Despite what Calderdale council, the courier and the conservatives say about the new market in Sowerby Bridge. It is not as they would have you believe a thriving and successful market. There has been so much hype about it being busy and interesting but this is a pretty picture painted to mask the truth. If you go to SB market, take a look around, talk to the traders you will find an entirely different story. Many of the stalls are empty, many of the stall holders are unhappy with the rent or terms and conditions; they have to pay for parking and electricity. My favourite trader who had a stall at the old market site for many years realised after her initial excitement that she just couldn’t afford it any more and the terms set by the council were unreasonable, she had to move on.
For some weird reason, the council thought moving it would suddenly make the market work. They had to go and blow 1m on a poorly designed and built new market with no charm or character when we had a beautiful fixed market place in a great location with the geese by the river that just needed updating. The real reason why they moved it was because they wanted the land and who’s going to argue against the proposed new swimming pool when our current pool is so filthy and uninviting. Hey here’s an idea, why don’t we do up the Victorian swimming baths and make them splendid again, no I think we’ll spend loads of money on a new one that will be lovely a clean for a year but then quickly degrade into a smelly mess. The new pool in Todmorden is great but its sparkle is beginning to fade with only a little age. How long have the Victorian baths lasted? They are a testament to great architecture and build quality.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t disagree with regeneration, development or new buildings, I just object to the standard of the new builds I see being thrown up around me. The lack of thought and design, the off the peg architecture, the sheer lack of thought and consideration for aesthetics is not acceptable. Most is not all the new builds in SB are unsympathetic and do not blend in with surroundings. The Council always seem to replace rather than renew what they already have, hence the new market, the Swimming pool. What if the pool is to be closed will be the fate of The Library, the last remaining council run building in that block? They have gradually been closing down all facilities in this block, surely not the Library too.
So back to the market – there is nothing to be done now, it’s there and that’s all there is too it, a few simple improvements could save it. Firstly make the car park free, from what I have heard the paying car parks don’t make any money as they are in debt from building them and they have to pay attendants etc. If they weren’t paying car parks, more people would use them and visit the market, and in doing this traffic would also be reduced as all those people who drive around looking for free parking spaces would stop. (I know they just park at lidl, but people like to park as close as possible). My next improvement would have to be to reduce the rents of the existing stall holders and this would also encourage new traders. It’s a false economy to charge to much as they only chase people away and empty stalls don’t make money. My third improvement would be to move the café from the smelly road side to the more pleasant canal side. Add a lot more trees (they never did replace those lovely cherry trees they hacked down, they just gave us some tiny weedy trees that were instantly vandalised) and some more flowers in baskets and then it would look a lot less ugly. If I had my way it wouldn’t be there at all, I would have left it where it was and found a different location for the new pool. I would have just updated the toilets on this site and on the site of the old market. On that subject, how ridiculous to having paying toilets, what do you do if you’re desperate and you haven’t got 20p, I’ll tell you what they do; they widdle on the market stalls – lovely.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
The Copley Transformational Project
This project was initially a more modest scheme to place industries on the former site of Standard Wire just off Wakefield Road opposite the HBOS data centre. It is currently a car park where employees at the data centre are being charged £2 per day to park there. The project has now become a key objective in the Upper Calder Valley "Renaissance" scheme and needs a whopping 30m from investors/developers to proceed regeneration on this 35 acre site.
I think the council should think very carefully about what they want this development to be about. This Development really needs to happen but this is not an ideal site for houses, it’s partially on a flood plain and very deep in the Valley so far too dark for human inhabitation (normal humans anyway, by all accounts the site of standard wire is contaminated with corrosive acids so not suitable for housing). This is the best site for the relocation of industries that are currently along Holmes road such as the Dougdales and the Council tip; the tips current location is not satisfactory, it has inadequate access and the tip is too small both of these factors cause accidents and so much road rage it’s tragic.
The new road would help the infrastructure in SB dramatically and ease up traffic on Wharf st. It would also help to save the Bridge that is repeatedly damaged). But until the necessary land is acquired the new access from Holmes Road to Wakefield Road, opposite the HBOS data centre at Copley cannot be built.
This leads me to suggesting that to begin with the development could begin with relocating the industries from Holmes Road to the Standard Wire site, it has already been used for decades as a site for business so the access is great there and this would help to keep vehicles that are too large off this stretch of road.
(Dougdale’s lorries are far too big for the current road and are quite often stuck jack-knifed at the right angle corner. Calder valley skip hire drive like maniacs and are constantly ramming it (I was bore witness to one of these wagons driving straight into the railway bridge at the other end of Holmes Road (I was under the bridge at the time and the crash was so loud I thought the Bridge was far more damaged than it was). Anyway I digress (again) the one way traffic causes tailbacks, the bridge and the road system cannot handle it. If the industries were to be moved, there could even be a restriction on vehicle size and weight over the old bridge between Canal and Holmes Road. This would be great in the short term and make the issue of the new access road less urgent so the focus can be turned back the development of the site in question and the costs can be brought down significantly.
None of this stuff should affect the nature around this area and I’m sure it can be done sensitively if some thought goes into it, making sure that walks and areas such as the allotments are left well alone, keep it all on the brown land I say, there’s plenty of it. There was probably good reason why some land wasn’t built on in the good old days when they could build properly.
Should the Copley Valley Transformational Project they shouldn’t miss the opportunity to use this brown land for what it’s most suitable for, industries/work units etc. and not houses. If the Industries were moved from Holmes road then this provides opportunities to convert Dougdales and some of the other brown land areas into possible sites for shops, houses and other amenities which fits in perfectly with what The renaissance group wants to achieve in creating a new focus for the town away from busy Wharf Street and closer to the River Calder and railway station.
I think the council should think very carefully about what they want this development to be about. This Development really needs to happen but this is not an ideal site for houses, it’s partially on a flood plain and very deep in the Valley so far too dark for human inhabitation (normal humans anyway, by all accounts the site of standard wire is contaminated with corrosive acids so not suitable for housing). This is the best site for the relocation of industries that are currently along Holmes road such as the Dougdales and the Council tip; the tips current location is not satisfactory, it has inadequate access and the tip is too small both of these factors cause accidents and so much road rage it’s tragic.
The new road would help the infrastructure in SB dramatically and ease up traffic on Wharf st. It would also help to save the Bridge that is repeatedly damaged). But until the necessary land is acquired the new access from Holmes Road to Wakefield Road, opposite the HBOS data centre at Copley cannot be built.
This leads me to suggesting that to begin with the development could begin with relocating the industries from Holmes Road to the Standard Wire site, it has already been used for decades as a site for business so the access is great there and this would help to keep vehicles that are too large off this stretch of road.
(Dougdale’s lorries are far too big for the current road and are quite often stuck jack-knifed at the right angle corner. Calder valley skip hire drive like maniacs and are constantly ramming it (I was bore witness to one of these wagons driving straight into the railway bridge at the other end of Holmes Road (I was under the bridge at the time and the crash was so loud I thought the Bridge was far more damaged than it was). Anyway I digress (again) the one way traffic causes tailbacks, the bridge and the road system cannot handle it. If the industries were to be moved, there could even be a restriction on vehicle size and weight over the old bridge between Canal and Holmes Road. This would be great in the short term and make the issue of the new access road less urgent so the focus can be turned back the development of the site in question and the costs can be brought down significantly.
None of this stuff should affect the nature around this area and I’m sure it can be done sensitively if some thought goes into it, making sure that walks and areas such as the allotments are left well alone, keep it all on the brown land I say, there’s plenty of it. There was probably good reason why some land wasn’t built on in the good old days when they could build properly.
Should the Copley Valley Transformational Project they shouldn’t miss the opportunity to use this brown land for what it’s most suitable for, industries/work units etc. and not houses. If the Industries were moved from Holmes road then this provides opportunities to convert Dougdales and some of the other brown land areas into possible sites for shops, houses and other amenities which fits in perfectly with what The renaissance group wants to achieve in creating a new focus for the town away from busy Wharf Street and closer to the River Calder and railway station.
Monday, 7 April 2008
Bypass scheme stopped, again.
The Holmes road bypass scheme was looking all set to go but has once again been shelved indefinitely until developers step in with loads of money; it looks like SB will never be getting that bypass. Well it wasn’t exactly a major bypass just a small section of new road that could have saved a lot of traffic from going through Wharf St. from Wakefield road and rejoining the A58 at station road.
