01 Setting the Scene

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

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).

See attachment for full submission.

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.