The proposed new Rochester Railway Station



You have 10 days to comment and or object/agree to the proposed new Rochester Railway station here are the comments which I have submitted -
 
The station design is unambitious and dull - looking more like a McDonalds than the gateway to a beautiful city(sic).

This is an opportunity to build something of architectural merit that could become a destination in itself, perhaps a mini St Pancras! A beautiful gem to grace a beautiful city (sic).
 
The tunnel to the proposed car park on Rochester Riverside is an outrage - nobody is going to use what will become a urine-soaked, litter strewn, mugging ground! Think again this is ludicrous!
 
There is no seating within the station building. Waiting for a train at Rochester will be akin to waiting for a bus at Chatham's "Dynamic" bus station - passengers will be exposed to the elements all year round - this station could become another architectural disaster like the pathetic bus station.
 
Why not have a competition to design a wonderful station instead of your "lowest common denominator" solution - dream a little!
 
You can view the drawings on Medway Borough Council's planning pages. You can also leave your comments online here. The Planning Application reference is MC/13/0971.

 

How very dare you!

If you have kids at Medway schools, live on the Isle of Grain, care about democracy and freedom of the press - read this it will make your hair stand on end!http://blogs.kentonline.co.uk/post/Dog-eat-dog-Its-just-been-nibbles-so-far.aspx

Looking for a new job? Plenty of fresh air, wind, rain and turbulance? Why not apply for the Bus Station Assistant post at Chatham's new dynamic bus station.

http://www.jobsgopublic.com/jobs/bus-station-assistant-rcc1342da/from/1k1upnkdl226cv/2/of/7/score/desc?highlight=medway

The closure of The Pentagon Bus Station

Regardless of your political persuasion I think you will all agree that the large conservative majority on the council is bad for Medway and democracy. Here is my suggestion to change this in the May elections.


The single issue that will directly and immediately effect a large number of people in Medway is not city status, or the lumbering regeneration projects, or the Sainsbury versus Tesco supermarket battle or the new bus station - IT IS THE CLOSURE OF THE PENTAGON BUS STATION !! Many people are still not aware that this will close - they think that the new bus station is in ADDITION to the Pentagon Bus Station!

I think we should organise a publicity campaign about the closure of the Pentagon Bus Station and put the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the conservative majority on Medway Council. We could distribute leaflets to the effect that:

The Pentagon Bus Station is closing

Soon you will not be able to catch your bus here

You will have to go to the Riverside Gardens to catch your bus

You will be at the mercy of the weather as there is little shelter there

There is also limited seating and no toilets

If you care about standing around in all weathers to catch your bus

or you worry about how older and infirm passengers are going to cope

Vote for ANYBODY but your Conservative councillor at the local elections

The Conservative councillors are closing your bus station instead of refurbishing it

This is a quick idea off the top of my head but I do think that a single issue campaign which touches all parts of the Medway towns is a good idea and the only way in which we will be able to alter the balance of the council. Please be open and honest in your criticism of this hurried idea and improve the leaflet and add your own thoughts and let me know.

A film of 30 pensioners, for instance, out in the rain at the new dynamic bus station would change a lot of hearts and minds! We need more ideas like this.

Medway Council have no right to take this (admittedly inadequate) facility away from our residents - it is a scandal and we have not properly addressed it until now. It is not the building of the new bus station that is the issue - it is the closure of the old one!

Will Medway Tory councillor Alan ("we can call ourselves whatever we like") Jarrett's latest gaff cost council tax payers ££££££ ?

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have recently ruled that Medway can't "call ourselves whatever we like" as Deputy Leader Alan Jarrett has stated in defence of his "City of Medway, rich heritage, great future" logo. If this WERE the case it could lead to all sorts of confusion - I could, for instance, call myself "Lord Blogger of Rochester", Mr Jarrett could call himself "The Royal Keeper of The Emporer's Invisible Clothes" or "Brad Pitt" - it would be mayhem!

The recent ruling by the ASA states: "The ad must not appear again in its current form".

