Volunteers at Bridport TLC, say that the time-wasting self-interests of Oliver Letwin MP, St. Andrews Road Residents Association and the Liberal Democrat group that control the Parish Council are depriving the area of urgently needed facilities. Leon Edwards says a handful of objectors risk leaving Bridport without a recycling centre when the present service on South Street closes next summer.
"We already face six months of 30-mile round trips to Dorchester or Crewkerne HRC's. If this deliberate time-wasting doesn’t stop now it could be years of fly-tipping, increased landfill and CO2 emissions, not to mention the waste of half a million pounds a year, before anything is done."
NIMBYism
He claims that the diversion of attention being given by some to resurrect the Broomhills site, already rejected by the Highways Agency as part of a UK-wide Safety ruling, is a combination of NIMBY-ism and Party Political posturing as the Lib Dems and the Conservatives battle for control of the County Council in June and for Parliamentary seats at the next general election. "For our MP to declare ‘trench warfare’ and threatening to hire barristers is just political posturing. Instead of making suggestions and finding local solutions to some of the concerns arising from the Gore Cross site, as we have, he is nit-picking with the Highways Agency and delaying progress to the detriment of local people. Presumably he expects to be part of the next Government and can re-write the safety rule book to the delight of a tiny minority."
On the proposals that Bridport TLC, which is West Dorset District Councils’ ‘Environmental Champion’, have made to the County Council (including turf-roofing the building and having Lorry restrictions during school start and finish times) Mr. Edwards said "At present there will only be one extra car movement every two minutes, at most. Our proposals would massively reduce this and make safety and environmental impact a priority. A local collection service for garden waste, Lorry embargo's, energy from waste, a school bus from town, vehicle sharing, and many more practical and problem solving initiatives are all possible. Surely those opposing the site need to be more practical as they have got their priorities wrong – wasting their energy and neglecting the bigger picture."
A Lidl Car park
The groups’ most controversial suggestion is that the County Council should buy the land presently suggested for the proposed LIDL store to provide free off-road parking for the vehicles that presently park intermittently along St. Andrews Road. "Travis Perkins is obviously keen to sell the land and a LIDL would present far bigger local traffic and safety issues. With resident’s cars in lit, off-road parking and some traffic calming measures such as a permanent speed camera, a mini-roundabout by the Co-op and an additional pedestrian-controlled crossing, then all traffic could flow safely."
Ronnie’n’Ros
Mr. Edwards added that the lack of accountability for controversial issues by some Councillors who represent two, or even three, local authorities concurrently allows some to follow personal and party agendas and leave us all confused. “We’re not the only ones asking how some people can claim to represent us on two or more local bodies without a conflict of interest. Ron Coatsworth and Ros Kayes represent the worst of this – Ron is a Parish, District and County Councillor while Ros is fighting Ron for his County seat for the full set (and possibly Ron’s combined expenses which last year totalled £32,939) before ditching them all as she attempts to become an MP in Dorset South!
“They’re becoming a political comedy act – Ronnie’n’Ros – both fond of a photo opportunity and expressing their ever-changing positions at every chance. How can Ros Kayes oppose both the Waste Station and LIDL based on traffic emissions with her Parish Council hat on but then put on the magic flip-flopping District Council cap and vote for LIDL?” he asked. “The LIDL reliance on vehicles to provide customers and on lorries for overseas goods is hardly sustainable or supportive of the local economy, neither is it compatible with Transition Town objectives.”
An online petition has been launched for those who want the County Council to get on and build the facility: www.ipetitions.com/petition/bridportwaste/
Bridport TLC Proposals
A Safer St. Andrews Road
• An embargo on Lorry movements to operate between 8am-9am and 3pm-4pm.
• Provide/Contract out a local service that makes affordable collections from resident’s homes to collect garden waste, heavy household items such as appliances and furniture. One Luton van then makes the trip instead of 25 cars.
• A free school bus to and from Bridport Town Centre and Colfox School. A large number of cars are used to take pupils from the towns’ residential areas because the school is viewed, understandably, as being out-of-town.
• Vehicle sharing must be encouraged and incentivised particularly amongst parents.
• Adequate traffic calming measures including a permanent Speed Camera, an additional pelican crossing and a mini-roundabout by the Co-op. Traffic could then flow while remaining safe to local residents, school children and people using the shops and services along that road.
• Buy the land available at Travis Perkins and provide parking for the 50-ish vehicles that currently park on various sides of St. Andrews Road. During the day this could be a ‘Park & Walk’ facility.
It is important to highlight that a certain percentage of vehicle movements will not affect St. Andrews Road as they will be coming from Beaminster and all of the villages to the north of Bridport.
Site Considerations
• That the building must be assimilated into the landscape through additional tree and hedge planting to encourage wildlife and to incorporate a turfed roof.
• Most, if not all, of the energy needed to run the site to be provided from waste and sustainable sources.
• Recycling options to be increased & Sustainable waste streams found.
• Business waste should be re-used locally where possible e.g. builders rubble should be used by D.C.C as aggregate, wood should be chipped to fuel biomass heating at the site.
• There needs to be opportunities for local schools and groups to visit the site for educational purposes about local waste.
Leon Edwards
Bridport Radio Proposes
At Bridport Radio we agree with Mr Edwards and Bridport TLC that the powers that be should get on with it and stop their political posturing, however we suggest that there is already a more suitable site: the "picnic area" at Eype just off the bypass. After all why are local people paying for facilities for people en route to elswhere? If they need to stop for a pee come into town and do it and perhaps spend more than a penny while you're here. Site users would not have to cross the main carraigeway if a roundabout were to be built at the danger junction (Miles Cross).
NOWTS (No Waste Transfer Station at Gore Cross) Replies…
Below is the reply to the above article from Steve Spear (co-administrator of NOWTS….No Waste Transfer Station at Gore Cross www.nowts.co.uk)
The Bridport Radio piece containing comments by Mr Leon Edwards seems to be making a case for the County Council rather than for local residents as it makes out. Does this Mr. Edwards receive funding from West Dorset or the County? Is he involved with anything that would benefit from recyclable waste sorted at the proposed facility? When he spoke at the Town Hall meeting about the Waste Management Centre he sounded like he’d been asked to support them from the floor and was in a minority of one at that meeting but then I expect he’s used to that.
Best of a Bad Job?
I can support some of his points about reducing waste and vehicle journeys but his whole case is about trying to make the best of a bad job. At the NOWTS campaign, we think that the new facility should be sited in the best place, not the one that is easiest for Dorset County to get through the planning process. Mr. Edwards mentions the “UK wide safety ruling”, Uh? What’s that? Does he mean the national policy that was carefully explained to us by senior officials from the Highways Agency at the Mountfield meeting? When they told us that the policy of not permitting new development to have direct access onto major trunk roads was about keeping traffic flowing and reducing delays? To be fair they did mention safety but it was literally the last thing in the list.
All this stuff about lorry time restrictions, mini roundabouts and using Travis Perkins as a car park seems extraordinarily naïve. The County have made it clear in their previous traffic assessments that they believe the A3066 Beaminster Road, that is, St. Andrews Road, can cope with the extra traffic without any improvements apart from things the Highways Agency ask for at the BP roundabout. They “may” put a roundabout at the entrance to the new site but even that isn’t guaranteed. Put simply, they have no intention whatsoever of spending extra money on things they regard as non-essential.
Lazy Bureaucrats
The County go on about the urgent need for this facility and how the waste site in South Street has to close (they’ve obviously briefed Mr. Edwards about this) and that’s being used as an excuse to force this proposal through in a hurry. Yet the County have had over 15 years to get this done, that’s how long they’ve been “trying” to get this facility in place but apparently it’s NIMBY’s and self-interested local politicians who are causing the delay! Not a bunch of lazy bureaucrats who couldn’t be bothered to get off their arses in the time it takes your average Bridport resident to go from being born to the sixth form!
Incinerators
One last point, the photo taken from the NOWTS web-site and used on Bridport Radio shows (above), correctly, that the Waste Site will only occupy about a quarter of the land they intend to buy. What’s the rest for? One of those nice shiny incinerators that our lovely County Council are committed to using for non-recyclable waste disposal in the future? There’s another of Mr. Edwards’ beloved national policies about, the one on sustainability. It requires that vehicle journeys should be kept to a minimum when planning new facilities, so the buzz word is co-location, that means that if you want to burn waste you must seek to put the incinerator as near as possible to the place where you sort waste, get the picture? Then, of course, once you’ve crossed the lane and got all that up on the Beaminster Road, you might as well carry on through those nice empty, cheap, green fields to Melplash. Hasn’t Mr. Edwards seen strip development in action? That’s how it works.
NOWTS is a completely non-political campaign aimed entirely at making the County work for the benefit of local residents. We need a Waste Management Centre, at least for a while but we are convinced that north of Gore Cross is the wrong place for it. We believe that it should be somewhere directly off the A35 and I personally support the Bridport Radio idea that the current picnic site is a very good place for it. The proposals from the St. Andrews Road Residents Association to make a new slip road by the Eype bridge and stop all those right-turning accidents make sense to me and would make our roads safer and after all, that’s what Mr. Edwards wants too, so we’d all be happy.
What do you think? Register / log in and leave a comment.
[quote]• Provide/Contract out a local service that makes affordable collections from resident’s homes to collect garden waste, heavy household items such as appliances and furniture. One Luton van then makes the trip instead of 25 cars.[/quote] I wonder if this little job would be taken up by TLC thus helping them to build their financial empire just that little bit quicker and enable them to claim yet more grants from the Council? The Bridport Radio idea of using the site at Eype has got to be the best and most sensible solution for all involved but ultimately the residents of Bridport need to address their wasteful habits for the good of the Planet. What we really need is a site that recycles the waste efficiently as is the norm in Somerset, just pop over the border to Crewkerne and see for yourselves how it should be done. Items that are reusable should be made available to those who could utilise them thus keeping them out of landfill just that little bit longer, it could be done if the Council were to make available a separate yard and building next to the waste site. Reduce, Re-Use and above all Recycle.
NOWTs reply to Bridport TLC published – see above
‘Beer’ says ‘Items that are reusable should be made available to those who could utilise them’ Try FREECYCLE. Thousands of items are offered and snapped up every week by people who want to keep stuff out of Land Fill. Google it and sign up it’s brilliant —- got fridge off it last week!! Your quote about Reduce reuse and above all recycle is not the best advice – can I suggest Reduce – cut down on the amount of cr*p you buy that you don’t need, and don’t but overpackaged goods Repair – keep things out of landfill as long as possible Re-use – buy second hand, sell stuff to others, check out Freecycle etc. Recycle – that is actually the last resort – but at least the raw materials can be used again. As for Mr E, could it be he is going to be standing for the same elections as Ronnie and Rossie, could this possibly be his opening salvo in the election campaign? For someone who stands on the touchline slagging off the referee, this could be hypocracy par excellance.
With the state of the high streets after the seagulls have been thru the bins we might as well tip our rubbish into the street and relocate the town instead.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but generalised assumptions and attempts to smear and discredit organisations because they undermine your arguments with reason and problem-solving logic must be highlighted. Bridport TLC would like to correct the mis-information presented as fact by members of NOWTS on Bridport Radio. Mr. Spears’ attempts to portray our voluntary group as being in the pay of Dorset County Council and West Dorset District Council are false and without foundation. It is true that we work in partnership with both of these authorities as well as over 100 local businesses in our activities to divert materials away from landfill and into re-use and recycling streams. However, none of the local Authorities have given us funding. We do get Discretionary Rate Relief from WDDC but then we do save local taxpayers over £10,000 per annum in saved Landfill Tax. Our Community Workshop received a one-off grant of £2,000 last year from the West Bay Car Boot Fund, which is administered for the local community by WDDC officials. Our only other funding comes from our business membership, donations from individuals and fundraising. Three years ago Bridport TLC won funding from WRAP (a national government agency) to run a Communications Project raising the participation of kerbside collections. We worked with Recycling Officers at WDDC and DCC on this successful campaign at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Rather it was our work that saved LA’s over £13,000 in 2007. Our present activities that keep over 250 tons of materials out of landfill a year are carried out entirely by volunteers. Our Project Manager works an average of 45 hours per week on a voluntary basis. Additionally Mr. Spears and others have attempted to portray our support for a WTS and HRC for Bridport at Gore Cross as impartial and as acting as puppets for Dorset County Council. We completely refute such implied smears. Of course we communicate with local authority officers (it is their job to!) but we are not at their command or direction. We are an autonomous and independent community organisation with a subscribing local membership as big, if not bigger, than any other umbrella group in the area. We appreciate that the issue of locating a new Waste Centre will inevitably be contentious to some but we have taken a great deal of time to find solutions to possible traffic, environmental and safety issues that may arise from building it at Gore Cross. Maybe NOWTS might be better served to join us in persuading DCC to adopt the kind of measures and solutions that will ensure that we get this vital facility built as soon as possible. After all, they seem to think that they can persuade The Highways Agency to lift its UK-wide Safety Veto on A35 sites. Surely their energy is more likely to yield results if they work to influence suitable changes within the County which, after all, is more likely to be flexible as it they who are charged with building this facility. We trust that this will also clarify our financial position to Tim Beer who, for some unfathomable reason, objects to our existence and seems to think we are as mercenary and money-focused as he obviously is.
Oh fer crissakes they are wasting our money on “”experts”” now. [url=http://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/bridportnews/4419135.Consultants_called_in_to_find_best_waste_site_for_Bridport/]Consultants called in to find best waste site for Bridport[/url]