Contract awarded for £4million Watford town centre revamp (From Watford Observer)

drunkenduck says...
10:49pm Mon 18 Feb 13

This council is only doing this because the MD of Warner Bros, Leavesden film studios called the area "ugly".

Now, if he went around to other parts of Watford and also called it ugly, will they too get a revamp too? Or is it because it's near the town hall.

Report this post »

samwatford says...
1:05am Tue 19 Feb 13

£ 4.3 million to go down the drain. Politicians should decrease council tax and other taxes which are already very high instead of wasting taxpayers money on cosmetic makeup.

Report this post »

samwatford says...
1:06am Tue 19 Feb 13

£ 4.3 million to go down the drain. Politicians should decrease council tax and other taxes which are already very high instead of wasting taxpayers money on cosmetic makeup.

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
7:35am Tue 19 Feb 13

I can understand the rationale for a revamp, but why a bridge over the pond?

Report this post »

Hornets number 12 fan says...
8:25am Tue 19 Feb 13

Shocking waste of Public Funds! A Bridge over trouble water!

Report this post »

not a regular says...
8:37am Tue 19 Feb 13

Using high quality street furniture and paving, I would expect this project to cost around £2m, including design, supervision, council officer time and fees, everything. That's from Yates up to the road, not including the underpass, using a very generous £400/sqm estimate (it'd probably be £300 but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) for street schemes.

Which leaves the bridge costing at least £2m, if not more.

What a waste of money. I'm all for regeneration but it's like the bridge inside the Harlequin near John Lewis - nobody is going to use the thing!

Now my council tax actually goes to LB Hillingdon, but it leaves me so annoyed that it’s costing £4.3m for Dorothy’s “best shot”. Seriously? Your best shot? If you’re that uncertain about the success that this will bring then don’t commission a project for that much money!

Surely the surplus £2m could be used for relaxing business rates for those that don’t encourage binge drinking?

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
8:38am Tue 19 Feb 13

Dotty says "the top of town's current shabby state would only get worse if nothing was done."

Yes dotty, if you don't maintain something, it does get worse. What a magnificent statement of the obvious.

Dotty says "There will always be a vocal minority who have a view on things, but you have to be convinced you are doing the right thing."

Dotty, just because you have convinced yourself that you are doing the right thing does not mean you are doing the right thing.

Perhaps if you listened for once in your life to the vocal minority, who may in fact be a vocal majority, you may learn something and one day actually do the right thing.

I don't think it takes much to convince Dotty she is doing the right thing, judging by recent decisions. It just makes me wonder how many meals of "cabbage and custard" her poor husband councillor Clarkie750/Sharpe has to eat because she is convinced "she is doing the right thing" at home? It might explain a lot about his postings on the WO.

Dotty says "In this instance I am convinced if we left it, the top of town would decline and decay and it would just become a seedy place that comes to life at night."

Another statement of the bl....ing obvious from our overpaid Mayor. Yes, if you leave something it does decline and decay. Things do, that's why we have something called maintenance. There's a whole maintenance department at the council, surely she's heard the term before?

Dotty says "We are giving it the best shot. I hope that it will bring different businesses into the town and help towards economic regeneration"

Dotty, you have spent £4.3 million on this hope, this pet vanity project. What if, heaven forbid, you are wrong? What if the money could have been spent much better elsewhere in Watford? What sort of Mayor would that make you? A lame duck Mayor? A deluded Mayor? A dotty Mayor?

I despair of "our dotty", she really is starting to lose it, but as long as she thinks she is right, money's no object!

I have to go, I have a tile hanging off my porch that I have to see to. I have had a quote for £76,000 to remove the front of the house and re-roof the whole house. I'm sure I'm right to do this and I shall be writing to the Mayor to see if she hasn't got few quid left over from the £4.3 million. You never know, if she thinks it's the right thing to do she may even pick up the whole tab. After all, to her, it is "free money" she is spending and there's plenty more where that came from.

It must be great being right all the time, particularly when your party rule the council and you can do whatever you want. Great for you, that is, Dotty, not great for us, the people who pay the bills for your excesses.

Roll on the next Mayoral elections where we can express our opinions on your "performance".

Dotty says "the top of town's current shabby state would only get worse if nothing was done." Yes dotty, if you don't maintain something, it does get worse. What a magnificent statement of the obvious. Dotty says "There will always be a vocal minority who have a view on things, but you have to be convinced you are doing the right thing." Dotty, just because you have convinced yourself that you are doing the right thing does not mean you are doing the right thing. Perhaps if you listened for once in your life to the vocal minority, who may in fact be a vocal majority, you may learn something and one day actually do the right thing. I don't think it takes much to convince Dotty she is doing the right thing, judging by recent decisions. It just makes me wonder how many meals of "cabbage and custard" her poor husband councillor Clarkie750/Sharpe has to eat because she is convinced "she is doing the right thing" at home? It might explain a lot about his postings on the WO. Dotty says "In this instance I am convinced if we left it, the top of town would decline and decay and it would just become a seedy place that comes to life at night." Another statement of the bl....ing obvious from our overpaid Mayor. Yes, if you leave something it does decline and decay. Things do, that's why we have something called maintenance. There's a whole maintenance department at the council, surely she's heard the term before? Dotty says "We are giving it the best shot. I hope that it will bring different businesses into the town and help towards economic regeneration" Dotty, you have spent £4.3 million on this hope, this pet vanity project. What if, heaven forbid, you are wrong? What if the money could have been spent much better elsewhere in Watford? What sort of Mayor would that make you? A lame duck Mayor? A deluded Mayor? A dotty Mayor? I despair of "our dotty", she really is starting to lose it, but as long as she thinks she is right, money's no object! I have to go, I have a tile hanging off my porch that I have to see to. I have had a quote for £76,000 to remove the front of the house and re-roof the whole house. I'm sure I'm right to do this and I shall be writing to the Mayor to see if she hasn't got few quid left over from the £4.3 million. You never know, if she thinks it's the right thing to do she may even pick up the whole tab. After all, to her, it is "free money" she is spending and there's plenty more where that came from. It must be great being right all the time, particularly when your party rule the council and you can do whatever you want. Great for you, that is, Dotty, not great for us, the people who pay the bills for your excesses. Roll on the next Mayoral elections where we can express our opinions on your "performance". MarsLander

Report this post »

lioncurlew says...
8:40am Tue 19 Feb 13

Perhaps we can have some more of that "Art" in the form of those horrendous "Sculptures" in the Town.
Why was the money not spent on restoring the Peace War Memorial ages ago instead?

The bridge over the pond will be great, much easier to throw litter in from there and harder to steal "Submarines" whatever happened to the one that I am sure I saw recently for a fleeting moment and then in a flash it was gone, perhaps it did a Crash Dive?

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
8:40am Tue 19 Feb 13

Razor Sharp wrote:
I can understand the rationale for a revamp, but why a bridge over the pond?

Delusions of grandeur?

Demented reasoning?

Stupidity?

An urge to just spend money?

Easily influenced?

Take your pick, one is as good as another.

Report this post »

Mike Watford says...
9:27am Tue 19 Feb 13

It is funded from 'capital' - money that legally has to be spent on infrustruture or assets - and not from council tax.

So this is the sort of thing - improving the town centre that it should be spent on (we've also had new leisure centres, the Colosseum improvements, new playgrounds around the borough etc)

Councils have to go out to competitive tender, when doing this sort of thing, so this must have been the cheapest option.

Report this post »

Honest Rog says...
9:28am Tue 19 Feb 13

Council officer's time and fees should not be a factor in the total as they're paid regardless. I remember when WBC had just one licencing officer with a part time secretary. Now there's a massive licencing department with many new job titles created, yet, if one wishes to make a licencing enquiry one has to call between 0930 and 0935 to book a slot for next year.
Maybe this is where taxpayers should be directing their ire, viz, too many layers of superannuated pen pushers and no productivity.
Over to you Reg.

Report this post »

TRT says...
9:35am Tue 19 Feb 13

Cheapest option? The tender has only just been awarded to the contractor and the "price" hasn't changed in the last 12 months that they've been quoting it. So just how does this tendering process work? Is this £4.3m not the actual price, just a rough guide? Is it vastly overinflated so the council can come back with a report of being underbudget? Or will it end up eating into a hidden contingency fund and really cost us £6m? I agree with notaregular... quite a lot of dosh on a "shot".

Report this post »

OAC Bailiff says...
9:35am Tue 19 Feb 13

give the money to hertfordshire constabulary stop wasting money top of the town is ok get real

Report this post »

TRT says...
9:40am Tue 19 Feb 13

And as I've pointed out before from the recent consultation with Waitrose £4.3m would pay for the restoration of Frogmore House, the removal and decontamination of the gas holder and the landscaping of the old National Grid site on Lower High Street, which has been left to decay for longer than I can remember. I still recall the last two revamps of the pond and the underpass and the Parade by the way. The last change I recall for Frogmore House was the removal of the door canopy and the installation of steel bars over the accessible windows.

Report this post »

not a regular says...
9:41am Tue 19 Feb 13

Mike Watford wrote:
It is funded from 'capital' - money that legally has to be spent on infrustruture or assets - and not from council tax. So this is the sort of thing - improving the town centre that it should be spent on (we've also had new leisure centres, the Colosseum improvements, new playgrounds around the borough etc) Councils have to go out to competitive tender, when doing this sort of thing, so this must have been the cheapest option.

Certainly not disagreeing with you that there are budgets set aside which must be used by certain departments. However, it is the nature of the spend. £2m on an unnecessary bridge which could have been used elsewhere within the service.

However, it sounds to me as though this funding is coming from the Regeneration team which means that it could have been spent on anything regeneration based, it has not been specifically set aside for a bridge. Regeneration of the area could have diverted funds to say, either one of the Queens Road or Vicarage Road Shopping Parades. Maybe Market Street. The funds can be diverted as long as a valid case is made in good time to those in power.

Report this post »

Andrew1963 says...
9:44am Tue 19 Feb 13

I have nothing about the rationale, 20 years ago the increase in retail space in the town centre (Harlequin) and the emergence of retail warehouses, saw lots of empty units in the Parade as retailers moved out. So the area needs to have a purpopse beyond retailing. My personal gripe is the bridge over the Pond which council officers say will cost approx £250,000 (not £2 milloion)! Planning policy has been abvout maintaining the Town centre as primarily a place for retailing. In the 60's and 70's pubs became shops -(The Green Man became the Eastern electricity - Joseph Benskin became Burtons, etc) - Shops took over every bit of space. Until the emergence of out of town hypermarkets and online the Town Centre policies have always been dominated by the idea to restrict non retailing through a hierachy that saw town centres zoned for shopping. This led to all sorts of schemes which now need to be rethought. For example pedestrianisation - great for spaces with lots of people walking around shops, but less good for maintaing accessibility and thriving dynamic businesses. If the desire is to promote and maintain business, you need to look at the spaces - the use of public space like the highway and the built space such as the size and format of the buildings along that space. In our own town, The Parade is supposedly failing, but has higher occupancy rates than the area between TJ Hughes and King Street - so on that score you wonder why its a priority. It has built spaces that are configured in ways that have found uses that our viable and in demand. It certainly is a far better environment than Queens Road/Broadway. That shopping street is dying as it is physcically cut off by the ring road. Ironically the road hump and shallow underpass - designed to encourage pedestrians actually blocks the view of the street beyond and prevents people going there - an old fashioned deep subway would no doubt have been replaced now with a level crossing like that at Exchange Road Market street. There (Market Street) you have a road that is thriving, with through road traffic, on street parking and relatively narrow pedestrian space and virtually no local authority inverstment. In the long run we need to re-evaluate pedestrianisation and the role of non retail uses in the town centre. Taking buses off the ring road would be a good start and re-routeing them through along the high street should be the long term aim. It would be a better investment than the hope that a few events a year will drive change. New housing units in redundant offices, such as those proposed for Woodlands Parade will encourage the need for more accessibility and convenience retailing, but what is needed is a long term plan to review old ideas which were created to deal with a Town centre designed around mass retailing. The world has changed and the town centre needs to change too!

I have nothing about the rationale, 20 years ago the increase in retail space in the town centre (Harlequin) and the emergence of retail warehouses, saw lots of empty units in the Parade as retailers moved out. So the area needs to have a purpopse beyond retailing. My personal gripe is the bridge over the Pond which council officers say will cost approx £250,000 (not £2 milloion)! Planning policy has been abvout maintaining the Town centre as primarily a place for retailing. In the 60's and 70's pubs became shops -(The Green Man became the Eastern electricity - Joseph Benskin became Burtons, etc) - Shops took over every bit of space. Until the emergence of out of town hypermarkets and online the Town Centre policies have always been dominated by the idea to restrict non retailing through a hierachy that saw town centres zoned for shopping. This led to all sorts of schemes which now need to be rethought. For example pedestrianisation - great for spaces with lots of people walking around shops, but less good for maintaing accessibility and thriving dynamic businesses. If the desire is to promote and maintain business, you need to look at the spaces - the use of public space like the highway and the built space such as the size and format of the buildings along that space. In our own town, The Parade is supposedly failing, but has higher occupancy rates than the area between TJ Hughes and King Street - so on that score you wonder why its a priority. It has built spaces that are configured in ways that have found uses that our viable and in demand. It certainly is a far better environment than Queens Road/Broadway. That shopping street is dying as it is physcically cut off by the ring road. Ironically the road hump and shallow underpass - designed to encourage pedestrians actually blocks the view of the street beyond and prevents people going there - an old fashioned deep subway would no doubt have been replaced now with a level crossing like that at Exchange Road Market street. There (Market Street) you have a road that is thriving, with through road traffic, on street parking and relatively narrow pedestrian space and virtually no local authority inverstment. In the long run we need to re-evaluate pedestrianisation and the role of non retail uses in the town centre. Taking buses off the ring road would be a good start and re-routeing them through along the high street should be the long term aim. It would be a better investment than the hope that a few events a year will drive change. New housing units in redundant offices, such as those proposed for Woodlands Parade will encourage the need for more accessibility and convenience retailing, but what is needed is a long term plan to review old ideas which were created to deal with a Town centre designed around mass retailing. The world has changed and the town centre needs to change too! Andrew1963

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
10:13am Tue 19 Feb 13

Mike Watford wrote:
It is funded from 'capital' - money that legally has to be spent on infrustruture or assets - and not from council tax.

So this is the sort of thing - improving the town centre that it should be spent on (we've also had new leisure centres, the Colosseum improvements, new playgrounds around the borough etc)

Councils have to go out to competitive tender, when doing this sort of thing, so this must have been the cheapest option.

What Mike the LibDem (councillor?) didn't say...

"This must have been the cheapest quote for a scheme that could easily have been made much cheaper by leaving out stupid things like the bridge over the pond that has received such negative press and comments."

He also didn't say

"This money has to be spent on capital projects. We didn't look at any other parts of Watford to spend the £4.3 million on because if we can't see it from the town hall and if it's not on the Cassiobury estate then by definition it does not exist in LibDem la-la-land."

Report this post »

jasonwatford says...
10:30am Tue 19 Feb 13

A bridge over the pond ??? why ?? is it such a big area you cant walk around it ? Will be a beacon for drunk teens. Spend the money on local estates for gods sake.

Report this post »

TRT says...
10:47am Tue 19 Feb 13

They could have spent the money even closer to the town hall door step and moved the bandstand back into Cassiobury Park and made THAT plaza into a performance venue. Or is that too noisy for the library users and town hall clarks?

