Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Lollipop Lollipop

Salmestone Grange primary school featured on this morning's BBC local news or more accurately, the surrounding road, which is now considered to be too dangerous for "Lollipop" ladies.

According to the report, there have been a number of near misses with cars that refuse to stop to allow the children to cross the road and there are concerns that a serious accident could occur on this, one of the busiest and most congested roads in Thanet.

Winner of the caption competition, my favourite at least, was from Michael Child, with:"Gomez discovering why the castration of such a valuable animal had been entrusted to a migrant farm worker."

Well done to all the runners up as it was hard to choose from the funniest quips!

10 comments:

James Maskell said...

This story was reported in the Thanet Times last week. In November 2005 shortly after the fatal crash involving John Living at the Victoria Lights, I highlighted the dangers of the Victoria Lights in the Gazette and the risk of not taking swift action in dealing with these dangers. I said then as I say now, if something isnt done to sort out the junction and the surrounding area, traffic wise, then another person will die unnecessarily.

Bill Pankhurst and I have pledged that we will work to find a way to improve the one-way system. Its not safe and with 470 pupils attending Salmestone Primary School, theres a serious risk to the school children here. The dangerous history of the one-way system is well known locally and yet action has been lacking. This is a key issue that Salmestone residents need to take into account when voting in two weeks time. Who will stand up for you over road safety?

Cllr David Green said...

Be careful James, you are straing seriously off message. The best chance of sorting these problems was as part of the approval for Westwood 1160 Homes. Your party whiped it through TDC without the necessary highways isses resolved.
Labour County Councillors Hart and Green attempted to raise all the problems you mentioned but were pressured into not voting in the debate for their pains. If you make statements such as the one just made you could find your bosses excluding you. Nonsense of course but your crowd will use any devcice to get their way.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm..happen the last sentence you wrote applies to "your lot"cllr green.pot and kettle spring to mind...

Michael Child said...

This is all very well but the local elections are about selecting people to deal with the major local issues, what I would like to know and others too I expect, is candidates views on how the most important could be tackled. Our two main towns now have very little left in the way of leisure facilities and shops to attract visitors. Many of the plans seem to be directed at making us get into our cars, to see a film, have a swim, do our shopping and now go to the theatre, adding both to the gridlock and pollution. It runs against common sense, we are I think, heading in an impossible direction.

My investigations into Westwood cross have produced the conclusion that most of the businesses there are suffering considerable losses this, presumably means that there would have to be a lot more traffic going there to make them viable, and that we know is just not possible. Even the simplest suggestions like connecting its car park to that of Sainsbury’s are ignored. We seem to be heading towards having three shopping centres that are none of them viable.

Seems to me that any administration that can’t get on top of this problem won’t be fit for purpose, so please here or somewhere give us some idea how, if you were elected to office you would tackle the big local issues, either as an individual or a party. The contention that the mistakes that Labour are making nationally is the basis that we should vote Conservative locally just won’t wash. Successive administrations of either party seem to have made things progressively worse bickering with each other rather than working together to address the issues.

James Maskell said...

Councillor David Green, your above comments are misleading, and I suspect deliberately so. Please correct them.

Cllr David Green said...

James, I'm afraid you will have to explain your assertion before I can respond.

James Maskell said...

There will not be 1160 homes built at Westwood. In fact you well know this because you used the figure of 1030 at Council last week, when complaining that there were more than 1000 homes proposed and that you couldnt support it.

Councillors Clive Hart and Elizabeth Green did not mention the problems I highlighted. It is misleading to say that they did. Neither of them were deterred from voting. If they were Im sure Labour would have complained through the appropriate channels, which they havent.

Your last comment is just plain ridiculous. This is coming from a party which says that the two Labour candidates for Salmestone will do everything possible to represent the residents, and yet doesnt attend the Westwood Housing Council meetings! In the very same leaflet, they use Bowen Fuller as a veritable punch bag to paint the rest of us Conservatives as ignoring residents.

Why cant Labour just tell the truth to the public?

Cllr David Green said...

James
I'm sure you realise that the local development plan sets aside a certain area of land at Westwood for housing development. The current development only uses about 80% of the land for something between 1020 and 1160 houses depending upon whether you think the school and commercial aspects will be built. I happen to think that the lure of greater profits from housing will win out.
When the other 20% is built on as well, as it surely will, there will be at least 1160, probably more.
You will just have to take my word that Cllrs Hart and Green did raise the highways aspects with officers and were harrassed into not participating in the vote. The form of the complaint is being considered.
As for the last comment, I dont control what goes into other candidates election leaflets, but Bowen Fuller was a Tory wasnt he, and his attendence wasnt very good was it?

Anonymous said...

I am surprised that no-one has commented on Our Leader's comments in The Gazunder last Friday. As the bin-men have done the paper collection,I cannot quote him directly but it was along the lines that our Thanet young cannot have an adequate social housing allocation in New Westwood because that won't be attractive to inward investment. Sorry, Sandy, but if we are to have Westwood forced on us plebs against our wishes, shouldn't TDC be arguing for a fair amount of fairly priced social housing at Westwood for the benefit of Thanetonians who are forced out of the housing market by inward money (from London) forcing up prices beyond the reach of poorly paid locals? Sandy almost sounded like a front man for the developers who we would expect to say this " We don't want no cheap affordable housing on this wonderful money spinning development of ours as the greatest profit is to be made on twee exec homes that only Londoners moving down to luvverly Thanet by the sea can afford".

James Maskell said...

25% of homes to be built at Westwood will be affordable homes.

Regarding the 'blocking', did Cllr Hart say anything publically about his views regarding the planning application? Letters to local residents perhaps?