Weather
Town being decimated instead of enhanced (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Read the letters that have been submitted here.
If you would like to submit one of your own please click here
Town being decimated instead of enhanced
9:26am Wednesday 3rd March 2010
Southend Council has a mind of its own where anything it wants to do conflicts with the things the electorate want. The trees in Priory Crescent are a case in point.
A verbal agreement made by councillors should be as sacrosanct as a written one.
Why do the trees need to be chopped down when councillor Anna Waite has stated the scheme to dual the road had been dropped? It was only Cuckoo Corner which was to have a change of layout.
Whenever the council decides trees should be got rid of, it promises to replace them with young trees, but these are seldom planted near the original ones.
Young trees are much more vulnerable to attack by hoodlums and, even if left alone, take many years to grow to the size of the ones removed. We need trees in our environment.
When are our councillors going to do something which will enhance this town, instead of desecrating it all the time?
What chance will we ever have of Southend becoming a city of culture?
Not much.
Rita Wood
Southbourne Grove
Westcliff
...Southend Council does not represent the views of everyone and a significant number of people do not want the road expansion on Priory Crescent, either because they feel it is important to preserve our natural heritage or they can see the pointlessness of the road being widened.
Councillor Anna Waite seems to have a vision of concrete and roads for our town. She would be better focusing on public transport and developing the High Street and other shopping areas, which are sadly neglected.
Good luck to the protesters.
They are the voice of many of us in this town and they have my support.
Susan Buckingham
Maple Square
Southend
...Does councillor Waite know that a proposed study into the use of larger trees, such as oak and London plane, in neighbourhood streets hopes to encourage landscapers to use them more widely when planning new developments?
The year-long project, by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, will look at how to include large, mature trees in early design processes, and will evaluate the cost benefits they can bring to city environments.
Previous studies by the Trees and Design Action Group have shown large, long-lived trees are better than commonly used small trees such as cherries or rowans, because they provide more shade and have a wider impact on air quality.
They also increase property prices and have even been shown to affect the amount of money customers are willing to spend in shops.
Carole Shorney
Folly Lane
Hockley
...I am hoping to set the record straight regarding the inaccurate claims that Southend Council is pursuing a policy of destroying trees.
The public is being led to believe the council is razing the town, because the media is giving prominence to the protesters.
Twenty-two trees were cut down at Victoria Square. The roundabout is being removed and replaced with a junction controlled by traffic lights.
The new square will make travel easier and improve the appearance of the town, bringing in more visitors, business and jobs.
Protesters are now gathered at Cuckoo Corner.
Sixteen trees will be lost here in a project to benefit motorists, cyclists and pedestrians by cutting congestion.
Less queueing traffic means less pollution.
But what nobody is talking about is that more than 1,000 new trees have been planted in Southend over the past year, with almost 200 scheduled to be planted in the coming months.
The Conservatives introduced a strict policy that for every tree that had to be removed, two would be planted. At Victoria Square those 22 trees will be replaced by 44.
At Cuckoo Corner, nine new trees have already been planted and are growing well. A minimum of 32 more will go into the Cuckoo Corner/Priory Crescent landscaping.
That’s 41 trees for 16 removed.
Ahmad Khwaja
Prospective Conservative Candidate
Victoria Ward
Dalwood
Shoebury
More News stories
- Chairman’s crowd fears were driven by safety
- Electoral roll is a farce
- In defence of the noble pigeon
- Cabinet has tarnished the jewels in our town
- Muddled views on land sale
- Out of touch on care homes
- The dead centre of town?
- Calor’s empty safety pledges
- Airport safety worries are being exaggerated
- Everyone gets share in parks
Your Say YourEcho
lilysnana, essex says...
4:22pm Wed 3 Mar 10
Nebs, Westcliff-on-Sea says...
5:05pm Wed 3 Mar 10
Carrie.C, Southend says...
5:09pm Wed 3 Mar 10
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
5:25pm Wed 3 Mar 10
Denis Walker, Prittlewell says...
5:45pm Wed 3 Mar 10
I am sure I have a far better idea than most about the dangers of that particular junction as I have used it as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian.
My question to Mr Khwaja was about the Council's unsubstantiated and dubious claim that journey times would be reduced as a result of adding traffic lights, not their safety implications, which don't seem previously to have been discussed.
