUNT. ANYONE WHO SAW YOU NUTTERS TAKING YOUR SURVEY SAW THE TRUTH. ONLY THOSE WHO WANTED TO SIGN AGAINST SIGNED. THE REST TOLD YOU WHERE TO GO. THIS WAS ALSO PRESENTED TO THE INQUIRY. AT LEAST OUR COUNCIL IS TRYING TO SOLVE TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK SO PEOPLE CAN USE THE NEW SHOPS ETC IN THE EAST END OF TOWN THUS CREATING EMPLOYMENT. YOU KNOW! SOMETHING YOU LOT HAVE NEVER HEARD OF.... BUGGER OFF AND LEAVE OUR TOWN ALONE.... LET US PROGRESS.
Southend NEEDS to move forward and not sit back and stagnate like Margate & Clacton have.
I wonder how many of the tree huggers have cars or have flown off on holiday bet they all have!
Lamentableyouth, Leigh-on-Sea says...
4:26pm Thu 21 Jun 07
I must say I found the coverage of this in today's Evening Echo pretty poor. It was all very predictable. We have a newspaper that is taking the side of the protestors rather than speaking up for what its readers think. Also, what about speaking to the people the whole thing would effect the most - the people who live in the crescent itself????
PW, Prittlewell says...
5:08pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Well, ML and Hunk what a nice pair you are! Lose an argument so hurl the insults! For your info I've been a tax-paying resident of Southend for more than 30 years and, no, there was no substantive support from the public for the road at any of the consultations. Just 16 people wrote to support the road when the Council consulted, and only 1 during the PI.
But then someone so determinedly wrong as you two never let the truth get in the way of your prejudices.
But then someone so determinedly wrong as you two never let the truth get in the way of your prejudices.
Sidney Bliss, Southend says...
7:55pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Anyone who is vain enough to call themselves 'The Hunk' sounds like they should concentrate on sorting personal issues rather than ones that affect thousands of people anyway.
PETER JONES, SHOEBURYNESS says...
8:32pm Thu 21 Jun 07
I BELIEVE THAT IMPROVMENTS SHOULD BE MADE TO ALLOW TRAFFIC TO FLOW MORE EASILY BOTH IN AND OUT OF SOUTHEND ALONG THIS STRETCH OF ROAD.
AS LONG AGO AS 1975 MY
FATHER WROTE TO THE EVENING ECHO SUGGESTING THAT PRIORY PARK ITSELF BECAME THE ROUNDABOUT.
WHY DON'T THE COUNCIL / HIGHWAY PLANNING PEOPLE CONSIDER THIS OPTION !!
I AM SURE THAT IT WILL REDUCE THE COSTS FROM £10.8 MILLION POUNDS CONSIDERABLY !!
THE OPTION MUST BE TO MAKE EITHER COMING INTO SOUTHEND OR LEAVING THE TOWN VIA A " ONE WAY " SYSTEM AS ADOPTED BY CHELMSFORD AT THE "ARMY & NAVY" FLYOVER MANY YEARS AGO.
SO COME ON PLANNERS IT AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE !!
AS LONG AGO AS 1975 MY
FATHER WROTE TO THE EVENING ECHO SUGGESTING THAT PRIORY PARK ITSELF BECAME THE ROUNDABOUT.
WHY DON'T THE COUNCIL / HIGHWAY PLANNING PEOPLE CONSIDER THIS OPTION !!
I AM SURE THAT IT WILL REDUCE THE COSTS FROM £10.8 MILLION POUNDS CONSIDERABLY !!
THE OPTION MUST BE TO MAKE EITHER COMING INTO SOUTHEND OR LEAVING THE TOWN VIA A " ONE WAY " SYSTEM AS ADOPTED BY CHELMSFORD AT THE "ARMY & NAVY" FLYOVER MANY YEARS AGO.
SO COME ON PLANNERS IT AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE !!
The Hunk, Southend says...
11:09pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Sidney Bliss wrote:concentrate on sorting personal issues...concentrate on sorting personal issues well I could do but I dont have any well theats a lie we all have personal issues but I have none that I need to sort, my name "The Hunk" came to me oooh about 28 years ago I had a problem with say The Hulk and called hime The Hunk something to do with a mishaped jaw that needed to be operated on the name just stuck.
