Very grateful for the thorough and accurate reporting coming out of the Roseacre Inquiry... one piece which I'll paste after my bit, managed to capture more clearly my unusual Wednesday at the Inquiry.
...on Wednesday evening many interest parties were given their 5-minutes to put their case to the Inquiry and I was on the list. The Inquiry can ONLY address traffic issues and where many came to speak of dog walkers, horse riders, schoolchildren, residents etc being road users, I came to speak about those of us who would become road users in the area if the site got given the go-ahead.
The Inspector turned off my microphone within about 1.5 minutes and gave the impression that if I continued speaking, I would put the outcome of the Inquiry in jeapordy! Surreal, unjust and ridiculous behaviour unfitting for a man in position to appear as unbiased and impartial!
Thanks to Fred Moor of Counterbalance for the following coverage of all that happened:
--------------------------------------------------
211 Tina Rothery
On the list we had seen, Ms Rothery had been scheduled to speak at slot eleven of fourteen speakers, but she was not called until all the other public speakers had spoken.
As the end of a long day approached, but before Ms Rothery actually spoke, we had begun to draft couple of paragraphs to conclude this session. They began:
"Maybe it was the lateness of the hour and the fact that (as the Inspector himself said), he had not had his dinner yet. And perhaps he didn't intend to give the impression we were forming, but we couldn't help coming to the view that he was politely putting up with having to listen to all the public speakers.
He left us with the impression that this was something that had to be gone through, but not something he gave a lot of weight to. That perception can also engender the impression that he's already made up his mind to recommend the Secretary of State to allow the appeal of course.
We don't think that is the case, (and we certainly hope it's not), but his manner; his phrasing; and his body language has left us with the impression that he only really wants to hear the evidence from the professional technical experts - and anything else is more or less superfluous, (as can be deduced from the exchange with Mr De Feu for RAG which we reported yesterday)."
As we said, that was before Ms Rothery spoke.
Her contribution raised his ire and we report it verbatim now.
Inspector:
"Tina Rothery?"
Ms Rothery:
"Thank you very much for the opportunity. My name's Tina Rothery and although I live locally I'm here as a nationwide campaigner against fracking and have been for seven years...."
Inspector (interjecting):
"I don't want to hear anything about fracking. As far as I'm concerned..."
Ms Rothery (interjecting):
"I was telling you my role and why I was here, sorry, OK.
We're addressing the highway safety for when Cuadrilla comes to Roseacre if they do, and the impact of the traffic. I'm here to address the impact of the protestors if Cuadrilla comes. We'll also also arrive along with that traffic
I've seen communities throughout the seven years, from Balcombe to Barton Moss, Horse Hill and everywhere in between, rise up when there is a threat they consider to their homes, their families and their children.
People you wouldn't ordinarily assume would become protestors, and although the territory about them is familiar, the actual role they fulfil within that becomes very dangerous for the traffic.
Trucks don't always appear as 'Trax' does, and I can speak of this from how we see Cuadrilla operate at PNR. The trucks [indistinct word - there?] look to us like something bringing harm to our children, and so therefore our response to them will be very different.
Hundreds of groups of residents have formed throughout the country, and there's no reason to expect that Roseacre won't do the same.
I think as you can see from the Inquiry that there are very many more against, and I've not yet seen anybody who is for.
The message also that I would think be received by Cuadrilla and this Inquiry is that over the last 15 months, approximately 480 days, protestors have been at Preston New Road site where Cuadrilla is currently developing, and have not desisted or left, and I understand that Cuadrilla was trying to put across the point that Roseacre will not see the same level of protest, and I come with a message from everybody on the four camps over at Preston New Road, that we absolutely fully intend on being in Roseacre, and objecting there was we've objected to Cuadrilla in Balcolmbe and Blackpool.
So it was just to correct them on their assumption and we don't consider that just because we don't live in Roseacre, that we're not locals. Air and water - I know you don't want to consider fracking - but air and water do travel outside the area.
Currently we're experiencing on Preston new Road which I can use as the only example we have at the moment, police who are overstretched, over tires and on overtime costing a great deal of money....."
Inspector (interjecting):
"I don't really think this is appropriate. It's not relevant to highway safety. We already know that you're intending to protest there. I'm not sure where that take the Secretary of State's decision. So thank you for appearing but I'd like you to go."
Ms Rothery's microphone was off at this point and it was hard to hear her response bit we think she said:
"If there's a company vehicle in a 20 mph road over 45 mph....."
Inspector (interjecting):
"I dont.... That may be so...."
Ms Rothery:
"The impact of traffic and our safety on those roads..."
Inspector:
"Well..."
Ms Rothery:
"Indistinct words but sounded like - Why can't I speak? )
Inspector:
"We are aware of, of, I've been told that you are...."
He stopped short of concluding this sentence and we have to say some possible unspoken endings that led from it from it troubled us.
Ms Rothery tried to make progress to explain herself but with her microphone not working we could not hear what she said clearly enough to quite verbatim.
Inspector:
"You've obviously not been here listening to what tee scope of this inquiry is, or you wouldn't be here talking in the way that you are. OK? So as far as I'm...."
Ms Rothery:
"The inquiry involves the impact [and? or?] the safety as regards the traffic...."
Inspector (forcefully and with even more increasing forcefulness toward the end):
"The Inquiry is about the appellant's mitigation measures to improve highway safety. If You've got things to say on those then say it. If you don't have things to say on those then I'll be very grateful if you'd leave."
Again we couldn't exactly hear what Ms Rothery was saying here but she seemed to be trying to speak about how Cuadrilla would deal with the safety of people who were protesting on the highway and a number of other items.
Inspector:
"I don't think it's a matter for me. I don't intend to go there. So as far as I'm concerned, you're taking the case nowhere. OK?
All You're doing is annoying me, which is not going to, well, if you like, my, my consideration of the whole experience tonight, and a lot of people have come here to express very real concerns about the impact of the appellant's mitigation proposals. OK? Which is what I want to take away and think about."
There was a brief inaudible few words from Ms Rothery which sounded like "In the interest of Roseacre I will step down" before the Inspector said
"Good"
Ms Rothery left the stand and the inspector said
"That's the end of my list of people wishing to speak, I don't think I've missed anyone have I? No. In that case I will adjourn the Inquiry until one o'clock tomorrow. Thank you very much for coming along
It was not an edifying exchange. The Inspector must have been tired, it was 8pm after a full day, but we're not sure that justified the tone he used.
Ms Rothery told us as she left that she had wanted to address the matter of Cuadrilla's plans to ensure the safety of highway protestors, saying that the Inquiry had given regard to the safety to dogs and horses on the road, but seemed not to want to consider the safety of those who were protesting on the road.
To be honest we thought the Inspector had been foolish in his handling of this matter. A wiser inspector might simply have put his pen down, listened in silence until she finished, said thank you, and, if he felt inclined, not included any irrelevant aspects in his report.
Seeking to effectively publicly censor what Ms Rothery could say at the Inquiry was unhelpful, and we thought it was damaging to the credibility of the Planning Inspectorate as a body, especially when he has the power to determine what goes into his report.
Perhaps a fresh day will improve things.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterbalance.org.uk/latest/rfrac02.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to add your voice to mine x