Archive for January 2008

Questions about Mill Road for Councillors

A question was asked by a member of the public at the 9th January East Area Committee meeting, as follows, which has relevance to our Campaign:

“Looking at the County Council’s map of accidents in Cambridge, it is clear that the section of Mill Road from the bridge to Coleridge Road is extremely dangerous, with cyclists particularly vulnerable. The Cambridge Cycling Campaign website, for instance, contains many pictures of the hazards caused by lorries in particular. Do Councillors agree that every effort must be made to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and that it is essential to stop any increase in the presence of delivery lorries in the narrow side streets off Mill Road.

Given the current lack of adequate car and cycle parking provision on the streets of Romsey, do Councillors agree that to lose any existing parking spaces, either on the streets or in existing small private car parks, would exacerbate the problem?”

The minutes, published subsequently, state:

“Members in responding to the question made the following points:

  • There was a general awareness of the dangers drawn attention to in the question and the concerns too that parking was at a premium at evenings and weekends.
  • The County Council was piloting a CCTV based scheme for traffic control, and there was the proposal of a 20mph speed restriction, although it was unlikely to be needed during most of the day, due to the weight of the traffic.
  • County Council Highways Engineers were due to come to all Area Committees and it would provide an opportunity for residents and members to put these points to them.
  • The Local Plan had added to the problem by reducing parking spaces per household.
  • There were other issues as well as the peak flow of traffic that the Highways Authority representatives could be asked to address on 28 February meeting of this Committee, residents should make sure they were able to attend, although the officers might not be in a position to provide a response.
  • Cycle parking provision was an issue which had been raised, particularly secure cycle parking, in view of the increase in theft of cycles.
  • Poor street lighting was a contributory factor to some accidents; improved lighting would do more to improve the accident record than CCTV control.
  • A proper analysis of the accident record including the difference between daylight and night-time accidents would be useful.”

Tesco plans in Norwich refused – campaigning works!

Yet another article showing that Councillors are often able to reject such applications, even against the advice of council officials. (See more cases elsewhere.)

Why we booted out new Tesco plans [in Norwich]

Controversial plans to build a Tesco Express on Unthank Road have yet again been rejected in what was today hailed by opponents to the store as a victory for democracy.

Councillors on City Hall’s planning committee yesterday overwhelmingly rejected proposals for the store on a former petrol station site for the second time in a month on grounds of highway safety and congestion.

The application by the supermarket giant was turned down in a previous planning committee meeting on December 6, against the recommendation for approval by planning officers, but councillors then asked officers to produce a report setting out the exact wording for the reasons for refusal.

Continue reading ‘Tesco plans in Norwich refused – campaigning works!’ »