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
6:17pm Wed 3 Mar 10
Your father couldnt give a good reason for the photos on ppps website which shows priory crescent empty of all traffic and a caption of "a typical afternoon" in fact your dad tried using the excuse that it was taken at 11am on a tuesday 8 years ago and was to poke fun at echo photos of priory crescent.
would you agree that these photos are misleading?? Priory crescent is congested and without a daul carriage way the roundabout does not work.
I have seen linked traffic lights work in many places on my extensive travel of 40,000 miles a year in the south east and with planning of sequance priority can be given to busy times and routes which a roundabout does not offer with roundabout only favouring the traffic to the right of the junction.
the argument for the left turn into victoria avenue is that currently a large amount of people travel down to the sutton road roundabout and then cross to sutton road and then into east street. You more than anyone should understand the damage done to the old St Marys School which is being held up by supports and this damage in surveys was attributed to heavy traffic. Also many people turn off just opposite the saxon kings ground and race along the back way to avoid the traffic jams if this left land was present traffic calming could be used to reduce traffic levels in a rat run which is highly built up and people would have an adaquate alternative.
Prittlebrook industrial estate is going to be built and this really does require some mods to the entrance and surrounding road. my problem with this latest protest is that no park land is to be touched, PPPS parklife and skipp say that Anna Waite agreed that only the roundabout was to be changed but her open letter to parklife mentions prittlebrook and that the saxon king grave site would be landscaped as a memorial. If i look at your letters to Council members over the campain it shows there is mistrust on both sides and for that reason i find it hard the Parklife didnt gain a written document including all they say was verbally agreed. PPPS had legal advice from the early days why was this not continued in possibly the most important part of the whole saga.
Denis Walker, Prittlewell says...
8:10pm Wed 3 Mar 10
No. I told a meeting hosted by Leigh Town Council that I have never flown, because I haven't. I have said that I don't own a car, because I don't. I have never said I don't drive, because I do.
I took the photos you refer to some time in the first half of 2002. If I were to dig through my backup CDs I may be able to give you the exact time and date, but I fail to see why it matters so much. My dad was wrong about the time of day a photo of an empty road was taken eight years ago. Who cares?
For much of the day, traffic flows very well on Priory Crescent. As a frequent visitor to Camp Bling and Camp Cuckoo, I have seen this with my own eyes countless times.
It's interesting that you say that a dual carriageway is necessary, as this is not what the Council is going to do. Do you therefore agree that the current scheme should be stopped as it will not achieve its stated aim and will waste public money? How would you do that?
The PPPS has as its primary aim that it will "conserve and preserve the environment of Priory Park" including "all trees on public land within 50 yards of the Park boundaries". We continue to do this.
As to your references to various other roads around the town and damage caused by traffic, the obvious solution is to reduce the number of vehicles using our roads, not build more roads. If the council were to spend the money it has been given by the Government for the "Cycling Towns" initiative properly instead of ignoring its own Cycle User Group, perhaps this would happen.
Given your evident opposition to SKIPP, Parklife and the PPPS, I find it hard to understand why you care whether or not we get legal advice.
No doubt you will feel the need to reply with another lengthy message raising other tangential points of no real consequence. I don't intend to spend all of my time responding to these, so you could save your own time by not bothering.
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
8:43pm Wed 3 Mar 10
yes we need a dual carriage way but due to constraints in the area we cant so we need the next best thing.
As for legal advice it is you who says the council went back on its word only a fool enters into a verbal contract and has no back up evidence.. The truth is that IF the council did promise this then it is PPPS failing to secure proof as they said they held the voice for the town.
I agree we have a good flow at certain times of the day but it is never empty and during rush hours it really is a discomfort to anyone using the road. As for this statement of if the council spent the money on cycle paths this argument does not hold up. I run a company that supplies and hires industrial equipment all over the south east and london and as such need commercial vehicles (we have 8 vans) and a HGV how would a cycle path aid my journey and how can you suggest that this is a solution for aeveryone who commutes to work as most work is outside southend.
