02 Vision and Masterplan

See attachment for full submission

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

See attachment for full submission

Climate Change
We note that Colchester City Council is treating the issue of climate change as an emergency and have developed a detailed climate emergency action plan.

We support the approaches you have laid out in the city centre masterplan including the Zero Emission Zone, car-lite access restrictions and the pedestrian corridors.

We have noted a number of pedestrian corridors throughout the city. The Colchester local plan section 2 encourages the use of green corridors. We would welcome more consideration to green corridors within the city for their benefits to the environment particularly on biodiversity and for tackling climate change. Green corridors between green spaces can be particularly ecologically beneficial to encourage the safe movement of wildlife around the city.

Throughout the masterplan there are new residential allocation aswell as other developments. We encourage tree planting, green walls and roofs especially along
the transport corridors. These provide multi-functional benefits including carbon sequestration, reducing exposure to poor air quality, wellbeing and biodiversity
gains, flood resilience, and shading and cooling of buildings. We would recommend that where possible trees that are planted are native species.

Biodiversity
Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is an approach to development which aims to leave nature in a measurably better state than beforehand. It is recognised as a powerful way to deliver wider outcomes that benefit the environment, wildlife and people. BNG offers considerable scope to help create resilience places, through maximising opportunities to improve the water environment, manage flood risk and addressing climate risks.

The local plan sets out the local councils targets for Biodiversity net gain for new developments as the government target of 10%. We would welcome more active consideration to biodiversity and these development targets to be included in this document.

Water quality and resources

Water Pollution

We suggest a policy that encourages the use of SuDS in Urban areas because water pollution can be exacerbated by run-off from urban areas. SuDS should be designed
to deliver multiple environmental benefits such as flood risk and water quality management, biodiversity and landscape enhancement, and improve amenity,
access and open space. Any SuDS designs will need to be in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SuDS Manual. This would be in line with the NPPF paragraph
174 section E and the inclusion of a policy around the use of SuDS will help protect the environment and ensure that uses of the water (such as a source of drinking water, or for amenity) can continue.

On page 44 you seek to encourage the use of the river through the point below.

7.develop riverside access and amenities

We would strongly encourage that measures be put in place to see water quality and habitats are protected for wildlife.

Water Resources and Groundwater Pressures

We encourage water efficiency measures and SuDS and consideration should be given to the stressed groundwater resources within the area. We have previously mentioned the use of SuDS earlier in our response with regards to water runoff from Urban Development. SuDS are also an effective measure with regards to Water resourcing issues. A policy should consider rainwater harvesting and infiltration should be used to aid aquifer recharge. Any policy to support this should encourage the review of groundwater quality as well as the potential river pollution.

Climate Change
We note that Colchester City Council is treating the issue of climate change as an emergency and have developed a detailed climate emergency action plan.

We support the approaches you have laid out in the city centre masterplan including the Zero Emission Zone, car-lite access restrictions and the pedestrian corridors.

We have noted a number of pedestrian corridors throughout the city. The Colchester local plan section 2 encourages the use of green corridors. We would welcome more consideration to green corridors within the city for their benefits to the environment particularly on biodiversity and for tackling climate change. Green corridors between green spaces can be particularly ecologically beneficial to encourage the safe movement of wildlife around the city.

Throughout the masterplan there are new residential allocation aswell as other developments. We encourage tree planting, green walls and roofs especially along
the transport corridors. These provide multi-functional benefits including carbon sequestration, reducing exposure to poor air quality, wellbeing and biodiversity
gains, flood resilience, and shading and cooling of buildings. We would recommend that where possible trees that are planted are native species.

Biodiversity
Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is an approach to development which aims to leave nature in a measurably better state than beforehand. It is recognised as a powerful way to deliver wider outcomes that benefit the environment, wildlife and people. BNG offers considerable scope to help create resilience places, through maximising opportunities to improve the water environment, manage flood risk and addressing climate risks.

The local plan sets out the local councils targets for Biodiversity net gain for new developments as the government target of 10%. We would welcome more active consideration to biodiversity and these development targets to be included in this document.

Water quality and resources

Water Pollution

We suggest a policy that encourages the use of SuDS in Urban areas because water pollution can be exacerbated by run-off from urban areas. SuDS should be designed
to deliver multiple environmental benefits such as flood risk and water quality management, biodiversity and landscape enhancement, and improve amenity,
access and open space. Any SuDS designs will need to be in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SuDS Manual. This would be in line with the NPPF paragraph
174 section E and the inclusion of a policy around the use of SuDS will help protect the environment and ensure that uses of the water (such as a source of drinking water, or for amenity) can continue.

On page 44 you seek to encourage the use of the river through the point below.

7.develop riverside access and amenities

We would strongly encourage that measures be put in place to see water quality and habitats are protected for wildlife.

Water Resources and Groundwater Pressures

We encourage water efficiency measures and SuDS and consideration should be given to the stressed groundwater resources within the area. We have previously mentioned the use of SuDS earlier in our response with regards to water runoff from Urban Development. SuDS are also an effective measure with regards to Water resourcing issues. A policy should consider rainwater harvesting and infiltration should be used to aid aquifer recharge. Any policy to support this should encourage the review of groundwater quality as well as the potential river pollution.

Climate Change
We note that Colchester City Council is treating the issue of climate change as an emergency and have developed a detailed climate emergency action plan.

We support the approaches you have laid out in the city centre masterplan including the Zero Emission Zone, car-lite access restrictions and the pedestrian corridors.

We have noted a number of pedestrian corridors throughout the city. The Colchester local plan section 2 encourages the use of green corridors. We would welcome more consideration to green corridors within the city for their benefits to the environment particularly on biodiversity and for tackling climate change. Green corridors between green spaces can be particularly ecologically beneficial to encourage the safe movement of wildlife around the city.

Throughout the masterplan there are new residential allocation aswell as other developments. We encourage tree planting, green walls and roofs especially along
the transport corridors. These provide multi-functional benefits including carbon sequestration, reducing exposure to poor air quality, wellbeing and biodiversity
gains, flood resilience, and shading and cooling of buildings. We would recommend that where possible trees that are planted are native species.

Biodiversity
Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is an approach to development which aims to leave nature in a measurably better state than beforehand. It is recognised as a powerful way to deliver wider outcomes that benefit the environment, wildlife and people. BNG offers considerable scope to help create resilience places, through maximising opportunities to improve the water environment, manage flood risk and addressing climate risks.

The local plan sets out the local councils targets for Biodiversity net gain for new developments as the government target of 10%. We would welcome more active consideration to biodiversity and these development targets to be included in this document.

Water quality and resources

Water Pollution

We suggest a policy that encourages the use of SuDS in Urban areas because water pollution can be exacerbated by run-off from urban areas. SuDS should be designed
to deliver multiple environmental benefits such as flood risk and water quality management, biodiversity and landscape enhancement, and improve amenity,
access and open space. Any SuDS designs will need to be in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SuDS Manual. This would be in line with the NPPF paragraph
174 section E and the inclusion of a policy around the use of SuDS will help protect the environment and ensure that uses of the water (such as a source of drinking water, or for amenity) can continue.

On page 44 you seek to encourage the use of the river through the point below.

7.develop riverside access and amenities

We would strongly encourage that measures be put in place to see water quality and habitats are protected for wildlife.

Water Resources and Groundwater Pressures

We encourage water efficiency measures and SuDS and consideration should be given to the stressed groundwater resources within the area. We have previously mentioned the use of SuDS earlier in our response with regards to water runoff from Urban Development. SuDS are also an effective measure with regards to Water resourcing issues. A policy should consider rainwater harvesting and infiltration should be used to aid aquifer recharge. Any policy to support this should encourage the review of groundwater quality as well as the potential river pollution.

Climate Change
We note that Colchester City Council is treating the issue of climate change as an emergency and have developed a detailed climate emergency action plan.

We support the approaches you have laid out in the city centre masterplan including the Zero Emission Zone, car-lite access restrictions and the pedestrian corridors.

We have noted a number of pedestrian corridors throughout the city. The Colchester local plan section 2 encourages the use of green corridors. We would welcome more consideration to green corridors within the city for their benefits to the environment particularly on biodiversity and for tackling climate change. Green corridors between green spaces can be particularly ecologically beneficial to encourage the safe movement of wildlife around the city.

Throughout the masterplan there are new residential allocation aswell as other developments. We encourage tree planting, green walls and roofs especially along
the transport corridors. These provide multi-functional benefits including carbon sequestration, reducing exposure to poor air quality, wellbeing and biodiversity
gains, flood resilience, and shading and cooling of buildings. We would recommend that where possible trees that are planted are native species.

Biodiversity
Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is an approach to development which aims to leave nature in a measurably better state than beforehand. It is recognised as a powerful way to deliver wider outcomes that benefit the environment, wildlife and people. BNG offers considerable scope to help create resilience places, through maximising opportunities to improve the water environment, manage flood risk and addressing climate risks.

The local plan sets out the local councils targets for Biodiversity net gain for new developments as the government target of 10%. We would welcome more active consideration to biodiversity and these development targets to be included in this document.

Water quality and resources

Water Pollution

We suggest a policy that encourages the use of SuDS in Urban areas because water pollution can be exacerbated by run-off from urban areas. SuDS should be designed
to deliver multiple environmental benefits such as flood risk and water quality management, biodiversity and landscape enhancement, and improve amenity,
access and open space. Any SuDS designs will need to be in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SuDS Manual. This would be in line with the NPPF paragraph
174 section E and the inclusion of a policy around the use of SuDS will help protect the environment and ensure that uses of the water (such as a source of drinking water, or for amenity) can continue.

On page 44 you seek to encourage the use of the river through the point below.

7.develop riverside access and amenities

We would strongly encourage that measures be put in place to see water quality and habitats are protected for wildlife.

Water Resources and Groundwater Pressures

We encourage water efficiency measures and SuDS and consideration should be given to the stressed groundwater resources within the area. We have previously mentioned the use of SuDS earlier in our response with regards to water runoff from Urban Development. SuDS are also an effective measure with regards to Water resourcing issues. A policy should consider rainwater harvesting and infiltration should be used to aid aquifer recharge. Any policy to support this should encourage the review of groundwater quality as well as the potential river pollution.

On behalf of Friends of Castle Park – Colchester we wish to express our concern over suggestions in the master Plan that the river running through the park could be animated and developed as a social and economic driver.

Under ‘Public realm, Open Space and Landscape Urban Design Strategy’.
‘The river is currently an untapped asset.’
‘Animating it and using it to it’s full potential as a social and economic driver’
‘Riverside access for paddle boarding, swimming and canoeing’.

We are dismayed to find that that the authors of this document regard the river as inanimate and a space suitable for economic development. The river, as it passes through the park is an important wildlife corridor, supporting a wide range of wildlife. These include otters, kingfishers, cormorants, heron, more recently egret have been seen. These fish feeding birds all testify to the health of the river in supporting a good fish population. Add to this a wide range of dragonflies, some rarely seen, and myriad smaller creatures who all add to the rich diversity of wildlife to be found in this part of the river. There is also to be found the more commonly seen swans and moorhens, all who nest on the river, and the various species of ducks who use the river.

With the path running through the park following the river, and the pedestrian bridges over the river, the life on the river is enjoyed and appreciated by many. It is a place to watch and learn more about the creatures we share our world with, especially important for young people. At this time when we are understanding more urgently the importance of protecting the diversity of the natural world in order for our planet to remain a liveable place for us, these opportunities for people to appreciate the natural world around them are a vital resource.

The river is a calm and beautiful place. We are understanding more fully the importance to our own wellbeing of spending time in such places. The mental health of our population is becoming a source of concern. Quiet, naturally beautiful places, are recognised as being of great benefit to us and to be valued.

The river through Castle Park is far from inanimate. It is a place of special value, of which we are custodians, responsible for protecting and taking care of it, not only for the wildlife whose habitat it is, but also for our own safety and wellbeing. On these grounds we object to the suggestion that the river should be regarded as ‘ an untapped resource, in need of animating and developed as a social and economic driver’.

I was somewhat concerned to read in the County Standard this weekend your claim that the Masterplan will improve 'access to the river Colne'. This is confusing, as there are already much used and much valued riverside paths on both sides of the river right through the area you cover in the plan (ie between East Street and North Hill) - except for the cricket pitch on the north bank. Assuming you are not proposing to open up the cricket ground to walkers, joggers etc, I can't see what could be meant by 'improving access'. The existing routes include two local nature reserves, two pedestrian bridges, and significant areas of grassland which have been managed since 2020 by CBC and now CCC to favour biodiversity. Am I right, then, to conclude that your promise of 'improved access' includes economic use of the river for paddleboarding, swimming and canoeing, as suggested in the Plan? I understand that this would be unsafe given levels of pollution in the river, and presence of Weil's disease, but my concern here is that any such development would entail clearance of much marginal and over-hanging vegetation, sites for moorage of vessels, staffing and invasive disturbance of habitats.

As you know, CCC will be required to demonstrate biodiversity net gain in its planning, but the Plan takes no account of biodiversity at all. If the suggested use of the river as a 'social and economic driver' is implemented, then the habitats nurtured and enhanced over recent yours by CCC's own policies will be trashed - with NET LOSS of biodiversity.

It would be advisable to take these suggestions out of the plan at this stage, as they will be deeply divisive, and distract attention from the many positive suggestions relating to transport and the built environment. My thinking here chimes with that of numerous other individuals and organised stakeholders in the city, so a clear reply to the points would be really appreciated.

The plan comments on various green spaces within Colchester but only as an adjunct to the built up spaces and only seem to be important for healthy exercise. There is no mention of the very important day of vital importance to wildlife ecology and biodiversity. Colchester City Council (CCC) has statements on biodiversity elsewhere in their general manifesto. However, there is nothing in this master plan referencing this.
2 Animating the river and using it to its full potential as a social and economic driver
The proposals for the Riverside are particularly alarming. This area is much used by residents and visitors alike for quiet walking nature watching etc. These activities are essential for mental health and well-being. There are a significant range of birds (cetti’s warbler, black-cap, whitethroat, kingfisher, green and greater spotted woodpecker and many other species) mammals (including otters) and invertebrates (e.g. dragonflies – so far 17 species recorded, including the scarce ‘hairy’ dragonfly, and the recently arrived willow emerald), - all of which would be significantly harmed if the area is used for paddle boarding canoeing swimming etc.
1. Roman Wall Park - new city park that considers the Roman Wall and its setting in its entirety
There is no detail on management and no reference to biodiversity or indeed of nature in the wider sense. There is an opportunity here for sympathetic management which would enhance public use and enjoyment, as well as increasing/maintaining biodiversity. However, merely putting concrete/ tarmac paths along the wall will not do this. Options need to be considered and the relevant experts consulted.

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. 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 masterplan includes
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.
Urban refuges like this are essential for maintaining biodiversity.
Biodiversity and nature should not be an afterthought but integral part of the plan and carry as much weight as other factors (including making money from ‘amenities’).

I agree with the principle, but Colchester seems to forget that it has a large rural hinterland. Unless public transport is improved for those visiting their city, the plan is at odds with reality. Tiptree with a large population of over 10,000 does not have an adequate bus service to Colchester. Instead of large lumbering buses being used out of peak hours, a fleet of smaller vehicles that run more frequently is required. A town bus service of every 10 minutes is good. Outside the town every 20 minutes would be acceptable, but the best we have ever had is 30 minutes and it is now reduced to 60 minutes outside peak times. This is inconvenient for appointment times (you even need an appointment to do simple banking transactions). With an infrequent bus service this leads to killing time. What if it is raining? Can you afford to go to a cafe to kill time? Rural residents contribute to the facilities in Colchester, but an infrequent bus service in incompatible with busy lives. Tiptree has no bus service after early evening, so a trip to say the theatre is not possible without a car, and night taxi rates are not affordable for frequent trips.

I write to you as a resident of [REDACTED] to urge you to consider including plans for St Marys carpark in your master plan. The Council and police are aware of the constant and continual anti social behaviour that is experienced in St Mary’s Car Park and the impact this has on the neighbouring residents and local businesses for far too long. The masterplan was the perfect opportunity to address this in the long term, creating a safe car park for residents and visitors to use when visiting the cultural area of Jumbo, Balkerne Gate and the Mercury Theatre, as opposed to the race track it is currently being used as.

The anti social behaviour that continues to blight the neighbourhood of St Mary's almost every week wakes children, prevents residents from sleeping, not to mention the dangers it poses to not only those who's gardens back on to the car park (at the speed these drivers drive at it would take one wrong turn for them to drive straight through the wall), but to those visiting Colchester and using the car park to access the Mercury theatre and town centre. Not only do we experience ASB from drivers but on one occasion have known of a murder to take place inside the carpark.

As a mother of two very young children, a neighbour, and friend of St Mary's residents, I urge you to employ reason and impliment stricter security measures. Something must change to safeguard the residents of St Mary's, families, and individuals that come to visit our vibrant city.

The Council are aware of the constant and continual anti social behaviour that is experienced in St Mary’s Car Park and the impact this has on the neighbouring residents and local businesses. The masterplan was the golden opportunity to address this is the long term and creating a safe car park for residents and visitors to use when visiting the cultural area of Jumbo, Balkerne Gate and the Mercury Theatre.

I'm disappointed to see St John's listed for safety improvements but not St Mary's. The anti social behaviour that continues to blight the neighbourhood of St Mary's almost every week so I urge you to take the opportunity to fix it once and for all.

The Colchester Natural History Society has engaged with the Council on many matters over many years and will continue to comment and provide advice on issues related to biodiversity and the management of green spaces. The recently produced City Centre Masterplan sets out a clear vision for the future development of Colchester city centre for years to come.

The CNHS would like to see the importance of biodiversity emphasised in the Plan and the place of biodiversity in Colchester’s future strengthened. Castle Park and the adjacent riverside open spaces are hugely important sites for biodiversity and rich in wildlife, enjoyed and valued by local residents and the visitors to the area.
The proposed Roman Wall Park includes grassland and wetland by Land Lane, Riverside and King’s Head Meadow – much of which is currently managed for biodiversity following discussions with the CNHS. It’s important that any new park should have very clear aims to enhance the biodiversity.

The CNHS would be happy to meet with Members and Officers to discuss the issues further, so that our City Centre green open spaces and the riverside continue to deliver on biodiversity.

There seems to be rather too much emphasis on green policies. We understand these are important but maybe they should not be the driver for every decision.

Massive emphasis on walking and cycling to the City Centre. This is only practical if you live nearby and you are fit enough to do so. For those of us out of the centre the transport links are much more important.

Planning. We would encourage a serious look at who is responsible as recent projects leave a lot to be desired. The completely shambolic traffic solutions put in place at Tollgate show a lack of common sense.

Rapid Transit. Is this actually going to happen? We understand that a great deal of vegetation was removed from the NAR in Mile End. Over the past few months it has grown again and the work will need to be repeated. This was not a good start. What are the plans for the area in which we live?

The bus station is currently inadequate for the size of the city and should be re-considered.

A free and regular shuttle between North Station and the City centre would be worthwhile and the Digigo model could be a useful scheme.

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).

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).

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).

I attended the stall in the city centre last year to raise my concerns as to why St Mary's car park wasn't included in the masterplan 'zone'. This car park is the closest to the entertainment hub of The Mercury, The Arts Centre and Jumbo and will be part of one of the key corridors. Other car parks are being sold to build housing and the remaining car parks will need investment and improvements to ensure they are fit for purpose.

The Council (various departments), North Essex Parking Partnership and the police are all well aware of the constant and continual anti social behaviour that is experienced in the St Mary’s Car Park and the impact this has on the neighbouring residents and local businesses. The masterplan was the golden opportunity to address this is the long term and creating a safe car park for residents and visitors to use - when visiting the Mercury Theatre and Balkerne Gate and the roman walls, and one day, Jumbo when open to the public!

I'm very disappointed to see St John's listed for safety improvements but not St Mary's. The anti social behaviour that continues to blight us almost every week so I urge you to take the opportunity to fix it once and for all.

The city centre police team support safety improvements in St Mary's

The St Mary's Residents Association would like to understand why St John's car park has been included for potential safety improvements instead of St Mary's car park.

St Mary's car park will form one of the key corridors, and rightly so with so much culture just over the bridge - Balkerne Gate, Jumbo, the Roman Walls plus also the arts centre and Mercury theatre which are key to Colchester's Economy. The anti social behaviour and dangerous driving must be resolved by safety improvements first to make this car park an attractive and safe place to park for visitors and residents. St John's now closes at 7pm which has resolved much of the anti social behaviour but St Mary's still issues at least weekly. One of our residents recently recorded cars racing each other on a Sunday evening around the car park while car park users were returning their cars. Is that the experience we want for visitors? Especially if the new hotel is built in the old post office building - this will be a key car park for that.

Our residents suffer on a regular basis and have been reporting the issues since 2016. The lack of management and control over this car park leads to a loss of peaceful use of residents homes, this loss of amenity means that residents, be they newborns to the elderly, key workers and shift workers, are unable to use their homes as a place of peace and safety. We know that the police back safety measures such as barriers so we can't understand why this is not included in the masterplan.

I have completed the survey on the Masterplan, but it doesn't give me the opportunity to make any personal comments and some the questions were not helpful, so I hope that you can accept my thoughts as below.

I know that you will be receiving detailed comments on contents of the plan which will be better than I could offer. However, I am disappointed on the overall scope and imagination of the plan. It seems to concentrate on the properties owned by the City and County, but we can trust those authorities to behave responsibly with regard the future of Colchester. Surely it is more important to give other property owners and developers, now and future, a steer as to what the City wants and will accept in planning terms.

I do have one major complaint. Much attention is given to sustainable solutions and encouragement to cycling but public transport is not given appropriate attention. Indeed a senior Planning Officer said, in my hearing, that it was not intended to include the Osborne Street in the plan. This is not acceptable - it is either a complete Master Plan or it is nothing. it seems bus users are not to considered but surely it would be to everybody's advantage if public transport were to be encouraged.

Older people, young families and those with disabilities cannot be excepted to take up cycling and it is just possible that cycling will not be the cure all that we are lead to believe. Osborne Street Bus Station needs to be improved by devoting extra space to it and keeping ordinary traffic out as much as possible - instead vehicles from Osborne Street Car Park will be directed through Osborne Street and Stanwell Street, surely increasing congestion in the town centre and confusion to bus services, following the removal of the St Botolph's Roundabout. This aspect of the Plan has not been fully considered. Please look at it again.

Indeed, I hope that you will consider all the comments and take the opportunity to upgrade the Masterplan

I would like to summit a comment/objection regarding the possible development as noted on page 44 section 7 of the masterplan

7. Develop riverside access and amenities - e.g. paddleboarding, swimming, canoeing

and also on page 40 section 2

2. Animating the river and using it to its full potential as a social and economic driver


I would like to object to these proposals for a few reasons. The first being that there is so much wildlife in the area that would be disturbed if these developments went ahead. There are two pairs of breeding swans, otters, kingfishers, cootes and much more. In addition if the area was to be used for social activities eg BBQs this would produce a fire risk as the rewilded areas become tinder dry during the summer. These changes are also likely to create car parking issues along Guildford Road and Wakefield Close plus cause possible noise and pollution issues. The Riverside walks are used as a peaceful area for people to walk their dogs. If people want to use a river for these type of activities then these are available already in Dedham and Nayland.

I hope these points will be taken into review and these developments withdrawn.

See attachment for full submission.

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”.

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”.

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”.