We tried.
Colin Hodgson went specially to the planning meeting today in Kendal in order to support the arguments put forward by the people on his patch.
He spoke well and effectively.
Sadly we were not able to persuade the other councillors that the bland report by the Highways Department where they said that there were no problems should be challenged. This was even though in 2005 and since, they have drawn attention to the dangers at the intersection of Union Lane and Stanley St.
What's going on behind the scenes that they no long report the hazards they saw there before in 2005.
Do people feel that there may be backhanders being passed between the developers and the highways officials?
6 comments:
The apparent nodding through of the developer's proposals without discussion of safely issues by councillors to both vehicles and pedestrians is troubling in the extreme.
No regard seems to have been paid to residents' submissions during the consultation process. Clearly, consultation serves no purpose when there is not even the courtesy of a response to serious safety concerns.
Who will carry the can when the virtually inevitable accident occurs? Definitely not a price worth paying to push through inadequate vehicle access.
Yours in trepidation,
Worried lane user.
I agree.
We have cause to be worried on several counts and we need to establish who will be accountable if/when things start going wrong.
For me it will not be the drivers fault if an accident happens as they will be faced with unexpectedly hazardous conditions.
The County Highways must surely have a responsibility for ignoring all safety issues.
On the other hand SLDC will be responsible if damage occurs to our houses through vehicle induced vibration (our house often tremors). As this issue was also ignored and not even considered or dicussed in spite of being brought up by Councillor Hodgson acting as a private individual as he isn't on the Planning Committee.
Geoff you must affix glass to any stress points.
Record and annotate if you require proof
In some cases, a local authority may have monitored the progression of cracks over time using glass "tell tales" or other similar devices. Glass "tell tales" are similar to glass laboratory sample plates which are placed across the crack and cemented in place so that any movement will cause them to crack.
Cracking is an indicator of potential structural instability. But it can have other causes. These include vibration caused by traffic on a nearby road!
For example, a useful application of using Tell-Tales for crack monitoring would be illustrated by the following scenario:
An existing building is to be demolished to make way for a new development. There are existing buildings either side.
Before demolition starts, the owner or the advisers of the building to be demolished inspects with the owners of the adjoining buildings any cracks in their buildings. The widths of the cracks are measured using an Avongard Crack Width Gauge as part of the present condition survey and Tell-Tales are fixed across any cracks. The position and reading of each Tell-Tale are agreed with all interested parties. All interested parties countersign the crack monitoring sheet. At agreed stages during the demolition, foundation and superstructure construction, all interested parties again read the Tell-Tales for signs of movement and countersign the crack monitoring sheet. This procedure can reduce the incidence of disputes and claims with adjoining owners.
JAK
Many thanks JAK,
This information will be invaluable when we approach SLDC for compensation.
We hope to have a meeting with their planning officer to establish what procedures we need to follow very soon.
I'm not sure about backhanders but I do think this decision is political and very timely. As South Lakeland District Council are proposing hundreds of new houses for Ulverston I think they are sending the simple message "shut up and put up" which does not bode well. Is it worth writing beyond Kendal?
Who do you suggest?
See the planning officer tomorrow
Post a Comment