1. I strongly object to the implied proposal to close the Couch Street/ Balkerne Hill crossing, which has been widely criticised during recent consultations. It will substantially increase traffic congestion in the area and an enhanced surface crossing will be much less safe than the subway.

2. The subway closure is only required to accommodate an enhanced cycleway along Crouch Street which has also been widely condemned by local people in recent consultations due to its detrimental effect on the area.

3. I strongly object to the proposal for an enhanced cycleway along Crouch Street as it will lead to shop and business closures in this popular independent shopping area due to the proposed loss of adequate car parking. The proposal has already been widely condemned by local people during recent consultations and the ECC Consultants couldn’t even draw the plans correctly.

4. I strongly object to the proposal for segregated cycleways along Lexden Road, which is not wide enough to accommodate them together with the high pedestrian useage and school bus stops as well as other traffic. The proposals rely on reducing the general traffic Lane width such that all traffic will queue behind school buses at so called floating bus stops. During school times this will lead to massive congestion for all vehicles including buses, which stop for substantial periods. Also, children will have to cross ‘live’ cycleways putting them at risk of serious injury from cyclists. This safety hazard was highlighted recently in the press at a scheme in London, with another scheme in Hammersmith recording greatly increased congestion. This will worsen air quality in the area. The proposal was widely criticised by local people during the previous consultation.

5. The so called ‘Active Travel’ focus is entirely on those who are able and fit/healthy enough to walk and cycle. This group almost certainly coincides with the group most likely to respond to social media and web based consultations and hence, in my view are disproportionately represented in the Council consultation results. The biased results are then used in a way which disadvantages the more elderly residents and those with disabilities, both obvious and hidden. For example the recent consultation results used to support the most recent Crouch Street proposals was mostly via social media and from those outside the City Centre and Lexden areas. Hence they would be less affected than local people.

1. I find it ironic that the report notes that the City Centre now has to complete for retail with the Colchester Council owned, led and developed area at the Northern Gateway. The Council is now suggesting this out of town Northern Gateway development was inappropriate and that the City Centre now needs to compete with the Council’s own development.

1. The general Masterplan Consultation is highly superficial and leads to biased responses. Questions ask if the public would like nice things without identifying or comparing with the negative impacts. It was be easy but false to conclude that people would like better air quality in one area without telling them they will be no cars permitted and massive congestion and pollution elsewhere as a direct result.

1. Introducing more surface crossings along Southway and at the St Botolphs Roundabout will lead to very substantial increases in traffic congestion and air pollution but this is not mentioned in the documents. As a result I object to these measures as they cannot be fairly judged on the information provided.

1. There is much talk of traffic congestion in the City Centre, although much of it is already pedestrianised or limited to traffic. What is the rationale for further restrictions. The restrictions would come with increased car parking on the periphery it says, but no sites or even general ideas are presented. I strongly object without adequate additional parking being provided.

1. If it is intended to further restrict vehicles into the City Centre, then it would be essential to ensure there is an effective ring route around the City Centre and adequate parking on the periphery. The Masterplan shown clearly restricts both vehicles into the centre and creates congestion on the current routes around the centre, due to the Miriam of additional and enhanced surface crossings proposed at Balkerne Hill, Southway and Sy Botolphs. Together with no clear increase in peripheral parking will strangle the City Centre, result is much reduced footfall for businesses and increased air pollution and other emissions in those areas.
2. Restricting car parking access further to the immediate vicinity of the centre discriminates against those with hidden disabilities who would find it difficult to get a Blue Badge. Maintaining good access to Blue Badge holders is also vital.
3. Many decades of failed planning policy eg preventing housing uses in town centres, encouraging out of town retail, restricting car parking in the centre and of course the fatally flawed business rates system has resulted in the haemorrhaging of retail outlets in the City Centre and in the ghost town syndrome at night, with only bars and clubs and anti social behaviour thriving. The Council is actively developing a new out of town cinema which will inevitably accelerate the demise of the Odeon and the loss of another beneficial City Centre use.
4. Generally the Masterplan document is full of lovely wishes and ideals, but the main focus in practice is to make it ever more difficult for people to visit the City Centre without cycling and the reality is likely to be less
5. As a final point, it seems that public consultations are being done piecemeal with repeated consultations when the results are not in tune with the Councils’ (ECC and CC) wishes. The Lexden Road cycleway, Crouch Street and the Subway closure are all perfect examples of this. The Masterplan effectively presents them as de facto agreements, but only in peripheral terms. Presumably this is a disguise so they can then be presented as having been supported by the ‘agreed Masterplan’ which is based on these decisions having already been made. None of the consultations are sufficiently honest to set out the disadvantages as well as advantages in a way the general public can clearly understand; presumably due the fear the public will reject the idealistic proposals and support practical measures to make their lives better instead.