Something that appears to be new in Coleridge in the couple of days I was away - there were wheelclampers in action this evening that have clamped a couple of cars parked on the Tim Brinton site in front of the pine furniture shop.
I know the City planners made a complete hash of parking arrangements for this area, and it is private land, but this does seem to be a bit of an over-reaction when the shop concerned isn't even open...
Friday, March 28, 2008
Yorkshire to the Chisholm Trail
I've just spent a couple of days out of the Coleridge campaign in Yorkshire visiting Graham Stuart, now MP for Beverley and Holderness - we served as Cambridge City Councillors together until 2004, and was good to see him doing so well in Yorkshire. There aren't any elections due in Beverley until the next General Election, but he really is working hard for his constituents all year round - we spent an afternoon talking to residents in Labour's strongest polling district in the constituency, where they polled 75% in the last general election. They certainly won't be doing that well next time - even in Labour heartlands, it is clear large numbers are now very fed up with the government and will be voting Conservative. I wouldn't want to be a Labour Councillor up for re-election on May 1st. I also heard depressingly familiar tales of residents plagued by anti-social behaviour, and police who seem totally unable to get to grips with the problems.
As the train came back in to Cambridge, I was reminded about just how much land is available alongside the railway. I have always thought this could be reconfigured, and the space used to improve public transport and cycling. In particular, I would love to see the Chisholm Trail opened. The idea, from Jim Chisholm of Cambridge Cycle Campaign is for a north-south supercycleway to be opened alongside the railway. The County Council are already delivering on this idea south of the railway, with an off road cycle route next to the Guided Busway, but it would make a huge difference to Coleridge to have a foot/cyclebridge from the LeisurePark to the station, and a cycle route north to the Science Park - in fact, I think this could have a much more beneficial effect on congestion in Cambridge than the planned congestion charge, as it will make many commutes more convenient by bike. A lot of people are in favour of this plan, I wonder what any of the Councils or Councillors have actually done about it - like writing to Network Rail and asking if they can open a cycle route for example...
As the train came back in to Cambridge, I was reminded about just how much land is available alongside the railway. I have always thought this could be reconfigured, and the space used to improve public transport and cycling. In particular, I would love to see the Chisholm Trail opened. The idea, from Jim Chisholm of Cambridge Cycle Campaign is for a north-south supercycleway to be opened alongside the railway. The County Council are already delivering on this idea south of the railway, with an off road cycle route next to the Guided Busway, but it would make a huge difference to Coleridge to have a foot/cyclebridge from the LeisurePark to the station, and a cycle route north to the Science Park - in fact, I think this could have a much more beneficial effect on congestion in Cambridge than the planned congestion charge, as it will make many commutes more convenient by bike. A lot of people are in favour of this plan, I wonder what any of the Councils or Councillors have actually done about it - like writing to Network Rail and asking if they can open a cycle route for example...
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Hills Road Roadworks
There are going to be major roadworks needed to construct the new cycleway under Hills Road bridge as part of the Guided Bus project. I think this is going to be excellent news for cyclists and bus users from the South of the City when it is finished, but the thought of significant disruption during construction is worrying. I've checked with the guided bus team, and this is the latest on the plan for these works:
"The works at Hills Road bridge will be done with temporary traffic lights rather than a complete closure of the road. There will be at least one lane each way for motor traffic and also a footpath and cycleway each way (though this might be narrower than the existing footpath/cycleways).The exact plans for the traffic management are being finalised at the moment. Once we can confirm these details we will publicise them widely in the press, media, on our website and through direct mailing. We will also produce a separate leaflet for the works on Hills Road."
So not a complete closure, which is good news, but when these works are scheduled local Councillors will need to be on top of the plans to make sure they minimise disruption to local residents as much as possible.
"The works at Hills Road bridge will be done with temporary traffic lights rather than a complete closure of the road. There will be at least one lane each way for motor traffic and also a footpath and cycleway each way (though this might be narrower than the existing footpath/cycleways).The exact plans for the traffic management are being finalised at the moment. Once we can confirm these details we will publicise them widely in the press, media, on our website and through direct mailing. We will also produce a separate leaflet for the works on Hills Road."
