Town being decimated instead of enhanced (From Echo)

Denis Walker says...
3:46pm Wed 3 Mar 10

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?

Report this post »

lilysnana says...
4:22pm Wed 3 Mar 10

Can I please say that I totally agree with Dennis Walker. If someone like Mr Kawhaja, is standing a Tory Councillor, then I suppose he has to agree with Cllrs Holdcroft and Waite. God help us ALL.

Report this post »

Nebs says...
5:05pm Wed 3 Mar 10

Who is getting all these major building contracts? Is the money staying local?

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
5:09pm Wed 3 Mar 10

I also agree with the 2 comments above. It's funny how all the letters except the one from the prospective fellow Tory Councillor are stating the facts about how terrible and crazy the Council’s Cuckoo Corner plan is, whereas Mr Kawhaja's letter is just repeating word for word what Cllrs Lamb and Waite have been spouting for yonks! Do you REALLY think Mr Kawhaja that we are gonna fall for it again after what happened at Victoria Circus? We are SICK of the Tories in Southend Council ruling the roost and making secretive decisions for their own gain, instead of properly consulting their electorate! They obviously have no regard for us whatsoever and think that they can just keep fooling us with their vague plans (if you can find them at all on the Council website!) and pretty pictures of idyllic urban scenes. I am sure that the Council know that there is a rapidly turning tide against them after what they did at Victoria Circus and what they are going to try and get away with at Cuckoo Corner and if they think that a letter from you will change our minds they are very much mistaken! The elections are coming up and the Council needs to sit down and think this through properly as this is not the way to stay in power.

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
5:25pm Wed 3 Mar 10

denis as you are not a car user i would suggest that you wont appreciate the dangers of the roundabout at cuckoo corner or the fact that traffic can be controlled by linked traffic lights much better and these same lights will give greater safety to the public especially children who could now cross at the end of priory crescent from manners way in increased safety and be able to get to the park.

Report this post »

Denis Walker says...
5:45pm Wed 3 Mar 10

Ah, hello southendmechanic. From where do you get the idea that I'm not a car user? You know nothing about me.

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.

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
6:17pm Wed 3 Mar 10

you said last year in a posting that you dont drive but as you bend the truth or forget to be straight with people fair enough.
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.

you said last year in a posting that you dont drive but as you bend the truth or forget to be straight with people fair enough. 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. southendmechanic

Report this post »

Denis Walker says...
8:10pm Wed 3 Mar 10

southendmechanic:
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.

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
8:43pm Wed 3 Mar 10

your dad stated that was the time and date so if you give figures they need to be exact and you still didnt give an answer on if that is a misleading photo?
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

your dad stated that was the time and date so if you give figures they need to be exact and you still didnt give an answer on if that is a misleading photo? 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 southendmechanic

Report this post »

BASILBRUSH says...
8:57pm Wed 3 Mar 10

"..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."

Prove it... Prove that a significant number don't want it.

Report this post »

wosres says...
9:35pm Wed 3 Mar 10

With regard to how the inclusion of extra lanes and traffic lights will make this junction work a whole lot better see the below as originally posted as a comment on Longpier.com

"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

With regard to how the inclusion of extra lanes and traffic lights will make this junction work a whole lot better see the below as originally posted as a comment on Longpier.com "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 wosres

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
11:10am Thu 4 Mar 10

If the scheme is so fantastic, why are all the areas which affect people's front gardens, grass verges, trees along Manners Way, Priory Crescent etc and even entire pedestrian footpaths still marked "To be decided" on the latest Council plans? If the Council expects us to trust it, how can it explain why, 3 months before the work is due to commence (not including the trees which are due to be cut down any day), we are still not being told exactly what is being planned for these areas? Either the Council is purposefully trying to keep us in the dark until it is too late for us to stop all this destruction, or it really hasn't yet made up its mind what it is going to do, in which case how in the world is it being allowed to proceed and spend over £5 million of our taxpayers' money on a scheme which may or may not even work? Some of you may scoff that trees are unimportant compared to roads but I can assure you that there are many local people who have grown up in this town who do not agree! These trees are irreplaceable and should be valued and preserved at all costs. So should pedestrian footpaths, grass verges and certainly people's front gardens which, according to the plans, look as though they are all in serious jeopardy! The Council is run by hypocrites who don't give a **** about the environment - that is obvious because otherwise how could they justify destroying huge chunks of our few remaining green spaces to build more roads which just encourage more cars which results in more congestion and more pollution? Where will it all end? This is all about the airport expansion and is just the beginning of the chaos which will result, so that a few can line their pockets! SKIPP and the other groups who have joined them at Camp Cuckoo are NOT "whinging....profess
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!

If the scheme is so fantastic, why are all the areas which affect people's front gardens, grass verges, trees along Manners Way, Priory Crescent etc and even entire pedestrian footpaths still marked "To be decided" on the latest Council plans? If the Council expects us to trust it, how can it explain why, 3 months before the work is due to commence (not including the trees which are due to be cut down any day), we are still not being told exactly what is being planned for these areas? Either the Council is purposefully trying to keep us in the dark until it is too late for us to stop all this destruction, or it really hasn't yet made up its mind what it is going to do, in which case how in the world is it being allowed to proceed and spend over £5 million of our taxpayers' money on a scheme which may or may not even work? Some of you may scoff that trees are unimportant compared to roads but I can assure you that there are many local people who have grown up in this town who do not agree! These trees are irreplaceable and should be valued and preserved at all costs. So should pedestrian footpaths, grass verges and certainly people's front gardens which, according to the plans, look as though they are all in serious jeopardy! The Council is run by hypocrites who don't give a **** about the environment - that is obvious because otherwise how could they justify destroying huge chunks of our few remaining green spaces to build more roads which just encourage more cars which results in more congestion and more pollution? Where will it all end? This is all about the airport expansion and is just the beginning of the chaos which will result, so that a few can line their pockets! SKIPP and the other groups who have joined them at Camp Cuckoo are NOT "whinging....profess 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! Carrie.C

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
11:34am Thu 4 Mar 10

did you see the nice article on longpeir written by rachel charman who specialises in reporting on councils. She points out that the argument is diffrent from the camp bling one and that camp cuckoo has limited support from the community.
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.

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
12:09pm Thu 4 Mar 10

I hadn't seen the Longpeir article and wasn't aware of the website which probably explains the limited and mainly one-sided comments appearing on there! As I stated above, most supporters are full-time workers and as such don't have unlimited time to post never-ending comments on websites! As you have pointed out that you are part of an equipment hire firm which stands to gain financially from the scheme, I'm sure you can understand why some people might say that your views are somewhat biased? As I said before, none of the people who are fighting to stop the scheme have any other motive than to preserve the town's trees and green spaces and stop this daft scheme which is totally vague and misleading and despite the Council continually trying to give the impression that those opposed to it consist of only a few people, I can assure you that this is not the case! The facts are that it's extremely cold at the moment so camping out isn't pleasant! Added to this, the vast majority of people who are showing their support at Camp Cuckoo are respectable, hardworking people who have to work long hours and bring up families etc etc, so of course not everyone who supports the Camp are able to be there 24/7! But there are more and more local residents arriving every day to show their support and when they are needed, they will be there to do their bit to stop those trees coming down and that's the whole point of the camp - to bring people together which is something they've not been able to do until now. Considering that the Council is trying so hard to mislead people and keep them away, the fact that so many local people came out on Saturday night to protest at what the Council is doing, speaks volumes! Of course it will always be difficult to oppose the Council because they have unlimited time and resources (including a dedicated media department) but every time they destroy more of the character and heart of this town, the more the electorate will turn away from them. Now I really must get back to work but see you at Camp Cuckoo tonight if you can brave the cold!

I hadn't seen the Longpeir article and wasn't aware of the website which probably explains the limited and mainly one-sided comments appearing on there! As I stated above, most supporters are full-time workers and as such don't have unlimited time to post never-ending comments on websites! As you have pointed out that you are part of an equipment hire firm which stands to gain financially from the scheme, I'm sure you can understand why some people might say that your views are somewhat biased? As I said before, none of the people who are fighting to stop the scheme have any other motive than to preserve the town's trees and green spaces and stop this daft scheme which is totally vague and misleading and despite the Council continually trying to give the impression that those opposed to it consist of only a few people, I can assure you that this is not the case! The facts are that it's extremely cold at the moment so camping out isn't pleasant! Added to this, the vast majority of people who are showing their support at Camp Cuckoo are respectable, hardworking people who have to work long hours and bring up families etc etc, so of course not everyone who supports the Camp are able to be there 24/7! But there are more and more local residents arriving every day to show their support and when they are needed, they will be there to do their bit to stop those trees coming down and that's the whole point of the camp - to bring people together which is something they've not been able to do until now. Considering that the Council is trying so hard to mislead people and keep them away, the fact that so many local people came out on Saturday night to protest at what the Council is doing, speaks volumes! Of course it will always be difficult to oppose the Council because they have unlimited time and resources (including a dedicated media department) but every time they destroy more of the character and heart of this town, the more the electorate will turn away from them. Now I really must get back to work but see you at Camp Cuckoo tonight if you can brave the cold! Carrie.C

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
1:05pm Thu 4 Mar 10

can you explain why you need food for the camp for these full time local workers???? surely these people eat at home so why are they needing handouts now to live?

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
1:16pm Thu 4 Mar 10

As for longpier they are not the only website with mainly negative comments and unanswer questions when put to denis who seems to like putting quetes on then when he is pulled up on points avoids or trys to belittle people
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

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
2:31pm Thu 4 Mar 10

I don't know this Denis who you seem to have a personal vendetta against, as there are so many people coming and going over there all the time and I can only speak as I find and I've found it very uplifting to meet so many nice people who aren't just involved in their own selfish lives and what's in it for them. As you so rightly state, times are hard and we are all feeling the financial pressure (although I suspect Anna Waite/Tomassi is probably still doing OK!), but instead of some people obsessing about their own wallets and seeing everything in terms of pound signs and how they can twist a situation round to benefit themselves, I am glad to say that there are still some people who see the bigger picture!

Report this post »

vanilla ice says...
2:46pm Thu 4 Mar 10

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.

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
2:48pm Thu 4 Mar 10

At last someone with a brain....! ;-)

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
3:08pm Thu 4 Mar 10

vanilla ice wrote:
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.

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.
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!!

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
3:17pm Thu 4 Mar 10

so basically carrie is the road changes at cuckoo corner going to make things better or worse? lets just have your personal opinion and not SKIPPS or the councils this is about you as a person?

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
3:52pm Thu 4 Mar 10

This really is my last comment because I've got work to do and you obviously haven't and I need to get it all cleared so I can maximise the time I have to give my support to those wonderful people at the camp tonight! I've just quickly re-read vanilla ice's comment above and I'm sorry but I can't really see your point (other than you splitting hairs as usual)? I maintain that Cuckoo Corner won't speed up traffic or "make things better" although the Council will certainly try and use it as justification for increased development/desecrat
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.

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
4:31pm Thu 4 Mar 10

i will off on holiday as only needed a 3 days week this week so i will be trundling down the A12 tomorrow morning for a rest with the kiddies.
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.

Report this post »

BASILBRUSH says...
11:06pm Thu 4 Mar 10

Denis Walker wrote:
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?

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.
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.

Report this post »

wosres says...
9:47am Fri 5 Mar 10

vanilla ice wrote:

" 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.

Report this post »

The Star says...
9:49am Fri 5 Mar 10

Ahmad Khwaja do you realise even a well known toilet tissue manufacturer replants 3 trees for everyone cut down

Report this post »

'V' says...
10:23am Fri 5 Mar 10

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.

Report this post »

wosres says...
10:48am Fri 5 Mar 10

'V' wrote:
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.

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.

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
11:35am Fri 5 Mar 10

Well thankfully there are plenty of people who no longer support this out of control Tory Council and can't wait to see the back of them! We may still have "some wonderful green and beachside spaces" but it is only a matter of time if we leave them in the hands of this Council! There is a stealth removal of trees going on all over the Borough which SKIPP is now monitoring by inviting residents to tell them about the sudden disappearance of healthy trees in their neighbourhoods. The reason I am so supportive of this group is that despite having full-time jobs and/or familities etc to worry about, they still work tirelessly for the residents to stop the Council getting away with whatever they like. If it wasn't for them none of us would get our voices heard as we are totally powerless unless we join together. This Council is definitely accelerating its policy of destroying healthy, mature trees all over the Borough and that is why I have finally realised that I can't leave things in their hands any longer as they cannot be trusted. They are always saying that the trees are diseased or nearing the end of their lives but this is total rubbish! Anna Waite said that those beautiful London planes at Vic Circus were nearing the end of their lives but they were only around 80 years old and London planes live to around 500! And all the trees in Wilson Road, Southend were removed suddenly one day due to a "fatal disease", despite a local resident being assured verbally on the phone 3 weeks beforehand that there were no more trees earmarked for destruction for 3 years! And the Council blamed out of control contractors for the unforgivable destruction of those huge yucca trees on Southend Cliffs and have admitted that the trees in Wilson Road should not have come down. In that case, surely Tree Fellahs should NOT be used by the Council as they are obviously not to be trusted? The fact that they are still being used surely proves that either the Council does not give a **** about stopping this wanton destruction which Tree Fellahs take such pleasure in (eg the "Logs for Sale. More coming" sign they put up at Vic Circus despite local residents' grief at the loss of those trees), or that Tree Fellahs are in fact carrying out instructions from the Council! All this Council is bothered about (and I mean the Tory element because other Councillors can't get a look in) is money. Anna Waite didn't even know how many trees were due to be cut down at Cuckoo Corner - she had to send someone up there to quickly count them! Surely that shows you how much regard she has for our natural environment? And they STILL haven't come clean about the latest plans for Cuckoo Corner which still show great areas as still to be decided! This is my main gripe as if the work is due to start in June (after our lovely trees have all been sacrificed any day now), how can the Council and contractors STILL not know what is planned for those areas? Either there is a cover-up going on to stop people seeing that the grass verges, trees, entire footpaths and in some cases it appears even sections of private front gardens are all going to be destroyed, or the Council still doesn't know itself - in which case how did it get this scheme approved with Government funding in the first place? I read in the Echo a couple of days ago that a businessman along the seafront was saying that he hadn't realised the scope of Anna Waite's seafront "scheme" which has impacted right the way along the Golden Mile and already damaged his trade. Very soon, if we don't step in to stop Cuckoo Corner being destroyed, people will be saying that they didn't realise the scope of Anna Waite's plan there either and once again it will be too late! Everyone needs to question very carefully these so-called BetterSouthend Schemes because they are not being told the full story.

Well thankfully there are plenty of people who no longer support this out of control Tory Council and can't wait to see the back of them! We may still have "some wonderful green and beachside spaces" but it is only a matter of time if we leave them in the hands of this Council! There is a stealth removal of trees going on all over the Borough which SKIPP is now monitoring by inviting residents to tell them about the sudden disappearance of healthy trees in their neighbourhoods. The reason I am so supportive of this group is that despite having full-time jobs and/or familities etc to worry about, they still work tirelessly for the residents to stop the Council getting away with whatever they like. If it wasn't for them none of us would get our voices heard as we are totally powerless unless we join together. This Council is definitely accelerating its policy of destroying healthy, mature trees all over the Borough and that is why I have finally realised that I can't leave things in their hands any longer as they cannot be trusted. They are always saying that the trees are diseased or nearing the end of their lives but this is total rubbish! Anna Waite said that those beautiful London planes at Vic Circus were nearing the end of their lives but they were only around 80 years old and London planes live to around 500! And all the trees in Wilson Road, Southend were removed suddenly one day due to a "fatal disease", despite a local resident being assured verbally on the phone 3 weeks beforehand that there were no more trees earmarked for destruction for 3 years! And the Council blamed out of control contractors for the unforgivable destruction of those huge yucca trees on Southend Cliffs and have admitted that the trees in Wilson Road should not have come down. In that case, surely Tree Fellahs should NOT be used by the Council as they are obviously not to be trusted? The fact that they are still being used surely proves that either the Council does not give a **** about stopping this wanton destruction which Tree Fellahs take such pleasure in (eg the "Logs for Sale. More coming" sign they put up at Vic Circus despite local residents' grief at the loss of those trees), or that Tree Fellahs are in fact carrying out instructions from the Council! All this Council is bothered about (and I mean the Tory element because other Councillors can't get a look in) is money. Anna Waite didn't even know how many trees were due to be cut down at Cuckoo Corner - she had to send someone up there to quickly count them! Surely that shows you how much regard she has for our natural environment? And they STILL haven't come clean about the latest plans for Cuckoo Corner which still show great areas as still to be decided! This is my main gripe as if the work is due to start in June (after our lovely trees have all been sacrificed any day now), how can the Council and contractors STILL not know what is planned for those areas? Either there is a cover-up going on to stop people seeing that the grass verges, trees, entire footpaths and in some cases it appears even sections of private front gardens are all going to be destroyed, or the Council still doesn't know itself - in which case how did it get this scheme approved with Government funding in the first place? I read in the Echo a couple of days ago that a businessman along the seafront was saying that he hadn't realised the scope of Anna Waite's seafront "scheme" which has impacted right the way along the Golden Mile and already damaged his trade. Very soon, if we don't step in to stop Cuckoo Corner being destroyed, people will be saying that they didn't realise the scope of Anna Waite's plan there either and once again it will be too late! Everyone needs to question very carefully these so-called BetterSouthend Schemes because they are not being told the full story. Carrie.C

Report this post »

wosres says...
8:00pm Fri 5 Mar 10

Carrie - So many points to correct - but after a long week and a day off ill I haven't got the energy.

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.

Carrie - So many points to correct - but after a long week and a day off ill I haven't got the energy. 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. wosres

Report this post »

BASILBRUSH says...
12:18am Sat 6 Mar 10

Yet again only about 5 people at Southends newest Shanty town as I drove past this evening. Hardly a mass of support described time and time again.

Report this post »

Mary Lou says...
10:49am Sat 6 Mar 10

There are vocal demonstrators who do not like how the Borough is being run.
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.

Report this post »

jayman says...
4:53pm Sat 6 Mar 10

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..

Report this post »

BASILBRUSH says...
7:56pm Sat 6 Mar 10

The trouble is this town is constantly talking and consulting (not always a bad thing). Then a few people complain and more talking and consulting, followed by little activity.
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.

Report this post »

Nebs says...
8:57pm Sat 6 Mar 10

There is little point doing anything about roads or transport in this town until the airport expansion and the planned adjacent industrial estate goes ahead.

Report this post »

Mary Lou says...
8:55am Sun 7 Mar 10

jayman wrote:
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..

Jayman,

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.

Report this post »

soufend girl! says...
4:26pm Mon 8 Mar 10

I'm relatively new to all this but it strikes me its the same folk all the time that are just serial objecters to anything new.
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?

Report this post »

southendmechanic says...
9:20pm Mon 8 Mar 10

well soufend girl and carrie (who says she is invloved with camp cuckoo but does not know denis who is there for most of the day)

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.

Report this post »

pinchitter says...
10:53am Tue 9 Mar 10

While trees are obviously important we equally cannot have the town completly gridlocked.This has gone on long enough just get on with it .

Report this post »

Carrie.C says...
11:14am Tue 9 Mar 10

So pinchitter you want to "just get on with it"? I have one question for you - HAVE YOU SEEN THE LATEST COUNCIL PLAN? I would say definitely not because I would challenge anyone who didn't have an ulterior motive for the work to go ahead (such as some of the people commenting above who openly admit that they stand to gain financially!) to give the go-ahead to a plan which STILL doesn't tell us what is going to be done! Why don't you get a copy of the plan for yourself (if you can't find it on the Southend Council website which is likely, contact SKIPP and they will show it to you) and THEN tell me you don't have any concerns and are ready to take the gamble?

Town being decimated instead of enhanced (From Echo)

News RSS Feed

Town being decimated instead of enhanced

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies