Executive Summary

CCC has ignored a major part of the survey results from "we made that", in as much as in the comments over 200 people supported a return of traffic to the high street with free on street parking. No observations for more cycle lanes and only a few for full pedestrianization. Therefore the masterplan is flawed from the start, and CCC must take notice of these results, as their masterplan fly's in the face of it.

To raise profile of a fading city and encourage visitors you intend to build houses on car parks?
Words fail me.
You should be encouraging retailers as this lack is what stops people shopping here. Less parking and more residents would not encourage me or anyone at all.
Less parking and more inner city housing will also put off visitors.
I started reading the plan with excitement - finally something is happening to the once lovely town of Colchester. I am now disheartened as this is an excuse to build more houses in an already overcrowded city.
Such a shame.

The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.

As Colchester City Council and Essex County Council lie outside the defined coalfield, the Planning team at the Coal Authority has no specific comments to make.

Whilst we welcome this opportunity to give our views, the topic of the Supplementary Planning Document does not appear to relate to our interests to any significant extent. We therefore do not wish to comment.

Should the plan be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then, please consult Natural England again.

I am in sympathy with many of the aspirations of the masterplan in respect of its treatment of transport issues and the built environment. The repeated use of the term ‘sustainable’ is encouraging, but it is never defined for this context. The reference to the climate emergency is well-placed, but is only one, important, aspect of environmental sustainability. CCC has declared a climate and Nature emergency. The existential threat of alarming biodiversity loss is widely known and recognised elsewhere by CCC but is completely absent from the Master Plan, and there is no indication that advice was sought from any organisation or expert opinion on this topic in the development of the Plan.

Green spaces are included in the many maps included in the plan document. They include riverside walks, Land Lane open space, Kings Head Meadow, Bull Meadow, Cowdray LNR, Trinity church yard, the grounds of the Natural History Museum and the Priory, Berryfield and Castle Park itself – and several peripheral but vitally important green spaces, including Southern Slopes of High Woods CP, Abbey Fields, and Hilly Fields. These are recognised as contrasts to the built environment, and as significant for heathy exercise but at no point is their importance for urban ecology and biodiversity even mentioned. As intensive agriculture has eliminated much wild life in the wider countryside, urban refuges for biodiversity are increasingly recognised as vital.

CCC needs to develop a biodiversity database and an integrated plan for its conservation. However, there are issues that need to be addressed immediately, and top priority is the alarming suggestions in the Master Plan for the river through the city, and its wider green environment. At several places, the river is referred to as ‘animated’, and one text refers to the potential of the river as a ‘social and economic driver’. On p. 44 there are some suggestions for improving access and amenity in relation to the river – with swimming, paddleboarding and canoeing proposed. In addition the ‘new’ Roman Wall Park will improve access to both sides of the wall and ‘enhance its setting’. The Plan proposes an ‘improved riverside public realm’.

The authors of the Plan clearly had no knowledge of the importance of the riverside green spaces for both public amenity and enjoyment and biodiversity enhancement as they currently exist. I have monitored the ecology and wildlife of these green spaces for a little over 50 years. Historically, substantial losses of biodiversity were imposed by the northerly extension of the Riverside Estate, and the subsequent close mowing of the grassland up to the river’s edge did not help. However, the indispensability of the riverside walks during covid lockdowns, and the intensity of their public use for exercise has led to new ideas about management. Since 2020, large areas of grassland on both sides of the river have been managed by CCC for biodiversity, with much reduced mowing, combined with close-mowed pathways to enable access. In Castle Park, too, mowing has been reduced in some areas, flowers planted for pollinators, and a large ‘bee hotel’ installed. Several local experts have monitored the increase in birds using the river as a crucial wild-life corridor through the city, and many walkers, dog-walkers and casual visitors notice the increase in bird-song, with cetti’s warbler, black-cap, whitethroat, kingfisher, green and greater spotted woodpecker and many other species noted. The river and adjacent ‘lake’ harbour goosander, teal, little grebe, tufted duck, shoveller and many other water birds during the winter. The occasional appearance of otters also causes great excitement.

The river itself and its marginal habitat is important for an exceptional assemblage of dragonflies – so far 17 species recorded, including the scarce ‘hairy’ dragonfly, and the recently arrived willow emerald. The grassland supports a rich butterfly fauna – 22 species recorded so far, including white admiral, Essex skipper and many others. Solitary bees, bumblebees, grasshoppers and crickets and hoverflies have all been recorded in increasing numbers since the new management was introduced. The Roman Wall itself is an important botanical site, with black spleenwort and maidenhair spleenwort ferns, as well as the scarce Rue-leaved saxifrage, and important Lichen species. Some bees nest in crevices, and, away from the riverside, in Priory Street, the habitat at the top of the Roman Wall supports a national conservation priority species, the stag beetle, for which the Colchester area is a stronghold.

This is a rich heritage, enhanced by recent management agreed by CCC. It is greatly appreciated by walkers, dog-walkers, cyclists, visitors to the town and residents alike. These green spaces are more than simply viewpoints for the Roman Wall, and their great and increasing value for biodiversity and public enjoyment would be put at risk by some of the suggestions mooted in the Master Plan. It is essential that any attempt to realise a Roman Wall Park fully recognises these existing assets and seeks to enhance them. Colchester does indeed have a rich ‘heritage’ but it is not exclusively a built heritage.

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

I totally agree with the comments made by Sir Bob Russell and our household is not in support of the Masterplan or the Local plan.

Why have details not been delivered to every household / council tax payer?

Your consultations will be meaningless.

In a council meeting, one of your councillors mentioned that you had been ‘shunted towards management companies’.

You do not have the consent of the majority of the population of Colchester because most are oblivious to your plans.

You should produce a fully costed plans and not waste hard working tax payers money.

Councils are going bankrupt and many are not in a good financial situation. I understand Councillors can be imprisoned if Councils go Bankrupt.