Imagine then my surprise, whilst perusing pamphlets at the tourist centre in Rochester High street, to find the items shown below, flaunting the forbidden logo! I have suggested (also shown below) a means of complying with the ASA ruling at the cost of a couple of felt tips - no doubt this and the staff time involved could be taken from the Medway city bid budget! I have included this cunning design suggestion as I am sure that Medway Council (or even Mr "call ourselves whatever we like" Jarrett himself) will not want to incur the costs of pulping (or re-cycling?) the thousands of pamphlets and the re-design and re-printing required in these difficult times when cuts to council staff are being made.

I am currently searching for an equally brilliant and cost-effective solution to the ARRIVA bus and the VEIOLA dustcarts that are currently displaying the "misleading" logo.

Medway - City of Culture or City of Incompetence?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2010/december/17/regeneration.aspx

Medway Council destroy gardens without warning - more vandalism in your name!

This week the Medway towns lost another green space. These gardens, in front of Chatham Town Hall have just been bulldozed - anybody care?

Email your local councillor if you do. 

Medway borough council say "Medway has come a long way since the devastation caused by the closure of the naval dockyard in Chatham in the 1980s" - I wonder if they have included the devestation they have caused?

1. Loss of city status for Rochester Upon Medway through administrative error further compounded by an unsuccessful bid for city status some years later – now there is a third bid using the name “Medway” (nobody likes or wants this name and few outsiders know where it is!) putting paid to the proud names of Strood, Gillingham, Chatham, Rainham and all the outlying villages. Vandalism on a vast scale! Without adequate consultation!
2. Closure of the centuries-old Rochester Market to provide income generating car parking
3. CCTV Car(s)
4. Destruction of Aveling and Porter building to provide income generating car parking
5. Destruction of riverside wharves to provide thusfar non-existant development
6. Vandalism (tree felling etc) of The Paddock for "Dynamic" Bus Station
7. Vandalism of Riverside Gardens (tree felling etc) for "Dynamic" Bus Station
8. Vandalism of Great Lines (tree felling, destruction of wildlife habitat)
9. Changes to Black Lion Sports Centre (including renaming as Medway Park!)
10. Closure of college to sell off land opposite Rochester Airport for development
11. Relocation of Age Concern/Help the Aged from central Chatham to Hopewell Drive Business Estate, Luton
12. Failure to ensure the refurbishment of Pentagon toilets despite allegedly wasting £200,000 earmarked.
13. Selling off parts of Watts Meadow for development
14. Selling off Copperfield Green Space for development
15. Failing to provide public parking at Gun Wharf Council offices
16. Publishing and distributing "Medway Matters" (a blatant piece of propaganda) using our money
17. Failing to consult effectively and/or failing to listen to consultation on almost every issue
18. The "Elephant in The Room" preventing any regeneration of Chatham is THE PENTAGON - demolish it!
19. Merger of Chatham South School & Medway Community College to form the vast Chatham Academy
20. Proposed closure of St John's C of E Infants causing uncertainty and distress)
21. Proposed closure of Ridge Meadow Primary school

22.Axing of jobs - loss of park wardens at Maidstone Road Sports Ground the only sports ground in Chatham Central!

23. Loss of loos at Maidstone Rd Sports Ground - Council voted to demolish [ & have demolished them ] & will not be re-instating.

24. Queen St/Slicketts Hill car parks which are allegedly to be sold off & potentially developed into blocks of flats.

25, Failure years ago to back the campaigners to save the Theatre Royal in Chatham.

26. Allegedly selling off car park in King Street, Rochester for redevelopment.

I could go on but I am beginning to feel ill!

Please add your own favourites at will.

This is what happens when you don't consult your residents!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSNLeWPcNg

City status - need I say more! - Memorandum from City of Rochester Society on Medway Council's proposal to apply for city status.

Memorandum from the City of Rochester Society on Medway Council's proposal to apply for city status

Background

Rochester's historic city status was allowed to lapse when Medway Unitary Authority was formed.Since this decision was discovered, the City of  Rochester Society has been investigating whether, and if so how,  city status  can be regained. Medway Council has also endeavoured  to reverse the decision made by its predecessors, making  approaches to central government's Constitution Unit, so far without success. Now, in anticipation that new cities may be created as part  of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 2012, Medway  Council has  announced its intention of making an application in  respect of the entire borough which, if successful, would become  the City of Medway. The Society's findings For centuries it was accepted that a town which was the seat of a bishopric, and so contained a cathedral, would have the status of  a city. This stemmed from the fact that the earliest bishoprics were settled upon the most important and well-established towns in the  kingdom, usually those of Roman or pre-Roman origin.There  are no records of city status having been formally bestowed upon  these towns at any time, though their status was accepted and  reaffirmed by Royal charters through the centuries. In the course  of a local government review in 1927 these towns, including  Rochester, were described as cities 'by ancient prescriptive right'. In addition to these historic cities, large new industrial towns  developed in the 19th century some of which sought, and were  granted, city status. Other towns became the seats of newly  created bishoprics and cathedrals were built (e.g. in Guildford  and Chelmsford) but as yet they do not have city status.  The automatic link between city and diocese was broken. Local government boundary changes in the 1970s created a  requirement to maintain the status for cities which were being  incorporated into the newly formed, larger districts. Initially  Rochester's status was upheld by 'Special Letters Patent'  granted by the Queen at the request of the outgoing city council.  When, in 1982, Medway Borough Council expressed an interest  in obtaining city status for itself, a compromise was reached  with a name change to Rochester upon Medway. A further  application was then made to the Queen and Rochester's  historic status was extended to the whole of the Borough.  However, when the unitary authority was formed in 1997   Rochester was not included in the title and no other action was taken - such as the appointment of charter trustees - to  uphold city status. City status is granted very sparingly and there are no hard and fast rules; applicants have to make the best case they can citing  the attributes of their particular town or, in some cases, group of towns (e.g. Stoke on Trent, a city of six towns). The one fact,  however, which does emerge is that city status has,to date,  only been granted in the name of established towns. Unless  there is a change of policy, it is unlikely that city status would be granted under a name otherwise borne only by a river and a recently created local government district, such as Medway.   It is also worth bearing in mind that the Yorkshire city generally  known as Hull has the formal title of the City of Kingston-upon-Hull.  This suggests that if a formal title of, say, Rochester upon  Medway, were adopted for the Authority itself - upon which an  application for city status could be based - there would be nothing to preclude the continued marketing/promotion of the area as  'Medway' in line with the Council's existing policy. The Society's recommendation The Society strongly recommends that in order to give an  application for city status the best  possible chance of success,  the Council considers altering the name of the  Unitary Authority to 'ROCHESTER UPON MEDWAY'.

City status for Medway Borough Council - Answers on a piece of bunting please!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/10499037.stm

Get rid of the system that uses a council leader and his cabinet of political chums and vote for a mayor directly elected by the people of the Medway Towns and answerable to the people. You only have 8 days left to voice your opinion - DO IT NOW!

"The choice has to be made as to whether we continue with our local authority headed by a council leader, elected internally by his political chums, or a mayor directly elected by the people of the Medway Towns and answerable to the people.
Too little publicity has been given to the vital opportunity to follow the success of directly elected mayors in other parts. The people of the Medway Towns should go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XWMTRZZ where they can follow the link which gives them the facts and a survey enabling them to express their preference."
From a letter in The Medway Messenger 18th June 2010.
Remember you only have until 30th June 2010 to give your preference. This has not been well advertised by the council - I wonder why?

City status - are we going far enough? - Let's go for full re-branding, damn the expense!

