Pot holes from flooding traffic in Powick

First published in News
Last updated

COMMUTERS trying to beat the traffic to Worcester when floods closed the river bridge have caused pot holes along a road in Powick, near Malvern.

Councillor David Hall brought it to Powick Parish Council's attention at a meeting on Wednesday, March 5, that damage had been caused along King's End Road.

He said: "While Worcester bridge was closed, a lot of traffic was using that road from the bottom up to King's End Farm and we now have quite a few pot holes."

Vice chairman Colin Phillips said traffic backed-up through Malvern making cars find another route along King's End Road to the city centre to attempt to avoid long queues.

The pot holes will be officially reported to the Worcestershire County Council hub to be repaired.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:21am Thu 6 Mar 14

Hwicce says...

Traffic using the road has caused potholes.

No different from any other road then.
Traffic using the road has caused potholes. No different from any other road then. Hwicce
  • Score: 5

11:37am Thu 6 Mar 14

tub_thumper says...

"Pot holes from flooding traffic along road in Powick" ...?

I can English...
"Pot holes from flooding traffic along road in Powick" ...? I can English... tub_thumper
  • Score: 5

1:17pm Thu 6 Mar 14

CJH says...

tub_thumper wrote:
"Pot holes from flooding traffic along road in Powick" ...?

I can English...
You can. I can. WN not.
[quote][p][bold]tub_thumper[/bold] wrote: "Pot holes from flooding traffic along road in Powick" ...? I can English...[/p][/quote]You can. I can. WN not. CJH
  • Score: 6

1:18pm Thu 6 Mar 14

willing says...

This is really sloppy reporting. "Commuters....caused potholes along a road in Powick"...nothing to do with the lack of proper maintenance by the County Council that accounts for huge numbers of potholes in all the areas not affected by flooding then?

Why doesn't the Worcester News do some serious and worthwhile reporting on more controversial and serious issues like why it is motorists pay so much more tax than other tax payers, when that extra huge amount of cash is not used for proper levels of roads maintenance? This is where the blame lies for the appalling state of so many roads, not with the hapless commuter who has to spend much of his time trying to avoid potholes.
This is really sloppy reporting. "Commuters....caused potholes along a road in Powick"...nothing to do with the lack of proper maintenance by the County Council that accounts for huge numbers of potholes in all the areas not affected by flooding then? Why doesn't the Worcester News do some serious and worthwhile reporting on more controversial and serious issues like why it is motorists pay so much more tax than other tax payers, when that extra huge amount of cash is not used for proper levels of roads maintenance? This is where the blame lies for the appalling state of so many roads, not with the hapless commuter who has to spend much of his time trying to avoid potholes. willing
  • Score: 6

2:15pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Samboy says...

The 'snide remark' brigade are out again, trivialising an important news report. The incidence of potholes in Jennet Tree lane is the result of traffic from the main road using it as a rat run. I frequently use the lane and it was quite frightening at times, sharing a narrow road with speeding idiots recklessly disregarding the regular use of the lane by horses, pedestrians and cyclists.
The 'snide remark' brigade are out again, trivialising an important news report. The incidence of potholes in Jennet Tree lane is the result of traffic from the main road using it as a rat run. I frequently use the lane and it was quite frightening at times, sharing a narrow road with speeding idiots recklessly disregarding the regular use of the lane by horses, pedestrians and cyclists. Samboy
  • Score: -10

2:49pm Thu 6 Mar 14

CJH says...

I'm not trivialising the pothole problem (have just put in a request for the council to repair some that I regularly drive around). It's a pity the WN doesn't match the importance of the situation reported by giving it a headline which makes sense. The headline writing madness is getting worse. I want correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and FACTS in the reports! (See the report today: 'Event to look into historical manuscript'). I would also like to know the WN policy on when comments are allowed on stories. Recently it appears to be random at the very best. I fully appreciate the need to not allow comments for contentious stories such as some court cases for instance, but on seemingly innocuous reports, why not? Why no comments allowed for 'Birds of a feather flock together'? Bizarre.
I'm not trivialising the pothole problem (have just put in a request for the council to repair some that I regularly drive around). It's a pity the WN doesn't match the importance of the situation reported by giving it a headline which makes sense. The headline writing madness is getting worse. I want correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and FACTS in the reports! (See the report today: 'Event to look into historical manuscript'). I would also like to know the WN policy on when comments are allowed on stories. Recently it appears to be random at the very best. I fully appreciate the need to not allow comments for contentious stories such as some court cases for instance, but on seemingly innocuous reports, why not? Why no comments allowed for 'Birds of a feather flock together'? Bizarre. CJH
  • Score: 5

3:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tub_thumper says...

Samboy wrote:
The 'snide remark' brigade are out again, trivialising an important news report. The incidence of potholes in Jennet Tree lane is the result of traffic from the main road using it as a rat run. I frequently use the lane and it was quite frightening at times, sharing a narrow road with speeding idiots recklessly disregarding the regular use of the lane by horses, pedestrians and cyclists.
No snide comments at all. I was merely stating fact - something that the Worcester News lacks of late.

Like CJH says, their reporting skills lead much to be desired. If they are going to continue to use incorrect grammar, use Wikipedia as their source for historical information and publish opion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves) then what do you expect?

Snide comments aside, pot-holes are nothing new. Especially with our diverse wheather. U only half to luck around two sea that thay r everywear.......

Oh, my 'grammer'. I do apologise!
[quote][p][bold]Samboy[/bold] wrote: The 'snide remark' brigade are out again, trivialising an important news report. The incidence of potholes in Jennet Tree lane is the result of traffic from the main road using it as a rat run. I frequently use the lane and it was quite frightening at times, sharing a narrow road with speeding idiots recklessly disregarding the regular use of the lane by horses, pedestrians and cyclists.[/p][/quote]No snide comments at all. I was merely stating fact - something that the Worcester News lacks of late. Like CJH says, their reporting skills lead much to be desired. If they are going to continue to use incorrect grammar, use Wikipedia as their source for historical information and publish opion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves) [i.e James Connell and his cyclist rant] then what do you expect? Snide comments aside, pot-holes are nothing new. Especially with our diverse wheather. U only half to luck around two sea that thay r everywear....... Oh, my 'grammer'. I do apologise! tub_thumper
  • Score: 4

3:37pm Thu 6 Mar 14

CJH says...

tub_thumper wrote:
Samboy wrote:
The 'snide remark' brigade are out again, trivialising an important news report. The incidence of potholes in Jennet Tree lane is the result of traffic from the main road using it as a rat run. I frequently use the lane and it was quite frightening at times, sharing a narrow road with speeding idiots recklessly disregarding the regular use of the lane by horses, pedestrians and cyclists.
No snide comments at all. I was merely stating fact - something that the Worcester News lacks of late.

Like CJH says, their reporting skills lead much to be desired. If they are going to continue to use incorrect grammar, use Wikipedia as their source for historical information and publish opion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves) then what do you expect?

Snide comments aside, pot-holes are nothing new. Especially with our diverse wheather. U only half to luck around two sea that thay r everywear.......

Oh, my 'grammer'. I do apologise!
Naughty!
[quote][p][bold]tub_thumper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samboy[/bold] wrote: The 'snide remark' brigade are out again, trivialising an important news report. The incidence of potholes in Jennet Tree lane is the result of traffic from the main road using it as a rat run. I frequently use the lane and it was quite frightening at times, sharing a narrow road with speeding idiots recklessly disregarding the regular use of the lane by horses, pedestrians and cyclists.[/p][/quote]No snide comments at all. I was merely stating fact - something that the Worcester News lacks of late. Like CJH says, their reporting skills lead much to be desired. If they are going to continue to use incorrect grammar, use Wikipedia as their source for historical information and publish opion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves) [i.e James Connell and his cyclist rant] then what do you expect? Snide comments aside, pot-holes are nothing new. Especially with our diverse wheather. U only half to luck around two sea that thay r everywear....... Oh, my 'grammer'. I do apologise![/p][/quote]Naughty! CJH
  • Score: 4

5:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

New Kid on the Block says...

CJH wrote:
I'm not trivialising the pothole problem (have just put in a request for the council to repair some that I regularly drive around). It's a pity the WN doesn't match the importance of the situation reported by giving it a headline which makes sense. The headline writing madness is getting worse. I want correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and FACTS in the reports! (See the report today: 'Event to look into historical manuscript'). I would also like to know the WN policy on when comments are allowed on stories. Recently it appears to be random at the very best. I fully appreciate the need to not allow comments for contentious stories such as some court cases for instance, but on seemingly innocuous reports, why not? Why no comments allowed for 'Birds of a feather flock together'? Bizarre.
When I queried what was happening about the comments this is the reply I received on 30/01 from Peter John the Group Editor.

"We have changed over to a new production system which currently automatically disables comments. We remind staff to manually enable them, but in the rush to publish these things get forgotten sometimes/often.
However, the good news is the system will alter in the next few weeks and we should return to normal, and in the meantime I’m issuing a reminder to staff to do it manually."

So hopefully things will soon be back to normal - whatever that is.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: I'm not trivialising the pothole problem (have just put in a request for the council to repair some that I regularly drive around). It's a pity the WN doesn't match the importance of the situation reported by giving it a headline which makes sense. The headline writing madness is getting worse. I want correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and FACTS in the reports! (See the report today: 'Event to look into historical manuscript'). I would also like to know the WN policy on when comments are allowed on stories. Recently it appears to be random at the very best. I fully appreciate the need to not allow comments for contentious stories such as some court cases for instance, but on seemingly innocuous reports, why not? Why no comments allowed for 'Birds of a feather flock together'? Bizarre.[/p][/quote]When I queried what was happening about the comments this is the reply I received on 30/01 from Peter John the Group Editor. "We have changed over to a new production system which currently automatically disables comments. We remind staff to manually enable them, but in the rush to publish these things get forgotten sometimes/often. However, the good news is the system will alter in the next few weeks and we should return to normal, and in the meantime I’m issuing a reminder to staff to do it manually." So hopefully things will soon be back to normal - whatever that is. New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 4

5:53pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tub_thumper says...

I did actually write:

"...and publish opinion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves - James Connell on cyclists) then what do you expect?"

For some strange reason, the mentioning of Mr Connell got omitted. Hmmmm...?
I did actually write: "...and publish opinion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves - James Connell on cyclists) then what do you expect?" For some strange reason, the mentioning of Mr Connell got omitted. Hmmmm...? tub_thumper
  • Score: 4

9:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Rooneybob says...

tub_thumper wrote:
I did actually write:

"...and publish opinion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves - James Connell on cyclists) then what do you expect?"

For some strange reason, the mentioning of Mr Connell got omitted. Hmmmm...?
This happened to me too... referred to Mr Connell's 'story' on another thread and it didn't show. It wasn't abusive or anything. When I asked why - no response... I don't know what's up with WN lately; the stories are weak, the comments random, the whole thing is really disappointing.
[quote][p][bold]tub_thumper[/bold] wrote: I did actually write: "...and publish opinion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves - James Connell on cyclists) then what do you expect?" For some strange reason, the mentioning of Mr Connell got omitted. Hmmmm...?[/p][/quote]This happened to me too... referred to Mr Connell's 'story' on another thread and it didn't show. It wasn't abusive or anything. When I asked why - no response... I don't know what's up with WN lately; the stories are weak, the comments random, the whole thing is really disappointing. Rooneybob
  • Score: 3

8:25pm Mon 10 Mar 14

SgtAl says...

Do these inconsiderate motorists, (probably illegal immigrants, UKIP will deal with that though), not understand the basic courtesies of British roads? Rural lanes and narrow roads must be kept pristine, otherwise they look just ghastly. The sheer impertinence of some people... herrumph! Imagine; operating a motor vehicle on a road?!
Do these inconsiderate motorists, (probably illegal immigrants, UKIP will deal with that though), not understand the basic courtesies of British roads? Rural lanes and narrow roads must be kept pristine, otherwise they look just ghastly. The sheer impertinence of some people... herrumph! Imagine; operating a motor vehicle on a road?! SgtAl
  • Score: -2

8:48pm Mon 10 Mar 14

CJH says...

Rooneybob wrote:
tub_thumper wrote:
I did actually write:

"...and publish opinion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves - James Connell on cyclists) then what do you expect?"

For some strange reason, the mentioning of Mr Connell got omitted. Hmmmm...?
This happened to me too... referred to Mr Connell's 'story' on another thread and it didn't show. It wasn't abusive or anything. When I asked why - no response... I don't know what's up with WN lately; the stories are weak, the comments random, the whole thing is really disappointing.
I mentioned that this headline was used in the 'stupid news' item on The News Quiz on Radio 4 last week, and that got removed as well. If they don't want criticism, then get it right first time! Easy.
[quote][p][bold]Rooneybob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tub_thumper[/bold] wrote: I did actually write: "...and publish opinion pieces from 'health' reporters (who actually need to loose a bit of weight theirselves - James Connell on cyclists) then what do you expect?" For some strange reason, the mentioning of Mr Connell got omitted. Hmmmm...?[/p][/quote]This happened to me too... referred to Mr Connell's 'story' on another thread and it didn't show. It wasn't abusive or anything. When I asked why - no response... I don't know what's up with WN lately; the stories are weak, the comments random, the whole thing is really disappointing.[/p][/quote]I mentioned that this headline was used in the 'stupid news' item on The News Quiz on Radio 4 last week, and that got removed as well. If they don't want criticism, then get it right first time! Easy. CJH
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree