Another T Bone Rta At Meadowhead Junction!

[northernboy 13]

Richard Shaw, the Lib Dem councillor, has posted the following on Facebook:

"TAKING ACTION ON DANGEROUS JUNCTION AT GREENHILL AVENUE AND GREENHILL MAIN ROAD

Since 2018 I've got the council to do two safety reviews of the junction of Greenhill Avenue and Greenhill Main Road - the first in 2018 found that the junction hadn't been built to the agreed design and another last year when council officers agreed to install further give way signs.

I've made my view clear to them that it needs to be a fully signalled crossing and right-turn.

I also raised this issue yesterday in Full Council. The Cabinet member of the Labour/Green administration said there had only been 11 recorded collisions since 2018. I pointed out that a resident living next to the junction had recorded 37 collisions since 2018 and I asked the Cabinet member to join me for site visit to see the problems for themselves and take action sooner rather than later. I will keep residents informed of when that happens."

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=310114734469220&set=a.309944671152893

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by northernboy

[bassett one 452]

i fully agree ,with 2 accidents in the last 2 weeks a lone ,tells you its bad,well done richard,he works non-stop to help local people fight for justice 

[Meltman 314]

If it hasn't been built to the agreed design then someone is responsible for that and should be accountable. No doubt it will be impossible to find such a person. 

[Planner1 438]

3 hours ago, Meltman said:

If it hasn't been built to the agreed design then someone is responsible for that and should be accountable. No doubt it will be impossible to find such a person. 

It isn’t uncommon for the “agreed design” to be varied to suit site conditions once construction has started, so I wouldn’t read much into that statement.

[Planner1 438]

4 hours ago, bassett one said:

i fully agree ,with 2 accidents in the last 2 weeks a lone ,tells you its bad,well done richard,he works non-stop to help local people fight for justice 

Well if you follow the link in the post above and read the information, you’ll see that it’s 29th in the prioritised list of locations where collisions are occurring, so maybe not that bad on the grand scale of things. 
 

The Council would tend to be most interested in collisions which involve someone being killed or seriously injured (KSI’s) and there have only been 4 serious injuries out of all the reported ones ( which doesn’t include non injury collisions as they aren’t reportable).

 

Much as I applaud local “activists” ( who are often prospective opposition candidates at local elections) for doing something for their community, you have to understand that what they do is politically motivated, so them being seen in the media pointing fingers at things the current administration has done isn’t uncommon. It’s what they do.

 

In my very long career in local government, I can’t think of an occasion where something has been done just because it was brought to officers attention by a prospective opposition candidate. Usually it amounts to the “activist/candidate” passing on to the officers the letters/emails they’ve received from local people, and asking them for a response. The officers have usually received these messages anyway. The officers send a response and the “activist/candidate” claims the glory for getting something done. It’s the nature of local politics.

[Bargepole23 337]

19 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

It isn’t uncommon for the “agreed design” to be varied to suit site conditions once construction has started, so I wouldn’t read much into that statement.

But there should be a document trail agreeing those design changes, presumably they aren't just made ad-hoc by site workers? And presumably whatever drawings and docs exist are updated to as-built after sitework is completed?

[Planner1 438]

34 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

But there should be a document trail agreeing those design changes, presumably they aren't just made ad-hoc by site workers? And presumably whatever drawings and docs exist are updated to as-built after sitework is completed?

Yes, of course, it should all be documented.

[Meltman 314]

6 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Yes, of course, it should all be documented.

In that case I repeat....someone should be accountable for the changes, whatever the reason, and I guess the responsible person's name will be on the document. 

[Planner1 438]

19 minutes ago, Meltman said:

In that case I repeat....someone should be accountable for the changes, whatever the reason, and I guess the responsible person's name will be on the document. 

Yes, but no one has said that there was anything negative about whatever change was made, only that it wasn’t done to the “agreed” design, whatever that was.

 

I’ve seen scenarios where someone has seen a version of the design and incorrectly assumed that it would be built that way. 
 

The person who posted on social media didn’t actually say what change they felt had been made, which in itself leads me to suspect the change may not have been significant.

[northernboy 13]

Just to point out that Richard Shaw is a councillor (and has been since 2014), not a “prospective opposition candidate”.

[bassett one 452]

richard shaw is a top class councillor and works hard in his area.plus hes got a while until he comes up for election

[Planner1 438]

5 hours ago, northernboy said:

Just to point out that Richard Shaw is a councillor (and has been since 2014), not a “prospective opposition candidate”.

Just to point out that I said it was often potential opposition candidates, I wasn’t specific about that one. 
 

It’s the same point with Councillors. When taking an issue up directly with the council, people often copy in their councillor or write to them too, so more often than not, by the time the councillor contacts the officers, they already know about the issue.