Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Razzle24 on February 01, 2022, 01:22:10 PM
-
So no funding for a swimming pool but funding available to change the roads in Marple!
Why are our Councillors not fighting for this - where are the petitions?
Looks like we are never getting a swimming pool!
-
So no funding for a swimming pool but funding available to change the roads in Marple!
Why are our Councillors not fighting for this - where are the petitions?
Looks like we are never getting a swimming pool!
£40k allocated for the highways team just to come up with designs for f***g up Marple's roads in favour of cyclists so they can apply for funding to implement even though they're not needed.
£270k on Windlehurst traffic calming that full consultation shows no one ever wanted and now seeking funds to remove them all (what's the betting they never find funds and never get removed)
almost £30k on Safer Streets save lives in Marple centre that also now is coming out because no one wants it.
£260k on the cycle lane along Otterspool that people don't even realise is ONLY a cycle lane and therefore is hardly used
£6m on the Dean Lane/Bridge lane cycle lanes that the highway code changes have essentially rendered a white elephant on what was probably already one of the safesy roads to cycle on in Stockport....
All keeps the Highways team busy and in a job I suppose ::)
-
Ah they we're probably thinking do we bring joy and a usable facility to the rate paying locals or bring misery to thousands that drive through Marple
-
Stockport didn't seem to have any trouble purchasing Mersey way shopping centre and edgeley park football ground or all the new road layout in the centre of Stockport or creating the SK companies.
That's before you even look at the executive pay for sitting around doing effectively nothing.
-
Stockport didn't seem to have any trouble purchasing Mersey way shopping centre and edgeley park football ground or all the new road layout in the centre of Stockport or creating the SK companies.
That's before you even look at the executive pay for sitting around doing effectively nothing.
they've just signed off £5.5m to pay for repairs to the roof top car park over Merseyway. Maybe a survey before they paid over the odds for it from the liquidators would have been prudent. or maybe the fact that they were buying from the liquidators in the first place should have been a good reason to NOT buy it!
-
Merseyway roof is no surprise, the section that had Argos was showing signs of the dreaded 1970's concrete cancer even in the late 90's
-
they seemed perfectly capable of spending lots of money during a pandemic to create a road scheme!.
Which you know came directly from central government specifically for such road schemes during the pandemic and couldn't have been spent on anything else.
Anyone got any PPE to sell that could finance the new pool?
-
Without researching, I think the temporary humps was from government money, the road scheme probably wasn't.
Think you might have missed the PPE boat, unless a certain TV Dr is advising you wear one when we get a swimming pool?.
-
Which you know came directly from central government specifically for such road schemes during the pandemic and couldn't have been spent on anything else.
Anyone got any PPE to sell that could finance the new pool?
doesn't mean you HAVE to spend it!
-
doesn't mean you HAVE to spend it!
Normally unfortuntely, it does. If you don't come up with a scheme that meets the requirements of the specific cash or grant offer, you don't get given the cash. You can't just shunt central government cash around the Council.
-
Normally unfortuntely, it does. If you don't come up with a scheme that meets the requirements of the specific cash or grant offer, you don't get given the cash. You can't just shunt central government cash around the Council.
by NOT spending it I meant exactly that, let the government keep it.
-
by NOT spending it I meant exactly that, let the government keep it.
if you don't spend what you're allocated, then your budget is deemed excessive so it will be reduced in the next round of allocations
-
if you don't spend what you're allocated, then your budget is deemed excessive so it will be reduced in the next round of allocations
So spend it on stuff we don't need, nor want so we get more money next time to spend it again on stuff we don't need or want. Riduclous!
-
What is it you don't think er need or want as a community. Perhaps we should stop spending on the cemetery or care for the elderly you deem yo be totally unnecessary, of course we must cut funding ti any cultural life of the town. Let's get rid of town Hall staff they never do exactly what the keyboard bullies demand. We don't need safety measures let let it be every person for themselves on the road and the biggest expenditure of all highways maintenance can certain be cut. Tell us # jimblob exactly what it is we as a society can do without that you you would like to see cut. Tell us the amount to be be saved and that amount as a percentage of total expenditure. Interest net bullies need to be called to account.
-
Well wheels, who's blog did you steal that rant from ?.
-
Well wheels, who's blog did you steal that rant from ?.
wheels isn't my biggest fan... as to interest net (or did you mean internet) bully, I didn't see you at the last area committee meeting @wheels, whilst I might type plenty, it's based on fact and information and I follow up with evidence and action where I can... if you feel bullied @wheels i think you have the problem not me
as to things we applied for budget for that we don't need or want...