I feel that in the last 9 years this started foremost with your father but the bitterness has spilled over that you have a deep routed hatred of our council even though in that time it has changed and so have many of the faces. If you are really intrested in making a change i suggest you rebrand and take a back seat because people in the council cant work with you and you cant work with the council which is simular to your problems with john ford in ppps
I will be honest with you i stand to expand if southend takes off as i have contacts to look after material handling equipment locally and could be creating 3 jobs if industial estates and expansion takes place. These 3 jobs would give like i have with 12 people already with my partner in the firm jobs which are not minumum wage this is what southend needs.
Our council are not the best but they are far from the worst and with support more people would stand forward with projects and southend could be great again. we have people saying the council have destroyed southend since the 70's but it is successive councils who have made poor choices the one reason my great grandfather sold talza to hammerson group to give us victoria circus. we need to bear in mind problems on both sides and compromise but i feel that this cant be done with the current parties involved and feel that if members of the community want to stop this they should distant from skipp ppps saen and seefoe as these group have a instant dislike of the council and also have many more issues than just the trees. we had this with camp bling who lost site and moved onto the issues of peak oil which has a place on the stage of enviromental issues but wasnt what was the original issue with the F5 road project
BASILBRUSH, Southend-on-Sea says...
8:57pm Wed 3 Mar 10
Prove it... Prove that a significant number don't want it.
wosres, says...
9:35pm Wed 3 Mar 10
"What a good idea. Lets take the trees out of the equation. Does the scheme address the traffic problems along Priory Crescent or in Southend as a whole. In my opinion it should (no one can be 100% certain until the scheme is put into operation).
So what are the current problems? From what I have seen the biggest problem occurs with westbound traffic on Priory Crescent queuing to get onto the roundabout. This occurs for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that one of the principal traffic flows is from the Eastbound A127 turning right at the roundabout into Victoria Avenue. This almost constant stream prevents people getting out onto the roundabout. This is made worse by the fact that the current Priory Crescent approach is only 1 lane with a very short extra lane at the stopline for right turn only. As such only one car can get out at a time and hence the long queues. The other and lesser problem is - I believe - queueing on the eastbound A127 to get onto the roundabout.
The inclusion of traffic lights at the roundabout will allow traffic to get onto the roundbout and away more quickly from all entry directions. The reason why traffic lights often don't work on roundabouts is problems associated with queuesing back onto the roundabout from the exit roads (as happens at Rayliegh Weir). At Cuckoo Corner this should not happen as - with the exception of domestic drives - the exits have some distance before other junctions halt the flow of traffic.
For traffic light controlled junctions to work well you need to get as many cars away during the green phase. The more lanes you have at the stopline the better and the length of these lanes should be long enough to get the maximum number of cars away. Adding more lanes on the Priory Cresent entry will succeed in doing this and the length of the lanes is dictated by the time of the green phase to get the maximum number of cars out. The number of lanes on the roundabout exit is less important as cars will merge in turn - it is the time taken for stationary cars to get moving which is the big issue.
This scheme has not been designed by councillors. It is the product of traffic modelling and detailed design by professional highway planning consultants and as such it is niether half baked nor ill concieved. It is - in my view - a well designed solution to a congestion problem in what is a very constricted and constrained area.
Hats off to the professionals who have produced this design and the councilliors who have the determination to get this improvement funded by central government and implemented despite the whinging and antics of professional troublemakers."
And if people are that interested, watch the traffic flow modelling video on youtube at http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=OHJr7eaSf
tI
Carrie.C, Southend says...
11:10am Thu 4 Mar 10
ional troublemakers" - they are a whole cross-section of our community (including professionals such as lawyers, doctors and even Councillors and MPs), the majority of whom work full-time and, unlike the people commenting above, do not have ulterior motives for wanting the scheme to go ahead! They do not get paid for fighting for what they believe in and they do not have access to never-ending sums of taxpayers' money to further their cause! Look at the Council plans for yourself and see what is really going on - and if you can't find them on the Council website (as I couldn't!), contact SKIPP and they will be happy to show you!
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
11:34am Thu 4 Mar 10
As always Denis refutes the claims that public support is limited in a reply to this article but it is shown by the comments left on many websites and the fact that even when PPPS and SKIPP issued their this is it press release and requested as many people as possible only a small group attended and i saw no more that 20 or so at anyone time (unless the others all hid in 5 tents) he was reporting that he had about 100 locals on twitter there waiting.
