Colchester congestion to be tackled using homes bonus cash

Gazette: Colchester congestion to be tackled using homes bonus cash Colchester congestion to be tackled using homes bonus cash

CASH handed to Colchester because thousands of homes have been built in the borough will be spent on a host of projects, it has been revealed.

Colchester Council has revealed part of the £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus moneywill go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town.

Further cash will go towards projects which could allow the council to make more money in the future.

The bonus is awarded to local authorities which allow new-build homes to be built by developers.

Anne Turrell, deputy leader and councillor responsible for economic development, admitted part of the New Homes Bonus had previously been used to top up the budget and compensate for falling Government grants However, she said this would no longer happen.

She added: “We want to use it to help communities and generate more income, so we can offer frontline services and keep council tax down.

"I suspect most councils believe in the future they won’t receive any grant from the Government, so we need to prepare ourselves so we can still run basic services.”

About £145,000 will be spent on improving links and signs between the town centre and North Station, and a study on encouraging more car sharing, cycling and walking

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:42pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Disley Titchbender says...

Somebody, somewhere, will be stocking up on anonymous looking brown envelopes at this breaking news.
Somebody, somewhere, will be stocking up on anonymous looking brown envelopes at this breaking news. Disley Titchbender
  • Score: 8

12:45pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Say It As It Is OK? says...

£730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town?

Do we really need to spend neary Three Quarters of a Million Pounds even on more studies? The council's (CBC and ECC) have already commissioned numerous consultants, who have been paid enormous fees, for carrying out traffic studies but to date none of them have actually solved the problems!

Let's hope this is not yet another attempt at wasting public funds.
£730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town? Do we really need to spend neary Three Quarters of a Million Pounds even on more studies? The council's (CBC and ECC) have already commissioned numerous consultants, who have been paid enormous fees, for carrying out traffic studies but to date none of them have actually solved the problems! Let's hope this is not yet another attempt at wasting public funds. Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 28

12:52pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Ref above comment, I miss-read the article. It's only part of the £730,000 being spent on studies but we don't know how much! However why do we need to spend again on something that has already been done?
Ref above comment, I miss-read the article. It's only part of the £730,000 being spent on studies but we don't know how much! However why do we need to spend again on something that has already been done? Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 21

4:17pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Colonel Kurtz says...

It would make sense to have the Infrastructure in first before building countless thousands of new houses.

The need to form a study to work out that our roads are gridlocked. It does not take a genius to work that out.

They talk and talk and talk but nothing, I mean nothing will be done. A quarter of the staff are away on diversity courses and another quarter are off on long term sickness. The rest work from home counting their gold plated pension schemes. I was in a hotel recently in Spain and I overheard a complaint at the reception that the wi-fi was not working and a lady could not access her emails from Essex County Council. Working at home has a new meaning.

Utter shambles.
It would make sense to have the Infrastructure in first before building countless thousands of new houses. The need to form a study to work out that our roads are gridlocked. It does not take a genius to work that out. They talk and talk and talk but nothing, I mean nothing will be done. A quarter of the staff are away on diversity courses and another quarter are off on long term sickness. The rest work from home counting their gold plated pension schemes. I was in a hotel recently in Spain and I overheard a complaint at the reception that the wi-fi was not working and a lady could not access her emails from Essex County Council. Working at home has a new meaning. Utter shambles. Colonel Kurtz
  • Score: 13

4:40pm Sat 21 Jun 14

jim_bo says...

Part of £750,000 is somewhat short of the £36million quoted for the new railway bridge that is required to sort the congestion.

Still, Monday morning in setting up as a consultancy firm as someone might as well clutch at straws for all that cash!!
Part of £750,000 is somewhat short of the £36million quoted for the new railway bridge that is required to sort the congestion. Still, Monday morning in setting up as a consultancy firm as someone might as well clutch at straws for all that cash!! jim_bo
  • Score: 6

5:22pm Sat 21 Jun 14

jut1972 says...

I've read the paper which breaks down how the cash will be spent. Mylands "reward" for 3000 houses is 195k. This will provide 3 studies variously described as "way finders", change programmes and feasibility studies.

