Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is this anticipating the closure of Goodrich outside the school? One of the patterns is that when the council closures a road it ensures it removes a significant number of parking spaces at the same time - thus, no doubt, increasing their ability to lobby for CPZs further down the line!

They will never put a CPZ there. There?s no need because people don?t park there to be near a station. PR is at least a 25? walk away, ED and HOP about 20, the latter uphill part of the way and none reached speedily and easily by bus from this actual location.

School traffic is heavy though many pupils do walk and a few cycle.

> School traffic is heavy though many pupils do walk

> and a few cycle.



This is why a permanent closure of that small section of Goodrich makes no sense. It will simply divert and concentrate the 'heavy traffic' which you mention onto Upland and Dunstan's, which is where the main gates to the school actually are. And the streets which most children use to get to school.


I don't understand why you would want to direct more cars up and down the very same roads on which you are trying to encourage more children to 'actively travel'. The scheme makes no sense.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
    • Fernando came and sorted out our very overgrown garden.  He is a very friendly chap, works meticulously and charges very fair prices.   We’ve been using his Services for many years now and will continue to do so.    Here are his contact details if you have any gardening questions: Fernando - 07946 757938       
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...