Speaking to fellow equipment hire firms they have had requests on pricing for genie lifts (cherry pickers) for a bailiff firm to be used in the town.
Carrie.C, Southend says...
12:09pm Thu 4 Mar 10
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
1:05pm Thu 4 Mar 10
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
1:16pm Thu 4 Mar 10
I stand to if the airport expands yes make several contracts together with a development in shoebury give me a long awaited boost as we have not been able to expand in the last 3 years due to customer spends.
Hey i have 4 genie with a 36ft max work height if any council or bailiffs are intrested and these are available for short term hire with transport to and from site included
Carrie.C, Southend says...
2:31pm Thu 4 Mar 10
vanilla ice, Rochford says...
2:46pm Thu 4 Mar 10
Carrie.C, Southend says...
2:48pm Thu 4 Mar 10
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
3:08pm Thu 4 Mar 10
vanilla ice wrote:if this is correct what you are saying and you have a camp cuckoo supporter and resident agreeing then we have a big problem because according to PPPS SAEN SKIPP PARKLIFE and SEEFoE this junction change will cause more problems.
Does any one think the council would care about road improvement at this junction if it wasn’t for the fact that all the land they would like to get their hands on to develop is in Shoebury and surrounding areas and is accessed mainly by the 127 at Cuckoo Corner which would make it a resounding no no to anyone or council that wants to develop the land. So once they have the improvements they want you will see a sudden rush for planning which will be passed of course, with a few crocodile tear shed as standard, and within a few years the junction will be worse. But by that time develops and decision makers will have moved on. Then they will start looking at plans for a new road, which could be coming to an area near you, with the same reasons as now, and a new set of sad faced lunatics will be spouting the same crap arguments as to why the trees and pastures must go. But soon we will have a chance to get rid of the present lot, and then could try to make sure the ratepayers have a democratic say in any future developments.
Yes it will create more development in shoebury which is becoming a deprived area with firms closing and factorys empty for long periods of time. If the road encourages growth in this area and it works more people will be voting conservative!!
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
3:17pm Thu 4 Mar 10
Carrie.C, Southend says...
3:52pm Thu 4 Mar 10
ion around the town! I think vanilla ice believes that it may improve things temporarily and that is his/her valid opinion as only time will tell how long it takes for the scheme to be declared a resounding failure and a total waste of taxpayers' money. And with that I am saying goodbye for today because I really must do some work. Have a good evening with your feet up and I'll maybe catch up with you tomorrow.
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
4:31pm Thu 4 Mar 10
you fully understood my point you cant say here here to something and then when its contradictions to skipp are pointed out change your belief that the poster is correct and thinking along the right lines.
truth is he is correct it will increase development and access to parts of the town. It is SKIPP who say it will make it worse even though many experts have put together computer simulated traffic flow baised on research and surveys. all the research skipp and PPPS have done at most is count cars and had to buy tally counters for this purpose.
BASILBRUSH, Southend-on-Sea says...
11:06pm Thu 4 Mar 10
Denis Walker wrote:Stop constantly whinging about things and protesting about anything that might improve and encourage investment and jobs to the town, and stand for the council yourself.
OK Mr Khwaja, in furthering your bid to set the record straight, let's hear about how exactly adding traffic lights and pedestrian crossings to Cuckoo Corner will speed the traffic up, bearing in mind that under the proposed scheme, traffic will be forced to stop for red lights when it would otherwise be able to move freely around the roundabout.
Let's also hear the justification for the Conservative administration going back on its promise of April last year "that the proposal to widen Priory Crescent ... is not going ahead."
Perhaps you or your Conservative colleagues would care to explain why Cllr John Lamb told BBC Essex on Tuesday last week (23rd Feb) that "We are not touching Priory Crescent." when the current plans show 200 metres of Priory Crescent being widened to three lanes?
When will your party start telling the truth?
Clearly you don't like the way the present administration is doing things.
Prove us wrong. Prove that you really do have a large following.
wosres, says...
9:47am Fri 5 Mar 10
" So once they have the improvements they want you will see a sudden rush for planning which will be passed of course, with a few crocodile tear shed as standard, and within a few years the junction will be worse. "
What the council are proposing for Cuckoo corner appears to be the best solution bearing in mind the cramped location. Apart from anything else, I'm sure the designers would have allowed for future predicted traffic flows along Priory Crescent and not just the current levels.
