Play ojo free spins no deposit

  1. Neteller Deposit Casino: At Miss Midas slot, you will see symbols of castles, royal foods, roses, thrones, peacocks as well as basic card symbols.
  2. Best Online Poker For Real Money - Without the extra features, such as bonus plays, one can still enjoy the base game mode with graphics and sounds.
  3. Biggest Win Slot: For instance, the randomly-triggered Dual Feature selects one icon for each play area.

Stratosphere cryptocurrency casino Sydney

Casino Com Sister Sites
Groovy Sixties is a hilariously fun 5-reel, 4-row, 40-payline video slot that comes to us from Net Entertainment.
Heart Of Vegas Big Bonus
Live casinos have two ends- the player end and the casino end.
This specific Borgata slot has grown so successful that a successor, known as the Cleopatra II slot machine, has been developed as a result of the overwhelming demand.

How to win in crypto casinos

Best Online Slot Payout
The game features a 5x5 grid of cascading reels action, which keeps game play as energized as the bands rock soundtrack.
Biggest Online Casino Win
As the internet can be accessed by anyone, the operators recommend installing filtering software to block access to unauthorized sites.
Pokies Open Near Me Today

Tesco admits servicing via the ‘loop’ would be dangerous

Below is an e-mail we obtained which contains an admission from Tesco’s own consultants that servicing their proposed store via the ‘loop’ (local streets behind the store) would have safety issues.

The relevant paragraph is:

Due to the one way nature of Sedgwick Street access to the rear of the site would be via the ‘loop’ formed by Catharine Street and Sedgwick Street. This arrangement has the potential to cause detriment to the amenity and safety of local residents, due to multiple delivery movements per day with what will still be large vehicles. There is the also potential that poorly parked vehicles on could block access, requiring long and potentially dangerous reversing manoeuvres or police action.

Here is the full e-mail thread:

—-

From: Finney Jon

Date: Apr 2, 2009 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: Tesco Express, Mill Rd, Cambridge
To: “Hanks, Nathan”
Cc: John Mumby , […]
Nathan,
Thank you for your Email of 30th March 2009 concerning the above.
In order to fund a TRO as a third party you will need to compile with the following policy:
11.9 Third party funding of highway features

11.9.1 Privately funded highway features may be installed on the public highway in the following circumstances:

· there is a safety problem which the proposed feature(s) would be expected to address

· the proposed feature(s) could be installed safely (as demonstrated by a positive Safety Audit process)

· the provision of the proposed feature(s) would comply with current County Council policy

· the proposed feature(s) are acceptable to the local community.

11.9.2 The guidelines in all relevant DfT Traffic Advisory Notes will be considered when providing privately funded highway features.

11.9.3 Third parties may fund the provision of highway features that meet the conditions set out above. Third party funding must include the following cost elements.

Works Cost Elements

Cost

a)

The cost of constructing the feature/s

Estimate to be provided

Actual costs to be paid

b)

The cost of providing a suitable electricity supply

Estimate to be provided

Actual costs to be paid

c)

The cost of design, construction supervision and administration of the works

20%of (a+b)

d)

The cost of an annual maintenance inspection, operation and any necessary fault repairs due to normal usage

Commuted sum to be paid:

(Lifespan of feature in years x (annual maintenance + operational cost if any))

11.9.4 Third parties who fund the provision of a highway feature(s) will be responsible for the full cost of any future works required as a result of the feature(s) being vandalised, stolen, or coming to the end of its/their economic operating life.

11.9.5 No works order shall be placed for privately funded feature(s) before full payment of the one-off and commuted sum

payments have been received.

11.9.6 No works order shall be placed for replacement or repair works to a privately funded feature(s) until a written undertaking to pay for the works has been received from the funding body.

I would draw your particular attention to paragraph 11.9.1; having spoken to the Area Traffic Manager in our opinon your 
request does not complie with the first bullet point and not wishing to pre-judge the issue, I would doubt that bullet point 
 four can be achieved either. 
 
 

From: Hanks, Nathan
Sent: 30 March 2009 15:51

To: Finney Jon
Cc: John Mumby; […]
Subject: RE: Tesco Express, Mill Rd, Cambridge

Jon

Further to our previous correspondence, you may be aware that Tesco will be servicing the site utilising smaller vehicles than previously proposed and as such can currently access the rear of the site, entering in forward gear, turn on site and exit in forward gear. The use of smaller vehicles requires that there are more frequent deliveries than were previously proposed for the extended site, however access with these vehicles is possible without the need to remove any on street parking.

Due to the one way nature of Sedgwick Street access to the rear of the site would be via the ‘loop’ formed by Catharine Street and Sedgwick Street. This arrangement has the potential to cause detriment to the amenity and safety of local residents, due to multiple delivery movements per day with what will still be large vehicles. There is the also potential that poorly parked vehicles on could block access, requiring long and potentially dangerous reversing manoeuvres or police action.

We have therefore undertaken a swept path analysis for the smaller service vehicles, accessing the rear of the site from Sedgwick Street, via Mill Road. This would require that the traffic regulation order is amended to permit one-way traffic for the first section of Sedgwick Street, however no loss of on street parking would be required.

I believe that this proposal would be of benefit to local residents and highway users, as well as Tesco, and would therefore be grateful if you could consider the TRO amendment. As we have confirmed in the past, any costs associated would be covered by Tesco. For your information, please find attached our swept path analysis drawing, illustrating access and egress for an 8.0m rigid vehicle.

Should you wish to discuss, please do not hesitate  to contact me.

Kind regards

Nathan Hanks

PINNACLE TRANSPORTATION


From: Finney Jon
Sent: 17 March 2009 09:36
To: Hanks, Nathan
Cc: John Mumby; […]
Subject: RE: Tesco Express, Mill Rd, Cambridge

Nathan,

Thank you for your Email re the above. Whereas the Highway Authority does not accept that the Tesco occupation of an existing A1 use on Mill Road site can be construed as a new development, I would be prepared to review your clients proposals to modify the existing infrastructure, however as the LDF states any such alterations must benefit of all highway users. Any such changes must also be acceptable to the local residents (I would suggest that the local ward councillors would be able to give a reasonable steer on this area).

I feel that this can best be done by providing me with a plan and some initial thoughts (that go beyond the simple removal of on street car parking, which as you know the Highway Authority regards as unacceptable), in writing, which would enable all parties to have some input, followed by a meeting if the proposals do indeed provide a way forward.

Yours

Jon Finney

Development Control Engineer (City and South)


From: Hanks, Nathan
Sent: 16 March 2009 16:11
To: Finney Jon
Cc: John Mumby; […]
Subject: RE: Tesco Express, Mill Rd, Cambridge

Jon

Further to your response below, i can confirm that Tesco are proposing to deliver to the site utilising smaller vehicles. I have been instructed to request a meeting on site to discuss such servicing and any potential which there may be to minimise the effects upon local residents and pedestrians / traffic.

I find it disappointing and somewhat confusing that the Highway Authority is suggesting no highway improvements should be made when they would be funded by Tesco and could be designed such that they are of benefit to all road users. This approach is contrary to the City Council’s guidance in their LDF (albeit for new developments) which includes the following wording:

“The Need for Transport Infrastructure Improvements

3.2.8. New developments can give rise to a need for transport improvements in a number of ways and it is important for the purposes of this Strategy that they are clearly distinguished.

3.2.9. In the case of many development schemes, specific works and improvements will be required either on-site or off-site to mitigate the direct impact of the development scheme on the transport network and to make the proposed development acceptable, for example, improvements to junctions, provision of traffic lights and pedestrian or toucan crossings, local traffic calming or the introduction of parking restrictions on surrounding streets. These can be categorised as development-specific transport works and are normally required to be implemented as part of the development scheme.”

Although in planning terms this is not a ‘new development’, it is clear that members of the local community see it as such and therefore Tesco wish to provide the Council with the ability to consider infrastructure improvements, as set out in the LDF.

I would therefore be grateful if you could confirm whether you are willing / available to meet on site and discuss.

Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Nathan Hanks

PINNACLE TRANSPORTATION

From: Finney Jon
Sent: 02 March 2009 16:50
To: Hanks, Nathan
Cc: John Mumby; […]
Subject: RE: Tesco Express, Mill Rd, Cambridge

Nathan,

The Highway Authority’s position has not changed since the start of the planning process or since my last Email to you in August of last year.

As Tesco’s were fully aware of the constraints involved in servicing the existing A1 use of the premises the Highway Authority sees no reason to change any of the existing traffic regulation orders to accommodate the servicing arrangements of a commercial organisation. It is the responsibility of the occupier of the premises to service their operations in manner that is suitable for the existing situation and not for the Highway Authority to modify the highway to suit the requirements of a private organisation.

As you know the Highway Authority considers it perfectly possible for the premises to be serviced from the rear with smaller vehicles.

Under these circumstances I see very little use in the Highway Authority’s representative attending any meeting as all I or any other member of staff would be able to do is to reiterate the above.

Yours

Jon Finney

Development Control Engineer (City and South)


From: Nathan Hanks
Sent: 28 February 2009 16:03
To: Finney Jon
Cc: John Mumby
Subject: RE: Tesco Express, Mill Rd, Cambridge

Jon

I am instructed that Tesco are to open this store, within the existing building, in the near future and that no further planning permission is required. A such i have been asked to contact the Council and arrange for a meeting to discuss the optimal servicing solution and to agree the way forward in terms of any highway works or TRO amendments which could be undertaken (at Tesco’s cost) to ensure that deliveries have the minimum possible impact upon the free flow of traffic and highway safety.

I would therefore be grateful if you could confirm your (or an appropriate colleague’s) availability for a meeting.

Should you require further information or wish to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Nathan Hanks

PINNACLE TRANSPORTATION

From: Finney Jon
Sent: 11 August 2008 17:06
To: Nathan Hanks
Subject: RE: Tesco Express, Mill Rd, Cambridge

Nathan,

My advice stands as stated, my response has been arrived at following consultation with the Area Traffic Manager of the City of Cambridge. However, he is on leave until the end of the month and I will be on leave the last week of August and first week in Sept. so I will not be able to discuss the matter until early Sept. I will of course reply more fully after that.

Yours

Jon Finney

Development Control Engineer (City and South)

Comments are closed.