Anyone who is vain enough to call themselves 'The Hunk' sounds like they should concentrate on sorting personal issues rather than ones that affect thousands of people anyway.
Beleve me I aint vain far from it, I cant stand those phallus heads (think about it) that strut arround thinking they are gods gift, I must stress the point AGAIN as the echo failed to the Lib-Lab pact were the origianl geoup that came up with the plan as soon as the Torys got in the Lib-Lab lot started screaming against it.
I would also like to point out that the tree huggers origianly said they were there to save the site of the saxon king once it was saved they would leave the site...
well now they are saying they will not leave lies lies and more lies, its about time you packed up your sleeping bags and left the site it looks a mess and give the town a bad name you did not have a true victory so go off to your next protest and dont darken Southend again,
JJ Taxpayer, Essex says...
11:18pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Janet wrote:No you are the bullshit!
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?
Find a job nearer home idiot, or get the train.
Why should we loose our park? It belongs to the people of Southend not the Council, or any of you lot out there that don't pay Council Tax to Southend you shouldn't have a say in our town.
The Voice of Reason, Southend says...
11:30pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Please Sidney & Hunk please can we not start a petty squabble between ourselfs, I dont direct it just to them two but everybody on here lets not make snide remarks about each other,
JJ Taxpayer the whole park is not being built on a remark about loosing the park might make people beleve that it is, please choose your wording more carefully, just a small sliver of the park will go for a footpath & cycle path I can see both side yes its nice having a park in the middle of Southend but we need to get the traffic moving it it means make the road wider than so be it. For every tree lost THREE will be planted more than dubling the number 50 cut down 150 planted whats better for the park and the birds in the park.
JJ Taxpayer the whole park is not being built on a remark about loosing the park might make people beleve that it is, please choose your wording more carefully, just a small sliver of the park will go for a footpath & cycle path I can see both side yes its nice having a park in the middle of Southend but we need to get the traffic moving it it means make the road wider than so be it. For every tree lost THREE will be planted more than dubling the number 50 cut down 150 planted whats better for the park and the birds in the park.
The Hunk, Southend says...
11:49pm Thu 21 Jun 07
He started it!
JJ Taxpayer, Essex says...
11:54pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Dissapointed wrote:I know some of the people there and they work and pay tax.
If the Saxon burial area is now safe, evict the dole spungers from camp Bling! I suppose thats gonna cost us tax payers too?
I am a taxpayer and I think that they have got more backbone than the rest of us for doing what they are doing.
Joker7, says...
8:49am Fri 22 Jun 07
Whats the point !!!
Scrap the whole plan all you are doing is moving the trafic down the road.........
We don't need the bloody road what is a five min wait hold-up againts the coat!
spend the money where it's needed not on roads.
Scrap the whole plan all you are doing is moving the trafic down the road.........
We don't need the bloody road what is a five min wait hold-up againts the coat!
spend the money where it's needed not on roads.
Bored, says...
9:46am Fri 22 Jun 07
JJ Taxpayer wrote:Talk like this never gets anyone anywhere. Just because someone doesn't pay council tax to Southend doesn't mean that they are not entitled to an opinion. I don't pay tax to this Council but unfortunately I still have to use this road on a regular basis. And as for saying this person should find a job nearer to home, well some people do not actually choose where they want to work!.
Janet wrote:No you are the bullshit! Find a job nearer home idiot, or get the train. Why should we loose our park? It belongs to the people of Southend not the Council, or any of you lot out there that don't pay Council Tax to Southend you shouldn't have a say in our town.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?
Jaq @ Camp Bling, says...
9:54am Fri 22 Jun 07
The Hunk wrote:You say we "did not have a true victory" - you will therefore agree that we still have a need to continue our fight?