The only real way of addressing congestion on all approaches to Cuckoo Corner is to make it signal controlled and to maximise the lanes at the stop line of a length adequate to get the most cars away during the green phase of the signals as possible.
On Priory Crescent there is no more that could be done to improve things apart from adding flyover/underpass (which is not at all practical). As far as the junction is concerned the approach in Priory Crescent will be the same as it would be if it were dual carriageway all the way from Sutton Road. So.. to say the junction will be worse in future is incorrect.
The junction will perform as designed for its design life. If traffic flows increase significantly in Priory Crescent from the East then it will just increase the queue which whilst unfortunate would be impossible to deal with without radical change which would be a change that people would be entitled to be upset about.
The Star, Southend says...
9:49am Fri 5 Mar 10
'V', In the Vicinity says...
10:23am Fri 5 Mar 10
This was done with the explicit agreement and sanction of Southend Council's tories.
http://img.photobuck
et.com/albums/v223/M
initar1/Dg/TheRapeOf
GunnersPark1.jpg
Southend's tories have a complete contempt for the electorate of Southend. All Southend's tories want to do is concrete over anything green, cut down trees, turn parks into industrial estates, turn our beachside common land into car parks.
We have seen it time and time again in Southend.
It is time to stop these tory vandals.
If you care about Southend, if you care about your children growing up in a town with nice green spaces for them to play, then DON'T VOTE FOR ANY OF SOUTHEND'S TORIES at the local elections.
wosres, says...
10:48am Fri 5 Mar 10
'V' wrote:I for one do care about Southend and think we have got a number of wonderful green and beachside spaces which my family enjoy all year round. I personally don't believe the council has done anything that reduces the quality of these spaces and and supportive of their Better Southend plans.
Let us not forget the wholesale destruction of Gunners Park in Shoebury where an entire avenue of healthy mature trees were raised, along with other mature trees around the park boundary. We were promised new trees would be planted to replace these lost trees. That still has not happened. Gunners Park has STILL not been replaced by Gladedale.
This was done with the explicit agreement and sanction of Southend Council's tories.
http://img.photobuck
et.com/albums/v223/M
initar1/Dg/TheRapeOf
GunnersPark1.jpg
Southend's tories have a complete contempt for the electorate of Southend. All Southend's tories want to do is concrete over anything green, cut down trees, turn parks into industrial estates, turn our beachside common land into car parks.
We have seen it time and time again in Southend.
It is time to stop these tory vandals.
If you care about Southend, if you care about your children growing up in a town with nice green spaces for them to play, then DON'T VOTE FOR ANY OF SOUTHEND'S TORIES at the local elections.
Carrie.C, Southend says...
11:35am Fri 5 Mar 10
wosres, says...
8:00pm Fri 5 Mar 10
I will just comment on one point you keep making - that about "the latest plans for Cuckoo Corner which still show great areas as still to be decided" Without seeing these plans I cannot comment but certainly would if they were to be made available. I would say though that it is not unusual for planning permission and funding to be agreed on the basis of outline general arrangement designs and that detail design continues right up to and even during construction. I would be very surprised if the items that are yet to be decided are as significant as you suggest and more likely refer to finer details of kerb types and gulley locations - not arrangement of the junction itself.
Without providing the evidence you shouldn't make the claim. I could make any unsubstantiated claim which you would not be able to able to categorically counter. I am careful with what I say and I know my subject.
You also say that either the council are withholding final details...of sections of private gardens that are going to be "destroyed" or the council doesn't know what is planned. One point to make is - what obligation do the council have to share every last detail with you or anyone else? They have published details upon which consultees have commented (I presume) upon which approvals have subsequently been given and that is all they would be obliged to do in my experience.
Also, I'm sure that agreements are all in place with the residents who stand to lose a small amount of their front gardens as a result of this scheme and they will no doubt be being recompensed financially for the loss of land. I don't believe this sort of detail would not still be outstanding at this stage with works due to commence in the near future.
Bah. You've drawn me into saying more than I wished and my head now hurts so its more paracetamol and off to bed.
Keep firing them off and I'll try and provide the answers you need where I can....
Oh and upload those plans to the PPPS website and we can make our own mind up as to what is still to be decided and what is not.
BASILBRUSH, Southend-on-Sea says...
12:18am Sat 6 Mar 10
Mary Lou, southend says...
10:49am Sat 6 Mar 10
They say they have a great deal of support. Yet they will not stand for democratic election.
They are in a minority and I for one wouldn't let them run a whelk stall.
They have a way of thinking that went out with the 60's hippies. What do they intend to do for Southends Infrastructure problems. Ley lines, crystals, Tarot Cards or maybe Feng Shui the traffic flow?
They hate and despise modern and they hate and despise people who do not think like them.
If you want a demo go sit on the civic centre steps, but get out of the way and let the people paid for and elected by the borough get on and do their jobs.
jayman, southend says...
4:53pm Sat 6 Mar 10
BASILBRUSH, Southend-on-Sea says...
7:56pm Sat 6 Mar 10
We have an elected Council. Not everyone is going to like the decisions they make, but they have been charged to make those decisions on our behalf.
If people are unhapppy with the decisions made then stand against them next time.
If you didn't vote, don't complain if the elected councillors are not acting the way you would like.
Nebs, Westcliff-on-Sea says...
8:57pm Sat 6 Mar 10
Mary Lou, southend says...
8:55am Sun 7 Mar 10
jayman wrote:Jayman,
I think that we have to move away from the problem and towards a solution and quickly before all parties involved become entrenched. come on SBC lets have a full public consultation on this with public meetings with an open agenda on future transport planning. in my opinion we need to look at the wider picture of future proof development and not the short term and more work needs to be done with surrounding councils. it doesn't matter what political party is in control surely common sense will prevail..
Thats why we have a Highways and a planning dept. But for any solution you can't please all of the people. To have enquiries and refferendums means no solution at all which would actually suit the malcontents. However, the underlying problems wouldn't go away and just get worse.
soufend girl!, southend says...
4:26pm Mon 8 Mar 10
I'm not sure as I don't know him like some of you do, but I doubt Mr D Walker is a traffic engineer and is this the same Mr Walker that opposed the airport or was that a different Walker? Then theres a Ms Walker is this all one and the same person?
southendmechanic, southend on sea says...
9:20pm Mon 8 Mar 10
Peter walker (pw1954) is a retired teacher who also coaches chess.
he has had run ins with southend council for years (both lib dem and con) over this road project and other enviromental issues (cycling)
he also gave life to one Denis walker a web programmer who is a self educated envromentalist who likes to press his veiws on people and has issues of listening that you need to compromise if you dont hold a solutuion to the original problem.
Peter is now chariman of PPPS with Denis taking other duties.
Denis is local co ordinator of Friends of the earth (SEEFoE) with his dad as treasurer. Denis is also involved in SAEN as press officer. Oh and now he is involved on a board of people for FoE for actavits on tatics.
Peter also is on a panel of people involved in cycling in southend who are also attacking southend council.
Sheena Walker has according to SKIPP got nothing to do with either of them. Anyway these 2 men jumped up and down shouting they had stopped southend council only to find out what they agreed meant nothing to the changes now being done. They are also feeling a bit bitter over the Stobart issue and that they are likely to have lost the airport issue. What i dont like about them is the way they take over groups of people with genuine issues and twist the truth in their press releases and letters not listening to other ideas or that an change is needed. ALL they are worried about is beating the council and not in the genuine people who really could work out their issues with the council.
With people like this on SKIPPS side public support and understanding will never be good because what truth is their is lost in the lies and twisting of the walker family.
pinchitter, Leigh-on-sea says...
10:53am Tue 9 Mar 10
Carrie.C, Southend says...
11:14am Tue 9 Mar 10
pinchitter, Leigh-on-sea says...
11:40am Tue 9 Mar 10
Carrie.C, Southend says...
11:41am Tue 9 Mar 10
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Denis Walker, Prittlewell says...
3:46pm Wed 3 Mar 10
Let's also hear the justification for the Conservative administration going back on its promise of April last year "that the proposal to widen Priory Crescent ... is not going ahead."
Perhaps you or your Conservative colleagues would care to explain why Cllr John Lamb told BBC Essex on Tuesday last week (23rd Feb) that "We are not touching Priory Crescent." when the current plans show 200 metres of Priory Crescent being widened to three lanes?
When will your party start telling the truth?