We received the following message by one of the local residents. It contains important information about the planning application and the astonishing claims put forward by both Hackney Council and the Developers. In the interest of transparency we reproduce it verbatim here:
You might think the planning application has a survey of 'traffic'. You'd be WRONG.
There is no survey of moving vehicles. Why?
Because in June 2010, Hackney's Department of Transportation met with Mouchel, the developer, and decided that that the new school would make no impact on neighbourhood traffic. Therefore the Traffic Assessment didn't have to include 'traffic' (moving vehicles) but only parking. The Transportation people told Mouchel they'd be 'happy to discuss' any traffic issues as they went along so that there were no 'surprises' that could affect the outcome of the Horizon planning application
1. So, the required 'Traffic Assessment' was done by Mouchel, Hackney's contractor, for Hackney's planning application. How many conflicts of interest can you spot there.
2. Hackney's Department of Transport decided that Hackney's application for planning permission didn't have to discuss or survey moving traffic. This is like Hackney deciding its own case.
Furthermore, it also says is that it doesn't matter what the residents think about the traffic. The matter has already been decided without leaving the office - there is no impact on traffic.
3. If I recall correctly, beginning in September, we were always told that there would be a full survey of traffic. But from June they already knew that there wouldn't be.
It gets worse!
Not only did they imply at the meeting that there would be a survey of moving vehicles but they've changed the minutes to correct their lie.
The September meeting was attended by Tim Parker and Stephanie Howard from Mouchel Transport. Tim Parker, was the one who met with Hackney Transport and agreed their deal.
 |
| transparency [trænsˈpærənsɪ]: frankness, openness, candour, directness, forthrightness, straightforwardness e.g. openness and transparency in the government's decision-making |
At the meeting the woman spoke. I asked her 3 questions. I remeber this quite clearly because I was irritated at her slippery answers. She said they'd done some preliminary studies, on questioning it turned out these were about parking. I am 100% clear that my final question was: have you surveyed 'moving vehicles'? She said no but they would. This is as everyone would expect.
The minutes say I asked only the following question: 'Has a transport assessment been carried out'. (That of course is not what the question was.)
She answers, 'No but will be as part of the stage 2 work'.
The reason they fiddled the minutes this is that technically speaking they have carried out a Transport Assessment, which is the document we have, and based on their deal with Hackney, they didn't have to survey moving vehicles.
No comments:
Post a Comment