THE paper version of the Draft Local Plan prepared by Colchester Council contained incorrect information for the public to contact the council.

On page 6 of this thick document, the council’s email address to send comments to was given as localplan@colchester.gov.uk which did not work as it should have been local.plan@colchester.gov.uk with a full stop between “local” and “plan”.

The council’s telephone number was that of a private residence with an answering machine.

I wonder how many people were put off responding to this consultation when both their emails and phone calls to the council did not work?

I pity the person whose telephone number was quoted!

How could the public be expected to contact the council about this important public consultation if the contact details were incorrect?

As one respondent to the council stated in his online comment: “Was this a ruse to prevent objections? This does not inspire confidence in the system”.

Elsewhere on this page 6, respondents were asked to provide a summary if their comments exceeded 1,000 words whereas those that managed the cumbersome task of getting the online system to work had to prepare a summary if their comments exceeded 100 words.

All of the above does not promote any confidence in the council’s consultation process to encourage the public to respond to the very important Draft Local Plan, which includes new garden communities, one being up to 28,000 houses.

CP Jellard Buckleys Lane, Coggeshall Road

  • Scheme is unimaginative

Last Thursday I attended the consultation event regarding the proposals to modify the roundabouts at Ipswich Road and Harwich Road.

The brief supplied by Essex County Council to engineers Ringway Jacobs was to improve traffic flow across the two roundabouts.

The proposal, which will cost £12million, is to reconfigure each of the mini roundabouts into single roundabouts.

It is to the county council’s shame it will only be a danger and deterrent to offer pedestrians and cyclists.

The scheme proposes removal of the pedestrian crossing on the western side of the Ipswich Road roundabout.

Pedestrians who wish to walk on the western side e.g Ipswich Road towards East Street will need to cross three roads instead of one.

As the county council’s preferred solution to cross a dual carriageway is a staggered pedestrian crossing, this will involve an extra wait which will be on a little traffic island refuge.

Pedestrians will be expected to make four crossings. What a deterrent! What a penalty for making a healthier choice.

There is no facility to improve the safety for cyclists. Indeed creation of the extra lane can only endanger them further as they attempt to cross wider sections of road.

It is readily apparent this unimaginative scheme is straight out of the failed road modifications of the Sixties and Seventies.

Road widening schemes simply move the congestion elsewhere, requiring more expensive schemes further down the road.

More enlightened cities like Manchester and London and countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are providing alternatives to the car.

Widened roads bring more noise, pollution, danger and divide communities.

Our infrastructure needs to encourage and allow people and children to exercise safely and healthily. At a time when one in 10 of our hospital inpatients are diabetic and our children are dying of asthma, we should not tolerate schemes that endanger us and become deterrents to exercise, and childhood freedoms.

The overwhelming reaction from the public was disapproval, and clearly people in this town want to improve their health by walking and cycling.

It was apparent people did not know how to take the next step and voice their concerns officially.

The plans are online here. Comments should be made to cllr.rodney.bass@essex.gov.uk, copying in alan.lindsay@essex.gov.uk and gavin.jones@essex.gov.uk.

Also copy in your borough councillors and Colchester’s MP, will.quince.mp@parliament.uk.

By treating people and communities as the problem, and cars as the solution, measures will always be misplaced and money inappropriately spent.

By promoting road use at the expense of cycling and walking we threaten to make our town more polluted, more dangerous and more ugly. The choice is in our hands.

Dr Paul Byrne Colchester Medics For Safer Roads Colchester General Hospital

  • ‘We want controlled immigration’

In answer to Lee Scordis, I agree the country should have a sensible discussion on immigration.

After the issue of sovereignty and wishing to be free from Brussels before Europe falls apart, immigration was one of the reasons for Brexit.

Only after Brexit was it possible to have this sensible discussion because, until then, anyone who brought the subject up was shouted down as a racist.

Of course we want immigration, but we want controlled immigration.

We want to welcome people who will be an asset to this country.

We want to know who is here and why.

It’s very easy to be pro open door immigration in an area where we live which hasn’t seen the full result of the policy, unlike the mill towns of northern England for example.

He is quite right to say Britain is at a crucial point in its history. That is exactly why we voted Brexit.

John Birch Colchester Road, West Bergholt

  • School should not scrap homework

As a former teacher at Philip Morant in Colchester I was horrified to hear they are stopping homework.

Their reason is to give the teachers more time to prepare lessons, but teachers need to make sure pupils understand what they have learnt. It reinforces the lesson.

Is there no discipline in the school? Very, very sad.

Name and address withheld