So not a complete closure, which is good news, but when these works are scheduled local Councillors will need to be on top of the plans to make sure they minimise disruption to local residents as much as possible.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Under starters orders!
The City Council has now officially ‘called’ the City Council elections for 1st May, and nominations have opened for candidates in all 14 wards. Nominations will close on 4th April, and shortly after that I’ll know who my opponents will be on May 1st. Previously all the usual suspects have put up candidates in Coleridge, but for the benefit of any Lib Dem activists reading, I know you’ll enjoy the next bit – its going to be a two horse race between the Conservatives and Labour in Coleridge!
But don’t let that discourage anyone from standing – its really quite straightforward! To stand you must generally either live or work in the City Council area, and get ten voters in your chosen ward to sign your nomination papers (who haven’t already signed someone else's!). Unlike parliamentary elections, there is no deposit to pay or lose.
If elected, as a minimum you must attend one official meeting of the Council every six months, but all Councillors of whatever party in Cambridge are committed to doing their best for local residents, and will be doing much more than that as they make or scrutinise decisions about City Council services including planning, the recycling, community facilities, leisure facilities, housing, grants to voluntary organisations etc etc. Councillors are also expected to be community leaders in their ward and campaign on behalf of residents on local issues.
For more information about being a candidate in local elections, see here. Most Councillors in Cambridge run under a party banner, which I think is generally a good thing. Try as I might, it is very difficult to personally speak or even communicate at all with all 6,000ish Coleridge residents, so the party banner may give people some idea of my likely approach to local issues, and the help of my many volunteers from the local party is crucial in the election campaign.
Quite shockingly, the Lib Dem County Councillor for Romsey ward has stepped down – so there will be a by-election for this vacancy on the same day there. The Lib Dems only won this area at County level for the first time in 2005, and this is the second Councillor to step down early – average time in post only 18 months. Whilst I don’t know the background of this resignation, if it is just another ‘career move’ that has caused the vacancy, I think the electorate of Romsey will be seriously questioning whether their support is being taken for granted with a series of Lib Dem candidates clearly lacking commitment to the area.
But don’t let that discourage anyone from standing – its really quite straightforward! To stand you must generally either live or work in the City Council area, and get ten voters in your chosen ward to sign your nomination papers (who haven’t already signed someone else's!). Unlike parliamentary elections, there is no deposit to pay or lose.
If elected, as a minimum you must attend one official meeting of the Council every six months, but all Councillors of whatever party in Cambridge are committed to doing their best for local residents, and will be doing much more than that as they make or scrutinise decisions about City Council services including planning, the recycling, community facilities, leisure facilities, housing, grants to voluntary organisations etc etc. Councillors are also expected to be community leaders in their ward and campaign on behalf of residents on local issues.
For more information about being a candidate in local elections, see here. Most Councillors in Cambridge run under a party banner, which I think is generally a good thing. Try as I might, it is very difficult to personally speak or even communicate at all with all 6,000ish Coleridge residents, so the party banner may give people some idea of my likely approach to local issues, and the help of my many volunteers from the local party is crucial in the election campaign.
Quite shockingly, the Lib Dem County Councillor for Romsey ward has stepped down – so there will be a by-election for this vacancy on the same day there. The Lib Dems only won this area at County level for the first time in 2005, and this is the second Councillor to step down early – average time in post only 18 months. Whilst I don’t know the background of this resignation, if it is just another ‘career move’ that has caused the vacancy, I think the electorate of Romsey will be seriously questioning whether their support is being taken for granted with a series of Lib Dem candidates clearly lacking commitment to the area.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Congestion Charging Consultation
The closing date for the Congestion Charging Consultation is today (Mon 24th). I've just completed the survey that was available here. I think its fair to say some of the questions didn't provide an adequate opportunity to say what I really think, but this was the comments I made at the end:
We are being blackmailed by the Government to include congestion charging in the TIF bid and think it is outrageous we are being expected to absorb massive growth without no strings attached commitments to funding transport improvements.
I am strongly opposed to congestion charging - it will be expensive and bureaucratic to administer with most revenue taken by operators, will be intrusive as people are tracked round the city, and could potentially do great harm to the local economy (a matter not even touched on in this questionnaire), with the biggest losers being the least well off.
Congestion in Cambridge should be tackled by significant increases in capacity of all types of transport infrastructure - road (especially the A14 but also significant new roads to support new developments), off-road public transport (guided bus and/or rail), support for existing bus routes, and cycle facilities (e.g. dedicated and convenient off road routes, secure cycle parking in existing and new destinations).
If the government doesn't want to pay for this, agree to this or make it the priority obligation put on developers, we should totally oppose new developments of the scale being proposed. The current deal being offered to existing residents of massive development, wholly inadequate transport infrastructure, more congestion and then have congestion charging as well is totally unacceptable.
We are being blackmailed by the Government to include congestion charging in the TIF bid and think it is outrageous we are being expected to absorb massive growth without no strings attached commitments to funding transport improvements.
I am strongly opposed to congestion charging - it will be expensive and bureaucratic to administer with most revenue taken by operators, will be intrusive as people are tracked round the city, and could potentially do great harm to the local economy (a matter not even touched on in this questionnaire), with the biggest losers being the least well off.
Congestion in Cambridge should be tackled by significant increases in capacity of all types of transport infrastructure - road (especially the A14 but also significant new roads to support new developments), off-road public transport (guided bus and/or rail), support for existing bus routes, and cycle facilities (e.g. dedicated and convenient off road routes, secure cycle parking in existing and new destinations).
If the government doesn't want to pay for this, agree to this or make it the priority obligation put on developers, we should totally oppose new developments of the scale being proposed. The current deal being offered to existing residents of massive development, wholly inadequate transport infrastructure, more congestion and then have congestion charging as well is totally unacceptable.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Action Now on the A14
I occassionally sign petitions on the Number 10 petitions website - not sure if it does any good, but at least it lets someone in Government know that I feel strongly about something, and get to hear their response.
One petition I signed because I feel very strongly is the call for urgent action to upgrade the A14 - and Number 10 has just published their response:
"The Government fully recognises the need for improvement of the A14 in Cambridgeshire.
The Government is aware of concern that the scheme should be delivered as quickly as possible and of the level of support for it. The Government intends to progress the scheme as rapidly as practicable. However, the time taken to design the scheme and complete the statutory procedures required to authorise its construction cannot be reduced. It is important that the people who may be affected by the scheme, or have other interests in it, are given the opportunity to comment on the proposals.
Funding approval for the scheme to proceed to the next stage in its development, the publication of draft Orders and Environmental Statement, has been given. It is only when construction work is ready to start that funds for major trunk road improvements are finally committed.
Traffic modelling has been undertaken and will be updated to include the latest planning assumptions to ensure that up to the design year, (15 years after opening of the scheme) sufficient capacity is included in the design of the scheme."
So interesting stuff - there is no problem with funding etc, its just taking time to go through the process. I think it is now time for out local elected representatives to look very closely at the timetable and see what can be speeded up - its hard to believe the plans are progressing as quickly as they could be...
One petition I signed because I feel very strongly is the call for urgent action to upgrade the A14 - and Number 10 has just published their response:
"The Government fully recognises the need for improvement of the A14 in Cambridgeshire.
The Government is aware of concern that the scheme should be delivered as quickly as possible and of the level of support for it. The Government intends to progress the scheme as rapidly as practicable. However, the time taken to design the scheme and complete the statutory procedures required to authorise its construction cannot be reduced. It is important that the people who may be affected by the scheme, or have other interests in it, are given the opportunity to comment on the proposals.
Funding approval for the scheme to proceed to the next stage in its development, the publication of draft Orders and Environmental Statement, has been given. It is only when construction work is ready to start that funds for major trunk road improvements are finally committed.
Traffic modelling has been undertaken and will be updated to include the latest planning assumptions to ensure that up to the design year, (15 years after opening of the scheme) sufficient capacity is included in the design of the scheme."
So interesting stuff - there is no problem with funding etc, its just taking time to go through the process. I think it is now time for out local elected representatives to look very closely at the timetable and see what can be speeded up - its hard to believe the plans are progressing as quickly as they could be...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
