Correspondence
We publish what we send and what comes back. Not to embarrass anyone (most of the people on the other end of these letters are doing three jobs), but because the people who signed the letter of support are entitled to know how far it has got.
Read in order it is a fairly ordinary story. We were invited in, we were asked to do work, we did the work, and then the item stopped appearing on the agenda. Three of the last four ask the same question in different words.
3 of 11 have had no reply at all.
14 November 2024
Corridor Working Group
Request to present preliminary feasibility findings
Scheduled for 15 January.
16 January 2025
Corridor Working Group
Follow-up to the presentation, with Technical Memorandum 01 enclosed
Materials circulated to members.
19 March 2025
Corridor Working Group
Request that an aerial alignment be added to the alternatives under review
Added to the alternatives under review, 2 April.
6 May 2025
Regional Mobility Authority
Request for corridor survey data, northern segment
Provided, 20 May.
22 July 2025
Corridor Working Group
Revised costings, as requested
Acknowledged.
8 September 2025
Corridor Working Group
Second set of revised costings, as requested
Acknowledged.
18 November 2025
Corridor Working Group
Enquiry: the aerial alignment no longer appears on the agenda
The item is under further review.
27 January 2026
Corridor Working Group
Request for the minutes of the working session of 27 May
No response received.
24 February 2026
Corridor Working Group
Request to identify who asked for the item to be held
No response received.
30 April 2026
Corridor Working Group
Third request, same question
The item is under further review.
12 May 2026
County records office
Request for the folder inventory, Collection AAMC-001
No response received.
We are not alleging that anyone acted improperly. Items come off agendas for good reasons every week, and a working group is entitled to review whatever it likes in whatever order it likes.
What we would say is that an alternative which was under review for seven months, and was twice sent back for more work, is not usually set aside without a finding. We would like to read the finding. Failing that, we would like to know who to ask.
We will keep writing, and we will keep publishing what comes back, including the parts that do not reflect well on us.