Second incinerator plans scrutinised (From The Oxford Times)

Bicester Town Council are concerned about ..increased traffic.. !! Yes of course they are, they're just not concerned about all the traffic now or when the 5,000 'Eco-Town' houses are built with the traffic that will bring.

Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott.
Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.

Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.

Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you.

I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars?

If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance.

Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?

Thanks Nick, can you just remind me how concerned you were about the traffic to the Incinerator that's currently being built near Ardley/Middleton Stoney. Doesn't a railway line run right by that also ?

Hi Arkright, the town council and District Council both opposed the incinerator at Ardley, and indeed traffic was one of a number of issues that we raised. If you care to look back through the submissions to the planning you will find that documented.

Severian, I can only guess that you haven't read my latest election leaflet which covers many of the reasons why I and indeed Labour and Liberal opposition members support the Eco Town.

Well done Nick, now we have 2 incinerators in the area.

Severian wrote:

Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.

Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you.

I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars?

If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance.

Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?

I have to apologise to Nick Mawer. I just got his latest leaflet through the door which is an explanation of why he is SO in favour of the new "Eco" town.

So now he has made it totally clear - he is totally opposed to anything which will bring more traffic to Bicester, and he is also totally in favour of a development which will bring 8,000+ more cars to Bicester.

I think he needs professional help, because both of him are totally confused.

Severian wrote:

Severian wrote:

Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.

Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you.

I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars?

If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance.

Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?

I have to apologise to Nick Mawer. I just got his latest leaflet through the door which is an explanation of why he is SO in favour of the new "Eco" town.

So now he has made it totally clear - he is totally opposed to anything which will bring more traffic to Bicester, and he is also totally in favour of a development which will bring 8,000+ more cars to Bicester.

I think he needs professional help, because both of him are totally confused.

I wouldn't apologise Severian, he isn't the first 'confused' councillor and he won't be the last.