Trial car ban on High Street unlikely to start until 2014

A TRIAL ban on cars and lorries using Colchester High Street is unlikely to start this year.

A working group will be formed to try and force through plans to ban most vehicles from the historic street, which were first unveiled in October 2010.

In March 2011, a three week public consultation was launched on Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) which would see only buses, taxis, bikes and motorbikes allowed along the High Street from 10am to 6pm.

Alan Lindsay, Essex County Council’s principal area transportation co-ordinator, disclosed that of the 180 people who responded to the TROs, only two were in favour.

He said: “The other 178 were objections.”

See Wednesday's Gazette for the full story.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:06pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Feisty CBC says...

2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation? Feisty CBC
  • Score: 0

11:47pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Boris says...

Feisty CBC wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?
To tick the box.
[quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote: 2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]To tick the box. Boris
  • Score: 0

7:29am Wed 16 Jan 13

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Boris wrote:
Feisty CBC wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?
To tick the box.
Another done deal it seems.

A working group will be formed to try and FORCE through plans. This is despite evidence of an overwhelming rejection for this crackpot scheme.

Perhaps they have a cunning plan to close the town centre altogether during the day and only open it for the clubs and bars at night.

They haven't got a clue!
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote: 2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]To tick the box.[/p][/quote]Another done deal it seems. A working group will be formed to try and FORCE through plans. This is despite evidence of an overwhelming rejection for this crackpot scheme. Perhaps they have a cunning plan to close the town centre altogether during the day and only open it for the clubs and bars at night. They haven't got a clue! Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 0

8:51am Wed 16 Jan 13

TheCaptain says...

Feisty CBC wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?
Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour.

I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.
[quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote: 2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked. TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

9:17am Wed 16 Jan 13

romantic says...

Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade. romantic
  • Score: 0

9:35am Wed 16 Jan 13

Bert_Stimpson says...

Consultations are there to be ignored. If we listened to public opinion, then amazing projects like Firsts*ite would never have happened and we would have saved a shedload of cash.
Consultations are there to be ignored. If we listened to public opinion, then amazing projects like Firsts*ite would never have happened and we would have saved a shedload of cash. [sarcasm alert] Bert_Stimpson
  • Score: 0

10:41am Wed 16 Jan 13

Hamiltonandy says...

Agree with Bert Stimpson.
.
Standard council procedure:
1. Announce disruptive and expensive plan to be implemented on a set date.
2. Have token consultation and ignore it.
3. Express astonishment at the universal outrage and flood of objections.
4. Defer start of scheme for further "consultation".
5. Ignore new token consultation and declare scheme will start soon.
6. Announce delay because there are legal problems.
7. Announce indefinite delay as there is no funding.
8. After a few months quietly put everything away in a folder and congratulate all council staff on their hard work.
Agree with Bert Stimpson. . Standard council procedure: 1. Announce disruptive and expensive plan to be implemented on a set date. 2. Have token consultation and ignore it. 3. Express astonishment at the universal outrage and flood of objections. 4. Defer start of scheme for further "consultation". 5. Ignore new token consultation and declare scheme will start soon. 6. Announce delay because there are legal problems. 7. Announce indefinite delay as there is no funding. 8. After a few months quietly put everything away in a folder and congratulate all council staff on their hard work. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 0

11:16am Wed 16 Jan 13

sandgronun64 says...

TheCaptain wrote:
Feisty CBC wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?
Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour.

I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.
Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012.

Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault.

I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given.

Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop!
[quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote: 2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.[/p][/quote]Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012. Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault. I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given. Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop! sandgronun64
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Wed 16 Jan 13

jag99 says...

180 respondents is hardly any kind indication either for or against, from a town of more than 170,000 residents...

Rather they should just get on and trial it rather than doing what's usually done in this country, which is talking and consulting, inevitably resulting in no action at all.
180 respondents is hardly any kind indication either for or against, from a town of more than 170,000 residents... Rather they should just get on and trial it rather than doing what's usually done in this country, which is talking and consulting, inevitably resulting in no action at all. jag99
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Wed 16 Jan 13

TheCaptain says...

sandgronun64 wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:
Feisty CBC wrote:
2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?
Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour.

I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.
Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012.

Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault.

I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given.

Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop!
I think you are correct.

I assumed wrongly perhaps that it was a done deal and that there was no reason to voice my consent.

Lesson learnt.
[quote][p][bold]sandgronun64[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheCaptain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Feisty CBC[/bold] wrote: 2 for 178 against. So why even bother with the consultation?[/p][/quote]Dont forget though people against something are more likely to respond that those in favour. I'm in favour, certainly of a trial and I've not been asked.[/p][/quote]Seem to remember you commenting on this story when it was proposed to start the trial in November 2012. Why wait to be asked? If you are in favour of something, yet choose not to inform the council, then it is your own fault. I suggest that anyone with strong feelings either for or against should write to the council and not wait to be asked. Furthermore, they should ask that their letter be acknowledged and a reply given. Then everyone (pro or against) can avoid being ignored by said council in one fell swoop![/p][/quote]I think you are correct. I assumed wrongly perhaps that it was a done deal and that there was no reason to voice my consent. Lesson learnt. TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Simon Taylor says...

Not another working group!

I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative?

The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.
Not another working group! I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative? The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it. Simon Taylor
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Simon Taylor says...

Not another working group!

I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative?

The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it.
Not another working group! I didn't realise that the Traffic Regulation Order consultation was intended to be a referendum. But it looks as though that's how some groups have used it. Was it not an earlier, wider consultation that prompted this latest (semi) pedestrianisation initiative? The sensible approach is to have a trial period. For goodness sake, just get on with it. Simon Taylor
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Simon Taylor says...

Double-click again...

Could the Gazette carry out one of its unscientific online polls to find out if a pedestrianisation trial is popular or not?
Double-click again... Could the Gazette carry out one of its unscientific online polls to find out if a pedestrianisation trial is popular or not? Simon Taylor
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Wed 16 Jan 13

jut1972 says...

I thought the trial could be pushed through by categorising it as a temporary road closure or something along those lines.

What a waste of time and money.
I thought the trial could be pushed through by categorising it as a temporary road closure or something along those lines. What a waste of time and money. jut1972
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Reginald47 says...

As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.
As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum. Reginald47
  • Score: 0

7:33am Thu 17 Jan 13

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Reginald47 wrote:
As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.
And too many people on this site confuse the word 'consultation' with the words 'done deal'. Or is that really confusion? Perhaps just a realisation they are going to do whatever they wanted in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: As Simon Taylor says too many people on this site confuse the word consultation with the word referendum.[/p][/quote]And too many people on this site confuse the word 'consultation' with the words 'done deal'. Or is that really confusion? Perhaps just a realisation they are going to do whatever they wanted in the first place. Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Fri 18 Jan 13

CJ1989 says...

romantic wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.
I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.

Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.

But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...
[quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote: Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through... CJ1989
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Boris says...

CJ1989 wrote:
romantic wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.
I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.

Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.

But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...
Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station.
The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote: Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...[/p][/quote]Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise. Boris
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Sun 20 Jan 13

CJ1989 says...

Boris wrote:
CJ1989 wrote:
romantic wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.
I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.

Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.

But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...
Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station.
The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.
I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars?

I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy.

I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same.

Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer?

So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote: Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...[/p][/quote]Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.[/p][/quote]I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars? I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy. I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same. Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer? So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what? CJ1989
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Hamiltonandy says...

I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.
I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 22 Jan 13

TheCaptain says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.
And I thought that in a democracy the people elected politicians to make decisions on their behalf. Has that changed?
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: I wish Colchester Council would allow a free public debate at the town hall so everyone could have their say. We need reasoned discussion. As it is, it seems the council's long preferred option is going through by dictate. But that is how Colchester Council always works and why things keep going wrong for them.[/p][/quote]And I thought that in a democracy the people elected politicians to make decisions on their behalf. Has that changed? TheCaptain
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Boris says...

CJ1989 wrote:
Boris wrote:
CJ1989 wrote:
romantic wrote:
Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.
I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised.

Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent.

But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...
Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station.
The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.
I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars?

I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy.

I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same.

Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer?

So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?
Banning cars from the High Street will in fact be productive. It will allow buses and taxis to move along it more efficiently.
Of course the market should return to High Street, where it was held for centuries. That could continue in all those parking bays, maybe on one side of the street only, and then, when one side is full, on the other side as well.
What else would you want to do in High Street? Hunt for a polecat? All Freemen of the Borough of Colchester are allowed to do that. But first, find your polecat.....
[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote: Like the Captain, I am in favour of a trial, and have never been asked. The traders who are objecting are perhaps fearing loss of trade, but my view is that a properly pedestrianised High Street would lead to more trade.[/p][/quote]I agree, but the key word is 'properly' pedestrianised. Allowing buses, taxis, bikes, and motorbikes isn't pedestrianisation, it's a waste of time and money. All of the inconvenience, with none of the advantages. Excellent. But the 'consultation' box has now been ticked, so they're free to take the next step towards forcing this absurd idea through...[/p][/quote]Pedestrianising the High Street was never planned. The plan was always for a car-free High Street. We need buses to go along the High Street, even more so now that we no longer have a bus station. The ban on cars should go ahead, whenever they are ready, but they should allow delivery vehicles in addition to buses. Some smaller shops such as Jacks could close otherwise.[/p][/quote]I know it wasn't on the cards, but really what is the point of just banning cars? I really like Chelmsford high street, they have a great market in the high street itself, and it's always vibrant and busy. I can't see any advantages of just banning cars, you still can't use the high street for anything productive as there are buses and taxis using it, yet it'll inconvenience local people and some car users all the same. Then you get into the interesting knock-on effects, I'm not sure when you last went down West Stockwell Street, but presumably that's going to have to be made two-way as there are houses and businesses only currently accessible via the high street. It's barely wide enough for one car at the moment, how will two-way traffic work? And what about the effects on the other tiny narrow roads in that area which will also suffer? So, inconvenience to plenty of people, and really for what?[/p][/quote]Banning cars from the High Street will in fact be productive. It will allow buses and taxis to move along it more efficiently. Of course the market should return to High Street, where it was held for centuries. That could continue in all those parking bays, maybe on one side of the street only, and then, when one side is full, on the other side as well. What else would you want to do in High Street? Hunt for a polecat? All Freemen of the Borough of Colchester are allowed to do that. But first, find your polecat..... Boris
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Tue 22 Jan 13

Boris says...

CJ, I forgot your point about the Dutch Quarter. Yes, no doubt they will be altering the one-way arrangements there. The residents there are highly articulate, so it is up to them to ensure a satisfactory solution for themselves.
CJ, I forgot your point about the Dutch Quarter. Yes, no doubt they will be altering the one-way arrangements there. The residents there are highly articulate, so it is up to them to ensure a satisfactory solution for themselves. Boris
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree