At Thursday’s council meeting at Southport Town Hall, Sefton Conservatives have put forward 2 motions that directly affect Southport.

The first is about the controversial cycle lanes on Queens Road, Hoghton Street and Talbot Street and calls for the removal of the lanes at the earliest opportunity.

The second motion is on the proposed roll out of telegraph poles across Southport by Open Reach for fibre broadband, as opposed to installing the infrastructure underground in ducting.

Conservative Group Leader on Sefton Council, Mike Prendergast, is calling on all Southport councillors, regardless of political party, to support both motions.

Councillor Prendergast said, “Southport residents expect their local representatives to focus on the issues that, firstly, they are capable of addressing, rather than turning the council chamber into some kind of student union debating society, talking about issues over which we have no influence. Secondly, they want us to stand up for the issues that matter to them and directly impact on the lives of those in the area.

The cycle lanes that were installed have been disastrous for our town, nobody uses them, they’ve reduced town centre parking and accessibility and have harmed local businesses.

The roll out of telegraph poles to install fibre broadband by Open Reach, in a town that historically has never had them, will harm the visual amenity of many areas and reduce accessibility in the areas where they are installed. There is a clear alternative in the form of installing the cabling underground, and this is already being done by other broadband providers in the area.

Southport is unique and we want to do all we can to maintain its character. Open Reach are perfectly capable of adapting their rollout to suit the needs of a given area.

No one is opposed to installing better broadband, it will have huge benefits for our town but it needs to be done in the right way and without, what seems at times, quite heavy handed tactics and very little consultation and engagement with our local communities.

I sincerely hope that all Southport councillors support both motions, in their current form, to make it clear that we all support our town and the residents who live here.”

Finally, get them ripped out. There's more cars and vans in Southport than cyclists. it's about time they start serving the majority and not the minority.

Most amusing to watch a local Conservative rail against a national Conservative policy. Just shows that Conservatives are clueless...not the brightest.

Originally Posted by Nash

Most amusing to watch a local Conservative rail against a national Conservative policy. Just shows that Conservatives are clueless...not the brightest.

He is doing exactly what he wa elected to do - standing up for those living in his ward.

Originally Posted by editor

The cycle lanes that were installed have been disastrous for our town, nobody uses them, they’ve reduced town centre parking and accessibility and have harmed local businesses.

Lol. Sometimes I do wonder, if Prendy the anti-cyclist was born in a zoo - because he keeps having a giraffe!

Mate, I use those bike-lanes and I am certainly not alone in that. Whilst I do realise why you're trotting out the same old 'nobody cycles' tripe, i.e. with a view to garnering votes. Fact is, far fewer constituents have the odd bike-lane at the top of their priority list, than you seem to imagine.

Whereas more than a few are genuinely concerned about #Climate Change. Living at sealevel, people are increasingly worried about their future, about rising seas, about unseasonal weather etc, and want to see lower CO2 emissions. Which is why, far from discouraging cycling, you should be actively encouraging the switch from cars to bikes.

Originally Posted by The PNP

Lol. Sometimes I do wonder, if Prendy the anti-cyclist was born in a zoo - because he keeps having a giraffe!

Mate, I use those bike-lanes and I am certainly not alone in that. Whilst I do realise why you're trotting out the same old 'nobody cycles' tripe, i.e. with a view to garnering votes. Fact is, far fewer constituents have the odd bike-lane at the top of their priority list, than you seem to imagine.

Whereas more than a few are genuinely concerned about #Climate Change. Living at sealevel, people are increasingly worried about their future, about rising seas, about unseasonal weather etc, and want to see lower CO2 emissions. Which is why, far from discouraging cycling, you should be actively encouraging the switch from cars to bikes.

If you're so concerned with climate change stop selling those polluting log burners.

Originally Posted by Ric

If you're so concerned with climate change stop selling those polluting log burners.

Are you 'up the pole', mate? Log-burners that run on renewable fuel, help combat #Climate Change. How do they do that? Why, by enabling people to switch from nasty fossil-fuels like gas!

Same story with bikes. Because they are an excellent way to get from A to B, without emitting large amounts of CO2, as trips by car would do. Btw, I have a small selection of rather nice, fully-reconditioned bikes available now, at just £25 each....first come first served!

Originally Posted by The PNP

Are you 'up the pole', mate? Log-burners that run on renewable fuel, help combat #Climate Change. How do they do that? Why, by enabling people to switch from nasty fossil-fuels like gas!

Same story with bikes. Because they are an excellent way to get from A to B, without emitting large amounts of CO2, as trips by car would do. Btw, I have a small selection of rather nice, fully-reconditioned bikes available now, at just £25 each....first come first served!

[COLOR=var(--YLNNHc)]Despite the misconception that burning wood is better for the environment or “greener”, it actually releases more carbon dioxide than oil or gas for the same amount of heat or energy. Cutting down trees also destroys forests, damages ecosystems and leads to biodiversity loss.
[COLOR=var(--YLNNHc)]From Google. [/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

Here we go again…….
It’s not going to happen Michael. Why not expend your energy doing something useful rather than going round and round in circles calling for something that isn’t going to happen. Stop wasting your time just to gain votes.

Originally Posted by Ric

[COLOR=var(--YLNNHc)]Despite the misconception that burning wood is better for the environment or “greener”, it actually releases more carbon dioxide than oil or gas for the same amount of heat or energy. Cutting down trees also destroys forests, damages ecosystems and leads to biodiversity loss.
[COLOR=var(--YLNNHc)]From Google. [/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

Big difference is, sustainably forested timber absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. Whereas gas/oil-wells don't suck their own CO2 back down into them, I.e. fossil-fuels are neither sustainable or renewable....They are the whole cause of this Climate Change mess we've got into.

Deforestation is bad, whereas planting and growing new trees for fuel is not.

Originally Posted by The PNP

Big difference is, sustainably forested timber absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. Whereas gas/oil-wells don't suck their own CO2 back down into them, I.e. fossil-fuels are neither sustainable or renewable....They are the whole cause of this Climate Change mess we've got into.

Deforestation is bad, whereas planting and growing new trees for fuel is not.

And how many years does it take for a tree to be big enough to be cut down for fuel while you bunch of liars are cutting down forests reducing the oxygen by doing so and making thousands of animals and insects homeless and maybe even extinct. Take your lies elsewhere as no one believes you here.

Originally Posted by Ric

And how many years does it take for a tree to be big enough to be cut down for fuel while you bunch of liars are cutting down forests reducing the oxygen by doing so and making thousands of animals and insects homeless and maybe even extinct. Take your lies elsewhere as no one believes you here.

UK forestry practice, is to harvest trees after around forty years growth. You will find very few animals in a typical plantation. So little light gets through, next to nothing grows/lives at ground-level.

Trees are planted every year, whilst trees planted 40 years ago are felled. Meanwhile, the rest of the plantation remains standing and doing its job absorbing CO2....Look at it this way; if there were no demand/market for timber, our forestry industry would collapse and nobody would bother planting trees that nobody wants.

Originally Posted by The PNP

UK forestry practice, is to harvest trees after around forty years growth. You will find very few animals in a typical plantation. So little light gets through, next to nothing grows/lives at ground-level.

Trees are planted every year, whilst trees planted 40 years ago are felled. Meanwhile, the rest of the plantation remains standing and doing its job absorbing CO2....Look at it this way; if there were no demand/market for timber, our forestry industry would collapse and nobody would bother planting trees that nobody wants.

Go away with your lies and excuses, there's always some excuse for deforestation until it's too late. As for needing wood, never heard of furniture so forest industry would hardly collapse.

Originally Posted by Ric

Go away with your lies and excuses, there's always some excuse for deforestation until it's too late. As for needing wood, never heard of furniture so forest industry would hardly collapse.

Talk about 'thick as a plank'.... Sustainable forestry in UK wouldn't last very long, if all they did was deforest. Pretty soon there'd be no trees left and their business model would collapse - duh!

Originally Posted by The PNP

Talk about 'thick as a plank'.... Sustainable forestry in UK wouldn't last very long, if all they did was deforest. Pretty soon there'd be no trees left and their business model would collapse - duh!

Yes you must be to believe your own lies and bull ****. So many excuses to make a quick buck then blame it on someone else.