Sidney Bliss wrote: Anyone who is vain enough to call themselves \'The Hunk\' sounds like they should concentrate on sorting personal issues rather than ones that affect thousands of people anyway.concentrate on sorting personal issues...concentrate on sorting personal issues well I could do but I dont have any well theats a lie we all have personal issues but I have none that I need to sort, my name \"The Hunk\" came to me oooh about 28 years ago I had a problem with say The Hulk and called hime The Hunk something to do with a mishaped jaw that needed to be operated on the name just stuck. Beleve me I aint vain far from it, I cant stand those phallus heads (think about it) that strut arround thinking they are gods gift, I must stress the point AGAIN as the echo failed to the Lib-Lab pact were the origianl geoup that came up with the plan as soon as the Torys got in the Lib-Lab lot started screaming against it. I would also like to point out that the tree huggers origianly said they were there to save the site of the saxon king once it was saved they would leave the site... well now they are saying they will not leave lies lies and more lies, its about time you packed up your sleeping bags and left the site it looks a mess and give the town a bad name you did not have a true victory so go off to your next protest and dont darken Southend again,
Yes the Saxon Burial was a major element of the campaign, and we are happy it appears safe, although we remain somewhat "cautiously optimistic" for its long term future. But the focus of our campaign has always been to stop the road, and save not just the burial, but the Park and the Trees, and this new scheme sadly will still have impact on the Park and will see many mature trees detroyed.
New saplings are not replacements for mature trees! The costs remain high and the benefits low, so beyond the burial not much has changed has it? As we have always said " cancel the road and we will clean up and leave"
Stuart, Leigh says...
10:16am Fri 22 Jun 07
FWIW, I would be happy with a one way system around Priory Park. BUT...
- Something serious would have to be done with the lights at Victoria Road
- You would have to prevent parking along the whole of the southern section of Priory Crescent and there are residential properties along there with cars to park
- You would have to consider making the section of Priory Crescent from Priory Avenue to Eastern Avenue two-way, otherwise you would put ALL Priory Avenue / St Benets Road etc traffic up onto East Street, which can't really cope with what it has at the moment.
So not a universal panacea, but certainly better than what's on offer.
- Something serious would have to be done with the lights at Victoria Road
- You would have to prevent parking along the whole of the southern section of Priory Crescent and there are residential properties along there with cars to park
- You would have to consider making the section of Priory Crescent from Priory Avenue to Eastern Avenue two-way, otherwise you would put ALL Priory Avenue / St Benets Road etc traffic up onto East Street, which can't really cope with what it has at the moment.
So not a universal panacea, but certainly better than what's on offer.
The Hunk, Southend says...
11:09am Fri 22 Jun 07
Jaq @ Camp Bling, none of your bunch have NEVER ever answered a question I put ages back, have any of you got a car? have any of you flown off on holiday?
if so your hypocritical protest is a farce as you dont practice what you preach.
I'm off on my 6 week "Working" holiday at Heathrow right now waiting to baord my flight to OZ, then its on to Mexico, Las Vegas (to loose some money) Florida before returning to the UK all paid for 1st class by the company, Carbon foot print more like Carbon Dc Martins!
if so your hypocritical protest is a farce as you dont practice what you preach.
I'm off on my 6 week "Working" holiday at Heathrow right now waiting to baord my flight to OZ, then its on to Mexico, Las Vegas (to loose some money) Florida before returning to the UK all paid for 1st class by the company, Carbon foot print more like Carbon Dc Martins!
Jaq Canp Bling, says...
11:55am Fri 22 Jun 07
The Hunk, yes I drive, and I use that stretch of Road every day getting to work, just like the numerous others on here who agree this scheme will not solve any of the congestion problems, so I know from EXPERIENCE that this scheme will not work and will just bottleneck elsewhere. Where is the hypocracy in that?
This road is a waste of taxpayers money, it will offer no real benefits to road users, and threatens an open space given to the local people,you dont have to be one of us "treehuggers" to realise that!
We are campaigning against a pointless road and waste of money, we are not dictating how others live their lives. If you choose to carbon hotfoot it across the globe just coz you can then that's on your conscience not mine.
This road is a waste of taxpayers money, it will offer no real benefits to road users, and threatens an open space given to the local people,you dont have to be one of us "treehuggers" to realise that!
We are campaigning against a pointless road and waste of money, we are not dictating how others live their lives. If you choose to carbon hotfoot it across the globe just coz you can then that's on your conscience not mine.
G Public, Southend says...
1:18pm Fri 22 Jun 07
The Hunk wrote:That's nothing to be proud of at all and nothing to do with the argument on here.
<b> Jaq @ Camp Bling, none of your bunch have NEVER ever answered a question I put ages back, have any of you got a car? have any of you flown off on holiday?
if so your hypocritical protest is a farce as you dont practice what you preach.
I\'m off on my 6 week \"Working\" holiday at Heathrow right now waiting to baord my flight to OZ, then its on to Mexico, Las Vegas (to loose some money) Florida before returning to the UK all paid for 1st class by the company, Carbon foot print more like Carbon Dc Martins!</b>
I take it by your complete disregard for the environment that you haven't or are not planning to have kids?? I would like my children and possible granchildren to be able to grow up in an atmosphere that is still healthy enough to breathe - thats why I care for the environment.
Fair enough travel, I still do, but certainly I do my bit and offset my carbon emissions when I fly and wouldn't try to brag about something as serious as you.
Good luck with your trip and i hope you don't lose all your money in vegas.
The Hunk, In the air says...
1:56pm Fri 22 Jun 07
WOW got conected with the air phone on the plane!
Got two kids, a wife, car and a big mortgage, I cant help having a job that pays loads and demands a lot of globe trotting its either me or somebody else in the company that has to do and before some asks about video conferencing or fax/e-mail no we cant yes the company is set up to do it but when there is highly sensitive papers to sign and blueprints to check and amend then the only way to do it is send somebody.
I dont take much lugage just enough to change a few time I buy stuff when I get to where I am going and then donate it to the homeless shelters in there areas I have been, as for carbon off setting I have bought a solar pannel for my house have a water meter, low wnergey lightbulbs, lpg car.
and out family holiday we go to ethiopia and help the farmers with the harvest, dig wells whilst the old ball and chain helps in the hospital or school,
I just beleve Southend needes the road to free up some of the congestion if that makes me a bad person then spank my botton with a stick
Got two kids, a wife, car and a big mortgage, I cant help having a job that pays loads and demands a lot of globe trotting its either me or somebody else in the company that has to do and before some asks about video conferencing or fax/e-mail no we cant yes the company is set up to do it but when there is highly sensitive papers to sign and blueprints to check and amend then the only way to do it is send somebody.
I dont take much lugage just enough to change a few time I buy stuff when I get to where I am going and then donate it to the homeless shelters in there areas I have been, as for carbon off setting I have bought a solar pannel for my house have a water meter, low wnergey lightbulbs, lpg car.
and out family holiday we go to ethiopia and help the farmers with the harvest, dig wells whilst the old ball and chain helps in the hospital or school,
I just beleve Southend needes the road to free up some of the congestion if that makes me a bad person then spank my botton with a stick
Jon, Here says...
2:14pm Fri 22 Jun 07
How environmentally friendly is the old van that is frequently parked on the pavement outside Camp Bling that makes people have to walk in what everyone admits is a busy road. How enviromentally friendly are the plastic products they use for their shelters and banners. How enviromentally friendly are the stoves they use for heating and cooking. I could go on. Camp Bling last refuge of the liar and hypocrat.
M, The Priory Crescent carpark bw 330 and 7pm, Mon-Fri says...
6:25pm Fri 22 Jun 07
Jaq Canp Bling wrote:You are dictating how I have to live by breaking the law and setting up Camp Stupidity and stopping the road improvements the town needs. If you think the town is behind you print your names and addresses here so we can 'congratulate' you on your stand!!
The Hunk, yes I drive, and I use that stretch of Road every day getting to work, just like the numerous others on here who agree this scheme will not solve any of the congestion problems, so I know from EXPERIENCE that this scheme will not work and will just bottleneck elsewhere. Where is the hypocracy in that? This road is a waste of taxpayers money, it will offer no real benefits to road users, and threatens an open space given to the local people,you dont have to be one of us "treehuggers" to realise that! We are campaigning against a pointless road and waste of money, we are not dictating how others live their lives. If you choose to carbon hotfoot it across the globe just coz you can then that's on your conscience not mine.
Maree, Southchurch, via the Priory Crescent daily car park says...
6:30pm Fri 22 Jun 07
JJ Taxpayer wrote:Hay JJ, I saw you at the zoo the other day didn't I? Lets see, there was the monkeys, gorillas, apes, spineless chicken bird, brainless emu, the made cow, oh, and yes, you were there, there was JJ.
Janet wrote:No you are the bullshit! Find a job nearer home idiot, or get the train. Why should we loose our park? It belongs to the people of Southend not the Council, or any of you lot out there that don't pay Council Tax to Southend you shouldn't have a say in our town.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?
You think if I could get a job near home I would drive around Priory Crescent every day or waste £30 plus on petrol every week. I could use that money on many things, as could your doctors!
evilc, essex says...
5:17pm Sun 24 Jun 07
What a joke over 70% want the improvement that is even reflected in the Echo survey.
So what happened to Democracy in this country.
Why do we take more notice of those who shout the loudest and those that pollute the land by damaging trees and building illegal homes in trees.
And contribute zero other than taking from the rate payers.
Let build a 10 lane motorway thro camp bling and use them as hardcore!!
So what happened to Democracy in this country.
Why do we take more notice of those who shout the loudest and those that pollute the land by damaging trees and building illegal homes in trees.
And contribute zero other than taking from the rate payers.
Let build a 10 lane motorway thro camp bling and use them as hardcore!!
Man in the street, Southend says...
7:49pm Sun 24 Jun 07
The new leader of the council clearly wants to be seen as doing something. Unfortunately all he has done is made a bad decision for the people of the town,
Fred, Southend says...
9:01pm Mon 25 Jun 07
To start with, im not bothered about the dead king, he had done nothing for Southend, and as far as i can see still hasnt. And as far as im aware his affects are in every other town but Southends. What i would like to say though is why do they have to pull down the trees in the park? surely it would be easier to rehouse the people across the road and make the duel carrage road from that side. (They could even give them one of the 120 new slums in the making they plan on building near the new stadium) The park was left to the town, and the Joneses didnt leave it to all of us to have some grubby little corrupt councillors destroy it.I live this side of the town, and travel along this stretch of road every day. Yes it takes a long time some days, but I can tell you that the proposal that has now been put forward is going to do nothing for the congestion. This whole thing stinks, ever since SUFC wanted to put their bleeding pitch up on the green belt on Eastern avenue.
Darren, Shoeburyness says...
9:24pm Mon 9 Jul 07
For someone who lives in Shoeburyness and they have agreed to build 1000 more homes in the area, this is a problem only to get worse each day.
I have three issues here:-
1. The tree huggers, they shouldnt be there - get the local fire brigade on them with the water hoses, they'll soon move ! - Im sure if anyone else errected a tent on council land then we would be moved off by police - if they want to hug some trees, move them onto candada where they each chop 100 down per day - they will need some big arms to hug all them !
2. Is this really £10.8M ? I would hate to think what the A130 extension cost, maybe they need to hire some different contractors ?
3. Lets build a bypass road, Join up with the A130 or A13 whatever direction they choose, this is the only solution I see to the ever increasing delay from progress road, this last remaining journey is a nightmare and adding a strentch of road to be a dual carriage way for 10.8M is not going to hep anything. Maybe we will have to destory some trees, but hey - isnt the cars exhaust waiting in the queue's actually doing more damage to everyone ?
I have three issues here:-
1. The tree huggers, they shouldnt be there - get the local fire brigade on them with the water hoses, they'll soon move ! - Im sure if anyone else errected a tent on council land then we would be moved off by police - if they want to hug some trees, move them onto candada where they each chop 100 down per day - they will need some big arms to hug all them !
2. Is this really £10.8M ? I would hate to think what the A130 extension cost, maybe they need to hire some different contractors ?
3. Lets build a bypass road, Join up with the A130 or A13 whatever direction they choose, this is the only solution I see to the ever increasing delay from progress road, this last remaining journey is a nightmare and adding a strentch of road to be a dual carriage way for 10.8M is not going to hep anything. Maybe we will have to destory some trees, but hey - isnt the cars exhaust waiting in the queue's actually doing more damage to everyone ?
Fred, says...
2:57pm Sun 16 Sep 07
We all know it is a load of old rubbish. Why not build an underpass then no one will be upset. Better still get rid of the roundabouts at either end. I still dont think the king site should be touched, this poxy council is ripping up the green belt now as we speek with B&Q and the like.
Saved -- the Saxon king site
In this section
- Cyclist killed in crash
- Martina vows to find body of last missing moors victim
- Fate of £35m sports village to be decided
- Builders start on school revamp
- Pollution levels tested after 200 fish die in river
- A127 to be widened at Progress Road to beat the jams
- New housing plans delayed until 2015
- Police hunt alleyway attacker
- Car fire in Canvey
- Road closed in Rayleigh after water pipe bursts
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Mike, Southend says...
10:06am Wed 20 Jun 07