Summary of Highways Agency Meeting - LFE Parish Hall
Submitted by: Concerned on May 29, 2006
My experience at the Highways' LFE Presentation on Monday
22nd May.
Views from a concerned Resident.
I attended the above meeting at 5.45pm and left at 9.OOpm
with serious concerns over the Highways Agency's proposed
plan for the widening and intended flyover over the M1 close
to L.F.E. to join the M69.
At the beginning I had gone to the meeting with annoyance
that it was not until Sunday evening, the day before the meeting
that I had learned of the proposed flyover. I was also annoyed
that I only received the Highways Agency leaflet on the previous
Thursday prior to the meeting on Monday.
I spoke to Colin Chadwick the overall person in charge of
the Highways Agency's team, and expressed my concerns that
there would be a large number of people who would not be at
that meeting due to them not being fully informed of the implications
of the flyover, and asked whether the Highways Agency could
arrange another meeting in the near future so that those people
could express their views, either for or against the Highways
Agency's proposals. Mr. Chadwick stated in no uncertain terms
that there would be no further meetings for the residents
of LFE. I said that this was not very democratic, and then
took him to task at why the Highways Agency Leaflets were
not delivered to the people who were most directly effected
by the proposed changes until the last possible moment. He
admitted that this was a fault of the Agency that they used,
and they commissioned an audit when they realised that people
from the area had not received any literature.
The audit was carried out in the middle of a weekday afternoon,
with a 20% response. I then asked for details of the Agency
used, and he refused to pass that information to me, these
were the same people who carried out the audit. I said that
because of their failure to keep the residents of LFE informed
until the last minute, another meeting needed to be arranged
again, he again quite forcefully stated there would be no
further meetings.
I then asked whether our District and Parish Councillors
were aware of the proposed flyover, as it was still a mystery
to me as to why this important change to the area of LFE had
not come into the public domain until now. He stated that
they had all had a meeting at Councillor Parsons' request
with Phil Clarke, Blaby District's Planning Officer in attendance,
and in his opinion they were fully informed of the Highways
Agency's preferred plan in its entirety.
I then asked why if they were informed of the whereabouts
of the flyover, they had not brought it to the attention of
LFE residents at an earlier date. He said ask them. I then
tried to see their exhibition, but by this time the Hall was
full, and I thought what an utter shambles this presentation
was. There was insufficient number of people from the Highways
Agency for the amount of people who were there. I had asked
several of their Staff what I thought were key questions,
only to find that they did not have the knowledge to answer
the questions. I was told to see Tony Turton, the Project
Manager of the Highways Agency's team. When I found Mr Turton
there were about 20 to 30 residents, firing question after
question at him. It was obvious that he could not give enough
time to any resident's question, and after waiting 20 minutes
I eventually managed to speak to him. I tried without success
in asking my key points.
I eventually suggested that he adopt a question and answer
session at the front of the hall so that all the residents
could have a say in an orderly way. This he agreed to, and
at about 7.45pm the meeting came to an orderly question and
answer session.
Councillor Tony Dolby proceeded to conduct the question and
answer format. The main points extracted from Tony Turton
was that their proposals (i.e. The Highways Agency's) was
as follows:
1) Development in its present stage was the preferred
and the cheapest plan.
2) Other options were looked at but were rejected.
3) The Ancient Monument at Lubbesthorpe would be a problem
with English Heritage, if the plan to move the flyover were
situated further South.
4) The height of the flyover at its apex would be 2 metres
excluding lighting.
5) They reluctantly agreed to another meeting, whereby
they would bring a detailed costing of the rejected plans,
as well as a 3D model of their proposed plan.
6) The District and Parish Council would obtain the views
of the residents of LFE, which would then be proposed to the
Highways Agency in the near future.
As the question and answer session was reaching its conclusion,
I approached a member of the Parish Council, and asked for
an explanation as to why Mr. Chadwick might state that the
Councillors of LFE knew fully of the Highways Agency's proposal
to build the flyover north of LFE Services close to the Hinckley
Road, and I asked why was this not put into the public domain
for consumption prior to the meeting.
Another Councillor joined us and said that he was present
at the meeting convened by Councillor Parsons and that this
was the first he knew of their proposals with regard to the
flyover.
I then asked them to accompany me so that we could clarify
the situation with Mr Chadwick who was only a few yards away
but they declined, wishing to avoid an argument. I said that
I was not wishing an argument, but just to sort out the different
interpretations between Mr Chadwick and the Councillors who
were present at the meeting so as to ascertain when they first
knew of the flyovers plans from the Highways Agency.
Conclusions, and further investigation.
I contacted the head of English Heritage's Ancient Monuments
Inspectorate who confirmed that there had been no discussion
with the Highways Agency over the Ancient Monument at Lubbesthorpe,
and the first preliminary discussions would be taking place
this last Friday 26th May.
I found this difficult to comprehend, as I had left the meeting
on Monday with the impression that the Highways Agency had
already had discussions with English Heritage on the subject
of the Monument, and the quotations they were using was to
me fact not assumptions as to English Heritage's objections.
Obviously I must have been wrong.
I find it difficult to understand the explanation that some
of the Councillors, who were present at the meeting convened
by Councillor Parsons, had left that meeting without knowing
of the proposed flyover, and its proposed location until Monday
22nd May. I find it very strange that a lot of people at the
meeting of 22nd May had not received literature from the Highways
Agency even when in some cases their homes were likely to
be compulsory purchased.
Concerned Resident.
