Sadly the probe we sent to Mars has left already. Perhaps he can be a passenger on the one to Enceladus
As for your comment, I bet he has a moan about the increase in flights and moaned about the Runway extension at EGPD

Just a serious point tho to add to some that I read after I posted. Legal rights are all well and good, But what of the folk who try sue various organisations and then loose. They are forced to foot the costs. This should happen here. The idea that one bloke can hold the whole city and surrounding areas to ransom and his little band of nimbys is mind boggling.
The traffic In Aberdeen is awfull.
That said this route seems quite extensive in its design, I wonder if it gets built which way will be quickest in practice. PErhaps when all that 'through' Traffic is removed from the city and dumped on that D2, that will be busy and it will be quicker to go the old way.

He'd probably oppose the M1 Hull to The Moon Motorway if he was around in 3672....

*runs*

There'll still be a lot of traffic to the city, and the Anderson Drive junctions will apparently be re-prioritised to favour east-west journeys, so a 70mph bypass is still likely to be quicker than a 30-40mph S2/D2 with lots of traffic lights and roundabouts I imagine. Plus the Fastlink will help shave a bit off, too.

With regards to them appealing for expenses and so on, I noticed this article, referring to the latest judgement, stating that "They also said Mr Walton was “not entitled” to halt the project in the circumstances, because he does not live close enough to the route." I wonder if that would potentially be a factor against him being able to get another PEO?

Hey...leave me out of this!! I don't want to be the recipient of
some museli munching NIMBY neo-luddite, thank you very much.

I agree that serial objectors who continually frustrate and delay vital pieces of infrastructure should
have to foot the legal costs if they lose - but perhaps only in cases where
it has been clearly shown that their intent was unreasonable (and even malicious) in its motive.

Thank God we managed to get most of our inter-urban motorways here in Ireland finished
before mass anti-roads sentiment sinks in.

Har Har lol I was of course refering to the icy moon, It has probably got other single celled life and a nice warm ocean so given the single celled life forms he (walton and his band of ***holes) should feel quite at home there .
Ah yes the Irish road building program, One to be jealous of perhaps?. I still recall though while being driven to Naas by a customer the three lane road (not sure which) with a bloody great big set of traffic lights, Now that was interesting

Sources inform me that Walton sent an email round his department last week confirming his intention to take this to the supreme court.

Thereby delaying it for another year which should add at least £30 million to the cost of the scheme.

If the legal action is still ongoing next March can the CPOs be extended?

This is what makes a mockery of the law - can this guy not just take a step back ? what is in this for him what does he gain to delaying this ?

I can rememeber a tale about a guy who lost his daughter a few years ago due to road protests delaying the building of a revised junction - his daughter was killed in an accident. I believe that it was due to a newt or something protected wildlife tract. He went and bought 2 45 gallon drum of diesel and emptied it in to the marshes. Killed the area off.

Kinda makes me think what is it with these guys that protest and generate issues like this

A little off-topic, but it would appear Road Sense aren't the only people trying to "protect" areas by delaying proceedings with appeal after appeal, all paid for by the taxpayer! A woman is taking her "Save St Andrews" challenge to the Supreme Court, having been thrown out of the Court of Session. She has a PCO for £6,000 at the Supreme Court, it seems. One of the comments on the Scotsman there would seem to be very applicable to the AWPR case:



For what it's worth, I can somewhat understand that many may be against such a rapid expansion of St Andrews, as is being proposed, but then again, the housing situation in St Andrews is pretty dire, and new homes are needed. Apparently their campaign has also been against things like the pay and display parking meters though - I do find it funny that people get so uppity about things like that. (P&D seems infinitely preferable to the strange old voucher system, to me.)

St. Andrews already is a housing estate with a small, old town centre and a golf course slapped onto the edge of suburbia.

Is there any way of objecting to an application for protected costs?

Perhaps you should apply for protected costs so you can afford to challenge the decision to award them protected costs in court?

How about a law suit for economic damage caused? Surely, you'd be able to rustle up a larger group of plaintiffs than they can.

Edinburgh sues protest group:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-17560782

There's also this article confirming that her appeal won't be heard in the Supreme Court until the 5th & 6th March next year!! I presume that there would be at least a further couple of months before a judgement is made.

That gives an idea of the delay to the AWPR if (when) Walton decides to appeal. I've checked the CPO's for the AWPR and they were made on the 11th March 2010. CPO's must be exercised within three years of being made so it looks likely that they would expire prior to the disposal of the appeal. I don't know too much about them though so don't know if they can be extended in any way.

I see that Ms. Uprichard secured a protected costs order at the Supreme Court limiting her liabilities to her opponents to £6,000. I guess that also probably sets a precedent for the AWPR case.

I have submitted a request to Aberdeen University using the Freedom of Information Act asking what facilities ,staff time and personal time Walton has been afforded during his continuing and past legal submissions in his capacity as a member of Uni Staff either personaly or in his capacity as a member of Road sense - will let you know the outcome.

What are the odds that he will justify the use of Uni time as a "research project"?

Good luck with the FoI

Thinking about the CPOs I wonder if there's anything to stop the Govt just taking ownership of the land on the assumption that the scheme will eventually go ahead?