£270k on windlehurst traffic "mitigation".... 84% of 1000 respondents say "remove in their entirety"... that money came from SEMMS
£260k on the Otterspool/Dooley Lane cycle path that is covered in leaves and so badly signposted that the cyclists still use the road but pedestrians walk on the "cycle only" path
£27k on Marple SLL traffic speed cushions.... 66% of residents who completed the consultation want them removed... that money came from government
£6m on Dean Lane cycle lanes that even cyclists are now saying they wont' use because they felt safer on the road as it was... (money from governemnt courtesy of Chris Boardman)
£150k (an old one) for the pavement widening at Seventeen Windows... they got their garden landscaped and retaining walls for free.... but the pavement 20 yards farther on is still narrow! Quick maths there but you've half a million towards a new swimming pool just on Marple spend alone, include the Dean Lane malarkey and you've got an olympic pool for Marple! and there'd be less traffic on Dean Lane going to their swimming pool because they'd be able to use Marple's.
@wheels wants to live in the 18th century in a little village called Marple before cars existed and wants for nothing other than can be made by the local cavedwellers
-
So spend it on stuff we don't need, nor want so we get more money next time to spend it again on stuff we don't need or want. Riduclous!
It is ridiculous, but t'was ever thus. I used to work for a software company, many year ago, that sold educational software. We used to love the end of the financial year, as education authorities were desperate to spend their budget and would buy anything to ensure they didn't get the next year's budget cut. Fortunately, we did sell good stuff, but it certainly boosted our sales. They changed the rules eventually, but while it lasted it was great (from our point of view that is).
-
£6m on Dean Lane cycle lanes that even cyclists are now saying they wont' use because they felt safer on the road as it was... (money from governemnt courtesy of Chris Boardman)
Out of interest, where did you get that from? Cost & the cyclists view? I've seen lower costs, but I'm surprised anyone had said too much about the safety of the scheme as its not finished yet.
-
Out of interest, where did you get that from? Cost & the cyclists view? I've seen lower costs, but I'm surprised anyone had said too much about the safety of the scheme as its not finished yet.
Good question. I am interested as - during better weather - I cycle to Hansen
Hazel Grove leisure centre and have been quite interested in what they are doing with that cycle lane. Due to the late nights and weather I haven't cycled that way for a few months nor have I driven that way recently. But I am intrigued to know why all the other cyclists in the area wouldn't want to use what looks like a perfectly good scheme
-
Out of interest, where did you get that from? Cost & the cyclists view? I've seen lower costs, but I'm surprised anyone had said too much about the safety of the scheme as its not finished yet.
Cllr Oliver Johnstone - Hazel Grove provided me with the cost info.
In terms of the lane's utilisation; I've seen various posts stating that coming up the hill they'd prefer the road and not to use the cycle lane so as to avoid having to stop and cross over... as to going down hill, cyclists can pretty much match the speed of the cars and having to cross dozens of driveways means there's a strong chance a car reversing out will come out right in front of them.. on the road that's a much lower risk. The road prior to the lanes was wide enough to support a painted cycle lane on both carriageways and was one of the safety roads in Stockport to cycle on. Cars parked, wheelie bins and leaves on the cycle lane are another deterrent.
-
Link to an old article on the Stockport website, so the 6m probably isn't far off as the link is from 2019 which quotes 4.1m.
https://www.stockport.gov.uk/news/stockport-to-benefit-from-bumper-boost-to-the-bee-network-gbp137-million
-
Good question. I am interested as - during better weather - I cycle to Hansen
Hazel Grove leisure centre and have been quite interested in what they are doing with that cycle lane. Due to the late nights and weather I haven't cycled that way for a few months nor have I driven that way recently. But I am intrigued to know why all the other cyclists in the area wouldn't want to use what looks like a perfectly good scheme
I'm probably one of those who's views that are referenced, as I suspect that Jimblob has been reading the local Facebook page for the route. I definitely didn't suggest the new route was unsafe or wothout merit. I simply pointed out that as a regular commuter & quick (ish) cycle user, that the bit down the hill into Bramhall isn't really designed for me as a) going downhill on a bike I will easily travel at 25mph / 30mph which isn't appropriate on a cycle lane (it shouldn't be a problem if I stay on the road for that bit as the speed limit is 30mph, so I won't be getting in anyones way, will I?), and b) having been built on only 1 side of the road, its not very convenient for those cycling up the hill from Bramhall and going off towards Hazel Grove, as it requires you to stop and cross the road twice. I'd rather not do that.
What I find interesting is all the wailing about the cycle lane making the road narrower. Yes, technically it has, but only by about a metre or so, which has basically meant that the previous 'dead' part of most of Jacksons Lane bit of the route (the hatched bit in the centre - which was hatched by the way to try give the impression of narrower lanes in order to try to encourage slower driving speeds) has now gone. So it is still one lane in each direction and you still have to cross onto the other side of the road to safely overtake. So nothing has changed! Oh, except we now have a segregated facility for more nervours road users, families and children to ride to Hazel Grove High School or Bramhall Park or Hazel Grove Swimming pool, rather than drive. Wheres the problem in that? Don't we want to try to reduce car journeys and promote healthier lifestyles?