I understand that you want comments from the public on these proposals. I speak as a pedestrian, cyclist, and bus and private car user. My method of travel from Stanway into town is - in order of priority - by private bicycle then by bus then by private car. I only walk once I've arrived there. Here are my comments.

First, there are 3 documents to read and cross reference. The first can only be read online (SPD) and the other two are downloadable (Transport Plan - 133 pages and Screening report - 13 pages). That's a lot of reading material. I realise that whoever wrote it all must be very proud of themselves, but do you seriously expect many members of the public to read all that? That's what I call drowning the public in data. As far as my comments about the proposal are concerned, there are two things which I think are worth spending money on.

First, if we want to reduce the amount of private car traffic into Colchester to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion then the simplest and cheapest way to do it is by offering free bus travel for everybody. If you look at the passengers on the buses, you will notice a very high proportion of oldsters (I am one, so I am not discriminating against anyone but me). They all have bus passes. That's a lot of car traffic already removed from the roads. Try it for the whole population of Colchester for a period and see what effect it will have. Already the national £2 maximum charge scheme has increased bus usage so much that it has been extended twice. It would be much cheaper than ripping up perfectly sound underpasses, parking spaces and roundabouts and replacing them with shared pedestrian/cyclist ways which would see very little increase in traffic on them. Free bus passes could also be ceased at any point, if the scheme proved an expensive failure. On the contrary, rebuilt failed brand new infrastructure would be a wonderful white elephant for us all to see for ever more (or at least until the next masterplan comes along).

Second, make it possible for people to find the only Roman Circus ever to have been found in the United Kingdom. It's a shame that most of it has been built over quite recently in an utterly shameless way, but there is still some of it to see and the museum alongside the site is very much worth visiting. Although Colchester already has the invisible Temple of Claudius and the 2 invisible Roman theatres (out of only 5 found in the country), as well as the very visible remains of the Balkerne Gate section of the Roman wall, the Roman Circus is still amongst the most important Roman finds in the United Kingdom, never mind in the town. As I said earlier, it is the only one to have been found in the country so far. So let's make it easier or even possible for people to find it. There is a new housing estate going up near to it soon. Hopefully, there will be a signposted walkway from the town through the new estate to help people get there.

Colchester Cycling Campaign is in broad agreement with the thrust of the masterplan, especially in relation to improving the infrastructure for active travel.

We fully support the aim (page 6) that ”as many people as possible should walk, cycle or use public transport to travel into the city centre”.

We also agree with the success criteria.

However given the huge amount of taxpayers' money likely to be spent, this must not be a half-hearted exercise. Walking and cycling must be made as attractive as possible and be given clear advantages over private motor transport.

All schemes must have a high score using the LTN 1/20 level of service tool.

The engineers devising each scheme should bear in mind:
• Decarbonising transport: Grant Shapps' statements in the De-Carbonising Transport declaration of 2021 in which he said: "Public transport and active travel will be the natural first choice for our daily activities. We will use our cars less and be able to rely on a convenient, cost-effective and coherent public transport network."
• The Vienna Declaration (the UK is a signatory to this UN initiative), and
• Compliance with LTN 1/20 (all schemes funded by Whitehall must comply with policy on cycling infrastructure)


TRANSPORT IN GENERAL
We agree with the baseline appraisal for transport on page 19.

Mention should be made that air pollution is not only above the UK legal limit but well above the UN limit. Consideration should be given not only to particulate pollution from transport but those from other sources too.

We support aims five and six on page 34 which call for a car-light city centre, zero emissions zone and key north-south and east-west city centre corridors. Zonal traffic circulation should be a short term goal
(not long term) and a date set or it will never be achieved. Climate change is a factor here.

The masterplan should also provide data on how congestion in the greater city is a drag on the economy.


CLIMATE CHANGE
The section on climate change lacks a sense of urgency. The issue has been in the public arena since 1989 (Margaret Thatcher’s speech to the UN) and this year we are beginning to see its terrible effects (including the Canadian wildfires and the southeast Asian and Mediterranean heatwaves). Speak to any FTSE 100 sustainability officer and they will stress the need for faster action and the importance of building resilience into all new and existing thinking. More emphasis on climate change is needed in the masterplan to support the intended changes. Resilience also needs to be considered.


CYCLING AND WALKING
Given the importance of cycling and walking, each should have a separate layer in the plan to pull together all the issues that are currently spread through the document. These should also highlight the problems such as breaks in cycling and walking routes.

Our two main points are:
The need for contraflow cycling in High Street, and
The need for contraflow cycling in Queen Street/St Botolph’s Street (detail on both below)

If these cannot be progressed immediately, the masterplan must not rule them out.

We support new pedestrian/cycle links across Southway but would prioritise Headgate/Butt Road and St Botolph's (including Stanwell Street) over the other proposed crossings.

We support improved pedestrian links across Balkerne Hill south (Crouch Street). See below for Balkerne Hill North.

We dispute that the level of cycling infrastructure is “reasonable” (page 19). The alternative phraseology would be “that the level of cycling infrastructure has potential” . The plan already notes that the quality of the infrastructure is largely poor and/or fragmented and is in need of huge improvement.

We support improvements to cycle access to the city centre via North Hill, Crouch Street, Sheepen Road, Butt Road, Stanwell Street, St Botolph’s, East Hill and King’s Meadow/Dutch Quarter.

We note that Military Road is earmarked as a potential route and agree that it would be a valuable part of the cycle network but wonder how this can be achieved.

WHY CONTRAFLOWS ARE NEEDED
The Roman city centre grid is largely still in place and provides the basis for the most efficient and easily achievable cycling network.

The one-way system instituted 60 years ago to control motor vehicles destroyed city centre permeability for cyclists. Access is needed not simply into the centre but across the centre, as shown by the high number of cyclists who ride on the footway or carriageway northwards on St Botolph’s/Queen Street and westwards on High Street.

At present people from much of New Town, Mersea Road, Shrub End and the new garrison estate have to make considerable diversions to cycle to High Street, North Hill and East Hill. The current proposals
do not address these issues. See the importance of having direct routes in Gear Change and Local Transport Note 1/20.

Thought needs to be given to greater use of cargo bikes or provision of this kind of delivery system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRqKOztzLDs

HIGH STREET CONTRAFLOW DETAILS
Currently there are only two cycle routes east to west for the entire distance between Southway and Cowdray Avenue. These are St John's Street and the Riverside Walk via Lower Castle Park which takes you from the bottom of East Hill to the bottom of North Hill, missing the city centre entirely. St John's Street is a useful route when travelling from East Hill to Crouch Street but it is not as useful for East Hill to the Sixth Form College – you have to take three sides of a rectangle with two hills.

It is imperative that another east-west route is added. The proposal to use Culver Street seems unworkable except in the extreme long term. Not only does it rely on a building demolition but that route includes market stalls and other obstacles that will cause conflict for cyclists.

This leaves High Street. Two-way cycling could be achieved either by a cycle contraflow, for example on the north side, or by making the High Street two way for both buses and cycles (and no other traffic), which could improve the bus network too.


ST BOTOLPH’S STREET/QUEEN STREET CONTRAFLOW DETAILS

Stand at St Botolph’s and consider cycling direct to the castle. None of the proposed routes addresses such a commonsense scenario. A contraflow would give a direct connection to the north and east for people in western New Town, Mersea Road and the new garrison estate.

The road is wide enough. The current layout makes the street appear narrower than it is but the 1930s picture below (looking towards the site of today’s St Botolph’s roundabout when the road was two-way for all vehicles) shows the width available.

Issues with loading access could be mitigated by adding dedicated free loading spaces in Priory Street car park and/or repurposing spaces in the private car park between The Gym Group and Sharp Cut and/or part of the site of the former bus garage. The possibility of unloading via the new Vineyard Street development should also be considered.

While a cycle route from Priory Street to Britannia Yard via St Julian’s Grove (page 36) is a possibility it would be of limited use. It should not distract from the need for improvements to St Botolph’s Street and Queen Street.

A better option might be a route from Rosebery Road and Nicholson’s Grove to Britannia Yard. This would offer a relatively flat route between St Botolph’s and the bottom of East Hill if the difference in levels can be solved and a right of way achieved at the western end of Nicholson’s Grove. Put bluntly, though, this idea presents problems of its own. Such difficulties make it even more important that St Botolph’s Street and Queen Street are given contraflow cycle lanes.

The same applies to a possible cycle route from St Botoph’s to Vineyard Street passing to the west of St Botolph’s Street: it would be of limited use.

ST BOTOLPH’S
Please consider CCC’s response to the July 2023 St Botolph’s consultation as part of this response. One of the points made in our feedback to St Botolph’s is the need for wider routes to be considered in detail in all plans that focus on a particular area. The current St
Botolph’s plan fails to do this and the lesson should be learnt for all future schemes.

CHAPEL STREET CROSSING OF SOUTHWAY
In terms of improvements for cyclists, two-way cycle working in Butt Road/ Headgate is a better option and this proposal should be secondary to that.

A crossing of Southway at Chapel Street will be of little use to all except residents in the immediate roads unless access can be secured from South Street to Butt Road (via Wellington House car park) and the new Abro development (plan currently with the city
council ) (please alert planning team as soon as possible) south of the Artillery Barracks folley. The steep gradient in Chapel Street between Wellington Street and South Street is a disincentive for active travel.

Residents would be better served by improved pedestrian/cycle crossings at Abbeygate, Stanwell Street and Butt Road. More emphasis could be placed on improving east-west pedestrian/cycle connectivity between Cedars Road and St John’s Green. This could be achieved via urban realm improvements on or parallel to Southway.


CYCLE PARKING
Little if any mention is made of the need for more secure cycle parking

which is essential if the level of cycling is to increase. All
planning approvals in the city centre should include key-fob accessible secure cycle parking covered by live CCTV (this would particularly help shop and cultural sector employees and night-time workers). This is especially important given the advent of expensive ebikes. Greater police support is needed. Note that LTN 1/20 deals with cycle parking in a thorough way; it should replace the guidance given in the outdated Essex County Council Parking Guide.

SHEEPEN ROAD
The masterplan area should include the roundabout at the northern end (bottom) of Balkerne Hill and the length of Sheepen Road. It should include medium-term improvements to or replacement of the subway beneath Southway. Thousands of students and workers
inhabit the Sheepen Road area each day but the current emphasis is car-reliant, to wit Sheepen Retail Park, Colchester Institute and
various offices.


ODDS AND ENDS
The map on page 34 needs to show East Hill as a cycle route (going ahead as part of LCWIP 4). We cannot see the need for cyclists to be included on a better link between . Priory Walk and Firstsite (Point 2 page 72).

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.

See attachment for full submission.

See attachment for full submission.

The best thing to do with the Masterplan is to withdraw it immediately – with no further consideration until the most important omission is put right……
There is no economic impact assessment!
There should be NO further discussion until an independent one is undertaken.
I have seen associated with the Masterplan a reference to this being about planning for the next 100 years. This is risible.

********
Historic observation: 100 years ago Colchester Borough’s population was 40,000 – that geographic area today has a population of circa 120,000……who in 1923 (amongst Councillors and Officers) would have predicted that? In 1923 Colchester had a tram system, but it had gone by the end of the decade. There was a flourishing port, and a thriving oyster industry. The former did not survive the 20th century; the latter was all but wiped out 60 years ago. Other than fan manufacturers Woods, all of Colchester’s extensive industrial companies from 1923 have gone. I can provide other examples to show it is somewhat presumptuous, therefore, to talk about planning for the next 100 years!
In 1923 the A12 went past the Town Hall. Did anyone then think that ten years later the original Colchester By-Pass (from Lexden to Clinghoe Hill) would be built? Or that around 40 years after that this by-pass would be by-passed by the dual-carriageway Northern By-Pass?
In 1923 there were no traffic lights and no roundabouts in Colchester. The concept of multi-storey car parks was unknown – it was to be another 43 years before the first one was built in Colchester.
In 1923, Marks & Spencer had a small shop in St Botolph’s Street. Shops had “early closing day” on Thursdays for another 40+ years. Out-of-town retail parks were unknown……Colchester’s first out of town supermarket was not until 1971.
Who in 1923 would have predicted that some 35 years later the railway line to London would be electrified? That 40 years later Colchester would have a University? Or 85 years later a new Garrison would be built for soldiers who operated in a military manner (parachutes) completely unknown 100 years ago?
Or that 99 years later Colchester would be made a City?

********

Three years ago we had Debenhams and Marks & Spencer in the city centre…….and no Stane Park.
Covid was unknown.
Things are markedly different now than they were just three years ago!
100 years forecast? Even 10 years forecast would be ambitious!
You can only make forecasts on the “knowns” – not guessing…….. “firstsite” has not been the huge tourist draw its promoters said it would (so happens I was right with my forecast that it would be more of a flop than a success, only surviving on an annual subsidy from the public purse of circa £1 million, but the “experts” (sic) knew better…….and now another lot of non-local “experts” (led by a London-based company) are telling Colchester people what is best for us!). I take exception when outsiders start meddling in Colchester.

Seventeen years ago (2006) I recall other “experts” from an outfit called Space Syntax, whose “masterplan” ideas died the death – other than the demise of the purpose-built Bus Station and the shutting of the Visitor Information Centre from its prime location opposite the Castle!
Colchester Council promised us the best new bus station in the country! Remember that? In Vineyard Street. That promise was cynically broken.
Who now remembers “Colchester 2020”? What about their bold predictions?
Who now remembers would-be developers Caddick, from Yorkshire? Working in collaboration with the Council, their retail proposals were centred on giving us a 3rd shopping precinct, adding to Lion Walk and Culver Square.

First things first. And the first thing required is an independent economic impact assessment.

As a result of Freedom Of Information requests made by me, Colchester City Council has admitted:
1 – it has not commissioned an economic impact assessment of what is proposed in the Colchester City Masterplan. It is relying on a Colchester Borough Council Factsheet published in 2011…….12 years ago!
2 – it has been revealed that the proposed closure of the surface Britannia and Vineyard Street car parks will result in an annual loss of income of £820,000. Such a huge drop in income will leave a big hole in the Council’s finances! Yet such a financial consequence has not been considered!

The lack of an economic impact assessment is astonishing! It is negligence.
The failure to recognise that the loss of these two surface car parks will have a serious detrimental effect on the economic viability of the City Centre is breathtaking – and shows a total failure to grasp the reality of how people go about their daily lives.

The anti-car approach of the Masterplan will drive people away – towards Ipswich and Chelmsford, and to out-of-town retail locations.
What the Masterplan should be promoting – jointly by Colchester City Council and the Colchester Business Improvement District (BID) – is a marketing strategy stating: “Visit the City of Colchester – with car parks covering all parts of the city centre: north, south, east, west.” A 25-mile radius would take in both Ipswich and Chelmsford, and ringed by Sudbury, Halstead, Braintree, Witham, Maldon, Frinton, Walton, Clacton and Harwich…….a population of around one million.
It is naïve to think that a significant number of people will switch to walking, cycling and e-scooters, or public transport. These alternatives may attract some over shorter distances, although the evidence to date shows no notable shift out of cars. But “sustainable transport”, as described, is not an option for most of those living in the 25-mile radius if they are to be encouraged to visit Colchester City Centre rather than by being discouraged by the “you are not welcome” message which the Masterplan conveys.

Other aspects in the Masterplan leave me with the conclusion, as someone who has read more reports than most people over the past 60 years, is that it is one of the worst I have ever seen. It is flawed. However, I doubt my request that it be withdrawn will happen – therefore I am obliged to highlight some matters which have to be challenged.
There are 91 pages in the Masterplan, which took me more than six hours to read. Double that to write my comments!
The following observations are selected – they are not all of them.

Osborne Street: The proposals include the closure of the Bizz bingo club in Osborne Street, Colchester’s most popular (in terms of attendance figures) leisure venue. I object to the closure of the bingo club.
Southway: Also threatened with loss of premises are The Samaritans and The Salvation Army, and also Bernard Brett House (providing accommodation for vulnerable young people) named in honour of an extraordinary individual who did more than any Councillor to ensure that there was housing for those whom officialdom often looked the other way. I object to the closure of these three buildings.
Two former two-storey offices, between Chapel Street South and The Salvation Army Citadel, are now converted into residential units – who would have predicted that, even ten years ago? The one nearest Chapel Street was built in 1951 as a Government building, on the site of houses bombed during the Second World War. It is the only building in Colchester which has the crest of King George VI.
It should be noted that all the above buildings are two-storey and thus reflect the character of the residential area to the south of Southway which is 19th Century two-storey housing…….but which 60 years ago was proposed (under whatever bright idea of the day from the Town Hall) were to be demolished and replaced with (a) a multi-storey car park (with a pedestrian bridge over Southway through to St John’s Street and another pedestrian bridge into Sir Isaac’s Walk), and (b) more office blocks of which (thankfully) only Wellington House in Butt Road was built – Crown Building had already been built by this time, on a bomb site – before a new breed of Councillors (I am proud to say I was one of them) got those barmy proposals dropped and had the houses saved, with generous grants to modernise them under the South Town General Improvement Area.
Southway/St John’s Street: The proposals indicate the demolition of the St John’s Street multi-storey car park AND thus the loss of the popular Wilkinson’s and Iceland stores. This would result in a further attack on the financial viability and attraction of the City Centre as a place for people to visit and shop. Good news for out-of-town retail parks (not just Stane Park) but also Ipswich and Chelmsford who probably cannot believe their luck that motorists are being discouraged from visiting Colchester.

Maps on Pages 7 and 31 indicate six “new street level crossings” (for pedestrians and cyclists)……..six sets of traffic lights on a dual-carriageway, purpose-built in 1973 (designed by Colchester Borough Council’s own Borough Engineer’s staff, people who lived here) to provide a direct East to West and West to East route for vehicles…….with the laughable comment (Page 64, bullet point 2) “while keeping traffic flowing”. This is the A134. Traffic lights at red result in traffic stopping. Traffic does not keep flowing! In the immortal words of Basil Fawlty, the inevitable “the bleedin’ obvious” will occur……tailbacks in both directions, to the Maldon Road Roundabout and St Botolph’s Circus – and all roads leading into them. It is insulting people’s intelligence to say that traffic will be kept flowing when so many traffic lights are proposed.

The same Map on Page 7 has the words “Animated River” and “New Roman Wall Park”. They also get a mention on Pages 40 and 44.

On Page 11 the River Colne is described “as a currently untapped asset”. Anyone with knowledge of Colchester appreciates this is a wildlife corridor! To do anything other than retain this in its current natural state as created by Mother Nature would be contrary to the Council’s Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document. Therefore all references to “Animated River” should be struck from the Masterplan – immediately!

What is meant by “New Roman Wall Park”? The Roman Wall can be viewed from both sides in Castle Park – inside from the Upper Park and from outside along the Public Footpath next to Lower Park. It is possible to walk around the entire line of the City Wall, much of which is exposed. Such a walk already exists, and each year the Town Watch do a ceremony featuring this. It has also been the route of two of my annual New Year’s Day Walks, with sections featuring on all three of my Heritage Walks. The only place where greater exposure of the Wall for the public could be achieved is inside the Wall at (a) the site of the former Bus Station, and (b) the adjoining playing fields of St Thomas More Primary School (but only if the School gave up the playing field).
However, the map does not have the legend “New Roman Wall Park” here – but where we already have Castle Park! I repeat the question: What is meant by “New Roman Wall Park”?

Page 19 has two illustrations which erroneously quotes (24,176 people on both) for “Travel patterns for Colchester” – giving the same figure for (a) “Colchester workers living outside the city”, and (b) “Colchester workers living inside the city”. I thought it odd that they would be the same, and so it proved when I made a Freedom Of Information request. This showed that for “Colchester workers living inside the city” the figure should be 32,499 – an error of 8,323 from what was published in the Masterplan.
The correct figures are from the Colchester Borough Council Factsheet published in 2011 – 12 years ago! The Factsheet needs to be updated! It is worrying that the Masterplan is using statistics which are so old.
It is astonishing that such a glaring error could be published in the Masterplan which, one assumes, would had been scrutinised by many people as it evolved from four drafts!

Page 27 gives statistics for “Travel to the City Centre” – rounded to 65% by car, 14% walk, 13% bus, and 5% cycle…….putting cycling in 4th place, yet it is this category to which significant sums of public money are being allocated. Cycling use would have to increase by nearly 200% to overtake the figures for walking and using the bus. It seems perverse to attack the largest form of transport, on which the economic vitality of the City Centre is more dependent than cyclists…….the car.

Even though the Masterplan is intended to be a serious document, I do recognise comedy – the best being this priceless gem on Page 34 where there is a reference to “trackless trams”. In the real world they are called buses!
Equally humorous is the description of a “Rapid Transit System”. These are buses using bus lanes…….be honest with people, tell them the truth. Stop abusing the English language.
Buses get a mention on Page 36 – but no mention of a Bus Station! Braintree, much smaller than Colchester, has a new one – but the prestigious City of Colchester has bus stops on the pavement with the grossly misleading title “Bus Station” when it is no such thing!
Of real concern is that the Masterplan proposes a reduction in buses! How else can one interpret the following (6th item under section 3 headed Buses)? “……identify opportunities for rationalising services to reduce bus congestion, whilst protecting levels of service.” In the real world, my experience of life is that the word “rationalisation” generally means “reduction”.
The dreaded words “rationalisation of bus services” (ie reduction) also appear on Page 67 ……..along with the ludicrous proposal to reduce the number of bus stops in High Street! Paragraph 6 refers to “consolidating” them between West Stockwell Street and George Street; paragraph 3 indicates those outside the Fire Office will have to go. For “consolidating” read “reduction”!

What the Masterplan has failed to address is the current nonsense that not all buses using the City Centre are allowed to drop off and pick up passengers at all stops! Every bus circulating the City Centre should stop at every bus stop. The statistics on Page 27 show that a third of passengers are aged 65 plus……..common-sense should dictate that people of this age group are less likely to be mobile, and therefore every bus should be allowed to stop at every location so as to be of the maximum convenience for them.
People need to be encouraged to use public transport. I fully support that notion – but, as we witness in the High Street and Osborne Street and St John’s Street, there is scant consideration for bus users.
The Masterplan is silent on the need for providing a proper place for Express Coaches and Tourist Coaches – which were an important feature, and were well used, when Colchester had a proper Bus Station off Queen Street. There is no welcoming, sense of arrival, location for Tourist coaches – nor a proper arrival or departure point for Express Coach passengers. This is a shameful consequence of the closure of the Queen Street Bus Station – but something ignored in the Masterplan.

Item 7 on Page 67. What is actually meant? Is it suggested that the current Loading Bay outside the Town Hall (8am to 6pm – Monday to Saturday) should be replaced with a Taxi Rank? Or that this space can also be used for taxis to drop off passengers? Is it suggested that Blue Badge parking would be allowed here? The wording is not clear as to what the intention is. Clarification is required.
In the grand scheme of things, this item (Number 7) is not a major issue – but what I will point out is the road space in front of the spectacular entrance to the Grade I Listed Town Hall is required to be kept clear at different times throughout the year when there are civic and other events – more easily done when it is a Loading Bay where “no waiting” cones can be placed quite easily. Most of the time the Loading Bay is unoccupied, giving an uninterrupted view of the Town Hall entrance. Best to leave things as they are.

“Space Syntax” advocated the demolition of 15 Queen Street, an important building in the street scene in what is a Conservation Area. That nonsense was dropped because of strong opposition. It is therefore disappointing that demolition is again a possibility, as stated on Page 72 – point 1.

Page 83 (point 5) refers to “infill development along St John’s Street.” There are no infill sites in St John’s Street – the accompanying map wrongly describes Osborne Street (where the sites are) as St John’s Street!
Pages 86 and 87 both refer to “St Botolph’s Junction”. There is no such location! It is called “St Botolph’s Circus” – and premises fronting it have their own Postcode: CO2 7EF. I am surprised that all those involved in the Masterplan did not see the two huge signs saying “St Botolph’s Circus” on the approaches to the landscaped roundabout from both the west and the east.

The above is not an exhaustive commentary of the notes I made, but they provide more than enough to show that the Masterplan is a document not fit for purpose – and should be binned before damage is done to Colchester…….in the same way as the Space Syntax report from 17 years ago was never heard of again!

With 60 years engagement in the life of Colchester – 31 of them as a participant in the democratic decision-making process at the Town Hall, and 29 of them (as is currently the case) an informed observer – I believe that sometimes “doing nothing” is better than “doing something”.

It would have been better if “nothing” had been done than wasting circa £1 million on a cycle path in Mile End Road that hardly any cyclist uses. Of banning buses from a bus lane (which cost of £1 million) near North Station to turn into a poorly used cycle lane. Of wasting circa £400,000 on “fixing the link” (sic) between North Station and High Street. Of wasting £59,000 on a street sculpture at the junction of Queen Street and Short Wyre Street ……. and recently another £59,000 on a second sculpture towards the western end of Sir Isaac’s Walk. (But we are told there is no money to signpost the Roman Circus!). Of planning to spend £500,000 (half a million quid!) at Holy Trinity Churchyard, in the process breaking the Council’s Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document.
Politics should be about priorities. None of the above could be regarded as a priority at any time – certainly not during the current financial crisis facing local government.
Has the £14 million spent on the Ipswich Road and Harwich Road roundabouts improved traffic flows and road safety? No.
Will a similar sum to be spent at St Botolph’s Circus be an improvement? No. Officially we are told it will add one minute to journeys. Whatever the delay, it will add significantly to traffic congestion.

Sometimes “doing nothing” is better than “doing something”.

See attachment for full submission.

Introduction

1. Colchester Civic Society is very disappointed with the Masterplan, as it does not guide the future of the city as a whole for the next 10 to 15 years. 100 years is a nonsense in our rapidly changing world, just look at the changes in the last 5 years. Indeed, the Masterplan should be, as stated by the World Bank – a dynamic long-term planning document that provides a conceptual layout to guide future growth and development. Master planning is about making the connection between buildings, social settings, and their surrounding environments. A masterplan includes analysis, recommendations, and proposals for a site’s population, economy, housing, transportation, community facilities and land use. It is based on public input, surveys, planning initiatives, existing development, physical characteristics along with social and economic conditions. We do not believe the current document achieves these objectives.

2. As an example, we are aware that in Westminster, the footprint of flats has been stipulated with a minimum and maximum size. The Masterplan under consideration should stipulate this. Please remember it was Colchester Civic Society that approached the Council with the idea for a Masterplan, following the various applications that were received with regard to Priory Walk and our shock at the incongruity that could be seen over the city centre.

3. We feel it would have been far more beneficial if the Masterplan had looked at the whole city holistically, rather than a micro approach that concentrates on local authority owned land.

4. So much of the privately owned property and land in the city is under used or contains very poor 20th century architecture. We would have liked to have seen the Masterplan give guidance or encouragement to work together to improve the town as whole for mutual benefit. Lion Walk would not have been built without such foresight and co-operative working.

5. The Masterplan focuses on the reuse council land through changes of use, such as existing car parks to dwellings with no detailed appraisal of the impact this will have on those who live, work and want to enjoy the city.

6. Our historic county town with markets and shops appears to be destined to be a city of flats, a large number of which are to be formed from existing buildings and thus not purpose built.

7. There are no real improvements to the city centre to attract quality stores or uses to the city and we watch as more depart.

8. There is much potential for improvement to the city to make it a financially vibrant place again, but it requires imagination and drive. It appears from the Masterplan that the city planners and Council are fearful of opening up discussions with utility services and owners of properties or land so that they can plan the city as planners did in the recent past. A Masterplan looks at the whole, not just pockets of the city.

Parking

9. The financial implications of the loss of car parks or any of the other proposals have not been assessed. We can see the converse approach in Chelmsford which has many car parks and a thriving shopping area with key anchor stores.

10. Car Parks certainly should not be removed before Public Transport issues are resolved. Services to and from rural communities are awful. We are told that Colchester has more car parking spaces than it needs, but those spaces may not be where they are required geographically or are avoided because of issues around public safety. People should have a choice between Multi Storey or open surface car parks.

Public Transport

11. Public transport is mentioned but no firm and financially worked out proposals for any improvements to bus services are proposed (as stated above but needs reiterating). The high-speed link mentionedappears to be a conventional bus with less stopping points. How that remains a high-speed transport link with the additional proposed road level pedestrian crossings on dual carriage ways, leaves us unconvinced. Who it is for and what the benefits are, is unclear in the Masterplan.

12. The issue of the Bus Station is avoided, this is not acceptable.

13. There are no plans to provide an integrated transport system for the next five years, other than using bicycles in a town which is set on a hill and has an ageing population.

14. There is no thought of an additional Park and Ride nor finding ways of improving the existing. There is no mention of the likelihood of reducing the size of the existing Park and Ride in the next 5years.

Tourism

15. Tourism is vital to the economy of the city but a basic bus stop on East Hill is apparently all that is required as the welcome for tourists arriving on coaches.

16. The heritage workshop was farcical, incredibly disappointing. We expected input from the Heritage Adviser, but he remained absolutely silent. Colchester’s rich history - not just Roman and Norman - presents us with so many opportunities but imagination is needed to promote them. sadly, the masterplan largely ignores the potential for creating a destination to rival York or Bath - or even Stratford upon Avon

Other Observations

17. The proposed link from St Botolph's Circus to Lewis Gardens looks interesting, but we have concerns about finding real non-structural solutions for the several major changes in levels, particularly from the station platform to ground level. We are unsure who is to use the link and why is this not clear?

18. Whilst we are pleased there is some focus on the river, the proposals have had no appraisal into the ownership of the river bed itself. We were shocked at the lack of a biodiversity study carried out before suggesting activities such as paddle boarding and the like.

19. Many of the declarations in the Masterplan about much of our city by those living and working outside of it, has left many of our members concerned that the basis for the proposed changes is extremely ill-founded. St Botolph’s Circus is liked by most who use it! The Masterplan suggests the users do not like it. We believe the users are more knowledgeable.

Consultation

20. The Masterplan set up consultative meetings. The experience of those meetings was that the timings were inadequate, leaving no time for real discussion or questions.

a. Participants were thrown out of the Town Hall on one occasion, and other meetings were curtailed. The consultants covering the main workshops appeared ill informed of local matters and were unsupported by council officers.
b. Consultants were not given adequate support in gathering the correct consultees/stakeholders. They understood there were 3 residents associations until advised by Colchester Civic Society that there were many more.
c. We believe that Access Groups were not consulted.
d. Colchester Civic Society, hailed as a key consultee, was placed in the wrong workshop initially, with the emergency services and Pubwatch!
e. The initial meeting Colchester Civic Society attended in the Town Hall, was severely delayed due to incorrect equipment, important information had to be viewed on a laptop by a number of people. This is not acceptable for such an important piece of work.
f. Presentations to the public were poor at the so-called consultation, speakers simply sitting at desks whilst reading the text on slides, which had maps which were so poor, they could not be understood. The important thing about a presentation is to bring things to life, not read verbatim from a slide.
g. Two pop-up stalls were organised for the city centre, but one was cancelled and not reinstated.
h. The other pop-up stall was located in a noisy and unsuitable place, where people were inclined to give a kneejerk reaction rather than considered opinions.
i. Were any exhibition/consultation events held in neighbouring districts? Colchester was once considered a regional hub/destination.
j. Embarrassingly, some of those leading the consultations were not familiar with the city and were unaware of many of the locations that citizens spoke of, where was the support from council officers?
k. At one meeting, it was left to a Colchester Civic Society member to explain what the rapid transport system was!

21. Rather than being consulted, Colchester Civic Society has been briefed. We had been promised a meeting with senior member of the City Council to discuss our concerns, but it never happened.

22. Colchester Civic Society do not believe an asset-based community development approach has been embraced by the consultation process and that is most disappointing.

23. In summation, Colchester Civic Society, which has been referred to as a major consultee, has not been given that status and we feel let down by the city council and county council. This Masterplan does not represent an acceptable approach to building sustainable, mutually supportive communities for the future.

Our Colchester Business Improvement District (BID) welcomes the opportunity of significant investment in the City Centre and supports the theory of establishing a City Centre Masterplan.

However, it has significant concerns over several proposals presented within the proposal, some items it would not be able to support such as any mechanism of charging to access the City Centre.

Other concerns are centred around business deliveries/collections and importantly the timings and phasing of any works proposed. It would not want to see major schemes at both ends of the City Centre at the same time for example. It also considers that the delivery of the RTS is an important driver to the economy of the city centre and cannot afford to be delivered late or out of sequence to other works.

After careful consideration of the Masterplan document, the BID considers that it does nothing to promote or enhance retail operations in the city, in fact it is of the opinion that it will create more barriers to existing or potential retail operators.

The BID would welcome being included at the very early stages of development to understand and influence any implications on businesses and would ask for reassurances that any concerns it raises will be taken into consideration by both the City and County Councils respectively.

The BID has considered fully the Masterplan document but has also commented on the Colchester City Centre Transport Plan as it sees this as an important and integral document to the Masterplan.

The BID will respond to planning applications or traffic regulation orders that affect the delivery of the Masterplan.

Therefore, please find attached the BIDs detailed response to both documents, together with a copy of the Economic Impact Assessment it commissioned, which emphasises and supports the BID’s comments on the absolute necessity that schemes are phased, carried out and completed in a fully controlled concise manner to ensure the economic impact on the City Centre is lessened as much as possible.

The BID is not against the Masterplan in full but does not and cannot support some aspects of it. It is pleased
that it will be able to comment more fully for each element requiring its own separate planning permission or
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and it reserves the right to do that as the plan is developed and progressed.
The BID will always take the requirements of its levy payers and security of the City Centre’s viability and
economy into account when responding to specific elements.

It is the BIDs view that this plan, as proposed, does absolutely nothing to promote or enhance retail operations
in the City Centre, in fact it actually presents more challenges to current operators and does nothing to entice
new enterprise with many more barriers to trade.

The BID asks:
• How will the impact on business be monitored during this process, and by whom?
• Is there a Future Transport Strategy in existence, if so can the BID please be provided with a copy.
• The BID understands that the CCTP needs to be submitted to the bus companies. What impact/weight
will their comments have on the Masterplan and what steps will the council take to enforce any aspect on them if they won’t accept the changes?

In the ‘Profile’ area of the Masterplan (pg 10) it refers to ‘success critical’, the BID makes the following
comments:
- it is important that it understands how agreement on any monitoring and evaluation is carried out
- would insist that these strategies be agreed before any works start
- would like to know who will carry out the evaluations
- what happens if the effects are negative on the city

The BID is also very aware that there will be considerable disruption to businesses during the times of change
and construction, therefore it would implore Essex County Council to fully engage with them ahead of works
to allow discussions to take place around:
• Continuity of business deliveries
• Changes to delivery points including arrangements for temporary loading provisions
• To allow the businesses to be informed and able to operate with as little disruption as practically possible.
• Timings of schemes before they start in order to develop full communications to businesses. It would not want to see both ends of the city centre being affected by construction works at the same time and would implore a full strategic plan be developed to account for various construction schemes at an early stage.

The BID considers that the delivery of the RTS will be the most significant driver to the economy of the City
Centre. It also considers that timings on the sale of the development sites at Vineyard and Britannia car parks
for residential should be delayed until the major schemes have been delivered.

Constraints and opportunities

Private car
The BID is disappointed that the council sees ‘the removal of traffic in the City Centre as major retailers/chains
are likely to be moving further out towards retail parks in urban periphery’ as an opportunity. We would urge
the council to do everything in its power to retain any retailer, be it chain or independent in the City Centre.

Servicing and deliveries
The perceived opportunity that ‘city centre traffic restrictions still allow businesses in the centre to receive
their deliveries during the overnight period’ is ill conceived. A lot of City Centre businesses would be unable to
influence when their deliveries are delivered. This ‘overnight period’ would be unworkable for all businesses,
both large and small. There may very well be cost implications to having deliveries in this manner which the
businesses may consider a burden and barrier to trade, consequently the centre may lose operators as a
result.

Last mile delivery hubs would be impractical for small/independent and national businesses, please see
comments at FL2/3 in the table for further comments on this.

The suggestion of implementing a service to book and manage kerbside deliveries is also unworkable for most
businesses. The BID is of the opinion that this reference should be removed from the document.

Growth areas and transport
‘Free parking is being offered at major retail hubs outside of the city centre, attracting retail users and
reducing footfall and expenditure’. This is a real concern of most operators, large and small. There is a
noticeable reduction in footfall with a lot of operators reporting the challenges they face on a daily basis.
There doesn’t appear to be any remedy in the Masterplan to counter this. Indeed, some of the Masterplan
proposals would actually hinder these aspects and make the challenges even more acute.

Placemaking – Urban design strategy (pg 58)
Do the 5 documents referred to in this section exist? – could the BID please be provided with them.

Specific sites
St Johns Street
Please see comments AT8/ID6/ID5/ID3/ID4 of the attached table

Southway
- The BID would question why it is necessary to add pedestrian controlled crossing points over this road. It is a
strategic A road constructed to alleviate traffic from the City Centre. It is heavily congested particularly at peak
times with imposed restrictions on traffic flows from these crossing points, the road will be even more congested for longer periods. There are existing subways beneath the road, if these were improved as per AT1 then they would be much safer. These subways also contain historic artworks by Henry and Joyce Collins, recently restored by the Civic Society with a grant from Heritage Lottery Fund.

- The BID is of the opinion that any new or existing traffic light installations on Southway are significantly logic
and sequenced so as not to work against each other, thus allowing the continuous flow of traffic along the road.

- The BID would welcome the opportunity of working with partners to establish a strategic study of this area,
addressing the congestion and opportunities before any works are undertaken. The implication on the traffic
cannot be underestimated at this location, if it is more difficult for people to access the city centre and these
crossings are an increased barrier, then visitors/shoppers will go elsewhere.

-The suggestion at item 12, page 71 implies that existing buildings along this route will be redeveloped. This
will be a decision wholly for the premises owner unless the council intends to purchase these under a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). Is it the council’s intention to do this?

St Botolph’s
- This is the subject of a separate consultation, the BID will respond to that separately.

High Street
- The suggestion to have all bus stops situated near the Spar shop would be insufficient space for the quantity
of buses currently stopping in the High Street. Is it envisaged that the Park and Ride, and later the RTS buses, use this space also, or will they be maintained on the stands they are today?

- The suggestion to relocate the taxi rank from outside ex M&S to the loading bay outside of the Town Hall will
not work. The loading bay outside of the Town Hall holds a maximum of 4 vehicles, 3 comfortably. The number of taxis on the rank outside ex M&S is often upwards of 10 as they dual park along that stretch. Coupled with this the loading bay is required for the businesses of the High Street to achieve deliveries/collection.

- The BID would welcome a detailed study into ensuring sufficient blue badge parking is provided/maintained.
- The potential widening for the first 30-40m to avoid loading bays dominating the gateways to High Street is
not welcome if it removes the loading facilities for businesses. The BID suggests that a full study is
commissioned of the businesses that trade on the High Street as to where they load so that any changes to
loading provisions can be effectively planned and sufficient space allocated.

- The suggestion of an east-west cycleway for the south side of the street is impractical as this would remove
all loading provisions. The suggestion that Culver Street be used could be possible, except that is a pedestrian
zone between 11am-4pm (10am-4pm on Fridays). Is the council suggesting that this effectively becomes ‘shared space’, which would by its very nature present its own problems and challenges with particular reference to the vulnerable, infirm, and visually impaired visitors.

Queen Street pg 73
– ‘Public realm design to allow for necessary deliveries’ the BID would like to understand what this classification actually means. Deliveries for businesses in this area must be considered and provided for.
- The ‘strictly controlled for authorised users only ‘ what is the determination of an authorised user and who will enforce any restrictions in this area?

Vineyard Street car park area
– The proposal doesn’t seem to take account of the newly installed cycle track in this location.

Osborne Street car park Pg 71
- The suggestion of developing a ‘waiting area for delivery drivers’ infers that deliveries vehicles will be
expected to park here and walk/barrow deliveries to businesses, or that businesses come to collect from the
trucks. This is impra ctical and would be a barrier to trade in the city centre.

Former bus station site Pg 72
-The suggestion that a new fully accessible pedestrian link through the Roman Wall be created is bizarre
bearing in mind the majority of the Masterplan is to promote the city’s heritage. The BID would suggest that
this aspect be removed from the plan and another route established.

- The ‘strictly controlled for authorised users only ‘ what is the determination of an authorised user and who
will enforce any restrictions in this area?

Crouch Street West and East

The plan shows cycle track provisions along these streets. The proposed scheme under TRAF-7880-Revision 1
has been stopped by Essex County Council very recently following a public consultation. Does the Masterplan
mean that the businesses and residents are again under the threat of this scheme without amendments, or
will a new scheme be found that provides for both businesses and residents groups comments and objections to the original proposal to be negated and that allows all parties to achieve a workable solution.