Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 14
May 21 2014
Today
saw a new witness sit behind the desk on the left hand of the Inspector at the
Enquiry.
Links
to audio recordings of each of the day’s sessions are below with brief
descriptions of each session.
My
thoughts on the days proceedings follow after the links.
The
first morning session of day 14 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 21 2014.
Mr John Henkel, acting director general of Metro takes the stand as a witness
for NGT.
Neil
Cameron examines on behalf of the Applicant NGT.
The
late morning session of day 14 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 21 2014. Mr
John Henkel, acting director general of Metro continues as a witness for NGT.
Cllr Barry Anderson (C. Adel) cross examines.
In the early afternoon session of day 14 of the
Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 21, 2014, the cross examination of Mr John
Henkel, Acting Director of West Yorkshire Combined Transport Authority
continues from Mr Malcolm Bell, Mechanical Engineer.
In
the final afternoon session of day 14, May 21 2014, Gregory Jones QC cross
examines John Henkel, Acting Director of the new West Yorkshire Combined
Transport Authority on the legal advice that has been taken by NGT and how this
has affected their consultations, amongst other matters.
John
Henkel is a much different witness to his predecessor Jason Smith. A much older man to start with, former
director of Metro and now acting director of it’s successor the WY Combined
Transport Authority, if I have that correct.
It was elucidated in the final session from a question by Gregory Jones
QC that this was the naming as it stands.
Previous posts of the audio had the ‘Metro’ usage as throughout the
Enquiry that is the appellation that has been applied.
He
is also more measured in his responses than Mr Smith. In the session with Mr Malcolm Bell questioning which I witnessed
I had the feeling that he was somehow dodging a fair amount of what seemed good
questions. Indeed the Inspector agreed
at one point that Mr Bell was asking good questions, which is probably as close
as anyone can expect to a compliment as we are going to get out of Mr
Whitehead.
Perhaps
it is the team of six legal experts behind him and his numerous years of study
and practice at his art, but when Gregory Jones begins his questioning, it is
as if scales fall from our eyes and we see through the fog which surrounds a
witness to the truth of their meanings.
The
legal advice, or ‘legal analysis’ which Metro (as then was) had seemed to be somewhat in question as to its
proper status and there ensued a long interchange about anti-competitive
behaviour. Mr Jones posited that there would be the suggestion of the absence
of a competitive market if head to head competition were not to be allowed, and
of course the prioritisation of NGT over regular buses on roads which both
share for long sections of the route surely has to raise such a question.
First
had not been found to have engaged in anti-competitive behaviour and yet to use
a phrase I found amusing, Mr Jones suggested that NGT had tried to ‘play the
man and not the ball’. The instance of
this was the NGT documents which mention ‘the reasons for the (First’s)
objections’.
Mr
Jones took particular offence at this on behalf of his client, because he asked
whether there was any suggestion of his client’s reasons being improper, not true and
therefore dishonest? He argued that
such comments in the NGT proofs should be ignored by the Inspector as they were clearly an
attempt to tarnish First’s reputation in front of the Enquiry.
We
then followed with a searing examination of the financial risks involved in the
scheme if it were not successful in gaining enough revenue to pay for
itself over a six to eight year period.
I cannot urge my readers strongly enough to listen to some of these
sessions from Mr Jones on the audio player links and ask themselves whether the
NGT and former Metro team have any credibility left at all.
We
were left by the end of the late afternoon session with a strong impression of
the immense financial risk for the city and people of Leeds involved in
engaging in such a project.
An
amusing sideline I discovered today was a web forum called ‘Skyscraper cities’,
where Tbus, a group of trolleybus aficionados and lobbyists hang out. Someone had posted a link to this blog for
which I thank them. Someone a couple of
posts on called this blog ‘massively biased’.
Well I had to laugh. I am a
resident of Headingley and I am giving my views on the insane trolleybus scheme
which would devastate a string of conservation areas and damage communities and
environments both sides of the river.
And I am largely reporting on how I see the progress of the
Enquiry. What these kind of people mean
when they say something is biased is that it doesn’t conform to what they want
and expect of us. The fact that
communities all along the route are saying ‘No’ and withholding their consent
to this is a factor which cannot be ignored, no matter how much the people with
minds of metal and wheels try to persuade them otherwise. It is something that these proponents cannot
compute in their heads and so they continue to seek to impose their madness on
us all. For I do genuinely believe it
is a kind of madness which the proponents of this are suffering from, believing
that it is acceptable, and that it can be calculated and justified on the basis
of a cost benefit analysis, to destroy whole green environments which have
evolved over centuries. Or to tell
people that they will just have to live with the fact of this intrusion in their
lives and get used to it for the benefit of the control freaks who put it
there.
All
along so far we have seen shortcomings in many aspects of the proposals, most
especially consultation and that really sums up what this is about. Having a plan they wish to impose which has
not in any way been consented to.
Before
I close I will just trail a piece I am anticipating posting during the half
term break next week. If you have read
other entries in my blog before those on the trolleybus you may have noticed
several on the subject of the history of possibly Headingley’s most famous
literary former resident, Professor JRR Tolkien, who lived in several different
houses along the A660. I believe
strongly that the eco-ethics which are embedded throughout his works can inform
our discussion of how we wish to frame our future. Many of the trees along the A660 which were Victorian or older
plantings will be trees which Tolkien knew as he went up and down along that
road. For those of us who take a
special interest in his works this is an opportunity to feel a connection with
him through his well known love of trees.
But the greater insight is the recognition of the continuity of the life
within our local environment. To seek
to destroy so many trees and so much of the history which they embody and have
witnessed is a disregard for the entire community along this road. Headingley deserves to have some low level
Tolkien tourism, there is still enough context left hereabouts to get a strong
feel of the history of this local Shire, and how it might have been ninety years ago, but if the trees were cut down and all
the roads enlarged that would be lost.
I am reminded of Orwell’s 1984 in which history is rewritten so often
that no-one knows what it originally really was, and what is worse, no-one
cares. Let us not ever become so
detached from our roots that we do not care about what was here before us and
how we relate to it. The threat of NGT
is the threat of a mindset which cares not about these things, only about
quotas, and statistics, and how these can be used to manipulate the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment