Friday, 4 April 2008

Dangerous sign?

A blogger has sent me the following:

'I thought you might be interested that the through traffic road sign on the corner of Sparhawk Street and Honey Hill is about 5'5" high and on a pedestrian pavement. I was walking west into the sun yesterday evening and, at 6'1", I had a nasty collision with it leaving me sprawled in the road. I presume the Highways Agency is responsible for it but it is a potential hazard to pedestrians.'

I can only assume he means this, but hope he will correct me if I am wrong:

Having myself had a bad fall yesterday (entirely my fault) and damaged my ribs to the point where breathing, never mind much else, is painful - I have every sympathy with the gentleman concerned. Other than that, I invite comments.

My own fall was on my way to my final Town Centre Management board meeting, which I sat through sounding more in shock than I usually do, and not without a drop or two of blood falling on my agenda. Some readers will find a delicious irony in this tale. Mrs F thought my devotion to duty was excessive, and insisted upon treatment.

The West Suffolk A&E were, as ever, magnificent. Much better than a One-Suffolk A&E would be.


Mark G. Hardy said...


I too presume this is the sign referred to.

Its the one you and I agreed should have signposts on to the Public Car Parks for Theatre and Saturday Shoppers; you know - the Manor House one that SCC proposes to scrap outright and the SCC office one available for Saturday shoppers that is proposed to effectively be a residents only scheme.

So its no surprise then that nothing came of your approach to the Borough as signage for car parks council/lors knew were going to disappear wouldn't have looked good.

Paul F said...

Not quite the comment I was looking for Mark. Do you think there is a problem here?

Re Theatre Royal's parking, I was told that as they had an agreement with a nearer private car park (with details on their tickets) your otherwise admirable idea could cause confusion. See:

As for SCCs plans why not contact your County Councillors?

Mark G. Hardy said...

Surely you agree that SCC's plans are relevant to St Eds B public meeting on Wednesday? Let's try and keep that objective and non partisan shall we? I don't expect to see you there - and I don't believe it would be proper for you to participate in any event; you have other and easier opportunities to try and control the planning/development process.

In any event, as we have discussed before the proposed SCC development is a matter for direct public action rather than via representative councillors who sit with multiple hats, conflicts of interest/duty, and will have to toe the Party line in the end, whatever their electors want/think.

I'm going to get back to the Theatre representative shortly over the signage deficiencies; other priorities arose.

Paul F said...

What meeting?

Paul Hopfensperger only has one hat - I'm sure he would be delighted to help you.

I shall certainly continue to ensure that what emerges is in the best interests of residents and the wider community. I have already been proactive in that regard as you know.

It is simply not true to say that Members 'toe the Party line' when addressing planning issues, and is an insult to all of us who spend so much time helping residents with planning problems.

I have much work to catch up on now that my recent injuries are beginning to heal, so don't be surprised if I don't respond again for a while.

Mark G. Hardy said...

How does the song go?

"Silence is Golden..Golden..."