Colchester City Centre Masterplan SPD

See attachment for full submission

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking

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

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

Public Transport

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

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

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

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

Tourism

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

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

Other Observations

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

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

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

Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking

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

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

Public Transport

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

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

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

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

Tourism

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

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

Other Observations

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

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

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

Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking

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

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

Public Transport

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

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

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

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

Tourism

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

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

Other Observations

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

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

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

Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking

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

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

Public Transport

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

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

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

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

Tourism

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

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

Other Observations

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

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

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

Consultation

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

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

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

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

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