I should really oppose this new stretch of road as I have an allotment there and don’t know how the proposed road would affect it. But for the greater good I think it should go ahead if done sensitively (how likely is that??) and sensibly, there are many ways that SB could benefit. It won’t however, if ever happen for a long time.
It is noted that this would have caused its own problems as a new section of road would have had to be built from the end of Holmes road up to Wakefield road, so land would have to be acquired. Also it would have been difficult to decide what to do at the station road end of the bypass where the railway bridge is one way- but there are solutions to this, one of which is to open up another of the railways arches to create another passage, each of these could take one-way traffic. It could have once been a problem that the market was located on Station Road but now that has gone there is not much along station road that would be badly affected by the new road, it is also a very wide section of road. My only concern here would be for the well being of the geese that hang out by the joining of the two rivers at the taxi rank, they often cross the road here.
As with any huge schemes like these they are dependant on many factors one huge one in this case is the ‘Copley Transformational Project’ at the former Standard Wire site opposite the HBOS data centre near Copley. If this doesn’t happen then the bypass can’t happen, it is imperative that the council tip and other industries be relocated, not just for the bypass but in the short term to save the ancient bridge that is constantly being battered by lorries and trucks to large for it to handle. The lovely old bridge between Holmes road and Canal road is one-way and not only causes huge tailbacks during rush hour as it’s one way but is repeatedly rammed by trucks and loosing huge amounts of very large stones to the river.
This one way system between Holmes and Canal road just will not do in the long run so in a way I hope that the Holmes Road scheme will go ahead, with least amount of damage to the countryside or the allotments. SB could greatly benefit from having much of the industries relocated to a site with better access as part of this scheme; this I think is the bigger issue. If they moved the industries to the new site they may not even need to build new roads as the heavier traffic wouldn’t need to use this route anymore.
I should really oppose this new stretch of road as I have an allotment there and don’t know how the proposed road would affect it. But for the greater good I think it should go ahead if done sensitively (how likely is that??) and sensibly, there are many ways that SB could benefit. It won’t however, if ever happen for a long time.
It is noted that this would have caused its own problems as a new section of road would have had to be built from the end of Holmes road up to Wakefield road, so land would have to be acquired. Also it would have been difficult to decide what to do at the station road end of the bypass where the railway bridge is one way- but there are solutions to this, one of which is to open up another of the railways arches to create another passage, each of these could take one-way traffic. It could have once been a problem that the market was located on Station Road but now that has gone there is not much along station road that would be badly affected by the new road, it is also a very wide section of road. My only concern here would be for the well being of the geese that hang out by the joining of the two rivers at the taxi rank, they often cross the road here.
As with any huge schemes like these they are dependant on many factors one huge one in this case is the ‘Copley Transformational Project’ at the former Standard Wire site opposite the HBOS data centre near Copley. If this doesn’t happen then the bypass can’t happen, it is imperative that the council tip and other industries be relocated, not just for the bypass but in the short term to save the ancient bridge that is constantly being battered by lorries and trucks to large for it to handle. The lovely old bridge between Holmes road and Canal road is one-way and not only causes huge tailbacks during rush hour as it’s one way but is repeatedly rammed by trucks and loosing huge amounts of very large stones to the river.
This one way system between Holmes and Canal road just will not do in the long run so in a way I hope that the Holmes Road scheme will go ahead, with least amount of damage to the countryside or the allotments. SB could greatly benefit from having much of the industries relocated to a site with better access as part of this scheme; this I think is the bigger issue. If they moved the industries to the new site they may not even need to build new roads as the heavier traffic wouldn’t need to use this route anymore.
Saturday, 29 March 2008
84 flats proposed in Central Sowerby Bridge
There are plans to build 84 one bedroom flats on the site of the former site of the Lock Hill Mill, adjacent the former Jolly Sailor. There are many of us that wrote in to object and even more signing the petition I drew up.
I was disturbed by what the council spokesman Alex McNeil said about relief of more sensitive areas, it was unclear what he meant by this statement.
