In today's Gazette: High Street car ban revolt (From Gazette)

In today's Gazette: High Street car ban revolt

8:21am Thursday 14th March 2013 in News

In today's Gazette: Protesters have called for the Colchester High Street car ban to be scrapped - days before it begins.

Traders, residents, disabled residents, restaurateurs, publicans and primary school pupils all gathered at Colchester Town Hall to opposed the 18 month trial which begins on Sunday.

* Another new primary school could be built in north Colchester.

Essex County Council has bought a ten-acre site on the New Braiswick Park estate between Bergholt Road and Apprentice Drive and it is believed it has been earmarked for the site of a new school.

* Teenager Andre Vella has appeared in court charged with the murder of Thomas Brittain.

Vella, 19, of Kirby Cross, did not enter a plea when he appeared before magistrates in Chelmsford.

* The family of a promising fashion designer have spoken of her brave fight against cancer.

Nicole Abbott, 34, died after battling breast cancer for two years.

For more on these and other stories, see today's Gazette. There is always more in the paper than there is online.

Comments(12)

Hamiltonandy says...
9:26am Thu 14 Mar 13

Excellent Gazette coverage of the protests Wednesday about the hated traffic management scheme. I see councillors now admit the bus station is a disaster. How long before they realise the High Street ban is another dumb idea?

Report this post »

sandgronun64 says...
9:51am Thu 14 Mar 13

In fairness, those opposed to the scheme have been thus inclined for a lot longer than just 'days before it begins. This is not a sudden 'upwelling of misplaced concern.'

I am not surprised however, that there is opposition. The scheme is a half measure, aimed only at excluding cars. In this respect, the argument is that it will reduce pollution. The sad fact is however that the high street, being the highest point in the town centre, is least vulnerable to pollution, whereas lower levels, which (in fairness) are only slightly more vulnerable to pollution will now have considerably more fumes to contend with.

Given that much of the traffic for e.g., the (private) Council Car Park, and possibly deliveries will now be pushed into the Dutch Quarter, the pollution levels in these narrow, RESIDENTIAL streets will rocket as will the weight of traffic. As one of the most historic remaining areas of the town, I am frankly baffled by this decision.

Oh yes, and before the usual 'Council supporting trolls' descend upon me to say that this is only an opinion, whilst that analysis is true it is also factually based. I live in the Dutch Quarter, and the view that this scheme is poorly conceived (in its current form) is an almost universally held view among the residents and indeed, some of the businesses therein. I know this because I know them and it is much discussed. It is also opposed by the Dutch Quarter Association, a body set up to preserve the integrity of this fine heritage area of our historic town.

Finally, the information given out by the Council on this has been far from illuminating. The council web pages are confusing and appear to have been contrived as an 'aide-memoire' to those already versed in the proposals and their intricacies. If you haven't been sent clear guidelines (the residents of the Dutch Quarter have not), then it is difficult to see how this affects you. The result? Derision and a lack of support for something, which could have been beneficial if it had only been properly planned.

In fairness, those opposed to the scheme have been thus inclined for a lot longer than just 'days before it begins. This is not a sudden 'upwelling of misplaced concern.' I am not surprised however, that there is opposition. The scheme is a half measure, aimed only at excluding cars. In this respect, the argument is that it will reduce pollution. The sad fact is however that the high street, being the highest point in the town centre, is least vulnerable to pollution, whereas lower levels, which (in fairness) are only slightly more vulnerable to pollution will now have considerably more fumes to contend with. Given that much of the traffic for e.g., the (private) Council Car Park, and possibly deliveries will now be pushed into the Dutch Quarter, the pollution levels in these narrow, RESIDENTIAL streets will rocket as will the weight of traffic. As one of the most historic remaining areas of the town, I am frankly baffled by this decision. Oh yes, and before the usual 'Council supporting trolls' descend upon me to say that this is only an opinion, whilst that analysis is true it is also factually based. I live in the Dutch Quarter, and the view that this scheme is poorly conceived (in its current form) is an almost universally held view among the residents and indeed, some of the businesses therein. I know this because I know them and it is much discussed. It is also opposed by the Dutch Quarter Association, a body set up to preserve the integrity of this fine heritage area of our historic town. Finally, the information given out by the Council on this has been far from illuminating. The council web pages are confusing and appear to have been contrived as an 'aide-memoire' to those already versed in the proposals and their intricacies. If you haven't been sent clear guidelines (the residents of the Dutch Quarter have not), then it is difficult to see how this affects you. The result? Derision and a lack of support for something, which could have been beneficial if it had only been properly planned. sandgronun64

Report this post »

Reginald47 says...
11:20am Thu 14 Mar 13

I don't think I'm a troll whatever that is and I know you are wrong on one thing because there is a point in Head Street which is among the three highest polluted areas in Colchester -the other two being Brook Street and the bottom of Mersea Road, so being on a hill doesn't make much difference. However just to prove we agree on something, I totally agree with you that two-way working on West Stockwell Street could (will?) be a total disaster and I wish Essex County Council had thought it out better. I do believe, though, that the private car park you mention won't be open much longer if you wade through the detail of the W and G planning application. In general, though, what's the point of stopping a trial before it starts. If you are so sure you are right it will fail and the clogged up, traffic fumed High Street will be back.

Report this post »

Jess Jephcott says...
12:09pm Thu 14 Mar 13

If I had my way I would ban all traffic within the town walls, call it a heritage zone and be done with it. All vehicles on a 'Access Only' basis. Hazard lights on. 5 mph max. No street parking unless for short term business offloading. Quite easy really. Much like other places do it.

Report this post »

sandgronun64 says...
12:21pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Troll: (Definition in this context) In internet slang a 'troll' is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, doing so with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I am not sure as to the exact location of the polluted area of Head Street that is among the three most polluted areas, as this was not clarified in a recent comment and the road in question rises toward the High Street. I am sure however that the other two are not at the top of the hill.

I am also sure that I said that the high street was least vulnerable to pollution. Whilst I (admittedly) lack data for this it was not listed among the (alleged) "three most polluted areas in Colchester."

This is perhaps because its East-West orientation makes good use of the potential of wind to clear fumes that might otherwise linger.(anyone with data please illuminate me with facts (not claims) as I would be most interested to review this data.

I have never claimed that I think it will fail. I have however stated quite clearly, that I consider the plan ill-conceived and not really what is needed. Indeed I actually favour (at least in principle) pedestrianisation of the High Street, as long as it is not a cop-out where the shoppers and other pedestrians have to dodge buses, taxis, motorbikes and cyclists. I have no problem with any of these groups, but fail to see exactly what the proposal to ban cars will achieve in its own right.

Report this post »

sandgronun64 says...
12:52pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Jess Jephcott wrote:
If I had my way I would ban all traffic within the town walls, call it a heritage zone and be done with it. All vehicles on a 'Access Only' basis. Hazard lights on. 5 mph max. No street parking unless for short term business offloading. Quite easy really. Much like other places do it.

Might I (politely) ask the poster of this comment a few questions in relation to its proposal.

1 What about all the people that live within the town walls? Will they have their cars/right to access denied? (N.B: The Dutch Quarter is mostly residential whilst, Castle Road and Roman Road are entirely residential - both within the town walls).

2 Which other town(s)/cities in the UK, or indeed elsewhere, bans traffic entirely within its/their walls?

I have visited many of them (UK and overseas) and formerly lived in another UK walled city but none of them have this approach. I am really interested to hear how these other places do it.

Report this post »

DelA says...
1:01pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Banning cars etc from the high st is death to the shops, just see what has happened to Pier ave in Clacton, where some cars still drive down with nothing being done about it. One of the worst things to be done to the town and it will happen to Colchester just the same.

Report this post »

pin4apple says...
5:30pm Thu 14 Mar 13

The towns shops are dead anyway !

I may actually go into town more when the cars are banned.

I hate walking down the high street waiting for the cars to let me across like its their right, the traffic lights are rubbish.

Either way i pay to park so that does not bother me, but no traffic in the high street sounds great.

Ive lived here for 35 years ... so if im for it then maybe more people like me will bring more business into the town.

As a business woman myself ... If business is failing then do something about it, stop blaming car bans etc, our business is out of town in an industrial estate, hard to find but our business is booming because we advertise, use the internet etc. Times change so move on!

Report this post »

Im_Like_HELLO says...
6:01pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Storm in a teacup. Chelmsford pedestrianised its high street years ago and business seems to be booming there. Not surprising Colchester lost out on gaining City status, about time it caught up with the times!

Report this post »

Reginald47 says...
2:35pm Fri 15 Mar 13

''Troll: (Definition in this context) In internet slang a 'troll' is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, doing so with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion''.

This is exactly what old 'sandy' does so know we know he's a Troll!

Report this post »

sandgronun64 says...
3:43pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Reginald47 wrote:
''Troll: (Definition in this context) In internet slang a 'troll' is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, doing so with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion''.

This is exactly what old 'sandy' does so know we know he's a Troll!

Oh Regie please stop ...you seem obsessed with me. I mean really, you are incorrigible.

"...know we know..."

Ha Ha I love it!

In today's Gazette: High Street car ban revolt (From Gazette)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

In today's Gazette: High Street car ban revolt

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies