Well, as you have probably already done, you go to Town Council Minutes, and there is a heading at the top saying "Agenda". But there is nothing there! I've had this problem before. Our Council obviously doesn't like people to know what they will be discussing before the meeting.

Edited by user 05 July 2010 21:02:53(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

.........  and it takes three weeks to publish the draft minutes with no links to the letters or notices they eventually refer to.

It's the MUSHROOM STRATEGY - Keep them in the dark and feed them on ****

In fact the minutes for June 2010 are NOT on the website a day before the next meeting! That's democracy?    

Edited by user 07 July 2010 12:18:40(UTC)  | Reason: addendum

Welcome back CllrJonG.

Many thanks for publishing the agenda for tonight's meeting. Perhaps you could ask the Town Clerk why the agenda is not appearing on the web site.

Please would you also be kind enough to follow up on Well Known Norm's suggestion of having a quick poll to see which councillors know of the existence of this forum, and report your findings back to the members.

Perhaps you should have come to the meeting Barry to raise your issues. That is what the public discussion forum is for at the start.

As  for discussions on the bridge , agenda item 5 was the Goyt  Bridge, and the status and problems were discussed then. If you came to the meeting you would have heard all this. The transhipment warehouse was discussed then too.  The main reason why the TSW was always considered as a natural follow on from the bridge project was that it is pretty much unfeasible to convert the TSW into the building you would like, with all the public access and historical redevelopment around it, while HGV's and other traffic thunder past down Bingswood Avenue into the industrial estate.  It makes much more practical sense to sort the bridge out and then redevelop the basin area. I fully accept that you dont see it like this, but this was the decision made, and I think it was correct.

If you do wish to direct your anger at someone, perhaps you could try and focus it more on those who scuppered the deal. Absolutely everyone on the WBTC was 100% behind both the second bridge and the redevelopment of the TSW. Noone wanted it to fail. After a huge amount of effort to bridge the various funding gaps, the funding was in place and we were set to go. Then United utilities upped the amount they wanted at the last minute for the land from 300K to £1M, and this killed it. The various grants we were going for have deadlines which we were right up against, and these have now expired. There is no longer the money available, and with the current financial environment it is unlikely that funds will become available for years. Even if United Utilities turned round now and gave the land for free, the grants have gone and the bridge could not be built. We are just as annoyed as you are about the situation. Actually, annoyed is very much an understatement.

I dont know why the minutes and agenda were not available. Updating of the website relies on volunteers, and in turn relies on them getting the information. I dont know where the chain has fallen down. I just tried to find out, but couldn't get hold of the person I needed to talk to. I'll chase it up.

Cheers

Jon.

Edited by user 09 July 2010 15:04:06(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Hi Jon,

If I thought there was any point in attending the Town Council meeting then I would have been there last Thursday. I did consider it BUT I have been to these monthly meetings on other occasions and find that it is not a forum as that is defined as a two way process. My experience conflicts most forcibly with this as it has always been a ONE way procedure. The Whaley eleven just sit there. The same is true of the High Peak Borough Council Whaley Bridge Regeneration Committee. The voice of the few reigns supreme (if you are one of the chosen few). They have been 'good' at giving £10k to British Waterways and £1k to Network Rail both multi-million pound businesses. They must think Whaley Town Centre is just fine.

There has never been a WBTC public statement on the progress of the Transhipment Warehouse(TSW)  bid even after the £50k unfinished consultation. 

I was one of the two persons originally invited by the British Waterways North West Regional Manager to be part of the bid to East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) in June 2007. The Town Council came on board after the Whaley Bridge Association and the local architects. They then proceeded to spout the outdated dogma that had been their 'secret' policy for many, many years - i.e. The problem of lorries on Canal Street means that the TSW cannot be a stand alone project. At the public presentation of the HPBC Masterplan consultation it was stated by Broadway Malyan that there was NO connection between the two projects and that has been ignored completely by WBTC. That is what makes me angry. If you talk to traders on Canal Street who have an everyday view of the LGV problems they cannot understand the linking that has led to a handful of nothing! You even state it again in your posting of 9 July.

IT IS JUST NOT TRUE!

It was WBTC who included both projects into the formation of the High Peak Borough 'Masterplan'.  To include the TSW project was the biggest mistake they could have made and those who pushed this through should hang their heads in shame. "We told you so" seems so appropriate here.

I state again that there are no recorded accidents on Canal Street, unlike Market Street, outside the Mechanics, where there have been several. Maybe Linda Leather should cease her unjustified outbursts about it and reported in the local press. It may suit her stance on these matters but she should deal in FACTS. Please note that neither she or David Lomax even mentioned the TSW in their public speaking on the failure they orchestrated

Certainly I am angry and  I do know who it should be directed at. Those who  by their 'greed' made the whole effort collapse and lose everything for no good reason except a well outdated  dogma. AND High Peak Borough Council because it is just plain common sense that the route of the new road to the new bridge should have been secured at the initial stages , judged by any standards. I am sure you don't run your business on speculation and outdated dogma.

As for the web site minutes and agenda I leave it for you to read the other comments in this thread. Dedmolcracy in the 21st cwentury demands more than we get in Whaley Bridge.

Lastly thanks for your trouble in replying. Once again there is silence form the 'others'.  I regret that you have swallowed their line about the links between the two projects.

Edited by user 06 August 2010 09:25:08(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified