Rustat Road needs to be considered for Parking Controls

The County Council has asked Councillors if there are any areas of their ward that should be considered for consultation about parking controls. I have long been concerned about the current problems, and the effects of new developments on the Rustat Road area, and think residents should have the opportunity to consider introducing on street controls. This is my response to the County Council:

"I would like the Rustat Road area (to cover areas affected by station commuter parking) to be considered for controlled parking consultations and restrictions.

This does however need to be considered in the context of the redevelopment of the station area and the former water company site, and the prospective timing of these developments needs to be considered to help determine when is the most appropriate time to consult residents.

Finally, I would like to request that any consideration of parking controls looks at a wide variety of possible parking controls, for example parking restriction for small periods of the morning to reduce commuter parking as well as more traditional resident's parking."

Residents' Parking Rejected by Blinco Area

Resident's in the Blinco Grove area of Queen Edith's have rejected plans for resident's parking in the area, in a humiliating blow to local Lib Dems Councillors who have been pushing for the scheme, after forcing through the bizarre consultation arrangements at the relevant committee.

The combined results from the recent consultation exercise in the Blinco Grove/Rock Road/Hartington Grove area in response to the question: Do you support the introduction of on street parking controls in your area?

Strong support - 91 (27%)
Support - 27 (8%)
Don't know - 13 (4%)
Disagree - 30 (9%)
Strongly disagree - 171 (52%)

A clear majority of 61% disagreeing with the plans, that would have seen local residents forced to by resident's parking permits if they wanted to park on the road.

As part of the dogs breakfast of a consultation, Coleridge residents in the Rustat Road area were asked what they thought of the plans to introduce resident's parking in the adjacent Blinco Grove area, and its pretty clear from the results that the question was misinterpreted as should resident's parking be introduced in their area (the question as posed being ridiculous - there is clearly only downsides to resident's parking in an adjacent area). As such, the support in this area was evenly split. Hopefully the Lib Dems on the joint traffic committee will now take note of this fiasco and the objections to the consultation that we raised at the time.

On the Blinco Grove area, I think all Coleridge Councillors agree that most of the problem relates to a relatively small number of vehicles from Hills Road Sixth Form College, that could be fixed instantly if the school had more robust policies on student car usage. But the situation could change rapidly for Coleridge once new developments are built. We would like to ensure Rustat Road area residents are given the opportunity to introduce resident's parking if clearly supported, once the effects developments such as the CB1 station redevelopment and former Cambridge Water site start to be felt.

But in the long term, when are the planners (leaned on by central government policy) going to realise that you can't solve transport problems by pretending that people can be forced out of their cars just by providing insufficient parking spaces. In existing areas, verge parking and other related 'lack of parking' issues are just about the biggest complaint in Councillors' in trays, but at least they have the excuse of being built in an era before near universal car ownership. To build a new generation of developments like Ashwell's CB1 and the Tim Brinton flats that make a virtue of providing wholly insufficient onsite parking is amongst the most shortsighted decisions being made in planning today. In 30 years time we we look back with our carbon-neutral personal vehicles and wonder what on earth people were thinking.

Coleridge Cycle Parking

The photo below was taking on a normal working day last week at the junction of Cherry Hinton Road and Hills Road:


Bikes are parked everywhere - its hard to make out but there are also huge numbers of bikes parked against the railings on the opposite side of the road, and slightly further out of town, the bikes are two deep outside Hills Road Sixth Form College. Cambridge Cycling Campaign are campaigning hard for more cycle parking in Cambridge, and with cycle theft a huge problem, the lack of convenient, secure cycle parking becomes a real barrier to increased cycling in the city - missing out on the environmental and health benefits that cycling brings.

How can we have got into this state? This area is surrounded by modern developments (and the picture is similar outside the new flats at the top end of Rustat Road) - our planners really should have insisted on adequate cycling parking.

The planning rules governing new developments are a combination of central government policy 'guidance', and locally determined planning policy as set out in the Cambridge local plan. Have a look at appendices C and D. The car parking standards (appendix C) specify a maximum - typically one space per house, and funnily enough, this aspect of the plan appears to be non-negotiable when the Council approves new developments. Result - many new developments have built in parking problems by design because developers aren't allowed to build enough parking spaces. Appendix D specifies minimum cycle parking standards for new developments - excellent, except this aspect of the local plan is one the Council always seems to have problems enforcing. There was much debate when the Leisure Park was approved as to why they weren't going to insist on their minimum standards, and there is another argument raging about why the cycle parking for the Grand Arcade is so behind schedule.

Allocating land use to transport and parking in existing, heavily developed areas is always going to be problematic. Failing to get cycle parking, car parking and transport infrastructure right in new developments is inexcusable. I don't believe we are planning responsibly for the future development of Cambridge, and we desperately need some real scrutiny of what is going on in City planning. But in the meantime, Coleridge desperately needs more secure cycle parking.

Developers Present Plans for New Hotel

The developers of the Red House site on Station Road presented their latest plans to Councillors yesterday.

The site, on the north side of Station Road between Tenison Road and the station has been subject to two previous applications for hotels - a smaller successful application in 2006 (that wasn't implemented), and a plan for a larger 169 room hotel in 2009 that was turned down, mostly on transport grounds.

The site is next to Great Eastern House, which Microsoft wants to rebuild as its UK HQ. Whilst it isn't part of the area covered by the CB1 outline planning permission, the new plans seek to fit in with the CB1 proposals, which include a small open space behind the hotel site.

The developers, O'Callaghan hotels, are appealing against the refusal last year, but are also going to put in this new application to address the concerns raised (presumably in case the appeal fails). They are addressing the concerns by reducing the proposed height of the new building (which will be around 7 storeys), and putting in place a valet parking scheme.

Whilst the building itself looks to be a reasonable design for a business class hotel in an area destined to become more of an urban business district, I am concerned about the valet parking plans.

The new plans propose no on-site car parking, with those hotel customers who do have cars being offered valet parking - which will involve hotel staff transporting cars to the Leisure Park car park on Clifton Road. Even if, as developers claim, few guests will arrive by car - the valet parking will still create additional traffic on busy Hills Road and Cherry Hinton Road. It seems ironic that this scheme proposes to solve the problem of lack of parking on site by creating additional trips to the Leisure Park, when the lack of parking on CB1 was the reason given why such a large redevelopment wouldn't generate significant additional traffic. Even if the additional trips are relatively few, it will still add to an existing problem with the plans for the CB1 area.

The developers also claimed to have looked at parking restrictions around the site, and concluded there was nowhere that hotel customers could freely park for long periods of time. I asked if they had considered the Rustat Road area in their analysis, less than 10 minutes walk away - and as with the CB1 developer, the answer was no, this area, and its existing commuter parking problems had been forgotten. I don't accept that hotel users won't know about this, even guests who aren't on a repeat trip - all it will take is one comment about the valet parking and the Rustat Road alternative on a website like Tripadvisor and it could significantly add to the problems Coleridge residents are already facing and will face from commuter parking in the parts of the ward near the station.

Coleridge Traffic Issues on the Agenda

Two Coleridge traffic issues were subject to petitions at the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee today.

Credit where it is due to the former Labour Councillor for Coleridge who in his role as a school governor supported parents bringing a petition requesting a new pedestrian crossing on Perne Road – close to the schools on Radegund Road. Most shocking aspect of this is the fact that there has been no lollipop person at the site for some time despite there being a vacancy for some years – and it was felt that the problems of dealing with secondary school pupils might have affected the ability to recruit. The petition was noted and various suggestions for budgets that might finance a crossing were given. However in the first instance, I don’t think it should be beyond the Council to get this vacancy filled – be in touch if anyone has any suggestions.

Less credit to Labour Councillors on the issue of parking controls on Rustat Road – unfortunately they failed to respond to requests for areas to consider for consultation for on street parking controls, and a decision was made as recently as April 2008 to consult in neighbouring areas of Queen Ediths, and it is difficult to revisit a decision just made within 12 months – as I found out when I asked for urgent action on this soon after election.

A petition was presented now asking for Rustat Road to be included in the consultation exercise due to occur in Queen Ediths. There is a real problem now in Rustat Road, and the new developments with permission on the Tim Brinton site and The Cambridge Water site, and the massive application currently under consideration for the station area will all add to the problems, as will any new parking controls in Queen Ediths. Despite pleas from myself and one of our Labour Councillors and support from Labour and the Conservative County Councillor on this committee, the Lib Dems blocked the plea to include the area in consultations for new parking controls – instead preferring the dogs breakfast of consulting Rustat Road residents on what they think of new parking controls in Queen Ediths. They just don’t seem to care about residents outside their ward. As we are both moving in the same direction, I hope Labour ward Councillors can work with me to tackle this issue going forwards.

Also on the agenda was the problematic signage for 2-way cycle usage on one way streets. I’m still waiting for a meaningful reply from my email to the government...

Relieving parking pressure

Welcome news for Cambridge today:

Limits on car spaces for new homes and guidance encouraging higher parking charges are being abolished ending the war on motorists, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles and Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced today.

The former Labour government's policy of maximum parking spaces for new developments (1.5 per dwelling), gold-plated (page 134 - 1 per dwelling) by the ideologically-obsessed local Liberal Democrats, have been creating huge structural problems for Cambridge.

Coleridge residents have been hit badly by the impact of inadequate parking on new developments, such as those off Rustat Road, compounding commuter parking problems and soon to be made much worse by the cb1 development.

Time after time, when developments should have been rejected due to lack of parking such as cb1 as well as all over the city and most recently the former Texaco petrol station on Castle Hill, councillors have been unable reject on that basis, even if they would like to.

The Liberal Democrats are taking a very short term view on this subject: limiting parking does not stop people from owning cars it just causes parking chaos, while future technological developments may lead to more sustainable personal transport solutions. They would be doing more good for the city if they focused their efforts on enforcing minimum cycle parking standards, which are often ignored.

Parking problems are one of the biggest issues in this city but the Lib Dems have done nothing but make it worse. Conservatives won't stand by on this issue and will be standing at the local elections on a policy of scrapping this bonkers rule from our local plan.

Station Area Comments

Prior to the deadline for comments last week, I have submitted the following comments on the amended Station Area planning application for Ashwell's CB1 scheme:

I am writing to object to the above (revised) planning application.
The essence of the objection is that the density of the proposed
redevelopment for the whole site (in terms of total sq ft of
floorspace) is too high, with the following adverse consequences:

1. Lack of sufficient public open space. The area dedicated to public
open space generally, and the new station square specifically is
insufficient.

This is particularly important for this application in view of the
need for space in station square for a transport interchange, coupled
with the need for an area suitable for welcoming visitors to the City,
and providing facilities appropriate to waiting for and accessing
transport.

If we do not get this right now, and require extra space for transport
in the future in the station square, it will not be possible to extend
the square with the buildings proposed.

A commuted sum in lieu of sub-standard public open space would not be
acceptable in this instance. The space is needed in this area, and
there is already considerable unspent s106 funds available in the City
for public open space from other schemes and other developers, so it
is unclear how a commuted sum could be used to increase public open
space elsewhere or even be used at all sensibly.

2. Height of the proposed buildings is out of character with the area
and Cambridge generally, and will dominate the skyline.

3. The high density increases the number of people that need to access
buildings on the site, so will add to the traffic management problems
of the site.

The suggestion that severely limiting car parking will control car
access to the site may prove to be naive, and will add to already
significant parking problems in Coleridge ward, particularly in the
Rustat Rd area. To mitigate this, if permission is granted, I would
request conditions or agreements are made to ensure the developers
will fund and implement consultations with residents and parking
control measures if appropriate to reduce the problems for Rustat Rd
area residents.

Whilst I believe the high density will have an unacceptable impact on
car traffic levels in the area, if the application is accepted, I
believe these impacts can and should be mitigated by further
improvements and access to the site for sustainable transport such as
cycling and pedestrians. The connection from Carter bridge needs to be
quick and convenient. I am concerned that the cycle parking proposed,
whilst a significant improvement on current levels may still prove to
be inadequate and fail to support future demand. Also, the cycle
parking should all be at ground level and as near to the entrances as
possible. Finally, to encourage non-car access to the site, I believe
a new pedestrian and cycle bridge should be built as a condition of
the application to connect the Leisure Park area to the station area
more directly than the already overcrowded Hills Road Bridge.

Other issues and comments:
Management - That acceptability of the plans will depend crucially on
management of the site going forwards. Assurances from the applicant
that they will manage relevant parts of the site themselves so far as
is possible should be backed up by appropriate planning conditions. In
particular, I am concerned about the usage of student accommodation
during the summer holidays, and how problems experienced elsewhere
with a succession of short term occupants of the accommodation over
the holiday period can be avoided. There also needs to be stingent
conditions to reduce noise concerns from the student accommodation,
and strong enforcement on prohibitions of car ownership by students.

I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of the 'modernist'
design vision implied in the application supporting documents to date.
Design should be distinctive, high quality, with exceptional quality
of materials and construction, to reflect the high profile of the
area, but must be consistent with the architectural heritage of the
City of Cambridge (which is not the City of London).

On the plus side, this is an area that desperately needs
redevelopment, and I welcome the proposed improved transport access to
the site in general (without commenting on the specific details of the
implementations proposed) in so much as the application provides
additional access to the area, both for cars and cyclists, strongly
support the increased number of cycle spaces, and recognise that the
application as it stands is a significant improvement in terms of the
transport interchange at the station site.

Transport Assessment for Station Area Redevelopment

There were some astonishing claims repeated at the public meeting last night about the county's traffic impact assessment for the CB1 station area redevelopment. Chris Howell, Richard Normington and I were all present to help scrutinise the report. Considering the short notice for the meeting it was very well attended.

The central claim is that there will be "only a modest increase in vehicular traffic (16%)" on account of the restricted opportunities for parking - there would be one fewer parking spaces after the redevelopment! When quizzed about this figure (since the baseline figures used were questionable) the consultant admitted that the real figure was more like 35%, although apparently even a report by the developer, Ashwell, suggests that it would be 65%.

I questioned the validity of the report's assumption that car usage could be suppressed simply by having severe restrictions on parking within the development and asked for examples of any other developments that had such limited provision for parking. The consultant had nothing to say on this point - the assumption is essentially justified by assertion.

I also asked why the report does not include any analysis of the likely extent of overspill parking in Coleridge on and around Rustat Road. The response was effectively that reactive work could be considered on consulation with residents after the development has gone ahead but that this did not need further consideration at this stage.

The transport assessment has clearly failed here - its very naive assumptions about how easy it is to limit car use may well suggest that the development would be self-contained but no evidence has been presented as to how this development would be different from any other in that regard.

Despite its flawed assumptions, the report is otherwise quite thorough, and to be fair, it is suggested that the extra vehicular traffic that is conceded will not manifest itself at the peak times and so will not be such a problem.

This transport assessment forms part of the report to the central planning committee of the City Council which will consider the CB1 application on Wednesday 15th October at 9.30am in the Long Room at New Hall.

Chris Howell asked how independent the traffic impact assessment process had been from the applicant's drawing up of the plans and it was revealed that there had been an iterative process between the two parties. While this approach may have seemed like a practical solution for saving time and effort by all we are worried that the council officers and their consultants may unintentionally become inclined to compromise their assessment as a consequence of being involved in the development of the plans.

Local Planning Document Defective

In a rare case of them actually turning down a development Lib Dem councillors are crowing at how they appear to have 'saved' the Queen Edith pub from demolition at yesterday's South Area Committee.

Normally they hide behind the rigidness of the planning rules, the quasi-judicial planning process and their fear of the (exaggerated) cost of rejections going to appeal and being awarded to the appellant. However, in this case the Lib Dems seem to have rejected the application (10/0815/FUL).

Planning decisions currently can only be made with reference to national and local planning guidelines. The Lib Dems in Cambridge are responsibile for our own local plan but the plan is defective. It offers:

• No protection for pubs.
• Inadequate defence for Cambridge's distinct heritage and low skyline.
• A crazy rule limiting the number of parking spaces permitted per new dwelling to less than one.

This last rule is building in huge transport problems for the future, when we've got enough parking problems as it is. The new development in the station area will introduce no new parking, causing even greater problems around Rustat Road while new developments across the city are making local parking problems worse and worse all the time.

This is just the start of the problems. With 'affordable housing' quotas limiting housing for those in the middle band Cambridge is quite simply a planning disaster zone. Conservatives have been battling the Lib Dems over planning for years, both centrally and in clashes in Lib Dem-held wards like Trumpington. We won't stop holding them to account.

Meanwhile we'll see if the Queen Edith really is saved or if a new application is forthcoming or an appeal is lodged. It is frustrating when large pub companies and breweries try to argue that planning permission for housing is justified on the basis that they haven't been able to run a good business - let a smaller business or independent publican have a go!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Last week this blog recorded its highest ever number of unique users for a single day, surpassing even the peak on polling day last year.

Most of the articles we research and write ourselves. For example on Friday, we took some raw figures from a spreadsheet, and wrote the following words:

The combined results from the recent consultation exercise in the Blinco Grove/Rock Road/Hartington Grove area in response to the question: Do you support the introduction of on street parking controls in your area?

Strong support - 91 (27%)
Support - 27 (8%)
Don't know - 13 (4%)
Disagree - 30 (9%)
Strongly disagree - 171 (52%)

A clear majority of 61% disagreeing with the plans, that would have seen local residents forced to by resident's parking permits if they wanted to park on the road.

So it was a bit of a shock to read the following published by our Labour opponents in Coleridge on Saturday (with the rest of the article amended to claim all credit by Labour for action in this area...):

Residents in the Blinco Grove/Rock Road/Hartington Grove area were asked the question: Do you support the introduction of on street parking controls in your area? The results were:

Strongly support: 27% (91)
Support: 8% (27 )
Don't know: 4% (13)
Disagree: 9% (30)
Strongly disagree: 52% (171)

So a combined majority of 61% opposed the plans which would have resulted in even worse parking problems in Rustat Road and Davy Road.

Its one thing for Labour to steal Conservative policies (whilst simultaneously claiming we would do nothing!), but blatantly cribbing text from our blog as the basis for their publications is a bit cheeky. But they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - so to all our readers from Coleridge Labour Party, Happy New Year!

What next for the station area?

View Larger Map

A period of exciting changes to the station area are planned for the future, that could be vital to transport infrastructure for the City.

To the west of the station, the Council finally signed off the s106 agreement for the CB1 development at a recent planning meeting. This gives the development permission to go ahead. We have blogged previously on the merits of the scheme as a whole, but the arguments go on about the financial viability of the whole scheme, what the Council knew about the previous developers Ashwells financial problems, and why even now their is a risk that only parts of the development will be built (like the student accommodation that appears to be most profitable), with some of the vital transport infrastructure never being built. The recent serious fire affecting listed buildings on the site only clouded the situation further.

But independently of the CB1 development, network rail has plans for the Coleridge side of the site. They would like to build a central platform, that will open up a range of options for accessing the station from Coleridge. They also have a vacant site that appears to be ripe for development, and could provide much needed housing in an area that is well served by transport links.

Further afield, we understand development of the former Cambridge Water site on Rustat Road could be about to be picked up again, and there is scope for improvements to the Leisure park.

What is the Conservative approach to the station and leisure park area?
Firstly, public consent - we need meaningful dialog with local residents before decisions are taken.

Second, we need high quality development - in such a key strategic part of the city, we must have a very high quality built environment. The Travelodge on the Leisure Park clearly fails this test - we mustn't make the same mistake with other sites.

Finally, we must develop the best possible transport links - and this means getting the agreements right when granting planning permission, and making sure developments are viable with the improvements to transport that must be provided to make the developments work without putting local residents in Coleridge to any greater inconvenience than they are already from problems such as commuter parking .

What are we doing about this?
I spent considerable time with network rail trying to setup a meeting to discuss a range of issues of public interest - what are their plans for a second platform? how will it connect to the main platform? How will it link to Coleridge? Will they help improve cycle parking at the station? Will they support the Chisholm Trail that could significantly improve cycle links from our ward?  What are their plans for the vacant sidings? How can the public get involved? After emails with many people with 'communications' in their job title, I was no nearer speaking to anyone who actually had a meaningful role in decision making in these areas, and have asked the Director of Planning at the City Council to try setting up a meeting. It appears network rail, whilst enjoying all sorts of statutory protections and operating in many respects like a public body, operates outside of any type of democratic scrutiny. This needs to change!

We will be keeping up the pressure on the planning system at the Lib Dem run City Council - it isn't delivering quality, and we fear the station agreements will turn out to be a terrible deal for taxpayers - who have already funded much of the site through the bank bailouts prior to Ashwell's going bust, and who are now likely to pay for a lot of the transport infrastructure on the site as well. Our planning policies need to change, to ensure a quality build environment is not an unaffordable luxury after all the Council's other requirements have been met. Our planning policies also need to support and encourage better transport infrastructure, particularly on key sites like the station area.

Last week I also met with the owners of the Cambridge Leisure Park, along with other local Councillors. We pressed the case for better usage of the site, and talked about some of the transport issues - like how to encourage leisure park users into the multi storey car park rather than surrounding roads, and how to improve access to the site from the station area. I support some type of bridge (and/or possibly a connection to the new platform) - I could never understand why the Lib Dems allowed this to be taken out of the original planning permission for the Leisure Park in the first place...

Cleaning Rustat Rd

Following a complaint from a local resident, I've been in extensive correspondence with the City Council about how the standards of gutter cleaning can be improved on Rustat Rd - they are currently in a very poor state. Turns out to be less straightforward than you might think, mostly because of problems of getting cars to move so mechanical sweepers can operate, rather than less effective and more time consuming manual sweeping, particularly in view of the commuter parking problems that the Lib Dem dominated Joint Traffic Committee refuse to address.

So on Wednesday I met up with the Head of Streetscene at the City Council and one of our three Labour Councillors to discuss the problem, accompanied at various times by curious local residents. It was agreed the road cleaning is not currently adequate, and the Councillors will try to work together with the local residents association to get people to move their cars on a chosen Saturday afternoon to give it a proper clean, starting at the Cherry Hinton Road end. Lets hope the spirit of co-operation can continue!

Gutter cleaning is now done on a reactive basis to avoid problem roads going too long between cleaning sessions, so if there are any other roads in the ward that need gutter cleaning more regularly, please be in touch.

East Area Committee today

It's the first meeting of the East Area Committee since the local elections tonight, 7pm at the Cherry Trees Day Centre. The Labour party will back with a majority on the committee after defeating Raj Shah in May in Romsey Ward. It'll be interesting to see if his replacement is any more effective.

The agenda is online. There are three planning applications affecting Coleridge: a proposal to convert some retail space at Adkins Corner into residential space, a proposal to change 171 Coleridge Road from a guest house into student accommodation and the reappearance of a garden-grabbing application for the rear of 163 and 165 Coleridge Road that was approved last year but due to incompetence in the planning department was inadequately consulted upon. All three are recommended for approval.

The other main issue tonight will be environmental improvements. There's good news regarding progress on agreed improvements such as Cherry Hinton Road shop forecourts and the completed Rustat Road footpath. New proposed schemes include verge parking prohibition for Perne Road and tree planting on Chalmers road, which I think will be good things.

More care will need to be taken over other proposals to tackle commuter parking in the ward - I welcome the efforts but as with the now defunct Ashbury/Golding cycle path proposal the true consent of residents must be sought. The more 'live and let live'-inclined residents who might not want anything changed but are also unlikely to make a fuss at consultation need to be sought out and involved. Aspects focusing on safety ought to be the least controversial.

Decision Time!

Polls open at 7am tomorrow (Thursday) for the County and European elections. Remember, you do not need you polling card to vote, just turn up at the polling station if you are on the register. Postal votes (carefully completed per the instructions) can be delivered to you usual polling station as it is now too late to post them - we have heard of some delays in the post so this will be your only chance to vote if you haven't yet sent back the postal vote form.

If you are reading this to help you decide which way to vote, here is some guidance!

Firstly, we are not asking you to take on trust that we are already involved in the big issues in Coleridge - we would urge you to browse the blog postings we have made over the last year to give you an idea of the areas we have been working, and the lines we have taken. Andrew Bower has been actively involved in many of these issues. In no particular order:

Hills Road/Guided Bus

Tiverton House 

St Johns Post Office closure

Rustat Road parking issues, and the related Station Area redevelopment

Congestion Charging

Empty building, Perne/Radegund Roundabout

Cycling

Scrutinising the Folk Festival ticket fiasco

Policing and general crime/antisocial behaviour

New mosque plans

Mill Road Tescos?

Area Committees decision making

Speeding on residential roads in Coleridge

Council Tax

Grass verges

Planning and housing issues

And many, many more local issues!

Back to the local elections in Coleridge. Our simple manifesto, Bowers Blueprint, outlines the key issues facing us locally at this election.

1. Keeping Council tax down  A real difference between Labour, who think government spending is the answer to everything, and the Conservatives who think the tax burden is already too high, and government spending must be brought under control.

2. No to a Cambridge congestion charge  Coleridge Conservatives have total opposition to congestion charging in Cambridge, a tax the government is trying to force on us, that will hit the poorest hard. Andrew will do all he can to stop this charge.

3. No to forcing Marshalls off the airport Labour's housing targets are trying to force Marshalls off the airport, with the rapid expansion of the City this would imply, the special character of Cambridge is at risk. Andrew wants the County Council to look forward to a possible Conservative government that will give local people a real say over the future development of Cambridge, and put these plans on hold.

4. A Conservative voice on the County Council - with no Conservatives from the City currently on the County Council, Andrew will be a really strong voice for action in Coleridge if elected.

5. Working hard for Coleridge We have a great track record of working hard in Coleridge ward. Your Labour candidate will have split loyalties, as Labour's parliamentary candidate in rural south Cambridgeshire.

And finally, if you get this far, a bit about the politics of these elections. Coleridge is a very close battle between Labour and the Conservatives. A vote for someone other than the Conservatives will risk Labour winning in Coleridge. UKIP have no chance of winning locally, so if you normally vote Conservative and decide to vote UKIP for some inexplicable reason, you will be more likely to end up with a Labour Councillor (and one who is currently also trying to become Labour MP for South Cambridgeshire, so is likely to have divided loyalties at least over the next year!). 

In Europe, the Conservative MEPs have a fantastic record of standing up for British interests. They are about to leave the EPP grouping, where many members favour the European constitutional treaty (Lisbon treaty) that Gordon Brown broke his election promise to hold a referendum on, and will form their own more eurosceptic grouping. UKIP think they might do well this time in the European elections - its hard to see why. Of the 12 UKIP MEPs elected last time, 1/3 have left or been expelled. One elected in the Eastern region last time has been charged with false accounting and money laundering, anther, Ashley Mote was found guilty of 21 counts of fraud and sent to jail. The ones that have avoided prison have a track record of voting against British interest in Europe, such as voting to allow French and Spanish trawlers fish in British protected waters. They are a truly bizarre choice of protest party for the European elections. 

Whatever you think of what we have to say, please make sure you do vote. It is a bit cliched but people have fought and died, and in some parts of the world still are fighting to bring democracy, the chance for everyone to decide who will govern us - this is your chance to take part. That said, I've know Andrew personally for a while, he is capable and motivated by the desire to do better for local residents. I think he will make a fantastic representative for Coleridge and I urge you to support him!

Brackyn Road and Corrie Road Survey

This weekend we surveyed residents of Brackyn Road and Corrie Road on various issues particular to those streets.

Number one on the list was the proposed new signs to direct pedestrians and cyclists between Rustat Road and Coleridge Road, since it is currently easy for people to get lost going through the cul-de-sacs, sometimes resulting in damage to fences. This has been something that Chris Howell has been working on for a while.

Other issues related to street lighting, the fences around the Davy Road flats and the effect of commuter parking on the area.

Thank you to those who have responded so far. If you live in these streets and haven't got round to responding to the survey yet then you can do so online.

£¼ million council grants allocated to Coleridge

City councillors at last month's East Area Committee allocated more than £250,000 of council grants to Coleridge Ward.

First up was a one-off allocation of some accrued 'section 106' bribes funds, some of which the city council needs to spend soon to make sure that it doesn't have to be returned to developers.

Two very worthy voluntary projects in Coleridge were given a share of £400,000 along with three other projects:

• Improvements to the Flamsteed Road scout hut.
• Community facilities at the Emmanuel United Reformed Church, Cherry Hinton Road.

A further £115,000 was allocated for future community facilities projects in the ward.

The second allocation was of the Environmental Improvements grants. This is from a pot of money that the city council created along with the area committees and is for capital projects. The aim was to spend all of the available money. It is not clear whether this fund for area committees will be replenished in future - it is something that the city council will have to decide based on its spending review.

The projects approved for Coleridge were:

• A Crossing for Perne Road just north of the Radegund Road roundabout (£65,000)
• The verge/parking/yellow line plan for Birdwood Road and Chalmers Road (£59,000)
• Completing the gap in the Rustat Road footpath (£10,000)
• The Ashbury Close/Golding Road cycle path consultation and plan (£34,500 or £47,500)

The last of these projects was given a lower priority and therefore will only happen if one or two of the other approved projects for the area falls through for any reason (and of course subject to a satisfactory outcome to the consultation, which will proceed anyway).

All of these projects will benefit Coleridge residents; I am particularly keen on the last three and all have been supported by local Conservatives with the last two being initiated by Chris.