If these flats (and others) are to be built to help other sensitive areas in Calderdale, where are these sensitive areas, why isn't Sowerby Bridge a sensitive area and why is it OK to make Sowerby Bridge town centre into a ghetto?
It is over intensive use of the land and there are many questions arising from the plans, how can they build a bridge when they don't own the other side of the river bank and there happens to be a working factory on the land? Why would they need to put a bridge there when there is already a brilliant iron and cobbled bridge a few yards from the site? Where are the residents going to park their cars, and indeed how will adequate access be provided? How can they build an access road (whether it be a through road or not) across other peoples land? I know Questions of ownership of land are irrelevant when considering planning applications but I have spoken to some of the owners of the aforementioned land and they say they will not allow it.
I wrote previously (in a newsletter) about this area and it being ideal for a park, there being no green space centrally in the town. This obviously is completely unrealistic as the likelihood of the council making a compulsory purchase of this land is nil, we can see who the land belongs to on the land registry and he usually gets his way even though the plans have been submitted by another party/business who incidentally has no books or records, but is by all accounts a nice gentleman who doesn’t want to upset anyone!!! It is also likely that they know full well this particular proposal will be turned down in a ploy to aim for a lesser number of flats in the hope that when the quantity is reduced the plans go through.
My objection is not against a development per say, what I do object to is the design of the buildings, which aside from being unsympathetic to the town centre is also damn ugly, it doesn’t help matters that it is so high density. I also feel that this area of town being so central better lends itself to some more amenity based development with less of a focus on residential buildings. With it being canal-side it could benefit from cafes rather than restaurants, or both and some shops would help the town centre by giving it a focus other than the main high street which suffers from pollution from high volumes of traffic.
They have already and without planning permission built an extension to the former Jolly Roger right over the public right of way on foot (this was also access by car for some of the shops). They should not be able to get away with this and ought to be stopped and be made to remove this building or replace access across their land at the very least (since writing this they have apparently agreed to put in 2 footpaths). The owner of this land already has several unfinished projects (building sites) in Sowerby Bridge and is well known for incompletion and bending the truth in order to get plans through. All the aspects of the plans that make it seem worthwhile and beneficial are probably all just lip-service and will probably not happen, i.e. the bridge, the landscaping. The riverside development (& Carlton Mills) opened by Prince Charles many moons ago was a past development of his. It was supposed to include shops and cafes, this didn't happen, it is entirely residential and is such a shame it's a real quite hide-away off the beaten track away from the nasty main road and has a huge cobbled yard. I can really imagine tables and chairs out in the summer in a continental fashion.
The land will be developed, whatever the scale. It is so central (right by Tuel Lane junction and on the canal towpath) so it would be better to include an area for shops/arts etc. the residential aspect ought to be toned down, it would not be a pleasant place to live. Placing apartments this central to the town only serves to damage any chance of improving Sowerby Bridge’s facilities by making residential areas out of potential areas for amenities and more pleasant areas for shopping (like Hebden Bridge’s pedestrianised areas) i.e. not just along a busy road.
All this along with the problem of where 84 plus cars will park in Sowerby Bridge and the addition of this much traffic trying to get in and out of traffic flow will not help pollution and congestion. Just recently a planning proposal to convert the old Barclays bank into 4 flats was turned down on the grounds of pollution so if thw plans for 84 flats goes through it will be proof enough of the hypocrisy we are up against in such matters. It's just one rule for certain developers and another for the rest of us.
I was disturbed by what the council spokesman Alex McNeil said about relief of more sensitive areas, it was unclear what he meant by this statement.
If these flats (and others) are to be built to help other sensitive areas in Calderdale, where are these sensitive areas, why isn't Sowerby Bridge a sensitive area and why is it OK to make Sowerby Bridge town centre into a ghetto?
It is over intensive use of the land and there are many questions arising from the plans, how can they build a bridge when they don't own the other side of the river bank and there happens to be a working factory on the land? Why would they need to put a bridge there when there is already a brilliant iron and cobbled bridge a few yards from the site? Where are the residents going to park their cars, and indeed how will adequate access be provided? How can they build an access road (whether it be a through road or not) across other peoples land? I know Questions of ownership of land are irrelevant when considering planning applications but I have spoken to some of the owners of the aforementioned land and they say they will not allow it.
I wrote previously (in a newsletter) about this area and it being ideal for a park, there being no green space centrally in the town. This obviously is completely unrealistic as the likelihood of the council making a compulsory purchase of this land is nil, we can see who the land belongs to on the land registry and he usually gets his way even though the plans have been submitted by another party/business who incidentally has no books or records, but is by all accounts a nice gentleman who doesn’t want to upset anyone!!! It is also likely that they know full well this particular proposal will be turned down in a ploy to aim for a lesser number of flats in the hope that when the quantity is reduced the plans go through.
My objection is not against a development per say, what I do object to is the design of the buildings, which aside from being unsympathetic to the town centre is also damn ugly, it doesn’t help matters that it is so high density. I also feel that this area of town being so central better lends itself to some more amenity based development with less of a focus on residential buildings. With it being canal-side it could benefit from cafes rather than restaurants, or both and some shops would help the town centre by giving it a focus other than the main high street which suffers from pollution from high volumes of traffic.
They have already and without planning permission built an extension to the former Jolly Roger right over the public right of way on foot (this was also access by car for some of the shops). They should not be able to get away with this and ought to be stopped and be made to remove this building or replace access across their land at the very least (since writing this they have apparently agreed to put in 2 footpaths). The owner of this land already has several unfinished projects (building sites) in Sowerby Bridge and is well known for incompletion and bending the truth in order to get plans through. All the aspects of the plans that make it seem worthwhile and beneficial are probably all just lip-service and will probably not happen, i.e. the bridge, the landscaping. The riverside development (& Carlton Mills) opened by Prince Charles many moons ago was a past development of his. It was supposed to include shops and cafes, this didn't happen, it is entirely residential and is such a shame it's a real quite hide-away off the beaten track away from the nasty main road and has a huge cobbled yard. I can really imagine tables and chairs out in the summer in a continental fashion.
The land will be developed, whatever the scale. It is so central (right by Tuel Lane junction and on the canal towpath) so it would be better to include an area for shops/arts etc. the residential aspect ought to be toned down, it would not be a pleasant place to live. Placing apartments this central to the town only serves to damage any chance of improving Sowerby Bridge’s facilities by making residential areas out of potential areas for amenities and more pleasant areas for shopping (like Hebden Bridge’s pedestrianised areas) i.e. not just along a busy road.
All this along with the problem of where 84 plus cars will park in Sowerby Bridge and the addition of this much traffic trying to get in and out of traffic flow will not help pollution and congestion. Just recently a planning proposal to convert the old Barclays bank into 4 flats was turned down on the grounds of pollution so if thw plans for 84 flats goes through it will be proof enough of the hypocrisy we are up against in such matters. It's just one rule for certain developers and another for the rest of us.
Friday, 28 March 2008
St Anne's Square (Lock Mill)
The Old Causeway leads me to the issue of St. Anne's Square and the disused land where a factory once stood. The Old Cawsey could, with a bit of consideration, be linked with land near St. Anne's Square. The Council ought to make a compulsory purchase of the land under new legislation brought in by the government to stop developers from sitting on plots and derelict buildings. It is common knowledge that a developer owns this land (and the JS) and has done nothing with it for years (but build an extension over the public right of way) the area has been overdeveloped and is over polluted there should be no building work here. So why not use it for the community.
This is crucial space that Sowerby Bridge desperately needs. There is a call for green space as the nearest park is past Bolton Brow. This section of land is an ideal location being in central Sowerby Bridge next to the Canal and adjoining the historical Road. It could be a park that provides essential links through the back of Sowerby Bridge (for people on foot or bicycle) along the Old Cawsey and through to the Canal Basin/Wharf and the bars and cafe's and other amenities there.
The JS could also form part of the compulsory purchase order and be turned into a cafe/club house to service what ought to be a beautiful park adjacent to the canal.
This is just one example of how there is potential for change for the better (instead of more flats and traffic) that has been ignored in Sowerby Bridge. How can we keep expecting more people to move here and accommodate all the new housing when there is nothing to move here for? To restore the Old Cawsey would be real regeneration. “Regeneration” in Sowerby Bridge tends to mean new housing developments and not positive change that improves the community. Nothing has been regenerated here
This is crucial space that Sowerby Bridge desperately needs. There is a call for green space as the nearest park is past Bolton Brow. This section of land is an ideal location being in central Sowerby Bridge next to the Canal and adjoining the historical Road. It could be a park that provides essential links through the back of Sowerby Bridge (for people on foot or bicycle) along the Old Cawsey and through to the Canal Basin/Wharf and the bars and cafe's and other amenities there.
The JS could also form part of the compulsory purchase order and be turned into a cafe/club house to service what ought to be a beautiful park adjacent to the canal.
This is just one example of how there is potential for change for the better (instead of more flats and traffic) that has been ignored in Sowerby Bridge. How can we keep expecting more people to move here and accommodate all the new housing when there is nothing to move here for? To restore the Old Cawsey would be real regeneration. “Regeneration” in Sowerby Bridge tends to mean new housing developments and not positive change that improves the community. Nothing has been regenerated here
Old Cawsey
The oldest Road in Sowerby Bridge is a convenient way to avoid walking along Wharf Street and in doing this also avoid the fumes (which are reported by the Councils Environmental department to be dangerously high under the Environment Act 1995 Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000). Why therefore has the route along the Old Cawsey been compromised? The route (on foot only) runs almost the length of Wharf Street including the connecting bridge over the canal that takes you all the way to the Canal Basin. The route starts from Simprint through the Riverside complex past the Council Offices and The Turks Head and along behind the terrace which is now the back of the shops on Wharf Street This route is then supposed to veer left and come out on the canal towpath by Wharf St. Unfortunately this doesn’t happen as there appears to be a gigantic extension to the half derelict building formally know as the Jolly Sailor( The JS) on the canal bank. This extension happens to completely block this once very useful and ancient highway. Why has the original public right of way been allowed to be blocked (apparently there was no planning permission for this extension)?.
Instead we have to use an unofficial snicket to the left between gardens with steps. The steps are in a terrible state and are very dangerous. It is impossible to use a pushchair or wheelchair along this route now, it’s almost impossible to negotiate on foot, with one step completely missing and the others broken or wobbly and then there is the disgusting litter and unsightly metal safety fencing erected we presume because the wall around the new developments has made the route unsafe. Is it the councils responsibly for giving the developers a free reign? They even had a notice up recently enquiring whether the public would be bothered if the route was closed altogether; probably something to do with the developments along the Old Cawsey.
This public path is essential to Sowerby Bridge and a historical road, it should be maintained and respected, used and enjoyed. Those on foot have the right to an alternative to walking along Wharf Street where we are at risk of developing respiratory diseases.
Instead we have to use an unofficial snicket to the left between gardens with steps. The steps are in a terrible state and are very dangerous. It is impossible to use a pushchair or wheelchair along this route now, it’s almost impossible to negotiate on foot, with one step completely missing and the others broken or wobbly and then there is the disgusting litter and unsightly metal safety fencing erected we presume because the wall around the new developments has made the route unsafe. Is it the councils responsibly for giving the developers a free reign? They even had a notice up recently enquiring whether the public would be bothered if the route was closed altogether; probably something to do with the developments along the Old Cawsey.
This public path is essential to Sowerby Bridge and a historical road, it should be maintained and respected, used and enjoyed. Those on foot have the right to an alternative to walking along Wharf Street where we are at risk of developing respiratory diseases.
New Market
There being nothing wrong with the location of the old market, what reason could there be for moving it? Perhaps the land for the old market has been earmarked for something else. Most small towns don’t boast an old fixed market place so it seems strange that they would want to relocate it to perhaps the most polluted position in the town, (I certainly will not be buying vegetables from there unless the stall is set back off the road). It’s a disappointing state of affairs when the council want to waste £1 Million on something the town already has (and it already looks like an oversized conservatory, I also miss those cherry trees that would be blooming now) it has a striking resemblance to the street they covered in glass in Halifax in the way that it wastes a huge amount of money on something totally pointless, perhaps the same fingerprints are on the plans.
Well it’s too late now but it’s only afterwards that I hear there was a poll to find out if this is what the townsfolk wanted. Strange; I didn’t hear of this poll and no-one I know heard of it either. No-one I know thinks it’s a good idea, it seems a gamble with tax payers money, why didn’t they test the idea out first. In Hebden Bridge there is a thriving market but no fixed market place, it would have been a sensible idea to try the location out first with temporary stalls.
It would have saved a lot of money if they just did the market place up (i.e. Replace the asbestos roofs and build new toilet blocks), they could have tried promoting it, lets face it the market died because the post office was moved. Tesco hasn’t help matters either. I can’t belie that money was spent on this project instead of something more worthwhile and needed, what is the point?
Well it’s too late now but it’s only afterwards that I hear there was a poll to find out if this is what the townsfolk wanted. Strange; I didn’t hear of this poll and no-one I know heard of it either. No-one I know thinks it’s a good idea, it seems a gamble with tax payers money, why didn’t they test the idea out first. In Hebden Bridge there is a thriving market but no fixed market place, it would have been a sensible idea to try the location out first with temporary stalls.
It would have saved a lot of money if they just did the market place up (i.e. Replace the asbestos roofs and build new toilet blocks), they could have tried promoting it, lets face it the market died because the post office was moved. Tesco hasn’t help matters either. I can’t belie that money was spent on this project instead of something more worthwhile and needed, what is the point?
Traffic Problems
DO WE NEED TO WEAR MASKS TO COMBAT POLLUTION IN WHARF ST?
Alternatives are needed for traffic and pedestrians on Wharf Street, the traffic and pollution is killing our town. The road is constantly chockablock during daylight hours and the jucntion at Tuel Lane needs to be altered to make the traffic flow better. Huge pollution spewing lorries and slow moving traffic on a narrow low lying road makes the air almost unbearable for locals and shoppers, many of us have received a letter from the environmental health informing us that levels of Nitrogen Oxide from exhaust fumes exceed acceptable levels. This can lead to various respiratory complaints and infections which children are especially susceptible to. (A copy of this AQMA order can be inspected at the Environmental health Services, Northgate House). The letter about the pollution also states that development proposals in the area will be paid careful attention to. Despite saying this they just keep on approving large scale developments even though the quota for new houses is fullfilled and many flats etc. are unoccupied.
There should be some focus on the infrastructure and improving the town aesthetically. The shops and businesses and pedestrians need more attention, how can we improve Sowerby Bridge for pedestrians and potential visitors? We need more change and fast and this information brings these issues to a head.
Alternatives are needed for traffic and pedestrians on Wharf Street, the traffic and pollution is killing our town. The road is constantly chockablock during daylight hours and the jucntion at Tuel Lane needs to be altered to make the traffic flow better. Huge pollution spewing lorries and slow moving traffic on a narrow low lying road makes the air almost unbearable for locals and shoppers, many of us have received a letter from the environmental health informing us that levels of Nitrogen Oxide from exhaust fumes exceed acceptable levels. This can lead to various respiratory complaints and infections which children are especially susceptible to. (A copy of this AQMA order can be inspected at the Environmental health Services, Northgate House). The letter about the pollution also states that development proposals in the area will be paid careful attention to. Despite saying this they just keep on approving large scale developments even though the quota for new houses is fullfilled and many flats etc. are unoccupied.
There should be some focus on the infrastructure and improving the town aesthetically. The shops and businesses and pedestrians need more attention, how can we improve Sowerby Bridge for pedestrians and potential visitors? We need more change and fast and this information brings these issues to a head.
Sowerby Bridge Problems
Sowerby Bridge has got problems we all know this. We’re tired of always being behind the times. We need all kinds of improvements in our local area and by improvements I don't mean give permission to developers to come and erect a load of marshallite buildings or convert old mills into tiny apartments with barely enough room to swing a river rat, I mean real improvements that make the community and environment a better place, improvements that make us want to stay in Sowerby Bridge and make us proud of where we live. We’re only here for such a short time, we ought to make the best of what we have and give a shit!
The council have a regeneration department, we need to be expecting big things from them. Regeration should not just be about economical growth or making money for and from developers it needs be about generating interest and positive changes and regenerating features that are an asset.
The council have a regeneration department, we need to be expecting big things from them. Regeration should not just be about economical growth or making money for and from developers it needs be about generating interest and positive changes and regenerating features that are an asset.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)