Report this post »

G_Whiz says...
11:25am Tue 19 Feb 13

drunkenduck wrote:
This council is only doing this because the MD of Warner Bros, Leavesden film studios called the area "ugly".

Now, if he went around to other parts of Watford and also called it ugly, will they too get a revamp too? Or is it because it's near the town hall.

Shame he didn't mention St Albans road!

Anyway every biggish town has ugly bits - there is always going to be people who would rather dump rubbish or an old rusty car in their front Garden, than grow a tree!

Nice trees make a nice town! x

Report this post »

Veritas says...
1:03pm Tue 19 Feb 13

To quote that usleless councillor "Scudder"

"he had been looking at pictures of the pond throughout the history of Watford and thought its current state was the worst"

yes, Del boy, guess who has
been running the town for over 10years,and let it get to that state? Daft Dotty.

Doing a good job, running Watford? No! going by your quote!!
We think it is a ploy, run things down till they are really bad, then the residents will accept any old crap that is shown to them.

You only have to walk up the High street and see how dirty it is, paving bricks loose, and countless other problems, to see that the high street is a mess

So you admit she has let the pond area become the worst
in Watfords pictorial history.

She is a useless mayor and
a liability together with her sidekick!

Problem is all her mistakes are gong to cost Watford dearly in the future, what's in
it for her and her sidekicks, all these allegedly over inflated contracts?

Report this post »

John Howard Norfolk says...
9:59pm Tue 19 Feb 13

I find it sad to read so many unnecessary insults on this news thread.
The actual news is that "Barton Contracting" will get the work.
So can the WO tell us what their track record is on projects of this type and size please?

Report this post »

TRT says...
10:23pm Tue 19 Feb 13

If it's Barton Civils, the value of this work is higher than any they have previously done, and the scope much larger, though this kind of project is firmly within their remit.

Report this post »

Veritas says...
2:02am Wed 20 Feb 13

No!! Dotty is the insult to Watford
the actual news is, why is £2million extra being spent
and an unnecessary bridge, and work nobody wants?

IF Daft Dotty has money to burn, try building an underpass at the Dome roundabout connecting the A41

Report this post »

John Howard Norfolk says...
8:29am Wed 20 Feb 13

TRT wrote:
If it's Barton Civils, the value of this work is higher than any they have previously done, and the scope much larger, though this kind of project is firmly within their remit.

Thank you TRT - even better if this business has Hertfordshire connections as they will then source supplies and labour nearby and boost the local economy.

Report this post »

clarkie750 says...
10:26am Wed 20 Feb 13

Veritas excels himself again. A whole string of nonsense.
The bridge won't cost £2m.
You can't put an underpass at the Dome roundabout.
He doesn't know what incarnation means.

Report this post »

TRT says...
10:32am Wed 20 Feb 13

John Howard Norfolk wrote:

TRT wrote:
If it's Barton Civils, the value of this work is higher than any they have previously done, and the scope much larger, though this kind of project is firmly within their remit.
Thank you TRT - even better if this business has Hertfordshire connections as they will then source supplies and labour nearby and boost the local economy.

They are based in the West Midlands. Kettering, Northamptonshire to be precise. They were formerly Premier Groundworks Ltd. That name sounds familiar somehow... I'm sure I'll place it eventually.

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
10:33am Wed 20 Feb 13

clarkie750 wrote:
Veritas excels himself again. A whole string of nonsense.
The bridge won't cost £2m.
You can't put an underpass at the Dome roundabout.
He doesn't know what incarnation means.

Councillor Sharpe would know all about strings of nonsense.

As a councillor and husband of the Mayor, could you please explain the rationale for having a bridge over the pond? I think it has escaped the rest of Watford.

Report this post »

clarkie750 says...
10:58am Wed 20 Feb 13

MarsLander jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions again

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
11:04am Wed 20 Feb 13

Only about you Clarkie, only about you.

Do you not feel cowardly hiding behind a false name whilst being a councillor and a "leading" one at that?

Report this post »

clarkie750 says...
11:42am Wed 20 Feb 13

Marslander as I have said before what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Report this post »

John Howard Norfolk says...
11:54am Wed 20 Feb 13

MarsLander wrote:

clarkie750 wrote:
Veritas excels himself again. A whole string of nonsense.
The bridge won't cost £2m.
You can't put an underpass at the Dome roundabout.
He doesn't know what incarnation means.
Councillor Sharpe would know all about strings of nonsense.

As a councillor and husband of the Mayor, could you please explain the rationale for having a bridge over the pond? I think it has escaped the rest of Watford.

I imagine the bridge over the pond will be there for aesthetic reasons rather than functional. Having said that you can often see young kids in summer weather crossing the water using stepping stones so a bridge would be safer for them.
Budgeting for something of beauty rather than function is an indication of both intellect and culture so I say well done to the councillors for their vision.

Report this post »

Veritas says...
11:57am Wed 20 Feb 13

clarkie750 wrote:
Veritas excels himself again. A whole string of nonsense.
The bridge won't cost £2m.
You can't put an underpass at the Dome roundabout.
He doesn't know what incarnation means.

just trying to flush you out
"Sharpe"
YOu are so predicatable.

We know you can't resist making your half baked views
known, you do know you are the laughing stock down at
Terrace Farm!!!

Report this post »

Veritas says...
12:07pm Wed 20 Feb 13

"Budgeting for something of beauty rather than function is an indication of both intellect and culture so I say well done to the councillors for their vision.”

So, in this time of austerity we have money to waste on so called beauty?

Vision??? So what has Daft Dotty been doing for the last 10years, earning all that money, did she lose the vision for all that time, and has suddenly seen the light??

Ok, so we know kids jump across the pond.
So why would you encourage people to stand in the middle of the pond, after a drunken night out on a bridge?
Cant see it being good for H & Safety, in the winter being over water bridges freeze up, people will slip and want compensation.

This sounds like a Clr Sharpe idea, does Molly take credit for it?

Report this post »

TRT says...
12:19pm Wed 20 Feb 13

John Howard Norfolk wrote:

MarsLander wrote:

clarkie750 wrote:
Veritas excels himself again. A whole string of nonsense.
The bridge won't cost £2m.
You can't put an underpass at the Dome roundabout.
He doesn't know what incarnation means.
Councillor Sharpe would know all about strings of nonsense.

As a councillor and husband of the Mayor, could you please explain the rationale for having a bridge over the pond? I think it has escaped the rest of Watford.
I imagine the bridge over the pond will be there for aesthetic reasons rather than functional. Having said that you can often see young kids in summer weather crossing the water using stepping stones so a bridge would be safer for them.
Budgeting for something of beauty rather than function is an indication of both intellect and culture so I say well done to the councillors for their vision.

The kids cross it by the stepping stones BECAUSE they are stepping stones. My kids used to walk round the edge of it, and cross by the old brown engineering bricks that used to be up at the filter end in a previous incarnation. Their foot slipped in every now and again, but that's part of being a kid. It harms no-one and breaks nothing. It's called testing the boundaries. If there was a nice safe bridge there the kids would just go "Oh yes, a bridge", and not use it because they're not crossing the pond, they're exploring their environment. Heck, an un- or ill- supervised child would probably try to cross the bridge by hanging off the rail on the outside and side-stepping with their bums hanging over the water. That's even MORE dangerous!

Report this post »

Veritas says...
12:32pm Wed 20 Feb 13

exactly!! an unsupervised kid
now that never happens?

There are better places to explore like Cassiobury Park?

people leaving late night venues, after a few extra drinks? Having a bridge there will keep them hanging around the area?
Lets wait for a "risk assesment"
BTW how much is this bridge costing?

How many "urban ponds" have a bridge across them?

Report this post »

TRT says...
1:14pm Wed 20 Feb 13

I seem to remember they installed fountains and water features as part of the last overhaul. What did the loving burghers of Watford do to those? What about the glass canopy upturned umbrella shelter? The one that filled with leaves instantly and then filled up with water? And the illuminated W? The memory toilet? The hornet?
Some are still there, of course, some have to be moved because of these works... but were they value for money? Or was it so much glitz to woo councillors to spend that little bit extra without thinking about it?

Report this post »

clarkie750 says...
1:16pm Wed 20 Feb 13

No answer from Veritas on his stupid comments earlier.
I repeat, the bridge won't cost £2m, you can't build an underpass at the Dome and he doesn't know what incarnation means.
Instead of answering he has followed up with more ravings.

Report this post »

TRT says...
1:31pm Wed 20 Feb 13

clarkie750 wrote:
No answer from Veritas on his stupid comments earlier.
I repeat, the bridge won't cost £2m, you can't build an underpass at the Dome and he doesn't know what incarnation means.
Instead of answering he has followed up with more ravings.

Try not to be petty, clarkie 750. One of the golden rules... don't be a dick.

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
1:58pm Wed 20 Feb 13

TRT wrote:

clarkie750 wrote:
No answer from Veritas on his stupid comments earlier.
I repeat, the bridge won't cost £2m, you can't build an underpass at the Dome and he doesn't know what incarnation means.
Instead of answering he has followed up with more ravings.
Try not to be petty, clarkie 750. One of the golden rules... don't be a dick.

Too late! Way too late!

Report this post »

Wacko Jacko says...
4:07pm Wed 20 Feb 13

More sound and fury from all the usual suspects, signifying nothing. Get used to it folks, the improvements scheme is under way so why not sit back and wait and see how it turns out, raving on in these pages is going to achieve nothing and judging something before it's been done is always a risky strategy.One question, why do all you miserable moaning trolls stay in Watford when you clearly hate it so much. Why not move to somewhere you'd be happier living in and leave Watford to those of us who appreciate it's many advantages over other towns?

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
4:18pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Wacko,

like Watford, do not like LibDem council.

Now do you understand?

I don't like the way they waste money, build over allotments for money, build bridges when the money could be spent better elsewhere....need I go on?

Try thinking before typing in future, it can only help.

Report this post »

TRT says...
5:11pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Wacko Jacko wrote:
More sound and fury from all the usual suspects, signifying nothing. Get used to it folks, the improvements scheme is under way so why not sit back and wait and see how it turns out, raving on in these pages is going to achieve nothing and judging something before it's been done is always a risky strategy.One question, why do all you miserable moaning trolls stay in Watford when you clearly hate it so much. Why not move to somewhere you'd be happier living in and leave Watford to those of us who appreciate it's many advantages over other towns?

It's because we care about our homes and our environment that we express our opinions.
I'd rather raise concerns in a public forum before hand than sit back smugly afterwards wearing an "I told you so!" T-shirt. I trust you've got yours ready to hand just in case the works come in £2m under the announced budget and all the empty units get taken on in the first 6 months and in two years time we're not faced with a huge bill for remedial works and nothing in the kitty to pay it with?
Having seen the firm that's been awarded the contract, I'm slightly more optimistic. They're a small-ish British firm with a good track record in smaller-to-medium provincial towns. But £4.3m is a LOT of dosh for what's been proposed.

Report this post »

clarkie750 says...
6:13pm Wed 20 Feb 13

TRT if its a golden rule don't break it. Caring about homes, environment etc is something most people do. They obviously vote Lib Dem because they see they have done a good job for them..

Report this post »

pc49plod says...
6:15pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Evenin' all.
Just come on duty and the sarge says there's been a lot of huffing and puffing going on. He also said that there's some stupid stuff been put on here by people who don't know what they're talking about. Out on patrol I regularly walk past the pond and it really does need a bit of TLC as does the surrounding area. Seems like whoever did the last makeover, (Sarge tells me it was someone called Moosepart or something like that), didn't do it right and that's why it needs to be done again...properly. It seems that what is being proposed looks like the right way forward and the bridge will help our response times in getting to the idiots on a Friday or Saturday night. Sarge also said that the wild life in the pond won't be affected and I replied 'if they fall in, they fall in !!' Oh well, must go and keep the crims at bay.

Report this post »

TRT says...
6:34pm Wed 20 Feb 13

clarkie750 wrote:
TRT if its a golden rule don't break it. Caring about homes, environment etc is something most people do. They obviously vote Lib Dem because they see they have done a good job for them..

Relax, I didn't break anything.
I didn't realise that most people HAD voted Lib Dem. I thought that 58.7% of those that voted DIDN'T vote Lib Dem, and only around 32% of eligible voters actually turned out anyway.

Report this post »

Veritas says...
7:51pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Hmmm, so all these people voting Fib Dem?Wonder if they are postal votes?

How would you know Clarkie, you are not"Sharpe" are you?

Look at all local elections, the Fib vote is going down!!!
Could not even get an MP elected locally

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
11:15pm Wed 20 Feb 13

TRT wrote:

clarkie750 wrote:
TRT if its a golden rule don't break it. Caring about homes, environment etc is something most people do. They obviously vote Lib Dem because they see they have done a good job for them..
Relax, I didn't break anything.
I didn't realise that most people HAD voted Lib Dem. I thought that 58.7% of those that voted DIDN'T vote Lib Dem, and only around 32% of eligible voters actually turned out anyway.

I make that 13.2% of the Watford voters voted for the LibDems. About one in eight.

The LibDems, well Clarkie at least, thinks that's most people.

Clarkie, look up Majority and see the definition, it's the same as most people, but maybe not for you. Mind you, when did you ever let the truth or facts get in the way of a nice little bit of spin?

You might like to know that of every eight people you see in the street, seven of them did not vote LibDem. Food for thought...

Report this post »

Igrman says...
3:02pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Got to admit, that even though I've not lived in Watford for 15 odd years, I still visit.
I've seen how the top of town has changed and is in need of some TLC, but its always been the nightlife area of Watford and I can't see that changing.
As for that amount of money and a bridge over the pond, that's a pure dream and poor spending of tax payers money.
What will the council do when some drunk throws themselves off the bridge at 2am and is seriously injured?
Will they pay for the cost of repairs of this new scheme after every weekend is over?
I get the impression this has not been thought out very well.
Do we really need the pond?
It had a function 100 years ago whilst today it could soon turn out to be a drain on Watford residents taxes!

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
11:24pm Thu 21 Feb 13

clarkie750 wrote:
Veritas excels himself again. A whole string of nonsense.
The bridge won't cost £2m.
You can't put an underpass at the Dome roundabout.
He doesn't know what incarnation means.

So how much will it cost?

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
11:29pm Thu 21 Feb 13

clarkie750 wrote:
MarsLander jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions again

While clarkie750 has nothing of substance to add!

Report this post »

Razor Sharp says...
11:31pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Veritas wrote:

clarkie750 wrote:
Veritas excels himself again. A whole string of nonsense.
The bridge won't cost £2m.
You can't put an underpass at the Dome roundabout.
He doesn't know what incarnation means.
just trying to flush you out
"Sharpe"
YOu are so predicatable.

We know you can't resist making your half baked views
known, you do know you are the laughing stock down at
Terrace Farm!!!

Only at Terrace Farm?

Report this post »

Veritas says...
6:41pm Fri 22 Feb 13

oh sharpie where are you??

been found out again??

Report this post »

pc49plod says...
8:06pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Evenin' all,
Another day, another load of insults!! Tonight the Sarge said 'Who is this Veritas person, doesn't sound right in the head to me. What is his, (or her), problem. Obviously needs to get help.' Perhaps a quick flush?
Got to go now, The town centre calls.

Report this post »

Contract awarded for £4million Watford town centre revamp (From Watford Observer)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Work due to start on £4million revamp of The Parade in April

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies