Find out what your West Chesterton Lib Dem team have been doing for you in our blog below!
Your West Chesterton Lib Dem Team
City Councillor, West Chesterton
Read on for details of when the works will happen, and an FAQ on the works.
The latest schedule, which will be refreshed once a week here, is: 20200309_cityfibre.csv
(we had a Public meeting at The Waterman pub, rear shed, 1800-2000 on 2020-01-30 (6pm-8pm on the 30th January) with representatives from City Fibre present, and potentially could organise another if needed).
The schedule for works covers the following areas on the map lower down a "PN"is a "Primary Node" which covers about 400 properties.
|PN 50||Dec 2019||Mar 2020|
|PN 118||Jan 2020||Mar 2020|
|PN 29||Jan 2020||Apr 2020|
|PN 42||Jan 2020||Apr 2020|
|PN 47||Jan 2020||May 2020|
|PN 133||Feb 2020||May 2020|
|PN 144||Feb 2020||June 2020|
These map onto the areas shown below:
This will be regularly updated as we have information from City Fibre: works schedule
These are not exhaustive but are examples of what is and isn't allowed.
They are not permitted to leave any more that 40m of trench open and barriered overnight in any one street.
There should be work people available to facilitate access to houses at all times.
Replanting of eg verge damage is scheduled for March onwards. Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 they work is subject to the standard two year guarantee; with a minimum of the statutory two reinstatement inspections by the County Council being made during this period; 3-6 months after completion and at 21 months from completion, just before the two year guarantee period.
The category of work is defined as 3 days for minor works, 10 days for standard works, then anything over 10 days become major
- Dedicated enforcement officer for works, paid for by City Fibre, employed by County
What is the timescale?
- Ask Ascham in mid January
- Ascham say "yes"
- The Triangle, Hurst Park estate and Arbury Road are formally consulted
- This stage is likely to end before March, when the City Council election purdah period starts
- Decision to go ahead taken at the next CJAC meeting after May, which is 9th June 2020 (the one before this is 25th February, so there is no realistic chance of hitting this date)
- If the scheme is voted through the implementation should then happen within 6 months.
Has there been a calculation of parking capacity?
Working with different sets of residents, there are some estimates, but these aren't formal ones. Overall there should be enough capacity in the whole area, but this doesn't take into account that the area isn't a 'regular' shape - ie capacity in Gurney Way isn't of uch use to someone in Arbury Road.
Are there charges?
Yes - I don't know the price of permits in the scheme yet, but other schemes vary from aorund £60-100 for permits. You can find a list at the bottom of this page
Can visitor permits be rolled over from one year to another
Plans for Arbury Road and impact on scheme
This refers to the incomplete cycleways at the North end of Arbury Road. There are ongoing discussions about how, or if, to finish these off. Whilst changes here could impact parking, we will finalise a decision about the parking controls well before anything is decided about Arbury Road.
It may be that at a later point changes are proposed again, but that will be a seperate, later, decision.
How will it work? -one scheme?
If Ascham consent, and the scheme makes it through the two formal stages, then the area will be one scheme for the whole area and that will have the same hours of operation and max permits as the Ascham scheme.
Can some streets veto?
I always struggle with this question. The basic answer is no - but that I've alwways worked hard to make sure that nothing gets to that point. The results of my most recent survey show support in each street for going ahead.
Why has it taken so long?
Essentially there hasn't been a consensus to go ahead, and I spent a lot of time attempting to resolve issues that come from the Triangle area in terms of 'lost' parking spaces.
There is now a consensus at this stage.
Why would ascham say yes or no?
I'd hope that residents would see the issues faced by their fellow citizens and consent. Ascham is far from at capacity. I'll be organising for all of us to contact residents in that area once I have a clearer picture of the timeline.
The types of permits can be seen on this page: https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/parking-permits-and-fines/parking/
What if Ascham says no?
My survey showed support to still go ahead with a scheme joining The Triangle, Hurst Park estate and Arbury Road. This scheme could have different settings (times of operation and max permits) than other schemes.
I don't yet know what the timescales for that will be, but will update residents if it comes to that.
What about the Hurst Park Estate going on its own?
I am firmly against this, as it would be manifestly unfair on the Triangle area and Abury Road.
Back in 2017, there was a clear consensus from the Hurst Park to not bring in restrictions right away. That view has clearly changed since Ascham has gone ahead, due to overspill from there; to then allow Hurst Park to go ahead on its own, and create overspill for Arbury Road and the Triangle, would be to repeat such a mistake.
City Fibre is a project to provide super fast broadband to homes in Cambridge. It started in the North of the City earlier this year, with a very agressive timetable of works to install cables under residental streets.
I've (Cllr Ian Manning) been working with officers to try and ensure the works are carried out in ways that don't unduly disrupt residents - many people have had serious issues with the work as it has continued.
Most recently there have been complaints from residents about the location of the cabinets that support the connections to houses, and I've been following this up - I'm now demanding a freeze on more installs & authorisation of cabinets until after officers have met to agree a proper plan and involve local Cllrs and residents in the locations of the same.
A number of locations of cabinets have risked either aking it impossible for residents to maintain their fences, and in more serious cases made it easy to jump over fences making residents feel insecure. Clearly there is a worry about obstruction of pa ements on top of this.
Many cabinet installations haven't been approved by the County Council. There are some basic criteria under which a cabinet could be approved:
1) Is the location ver an access point?
2) Is the pavement wide enough with the cabinet?
3) Is there at least a 100mm gap between the cabinet and property boundaries?
I'm working with officers to understand whether a cabinet location can be turned down even if it meets the criteria above. Further I'm calling for:
Here is more detailed street by street breakdowns of answers to my informal survey on parking controls, as well as other results from the survey.
The crucial thing to highlight in the results below is that all streets have a majority in favour of restrictions. I've merged sideroads onto main roads to ensure anonymity of the respondants.
Those supporting the principle of parking restrictions, who answered the question of asking Ascham (ie "Yes" indicates they both supportined the principleof parking controls and support asking Ascham):
|Chesterton Hall Crescent||4||13||1||18|
|Hurst Park Avenue||5||30||2||37|
Taking the filter off of who supported the principle of restrictions, ie just the answers to the question about whether people supported asking Ascham to be part of a larger scheme:
|Chesterton Hall Crescent||4||13||1||18|
|Hurst Park Avenue||12||31||5||48|
Now those who support the principle by street:
|Chesterton Hall Crescent||18||18|
|Hurst Park Avenue||7||37||4||48|
Responses to asking whether car club spaces would be supported:
|Chesterton Hall Crescent||3||13||2||18|
|Hurst Park Avenue||12||33||3||48|
Responses to whether residents would support a scheme of HPA Estate + the Triangle if Ascham says no for those residents who supported parking restrictions in principle (the majority was smaller for all respondants):
|Chesterton Hall Crescent||4||13||1||18|
|Hurst Park Avenue||6||27||2||35|
I've presented the responses to the number of permits as %s as I think it's more useful, and shown below the data filtered to those who supported the principle of controls:
|I do not support a scheme joining Hurst Park & The Chesterton Triangle||19%|
|One permit per household||43%|
|Three permits per household||7%|
|Two permits per household||26%|
In terms of days of operation I think there is a clear majority in favour of Monday-Friday:
|Monday-Sunday (ie all week)||19%|
For hours of operation, the majority times are for 0900 start and 1500 end (23% and 20% respectively).
The raw data, anonymised is here: raw data
These are the results of the citizens jury.....read on for the initial results of the parking survey ( https://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/west_chesterton_parking_a_larger_scheme ) I'm reporting back initial results as of the time of writing.
As you'll note reading this it is now Wednesday, whereas I originally gave a deadline for responses of the 12th, with an intention of publishing a decision that sunday.
There were a very low number of responses from Arbury Road; as Arbury Road was missed out of the initial drawings from a couple of years ago, residents there have not been as involved in discussions as those around the Triangle and Hurst Park Estate. Therefore I allowed a couple of extra days to encourage responses.
A word about the data: this is not a referendum, and I have not stopped people responding more than once from a single household, apart from to stop responses from fake email addresses, and/or obvious attempts at responding to the surey twice.
The headline results are as follows (numbers shown below are %s):
|Question||HPA Yes||HPA No||Tri Yes||Tri No||Overall Yes||Overall No|
|Principle of residents parking||78||22||97.5||2.5||88||12|
|Support asking Ascham to expand||72||28||90||10||81||19|
|If Ascham say no, have a HPA+Tri area||54*||39*||80*||18*||67*||28*|
* note these doesn't sum to 100% as there was a third option; I've followed up with those filling in that response.
Total responses were around 240, depending on the question (I have the detailed data).
For the car club question, there was also strong support to have car club spaces (75%).
This gives a clear steer to go ahead with the next stage, of asking Ascham to expand. I'll be in touch about this, and next steps to support that, along with analysis of the other questions, very soon.
As noted in a previous blog post I had to select five top bids to progress to the next stage of the LHI process. I'm going to explain which ones I've selected, and some reasons for those as well as the ones I didn't progress.
Progressing to next stage
|Streetlights (2 orchard, 1 lents way, 1 Fallowfield)||Combination of two bids - one from another Councillor and one from me (Ian Manning). Remove one light from mine in order that both bids could go through as one (with one less light on the second).||The previous County Councillor for West Chesterton had let all lights be removed from Orchard Avenue, and the two other requests (Fallowfield and Lent's Way) came from residents concerned about particular areas.|
|Reduce cycle/pedestrian conflictt, Moss Bank||Carry on pavement from end of moss bank into path to station. Re arrange bollards so cyclists are encouraged to use road and pedestrians pavement.||This is an area that will only become busier and more congested as the Chisholm Trail is finished.|
|Mini roundabout Water Lane||Raise roundabout in order to slow traffic down||I've no doubt this will be expensive, but it was a resident suggestion that was extremely popular.|
|Riverside bridge conflict reduction||Prevent cars overhanding car parking area on Chesterton side of path to bridge. Potential rearrangement of bollard to reduce conflict.||Suggestion from Cambridge Cycle Campaign which I've had as an LHI in previous years.|
|Hurst Park Avenue box junction||Currently very difficult and dangerous for cars to get out at peak times.||Note - this will be redundant if the City Deal Milton Road proposals will go through, but this currently isn't certain, and may take around 2 years.|
|Mobile vehicle activated speed sign||I've been told by officers they plan to pool these across Cambridge City, and are currently at capacity. On that basis, that we will be able to get one at points, I didn't see a need to use a bid on a specific one.|
|Improved signage for Cambridge North station||Officers believe a budget has been identified for this outside the LHI process.|
|Grumpy's corner bollard||Stop motor traffic from cutting the corner near the corner shop.||Again, an alternative route has been identified.|
|Bollards outside shops on Arbury Road at the junction with Milton Road||Intention was to help with preventing pavement parking in this area.||This came from a Labour Cllr who'd failed to talk to any of the businesses about this - on top of this, some of the pavement isn't County owned, so potentially the Council could be blocking access to private land.|
|Dropped kerb, Elizabeth Way||Make cycle route tom Humberstone Road from East Chesterton more easy and convenient, take cyclists away from pavement.||I don't believe this is as urgent or busy a route as the bid I have progressed, and do not believe it as much of a local priority as the other bids.|
Further to my last update on parking controls in West Chesterton http://bit.ly/chestertonparking201907 this is a further update.
My intention is to ask residents of the chesterton triangle area and hurst park areas if they are willing to go ahead to ask the Ascham area if it will expand to be one large scheme covering all three areas.
At the meeting I held on 2019-07-14 I gave an approximate timescale of a month from the meeting on 2019-07-20 to make decisions, including going back to residents with options. Since that point I have:
1) Gone through the substantive feedback from both these meetings, both in terms of individual cases and in terms of the interaction between potential parking controls and the potential of changes to Arbury Road
2) Had 7 meetings with individuals, businesses and organisations about both potential changes and the individual issues raised
3) From 2) followed up a number of technical queries
4) Had residents arrange a survey of current on street parking capacity in the Hurst Park Area
I have two more meetings to attend about the parking w/c 2019-08-19. After that point I intend to survey residents as follows, giving as much information (capacity, timings) on each option as possible:
To residents in the Chesterton Triangle area - knowing we have had multiple fixes to the capacity issue in Herbert Street ruled out, do they want to: leave the situation as is; go ahead with Hurst Park and ask Acham to expand (under Ascham's conditions); if Ascham were to say no, do they want to go ahead with just them + CHesterton Triangle and what hours of operation would they want
To Residents in the Hurst Park Estates - explaining that their problem is down to Ascham going ahead and forcing vehicles in, and thaht I do not want to create the same problem for the triangle by HUrst Park going ahead without them, do they support a parking scheme in their area joined with the Triangle area, asking Ascham to expand their zone, with Ascham's conditions; if Ascham were to say no, would they support not leaving the triangle alone and what conditions would they want in that case
I will support the survey above with at least one more public meeting and one more facebook session for people to seek clarification on any unclear points.
After the disruption to rail services last year local railway operator GTR has created a Passenger Benefit Fund to compensate passengers and communities for the disruption. We believe that increased traffic on the line will bring additional problems to an already busy level crossing, and are calling on GTR to fund research into a road bridge over the railway line so that residents and businesses aren't shut in and the dangerous level crossing can be closed.
Sign our Petition!
This blog post attempts to update residents on the status of residents’ parking across West Chesterton and East Chesterton.
There is an added level of complexity because the County Divisions do not match the City ones. There is a Chesterton Division at County level, but West and East Chesterton Wards at City. This is important from an accountability perspective, as residents’ parking is a County matter. I’ve tried to note in each area update which Division (County) and Ward (City) it is in.
Please read on for a summary of the main areas, and a lot of detail on the work that has been done since 2017 to find workable solutions.
The summary is this:
Name of area
Hurst Park estate
Hurst Park Avenue and roads off, bound by Milton Road and Arbury Road.
Informal stage, decision not made whether to go ahead or not.
Roads in Springfield Road to Hawthorn Way, bound by Chesterton Road and Milton Road
Informal stage, decision not made whether to go ahead or not.
Ascham Road & north
Approved by Labour majority at Committee, implemented
Roads off North side of Victoria Avenue, from Garden Walk& Bateson Road to Corona Road
Approved by Labour majority at Committee, implemented
All streets South of chesterton Road to the river
Implemented several years ago, no plans to change.
All of East Chesterton
All streets in East Chesterton
Residents surveyed last summer, decision to not go ahead for now
Chesterton & Kings Hedges
For each of the areas I’ll now go into more detail: I’m not going to rehash every point in detail, but I have included links to previous blog posts.
Applying to both Chesterton Triangle and the Hurst Park estate is that we have to consider the needs of local businesses, and those who have regular visitors (eg for health reasons) and the impact things like the limitation on permit numbers will have on them.
Chesterton Triangle Area
After negotiation, I managed to get support from the Fire Authority for the Herbert Street Fix. County Council officers required a political steer from the Chair of Highways in order to vary policy to allow parking both sides with less than 3.1m. Despite a site visit and multiple follow ups from me to officers and the political level, that steer has not been given.
I’m desperately disappointed at this - many hours have been poured into getting everything in place, only for the County to refuse to be at all flexible.
This is on top of all the other work done since 2017 (on legal liabilities, variations in zone access, finding of extra spaces, interaction with the Milton Road and numerous other attempts - all covered in previous blogs).
Hurst Park Area
Since Labour Councillors forced a resident parking zone for Ascham via a vote at Joint Area Committee, more residents of the Hurst Park area have started to ask about ways to mitigate the impact on their area. This can be seen in the difference between the results on the survey above and those from 2017 - https://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/triangle_north_milton_road_parking_updates .
I’ve held one meeting for residents to ask general questions, which was well attended, and another is this week on 2019-07-23 1830-2000 at St Laurence’s Church Hall - which will focus on potential changes to Arbury Road, but will also include a section on parking. That evening I’m holding a facebook session for anyone to ask further questions - from 2030 to 2130 at https://fb.me/IanGManning
Based on feedback from that meeting, emails outside of that meeting I will soon (within the next month) send a survey out to all residents of Hurst Park asking if they are willing to create one large parking area of Hurst Park, Chesterton Triangle joining with the Ascham Zone. This will include options to not go ahead with residents parking, and options to go ahead with just parking controls (i.e. double and single yellow lines).
To me it isn’t morally justifiable for Hurst Park to have it’s own scheme, and effectively leave the Chesterton Triangle area on its own - see the challenges above, where it will lose 30 spaces at the moment.
The problem is that because Ascham already went ahead, Ascham have to be asked first if they are willing to go ahead with this. Residents will need to work with me to help them appreciate the issues faced by the other areas and therefore the need to think of everyone’s needs.
This scheme is now in place as noted above, and is having an impact on surrounding areas.
Another scheme that has gone ahead; we are aware of complaints from residents on the south side of Victoria Avenue that they haven’t been considered in the scheme, and are therefore effectively locked out of parking spaces they’ve been using for years.
I’m acutely aware that, if a scheme were to be brought in that covered the Hurst Park Estate, there is as usual the potential of knock on impact.
The closest areas are Oak Tree Avenue and Union Lane - I think the former is too tight for spill over parking as parked cars would block the road; Union Lane obviously has some potential for spill over.
I’ll be alerting both Oak Tree and Union Lane to this potential. In the latter case I think the natural boundary of busy Milton Road will probably prevent major issues, but only time will tell.