Is medway borough council (sic) being too humble in its current attempt to re-brand itself as a city? Having lost city status for Rochester through incompetence, negligence, stupidity, arrogance, lack of professionalism (choose any that fit) perhaps it needs to up its game a bit. Here are a few suggestions that might help:-

1. Rename Rochester Castle as Medway Castle -

 Medway Castle

2. Rename Rochester Cathedral as Medway Cathedral -

 Medway Cathedral

3. Go for the city name Medway upon Medway.

Some more stunning and original ideas:-

A. Rename Gillingham Footbal Club as Medway Football Club.

B. Rename the various towns as Chatham in Medway, Gillingham in Medway, Strood in Medway etc. Or better still Upper Medway, Middle Medway and Lower Medway we could also include Lesser Medway, Greater Medway, Medway under Medway, Medway Rural, Medway Urban, Inner Medway, Outer Medway, Medway Without, Medway Within - the re-branding list goes on!

C. Rename Chatham Dockyard as Medway Dockyard.

D. Change all references to Rochester, Chatham, Strood etc in the works of Charles Dickens to Medway!

Then they will take medway borough council (sic) seriously!

Medway Matters council magazine - value for money - here are the figures - what do you think?

Medway Matters has a circulation of nearly 112,000 and costs around £17,000 per issue. Medway council have a contract with Royal Mail who distribute the magazine.  This costs nearly £8,000 to deliver per issue.

How much does "Medway Matters" the "free" Medway Council magazine cost us?

Here is a statement from Medway Concil's Media Manager:
"There is no specific budget for the council's residents' magazine. It is funded through a mix of advertising and through local partners buying into its editorial content, with nearly 68 per cent of funding coming from external sources."

How much does your local councillor get? Medway Councillors allowances and expenses 2009-2010

http://www.medway.gov.uk/membersallowances2009-10.pdf

Medway Council's Medway Matters pamphlet - what's it all about Rodney

Having just received my obligitory copy of Medway Matters, I was struck by the number of times the word "Medway" appears in it (128 until I fell asleep - excluding email addresses adverts etc). Why am I sent this - all the info is readily available in local press or online? Who pays for this mag - is it me with my council tax ( it can't be funded by adverts because there are only a handful)? I have emailed Medway Council to ask how this mag is funded but have received no reply yet (will keep you posted). There are several articles that ask for the readers' feedback or comments - is this Medway Council's excuse for consultation? Can they then say that they have consulted thousands of people and have met their obligations? 
What are your views on Medway Matters please let me know - and by the way what has happened to the "Letters" page - perhaps they don't get any letters other than complaints?

Medway Council are just too arrogant to listen to sound and informed advice.

I quote from The City of Rochester Society Annual Report  2009/2010 :- "Discussions with the Council on the question of city status continued throughout the year. Considerable attention is now focused on major events planned for 2012, with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, the hosting of the Olympics, and the 200th Anniversary of Charles Dicken's birth which all give cause for celebration. We understand that the Council is entering into competition with other towns to make a further bid for city status. The simplest way forward would be for the Council to agree to a change of name to 'Rochester upon Medway' when the application for city status is renewed. It is felt by the society that this would have a far greater chance of success. Medway Council can still continue to promote the area as 'Medway'. The city of Kingston upon Hull, which is usually referred to as Hull is a good example. This has been explained to the Council in a succinct document, prepared by the society. In the absence of our Press Officer, our Secretary was called upon to make an appearance recently on BBC Breakfast TV to give the Society's views on city status."

The council are obviously too ignorant and incompetent to take this sound advice - another wheelbarrow-full of our money will be wasted on their stupid and futile bid to have a river named a city! Idiots.

When will Medway Council close Globe Lane to all traffic except buses and taxis?

The unbelievable must soon happen and they will actually close this any day now! Another nail in the coffin of Chatham. I think this will finally kill it off! R.I.P Chatham as a retail destination - God help the businesses trying to exist there!

Extract from The Local Government Ombudsman's Annual review for Medway Council - March 2009

This year our Advice Team dealt with 94 enquiries and complaints about your Council. Of these,
19 related to complaints which were deemed to be premature and so were referred back to the
Council for investigation. The categories that generated the most significant number of enquiries
and complaints were Education (28), Planning & Building Control (17) and Transport & Highways
(11). These categories also accounted for the majority of the 60 complaints forwarded to the
investigative team.