Author Topic: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order  (Read 4462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DarkAuror

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 91
  • Hello !
Re: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2011, 05:04:22 PM »
The impression I got from the decision note was that it was down to money, as the closure in it's current location can be met within the current budget but not any other experiments.

Offline I Could Do That

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Swindon Born & Bred & Gone
Re: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2011, 07:58:53 PM »
Well it appears that there were certainly objections.

http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=30657&J=1

People can make their own decisions, as to wether they were considered or just given lip service

The impression I got from the decision note was that it was down to money, as the closure in it's current location can be met within the current budget but not any other experiments.


That could well be the case.
Although it still doesn't explain why the railings were cemented into the road, long before the "consultation" period expired.

It also offers no sensible explanation, why the road is now a cul-de-sac, banning all traffic, including motorcycles and ambulances, not just lorries.

It makes this woman's move into a councillor position (all be it after the event) appear a little convenient.
My old manager often used to say "no such thing as coincidence"
Proud to be gone

Offline I Could Do That

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Swindon Born & Bred & Gone
Re: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2011, 01:03:09 PM »
Now Jennifer Millin has rocketed from a "mere civilian", that managed to close an established route between established trading estates, to become a member of the planning committee.

Let's hope she is as concerned about issues such as controversial development at Coate as she is about the road outside her house
Proud to be gone

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2011, 02:42:46 PM »
havent they also, now closed the road from the back of the estate, at the junction where it meets with Bramble road. Coopers used to use this road as a way into the back of their set up but now just use the front entrance, which of  course blocks the road when they come out or in..

Offline I Could Do That

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Swindon Born & Bred & Gone
Re: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2011, 03:23:02 PM »
Yes. That was the part of the road I was referring to.
That's why I  am extremely curious to see the comparison of concern when it comes to a decision at Coate / Day House Lane.
After all, there is no established trading estate there (yet!) and the 30 lorry claim might not be an exaggeration.
Originally, the Bramble Road closure was meant to be an experiment, not a permanent diversion for all traffic.

Techno Trading Estate also gets blocked at the far end, when DHL or the tyre dealers have to reverse their lorries. This wouldn't be a problem if the lighter traffic could enter at the other end, like they had done for decades before Mrs Millin arrived
Proud to be gone

Offline Mart

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5249
  • Where's my cow?
Re: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2011, 07:27:13 PM »
Where's Low Pecking Order?

Is it in Suffolk?
Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don’t know what your rights are, or who the person is you’re talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.

Offline I Could Do That

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
  • Swindon Born & Bred & Gone
Re: Trading Estate In Low Pecking Order
« Reply #26 on: May 29, 2011, 01:46:18 AM »
It's more of an action than a place  :)
Proud to be gone