Absolute waste of money. 3 documents which will sit on a shelf and not be read. Yet previously ECC didn't need to revisit the traffic analyses when they recommended planning approvals. And CBC fell for it hook line and sinker.

A few of us were petitioning for a consultation to be held on how to spend the cash. This was ignored. Instead we get this half baked list of non deliverables which will change nothing.
I've read the paper which breaks down how the cash will be spent. Mylands "reward" for 3000 houses is 195k. This will provide 3 studies variously described as "way finders", change programmes and feasibility studies. Absolute waste of money. 3 documents which will sit on a shelf and not be read. Yet previously ECC didn't need to revisit the traffic analyses when they recommended planning approvals. And CBC fell for it hook line and sinker. A few of us were petitioning for a consultation to be held on how to spend the cash. This was ignored. Instead we get this half baked list of non deliverables which will change nothing. jut1972
  • Score: 10

8:09pm Sat 21 Jun 14

mr pants says...

I wonder if the Council would like to contact my new traffic management consultancy firm. Far better than anything tried so far and I think at a push I could produce more meaningless garbage.. Sorry.. I mean invaluable insights for them to ignore.
The sad truth is that this is not a joke, unless it is a very unpleasant one played on us mug taxpayers.
I wonder if the Council would like to contact my new traffic management consultancy firm. Far better than anything tried so far and I think at a push I could produce more meaningless garbage.. Sorry.. I mean invaluable insights for them to ignore. The sad truth is that this is not a joke, unless it is a very unpleasant one played on us mug taxpayers. mr pants
  • Score: 7

8:52pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Shoosh1905 says...

It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better. Shoosh1905
  • Score: 1

9:42pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Reginald47 says...

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:
£730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town? Do we really need to spend neary Three Quarters of a Million Pounds even on more studies? The council's (CBC and ECC) have already commissioned numerous consultants, who have been paid enormous fees, for carrying out traffic studies but to date none of them have actually solved the problems! Let's hope this is not yet another attempt at wasting public funds.
''Colchester Council has revealed part of the £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town.''

That's the actual quote. Not quite the same as your interpretatuion, but never mind.
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote: £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town? Do we really need to spend neary Three Quarters of a Million Pounds even on more studies? The council's (CBC and ECC) have already commissioned numerous consultants, who have been paid enormous fees, for carrying out traffic studies but to date none of them have actually solved the problems! Let's hope this is not yet another attempt at wasting public funds.[/p][/quote]''Colchester Council has revealed part of the £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town.'' That's the actual quote. Not quite the same as your interpretatuion, but never mind. Reginald47
  • Score: -6

9:45pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Reginald47 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
Say It As It Is OK? wrote: £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town? Do we really need to spend neary Three Quarters of a Million Pounds even on more studies? The council's (CBC and ECC) have already commissioned numerous consultants, who have been paid enormous fees, for carrying out traffic studies but to date none of them have actually solved the problems! Let's hope this is not yet another attempt at wasting public funds.
''Colchester Council has revealed part of the £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town.'' That's the actual quote. Not quite the same as your interpretatuion, but never mind.
Sorry, just noticed you've already said that above.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote: £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town? Do we really need to spend neary Three Quarters of a Million Pounds even on more studies? The council's (CBC and ECC) have already commissioned numerous consultants, who have been paid enormous fees, for carrying out traffic studies but to date none of them have actually solved the problems! Let's hope this is not yet another attempt at wasting public funds.[/p][/quote]''Colchester Council has revealed part of the £730,000 of the New Homes Bonus money will go towards studies looking at ways to cut congestion in the rapidly-growing north and east of the town.'' That's the actual quote. Not quite the same as your interpretatuion, but never mind.[/p][/quote]Sorry, just noticed you've already said that above. Reginald47
  • Score: 2

9:49pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Reginald47 says...

Shoosh1905 wrote:
It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place. Reginald47
  • Score: -3

10:14pm Sat 21 Jun 14

TheIdesOfMarch says...

No no no, you must understand it is important to have feasibility studies and investigations.....
so if the sh*t hits the fan they can say to their third party directors liability insures, we did a study here look?
the largest cost on these studies is the stationary, brown envelopes are needed in abundance.
i mean who did the study on the bus lane fiasco in the high street?
this sort of cr*p is going to carry on and on and on and on and then you blame people like Lord White for Troughing.
Talk about handing it on a plate to someone.
No no no, you must understand it is important to have feasibility studies and investigations..... so if the sh*t hits the fan they can say to their third party directors liability insures, we did a study here look? the largest cost on these studies is the stationary, brown envelopes are needed in abundance. i mean who did the study on the bus lane fiasco in the high street? this sort of cr*p is going to carry on and on and on and on and then you blame people like Lord White for Troughing. Talk about handing it on a plate to someone. TheIdesOfMarch
  • Score: 7

5:56am Sun 22 Jun 14

seikothrill says...

Please remember the last traffic planning consultancy group said there wasn't a traffic issue in the North Station and said 1600 homes in Mile End would have minimal impact.

I think they charged around £230000 for this study

Brown envelopes again

Councillors deny the Brown Envelope scenario but some of their decisions can only lead to the public thinking this
Please remember the last traffic planning consultancy group said there wasn't a traffic issue in the North Station and said 1600 homes in Mile End would have minimal impact. I think they charged around £230000 for this study Brown envelopes again Councillors deny the Brown Envelope scenario but some of their decisions can only lead to the public thinking this seikothrill
  • Score: 4

9:37am Sun 22 Jun 14

Shoosh1905 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
We can't stay a small town for ever? People bring growth jobs and money. However the local Libdems aren't exactly making a good job of stopping new houses being built and they've been in charge for a while now. The local government and our MP in my opinion is just incompetent. People like you who defend them are holding this country back with you left wing totalitarian agenda hidden under the banner of a liberal flag.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]We can't stay a small town for ever? People bring growth jobs and money. However the local Libdems aren't exactly making a good job of stopping new houses being built and they've been in charge for a while now. The local government and our MP in my opinion is just incompetent. People like you who defend them are holding this country back with you left wing totalitarian agenda hidden under the banner of a liberal flag. Shoosh1905
  • Score: 3

10:00am Sun 22 Jun 14

U's fan says...

Forget the studies use it to fill the craters in the blinking roads!
Forget the studies use it to fill the craters in the blinking roads! U's fan
  • Score: 11

5:54pm Sun 22 Jun 14

jut1972 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved.

Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing.

Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up. jut1972
  • Score: 6

5:56pm Sun 22 Jun 14

jut1972 says...

seikothrill wrote:
Please remember the last traffic planning consultancy group said there wasn't a traffic issue in the North Station and said 1600 homes in Mile End would have minimal impact.

I think they charged around £230000 for this study

Brown envelopes again

Councillors deny the Brown Envelope scenario but some of their decisions can only lead to the public thinking this
Rather than brown envelopes it strikes of people with nothing to do. Maybe why CBC has twice the employees of other similar sized councils.
[quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: Please remember the last traffic planning consultancy group said there wasn't a traffic issue in the North Station and said 1600 homes in Mile End would have minimal impact. I think they charged around £230000 for this study Brown envelopes again Councillors deny the Brown Envelope scenario but some of their decisions can only lead to the public thinking this[/p][/quote]Rather than brown envelopes it strikes of people with nothing to do. Maybe why CBC has twice the employees of other similar sized councils. jut1972
  • Score: 4

6:04pm Sun 22 Jun 14

brooks says...

OK here is an insight stop building to the north and east of the town. Knock down a few of the cardboard boxes...I mean houses and invest in some new buses/trams even, help to employ more bus drivers (do not allow them to work 11 hour shifts) clean the streets and buildings, turn the lights back on, invest in some more bobbies on the beat. Surely with more houses there will be more council tax revenue? build a prison in the country with locks and bars and stop the inmates from just walking out whenever they feel like it.

etc etc Perhaps if the council asked local people who live in and care about Colchester to give their views on all these problems and dare I say it, for free....... then this town would be a better place to live/breathe in.
OK here is an insight stop building to the north and east of the town. Knock down a few of the cardboard boxes...I mean houses and invest in some new buses/trams even, help to employ more bus drivers (do not allow them to work 11 hour shifts) clean the streets and buildings, turn the lights back on, invest in some more bobbies on the beat. Surely with more houses there will be more council tax revenue? build a prison in the country with locks and bars and stop the inmates from just walking out whenever they feel like it. etc etc Perhaps if the council asked local people who live in and care about Colchester to give their views on all these problems and dare I say it, for free....... then this town would be a better place to live/breathe in. brooks
  • Score: 8

9:38pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Shoosh1905 says...

jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved.

Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing.

Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.
But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.[/p][/quote]But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town. Shoosh1905
  • Score: 4

11:20pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Reginald47 says...

Shoosh1905 wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.
But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.
How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me!
[quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.[/p][/quote]But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.[/p][/quote]How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me! Reginald47
  • Score: -5

12:25am Mon 23 Jun 14

Shoosh1905 says...

Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.
But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.
How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me!
As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank"
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.[/p][/quote]But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.[/p][/quote]How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me![/p][/quote]As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank" Shoosh1905
  • Score: 2

2:48am Mon 23 Jun 14

Boris says...

Shoosh1905 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.
But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.
How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me!
As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank"
Utter rubbish. My spy among the Lib Dem portfolio holders tells me they do not take orders from Bob Russell, indeed they disagree with him quite a lot. An example was the disastrous "Horkesley Park" scheme which Bob favoured, but all the Lib Dem councillors opposed. If he had been able to "pull rank", then he could have told them to back it, and it eould have gone through.
Another example is the bus station. Bob opposed the building of the VAF on the bus station, but the majority of Lib Dem councillors supported all the Tories in voting to go ahead wiith that disastrous course of action.
So, Shoosh and Jut, your idea that the MP can pull rank on the councillors of the same party is pure fantasy.
If anything, the reverse is true. Bob Russell relies on those councillors to campaign for him at election times, so they could tell him what to do, if they wanted to. But, in practice, I think they let him get on with it.
[quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.[/p][/quote]But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.[/p][/quote]How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me![/p][/quote]As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank"[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. My spy among the Lib Dem portfolio holders tells me they do not take orders from Bob Russell, indeed they disagree with him quite a lot. An example was the disastrous "Horkesley Park" scheme which Bob favoured, but all the Lib Dem councillors opposed. If he had been able to "pull rank", then he could have told them to back it, and it eould have gone through. Another example is the bus station. Bob opposed the building of the VAF on the bus station, but the majority of Lib Dem councillors supported all the Tories in voting to go ahead wiith that disastrous course of action. So, Shoosh and Jut, your idea that the MP can pull rank on the councillors of the same party is pure fantasy. If anything, the reverse is true. Bob Russell relies on those councillors to campaign for him at election times, so they could tell him what to do, if they wanted to. But, in practice, I think they let him get on with it. Boris
  • Score: -6

8:12am Mon 23 Jun 14

NolongerGREATBritain says...

I'm no expert but as a user of Colchester's "fine" roads in rush hour, I believe I have found the problem; pedestrian crossings and traffic lights straight off a roundabout. Not to mention two lanes which merge into one. Problem solved and I only charge £700k. Bargain
I'm no expert but as a user of Colchester's "fine" roads in rush hour, I believe I have found the problem; pedestrian crossings and traffic lights straight off a roundabout. Not to mention two lanes which merge into one. Problem solved and I only charge £700k. Bargain NolongerGREATBritain
  • Score: 2

8:17am Mon 23 Jun 14

Shrubendlad says...

Boris wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.
But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.
How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me!
As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank"
Utter rubbish. My spy among the Lib Dem portfolio holders tells me they do not take orders from Bob Russell, indeed they disagree with him quite a lot. An example was the disastrous "Horkesley Park" scheme which Bob favoured, but all the Lib Dem councillors opposed. If he had been able to "pull rank", then he could have told them to back it, and it eould have gone through.
Another example is the bus station. Bob opposed the building of the VAF on the bus station, but the majority of Lib Dem councillors supported all the Tories in voting to go ahead wiith that disastrous course of action.
So, Shoosh and Jut, your idea that the MP can pull rank on the councillors of the same party is pure fantasy.
If anything, the reverse is true. Bob Russell relies on those councillors to campaign for him at election times, so they could tell him what to do, if they wanted to. But, in practice, I think they let him get on with it.
Very interesting Boris BUT those of us who follow the Colchester Lib Dem Sagas know that the Wimpole Road HQ is effectively funded through Parliamentary expenses, that the various inter family relationships inside the local party and planning etc allegedly form the basis of "power" and that Mr Russell remains the puppet master.
I have noticed that the London flat is no longer claiming mortgage costs-but with the not so hidden saga of flatmate Mike Hancock MP etc etc.
Look forward to reading more of your revelations.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.[/p][/quote]But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.[/p][/quote]How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me![/p][/quote]As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank"[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. My spy among the Lib Dem portfolio holders tells me they do not take orders from Bob Russell, indeed they disagree with him quite a lot. An example was the disastrous "Horkesley Park" scheme which Bob favoured, but all the Lib Dem councillors opposed. If he had been able to "pull rank", then he could have told them to back it, and it eould have gone through. Another example is the bus station. Bob opposed the building of the VAF on the bus station, but the majority of Lib Dem councillors supported all the Tories in voting to go ahead wiith that disastrous course of action. So, Shoosh and Jut, your idea that the MP can pull rank on the councillors of the same party is pure fantasy. If anything, the reverse is true. Bob Russell relies on those councillors to campaign for him at election times, so they could tell him what to do, if they wanted to. But, in practice, I think they let him get on with it.[/p][/quote]Very interesting Boris BUT those of us who follow the Colchester Lib Dem Sagas know that the Wimpole Road HQ is effectively funded through Parliamentary expenses, that the various inter family relationships inside the local party and planning etc allegedly form the basis of "power" and that Mr Russell remains the puppet master. I have noticed that the London flat is no longer claiming mortgage costs-but with the not so hidden saga of flatmate Mike Hancock MP etc etc. Look forward to reading more of your revelations. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 4

9:12am Mon 23 Jun 14

Shrubendlad says...

Boris/
As a rider to my previous.
It is generally recognised that membership of either the House of Lords or House of Commons is worth the equivalent of £1M annuity. Its a gravy train of expenses, committee freebies, apart from status.
You only have to look how hard Tim Yeo tried to stay in the HoC.
In the past ex MPs could move to the HoL. However there is no longer any room-Menzies Campbell, Alan Beith and Malcolm Bruce are all retiring.
That is why Russell refuses to retire.-and why infighting between members will explode before next May.
Boris/ As a rider to my previous. It is generally recognised that membership of either the House of Lords or House of Commons is worth the equivalent of £1M annuity. Its a gravy train of expenses, committee freebies, apart from status. You only have to look how hard Tim Yeo tried to stay in the HoC. In the past ex MPs could move to the HoL. However there is no longer any room-Menzies Campbell, Alan Beith and Malcolm Bruce are all retiring. That is why Russell refuses to retire.-and why infighting between members will explode before next May. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 4

11:39am Mon 23 Jun 14

jut1972 says...

Boris good points and you may be right. If so though why did Bob present this as Pickles Folly? And not a local decision?
Bottom line is he wanted to score cheap political points rather than solve the issue and hold those accountable to account.
Boris good points and you may be right. If so though why did Bob present this as Pickles Folly? And not a local decision? Bottom line is he wanted to score cheap political points rather than solve the issue and hold those accountable to account. jut1972
  • Score: 2

11:48am Mon 23 Jun 14

romantic says...

NolongerGREATBritain wrote:
I'm no expert but as a user of Colchester's "fine" roads in rush hour, I believe I have found the problem; pedestrian crossings and traffic lights straight off a roundabout. Not to mention two lanes which merge into one. Problem solved and I only charge £700k. Bargain
Problem solved unless you're a pedestrian. Why should pedestrians be forced into dodgy subways or up onto bridges, just so that motorists can get to their destination 30 seconds earlier?

Now of course every motorist will say that their own journey is "essential", but there are a lot of people in this town who drive short journeys (less than 1 mile) with just themselves in the car. If there is a traffic jam, there is too much traffic. You could remove every pedestrian crossing in the town, but it would not make any significant difference to the traffic. It would simply push it back to another place.

You use the roads in rush-hour and sadly this means that you are part of the problem too! You will, I am sure, say that you have no choice but to drive, and I'm sure that's true, but certainly some of those who use their cars for every journey could walk, cycle or use the bus instead.
[quote][p][bold]NolongerGREATBritain[/bold] wrote: I'm no expert but as a user of Colchester's "fine" roads in rush hour, I believe I have found the problem; pedestrian crossings and traffic lights straight off a roundabout. Not to mention two lanes which merge into one. Problem solved and I only charge £700k. Bargain[/p][/quote]Problem solved unless you're a pedestrian. Why should pedestrians be forced into dodgy subways or up onto bridges, just so that motorists can get to their destination 30 seconds earlier? Now of course every motorist will say that their own journey is "essential", but there are a lot of people in this town who drive short journeys (less than 1 mile) with just themselves in the car. If there is a traffic jam, there is too much traffic. You could remove every pedestrian crossing in the town, but it would not make any significant difference to the traffic. It would simply push it back to another place. You use the roads in rush-hour and sadly this means that you are part of the problem too! You will, I am sure, say that you have no choice but to drive, and I'm sure that's true, but certainly some of those who use their cars for every journey could walk, cycle or use the bus instead. romantic
  • Score: -2

1:50pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Shoosh1905 says...

Boris wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote:
jut1972 wrote:
Reginald47 wrote:
Shoosh1905 wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.
Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.
But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.
How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me!
As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank"
Utter rubbish. My spy among the Lib Dem portfolio holders tells me they do not take orders from Bob Russell, indeed they disagree with him quite a lot. An example was the disastrous "Horkesley Park" scheme which Bob favoured, but all the Lib Dem councillors opposed. If he had been able to "pull rank", then he could have told them to back it, and it eould have gone through.
Another example is the bus station. Bob opposed the building of the VAF on the bus station, but the majority of Lib Dem councillors supported all the Tories in voting to go ahead wiith that disastrous course of action.
So, Shoosh and Jut, your idea that the MP can pull rank on the councillors of the same party is pure fantasy.
If anything, the reverse is true. Bob Russell relies on those councillors to campaign for him at election times, so they could tell him what to do, if they wanted to. But, in practice, I think they let him get on with it.
So basically what your saying is that Bob can't "pull rank" and get a decision passed inside Colchester, which still makes the local LibDems incompetent? You can push the blame around as much as you like but as it stands the LibDems are the elected officials in this area and are therefore culpable for the mistakes misallocation of funds etc. If they aren't to blame then they are holding a pointless position in office that needs to be dissolved or have somebody occupy it that knows how to fight for their local community.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoosh1905[/bold] wrote: It's what you get for voting LibDem the sooner we get them out and the conservatives in the better.[/p][/quote]Nearly all the new houses in north Colchester causing the problem and those due in Mile End shortly were allocated for housing by the previous Conservative admininistration which, because of the way Government works, the present adminstration has to honour. So why reward the people who caused the problem in the first place.[/p][/quote]Reg there were only 2 objections to the approval 1 lib dem 1 conservative. If Bob had pulled rank and told his colleagues to back the Myland lib dem cllrs it would not have been approved. Instead he's wasted more time and money in parliament raising the issue and solving nothing. Central government may have given the mandate but it's a local balls up.[/p][/quote]But Bob could have stopped it? So it his fault... In my opinion he's an awful public servant who's done nicely out of the second home he claims on expenses and achieved little for this town.[/p][/quote]How exactly could Bob have stopped it. Please tell me![/p][/quote]As quoted above 'he could've pulled rank"[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. My spy among the Lib Dem portfolio holders tells me they do not take orders from Bob Russell, indeed they disagree with him quite a lot. An example was the disastrous "Horkesley Park" scheme which Bob favoured, but all the Lib Dem councillors opposed. If he had been able to "pull rank", then he could have told them to back it, and it eould have gone through. Another example is the bus station. Bob opposed the building of the VAF on the bus station, but the majority of Lib Dem councillors supported all the Tories in voting to go ahead wiith that disastrous course of action. So, Shoosh and Jut, your idea that the MP can pull rank on the councillors of the same party is pure fantasy. If anything, the reverse is true. Bob Russell relies on those councillors to campaign for him at election times, so they could tell him what to do, if they wanted to. But, in practice, I think they let him get on with it.[/p][/quote]So basically what your saying is that Bob can't "pull rank" and get a decision passed inside Colchester, which still makes the local LibDems incompetent? You can push the blame around as much as you like but as it stands the LibDems are the elected officials in this area and are therefore culpable for the mistakes misallocation of funds etc. If they aren't to blame then they are holding a pointless position in office that needs to be dissolved or have somebody occupy it that knows how to fight for their local community. Shoosh1905
  • Score: 3

1:54pm Mon 23 Jun 14

specs60 says...

Some twit looking at that photo will say "what congestion".
Some twit looking at that photo will say "what congestion". specs60
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Mon 23 Jun 14

interchangeable says...

Why waste all that money? Give me a couple of hundred quid and I'll soon tell you what the problems are!
Why waste all that money? Give me a couple of hundred quid and I'll soon tell you what the problems are! interchangeable
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Mon 23 Jun 14

interchangeable says...

Subsidise the buses(rather than keep putting the prices up),50p a journey from anywhere in Colchester.That way less people will use their cars,more people likely to shop in Colchester and they won't get fleeced for a car park.
Subsidise the buses(rather than keep putting the prices up),50p a journey from anywhere in Colchester.That way less people will use their cars,more people likely to shop in Colchester and they won't get fleeced for a car park. interchangeable
  • Score: 1

4:25pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Heinz says...

interchangeable wrote:
Subsidise the buses(rather than keep putting the prices up),50p a journey from anywhere in Colchester.That way less people will use their cars,more people likely to shop in Colchester and they won't get fleeced for a car park.
Like the doubling of prices at Vineyard Street!

No, sorry, not a doubling of prices, a halving of parking time allowed - to 2 hours.

How is that supposed to encourage shoppers to come to the town?
[quote][p][bold]interchangeable[/bold] wrote: Subsidise the buses(rather than keep putting the prices up),50p a journey from anywhere in Colchester.That way less people will use their cars,more people likely to shop in Colchester and they won't get fleeced for a car park.[/p][/quote]Like the doubling of prices at Vineyard Street! No, sorry, not a doubling of prices, a halving of parking time allowed - to 2 hours. How is that supposed to encourage shoppers to come to the town? Heinz
  • Score: 1

4:12pm Fri 27 Jun 14

SensibleCitizen says...

I love reading the comments regarding traffic and congestion. They're hilarious. It seems that everyone has the solution, and the Council and various consultants are clueless money-wasters.

Can I please point out something very obvious:
1) lots of cars in small spaces (ie towns) causes congestion. Every town has the same problem.
2) making traffic flow easier encourages MORE cars onto the roads, creating congestion.

You cannot, ever, solve the problem of congestion by improving the journey of the car. The opposite is also true: to solve congestion, take cars off the roads by making it harder to drive, and easier to walk, cycle or take public transport.

Honestly, this isn't rocket science.
I love reading the comments regarding traffic and congestion. They're hilarious. It seems that everyone has the solution, and the Council and various consultants are clueless money-wasters. Can I please point out something very obvious: 1) lots of cars in small spaces (ie towns) causes congestion. Every town has the same problem. 2) making traffic flow easier encourages MORE cars onto the roads, creating congestion. You cannot, ever, solve the problem of congestion by improving the journey of the car. The opposite is also true: to solve congestion, take cars off the roads by making it harder to drive, and easier to walk, cycle or take public transport. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. SensibleCitizen
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree