03 Design Frameworks

The city centre has two fully pedestrianized shopping precincts as does not need a low traffic High street. Adding additional street level crossing to southway will increase congestion. The former bus station would be better suited to return as a bus station.
Brittania and vineyard car parks should not be developed into housing, Colchester is already unrecognizable due to over development. St. Botolphs roundabout is only a black spot due to ECC and CCC forcing more traffic towards it, because of the number of bus lanes and traffic orders on the High street.

As a Colchester cyclist of 65 years, I read with great pleasure of you the Colchester Borough Councils Masterplan for the Town Centre. It looks great to me. I’ve always thought that now Stane Park come Tollgate Stanway is finished as a out of town hub welcoming mainly motor cars. The centre of Colchester could easily become car free apart of course for buses, taxis, bicycles and of course pedestrians walking. I am probably it would seem at this present time in a minority for the hopeful demolition of Crouch Street Subway. Essex County Council’s proposal of cycle lane is great. It would reunite Crouch Street east to west as it was prior 1975. So once again I trust your wonderful masterplan gets complete approval and finally rid Colchester centre free of motor cars, think how tranquil it would be and safer.

Thank you for consulting the Forestry Commission on your new Masterplan and SEA/HRA documents.

The only suggestion we would make is to perhaps introduce street trees into new developments and existing streets. Some councils have agreed that all new streets in new developments, will be tree lined.

Street trees can help improve air quality in city centres, help with flood risk and can lower temperatures during hot weather. They provide valuable green infrastructure for both residents and biodiversity.

Great to see rdbt being replaced by a signalled X-roads
- the first of many I hope -
But this is NOT latest / best practice – see attached

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

See attachment for full submission

My main worry is the lack of forethought with the removal of all public car parking for the south and west of the city. With the removal of the Britannia and Vineyard gate car parks for housing and the recommendations for closure of St Mary's and St Johns due to structural decay this will leave huge swathes of the city without adequate access to the centre. It may have escaped your notice that bus services have been reduced by 75% . With the 1000 homes to be built on the Middlewick ranges and the huge development of Mersea Island there is no joined up thinking for public transport to the south.
I would like to know if the planners actually visited the site at Britannia. The bottom properties of the proposed tower blocks will have an excellent view of the station retaining wall while some residents will have the joy of people on the platform looking through their windows and the less desirable travellers lobbing missiles at them.
The rest of the plan is pretty good although there is still not enough joined up thinking on how to attract tourists and provide enough facilities for them. With all the museums and galleries in one sector you need to think more about showing off the history of the rest of the city as they do in York, Warwick, Chester, Poole etc.

Re Vineyard Gate p84(3) This area is owned by us (title no. EX811717). How will you attempt to acquire this? What is the timescale? When can we make further representations? Lack of access to this area will prevent our members from participating fully in the life of the church, and will greatly impact the use of the premises by various outside community organisations and charities. This is the only parking for our church Monday to Saturday due to the vehicular access to our Eld Lane carpark being restricted by the council in a pedestrianised area.

[SEE ATTACHMENT]
Currently The Headgate is at the end of a depressing, run-down cul de sac, with roadway/ pavements in extremely poor condition, creating a hazard for wheelchairs and pedestrians, particularly after dark. There is no cycle parking and no designated disabled parking for our users. The open waste management area associated with the Playhouse encourages inappropriate use/fly tipping. Closure of St John’s carpark from 7pm is a serious deterrent to our audiences.
The proposals to improve the public realm around the Chapel Street North are welcomed, and could help us to implement our ambition for ramped access to the main entrance.

Reducing car access and car parking is NOT the way to return vibrancy to Colchester.

Restricting people's choices on how to access the town will reduce foot traffic. Town centres should NOT be made to increase residential accommodation - we need the convenience and attraction of practical and interesting shops - such as M&S who must've had insufficient incentive to stay in the town.

If you are genuinely interested in improving Colchester, it's time to listen to the opinions of the residents, and not force financially-incentivised, unwanted changes on our community.

I do NOT support the proposed changes. In hope that this is not ignored.

Congratulations on your City status I hope you will use the open doors wisely to encourage people to Colchester.

I am a landlord of several properties close to the city centre, and I am concerned about the current trends to prioritise cycling over vehicles.

My tradesmen and myself live outside of Colchester and the only practical way to arrive with tools and conduct business is vehicles. Please ensure this is a consideration in your plans. I am opposed to a ULEZ approach that would greatly impact on a tradesman costs with the potential to make them even more scarce and turn down jobs within any ULEZ zone or make pricing the area exceptionally high.

For your own good, please note affluent People do not travel by bus, serious shoppers do not cycle - if you wish commerce you thrive convenient accessible parking is essential.

Your competitor Chelmsford is destroying parking and my home town has again a chance to be vibrant and great once again. Please take it.

I do not wish to see Colchester reduce or restrict car access and car parking. Reducing the ease with which residents can get into the centre will kill it, not regenerate it. Coming in via public transport is costly both in time, money and hassle, not to mention impractical for those of us who live on the outskirts with elderly parents and dogs to consider.

Colchester used to be a wonderful town and a real treat to visit. The 'improvements' thus far have started to kill the town and no matter how well intentioned these new ones are, it will make matters worse.

Everyone I know in West Bergholt drives 20 mins to Sudbury rather than come into Colchester which is only 10 mins away. Cars are welcome in Sudbury with 2 hours free parking and a good selection of market stalls and independent retailers. If you want Colchester to thrive, that's how you do it.

If these plans go ahead I know a significant number of people who will never come to Colchester again and that would be such a shame.

Concerns over Middlewick being developed. This must not go ahead - the rare birds alone should be reason enough not to develop that land. It's criminal to do otherwise.

Completely in support of decongesting Colchester City Centre, together with enhancing and enriching other city centre activities and economy, but believe that a major part of that decongesting should be to remove buses from the High Street. This could be accomplished by providing a larger bus station/hub than currently exists in Osborne Street, that all bus routes go through, and can be caught on, and that is located away from the High Street. This would then allow the High Street to be completely pedestrianised, reducing pollution and allowing full development of supporting businesses, including evening economy later than 5pm!

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also agree with the success criteria.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ST BOTOLPH’S STREET/QUEEN STREET CONTRAFLOW DETAILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

We also agree with the success criteria.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ST BOTOLPH’S STREET/QUEEN STREET CONTRAFLOW DETAILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. If it is intended to further restrict vehicles into the City Centre, then it would be essential to ensure there is an effective ring route around the City Centre and adequate parking on the periphery. The Masterplan shown clearly restricts both vehicles into the centre and creates congestion on the current routes around the centre, due to the Miriam of additional and enhanced surface crossings proposed at Balkerne Hill, Southway and Sy Botolphs. Together with no clear increase in peripheral parking will strangle the City Centre, result is much reduced footfall for businesses and increased air pollution and other emissions in those areas.

2. Restricting car parking access further to the immediate vicinity of the centre discriminates against those with hidden disabilities who would find it difficult to get a Blue Badge. Maintaining good access to Blue Badge holders is also vital.

3. Many decades of failed planning policy eg preventing housing uses in town centres, encouraging out of town retail, restricting car parking in the centre and of course the fatally flawed business rates system has resulted in the haemorrhaging of retail outlets in the City Centre and in the ghost town syndrome at night, with only bars and clubs and anti social behaviour thriving. The Council is actively developing a new out of town cinema which will inevitably accelerate the demise of the Odeon and the loss of another beneficial City Centre use.

4. Generally the Masterplan document is full of lovely wishes and ideals, but the main focus in practice is to make it ever more difficult for people to visit the City Centre without cycling and the reality is likely to be less

5. As a final point, it seems that public consultations are being done piecemeal with repeated consultations when the results are not in tune with the Councils’ (ECC and CC) wishes. The Lexden Road cycleway, Crouch Street and the Subway closure are all perfect examples of this. The Masterplan effectively presents them as de facto agreements, but only in peripheral terms. Presumably this is a disguise so they can then be presented as having been supported by the ‘agreed Masterplan’ which is based on these decisions having already been made. None of the consultations are sufficiently honest to set out the disadvantages as well as advantages in a way the general public can clearly understand; presumably due the fear the public will reject the idealistic proposals and support practical measures to make their lives better instead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. If it is intended to further restrict vehicles into the City Centre, then it would be essential to ensure there is an effective ring route around the City Centre and adequate parking on the periphery. The Masterplan shown clearly restricts both vehicles into the centre and creates congestion on the current routes around the centre, due to the Miriam of additional and enhanced surface crossings proposed at Balkerne Hill, Southway and Sy Botolphs. Together with no clear increase in peripheral parking will strangle the City Centre, result is much reduced footfall for businesses and increased air pollution and other emissions in those areas.

2. Restricting car parking access further to the immediate vicinity of the centre discriminates against those with hidden disabilities who would find it difficult to get a Blue Badge. Maintaining good access to Blue Badge holders is also vital.

3. Many decades of failed planning policy eg preventing housing uses in town centres, encouraging out of town retail, restricting car parking in the centre and of course the fatally flawed business rates system has resulted in the haemorrhaging of retail outlets in the City Centre and in the ghost town syndrome at night, with only bars and clubs and anti social behaviour thriving. The Council is actively developing a new out of town cinema which will inevitably accelerate the demise of the Odeon and the loss of another beneficial City Centre use.

4. Generally the Masterplan document is full of lovely wishes and ideals, but the main focus in practice is to make it ever more difficult for people to visit the City Centre without cycling and the reality is likely to be less

5. As a final point, it seems that public consultations are being done piecemeal with repeated consultations when the results are not in tune with the Councils’ (ECC and CC) wishes. The Lexden Road cycleway, Crouch Street and the Subway closure are all perfect examples of this. The Masterplan effectively presents them as de facto agreements, but only in peripheral terms. Presumably this is a disguise so they can then be presented as having been supported by the ‘agreed Masterplan’ which is based on these decisions having already been made. None of the consultations are sufficiently honest to set out the disadvantages as well as advantages in a way the general public can clearly understand; presumably due the fear the public will reject the idealistic proposals and support practical measures to make their lives better instead.

The Colchester Master Plan announced with great fanfare is deeply flawed. It’s extraordinary that you’re planning on doing away with a roundabout to install a junction, which whatever you say, will create longer, deeper traffic jams. Why aren’t you using the money to improve what is already there?

It is even more incomprehensible that a city council in a county that has as its slogan, "Safer, Greener, Healthier” has commissioned a plan ‘for the next hundred years’, a very dodgy proposition at a time when most of us don’t know what will happen next week, and which has omitted a, if not the key element to achieving its aims. Maybe your futuristic views indicate that buses and coaches will no longer be used? But what about now?

The key to safer, greener, healthier is to provide alternative means of transport, especially public transport. Perhaps most councillors do not use buses. We know they don’t use bicycles. But I do. Since last September the service has deteriorated badly. Last week my sister and I returned from Norwich by train. It took one hour. I live in St Mary’s, she lives in Copford. I decided to wait with her for her bus. It took longer for me to reach Crouch Street from North Station than the train journey from Norwich. My sister’s journey to Copford took far, far longer. We are both in our late seventies, and rely on buses, but sadly they are not reliable.

We are the people you are supposed to be helping. Because I live in the centre, I naively think that traversing Colchester by bus should be possible, but if I need to arrive on time for appointments, I’m obliged to get taxis. So far, I can still afford to do this, but it is costly and shouldn’t be necessary. It is also impossible early morning and late afternoon because of school runs, traffic jams etc. My husband is 88 years so it’s even worse for him. We don’t have a car and we no longer cycle, but even if we did, it would be impossible for us to carry shopping on our bikes.

Each week, I wait in vain to read that Colchester City Council is aware of the lack of a comprehensive, reliable bus system. I am constantly disappointed by the lack of new ideas, not only in the provision of buses, but also in the way to achieve a good service. If central government is indifferent to this question, why are you not combining with other councils to push forward changes? If you are being party political, shame on you. We deserve better.

Just as disappointing and incomprehensible is the lack of provision for a bus and coach station in the Master Plan. I was gobsmacked that the inadequate place marked out on the Master Plan for the bus and coach station, an afterthought in the so called traffic hub, is only a possible site for a potential bus and coach station. It was stressed at the Culver Street consultation expo that it was only a potential. With this sort of wishy washing thinking, provision for buses there is unlikely to be better than the ad hoc, appalling arrangement currently in place. There is no provision for people with mobility problems, those in wheelchairs or who find walking and standing difficult. A bus and coach station should be a key element in any city plan, let alone one with declared aims of safer, greener, healthier.

Colchester City Council knew for many years before the demise of the old station, that a new one would have to be built. It's pathetic to suggest that you don’t know where to put it. Why don’t you ask your councillors, or radical thought, the people of Colchester? Leicester’s new highly regarded St Margaret’s Bus and Coach station was built with £14.3 million of central government money, a sum well within reach, as we know from all the cycle schemes you are implementing. Why aren’t you asking for funding too? Why are you tinkering with symptoms rather than attacking the cause?

I’ve been told that buses are boring, but if you ask Colcestrians what they want, it is very simple. They’d like roads without potholes, pavements where loose paving stones do not trip them up, a reliable, comprehensive bus service, with a proper bus and coach station. They’d also like shops, both independent and useful, for all those residents you’re putting in buildings in the centre without parking provision, but that’s a whole other issue. The old bus station may have been a pit, but it was there, with facilities, and everyone knew where the buses and coaches stopped and started.

There are so many really big issues which are causing Colchester residents concern and distress, such as constant building without provision for necessary infrastructure of roads, health services, schools etc. Most of us don’t see signs that the council is aware of our problems. It's depressing. At the moment, I have the horrible feeling that you are creating ASBO land in our centre. Others think so too.

We don't want any more ridiculous questions on the lines of 'would you like sustainable travel and less pollution’. Of course we do. We all know the questions are only there for you to justify whatever you want to do.

My plea is for a more imaginative use of the Vineyard Street car park site. I would like to see tall “sheds”, as at Borough Street market in London, above, housing a range of activities – music, markets, food fairs, street food, residents’ and traders’ bric-a-brac sales, children’s
events … all under cover.

There could be permanent market stalls (as at Borough), with the main space being used for other activities when they are closed.

This is a far better site for this than Britannia car park, which is off centre.

Some of the buildings on the Roman wall could be demolished to allow a clear view of what is going on, and the Roman wall would be appreciated rather than being hidden by homes.

Two sets of steps (one with a gentle ramp) could reach round from Osborne Street to join up with Eld Lane, giving a good pedestrian link between the south of the city and Lion Walk shopping centre.

Note how Altrincham centre has been revived by its food market.

Park and Ride
Park and ride was an outdated idea by the time Colchester got around to it. That said, it is here and we ought to maximise its use to offset the £1 million pa revenue subsidy. I have tried for years to get P&R direction signs put on the A12 from the west of J26/27 for eastbound motorists and north of J29 for south/westbound motorists – but no luck. This is red tape: the DfT imposing its will to the detriment of the taxpayer and the city and city centre in general. Can the masterplan do anything towards this?

Deliveries
I would urge Colchester to look at a city centre delivery service such as this, perhaps making use of a unit at the Sheepen retail park as a depot. Cargo bikes could be employed too.

Business rates
Councillors should lobby for business rates reform so that
out-of-town retail units (eg Asda, Tesco and those at Stane Park) over a certain square metreage have to charge customers for car parking. This would level up the playing field between OOT and the city centre.

Walk and wheel routes
I fully back the submission by the Colchester Cycling Campaign. This is the time to be brave. I support two-way working of Queen St/St Botolph’s St and High St. If Queen Street/St Botolph’s cannot be achieved (I think it can!) then the masterplan route to the west of that road should connect Arthur Street with Vineyard Street and Long Wyre Street and High Street (although levels are an issue).

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”.

See attachment for full submission.

See attachment for full submission.

See attachment for full submission.

See attachment for full submission.