I would comment but living mere feet outside the catchment area of the QRRA I don't qualify for membership... which really is quite a shame as I've never been in a residents association before...

We could always form one ;)

Oh yes!!

Now you're talking!!

We could hold our meetings at the mysterious social club...

I'm not a member, but I believe QRRA is open to people who live in nearby streets, Park Road for example.

The QRRA site sets out the boundaries as:

"Queens Road, lower Park Road (up to the junction with Valley Road), Dentons Terrace, Colne Terrace and Paget Road (north of the railway line)."

Which *just* rules me out.

And me.

*tongue firmly in cheek*

...I wonder why the QRRA cuts the boundary off just *before* Valley Road?

I've long suspected it's because they don't like my rose bushes in my front garden...

Well there is a discretionary associate membership if you are really keen as long as you subscribe to the aims and objects of the association!

Ah, that's good to know, queenie (and very nice to have you on board here as well.) I think I have one foot either side of the defined boundary. It's not often that I sit on the fence ;)

More seriously, I think I have been quite clear in my various blog posts about the closure of Queens Road and my personal disruption. The disruption is really non-existent. We moved into Wivenhoe knowing pretty much about the Valley Road diversion. I can't say that I really notice or hear any extra traffic to be honest.

Keep posting away, and please warmly invite other members of the QRRA to join in with our conversations here.

Thanks.

Gosh, you guys must have an awful lot of time on your hands!

Not bonkers. The planners know precisely what they're doing and I've often wondered what particular perversity it is that makes their decision the opposite of what is good and sensible when it comes to Wivenhoe.

Remember when the flood protection dam was built? There was a temporary road to the works from the Arlesford Rd to take the construction traffic. That should have been made into a permanent road.

The possibility of making that temporary road into a permanent one is one of those persistent urban myths that keeps popping up no matter how many times you shoot it down.  It only went from Cook's yard to a riverside quarry now worked out.  It didn't connect to any other road at the Alresford end.

Urban myths may be based on inaccurately perceived facts but the reason they refuse to die is that the perception made good sense.

That perception has only been strengthened by subsequent developments and the concomitant traffic misery they inflict.

If such a road had existed at the time of the fire in the Business centre I imagine the fire brigade would have been appreciative.

It is simply needed.

It's not a matter of perception.  The fact is that the temporary road didn't go anywhere; it ran over the marshes, parallel to the shoreline to a point a couple of hundred metres short of where the seawall footpath joins the old railway line, where aggregates dug out right there were loaded into trucks.  As far as I know, there has never been a fire station in that location.  Just a few sheep.

I must be suffering from a faulty memory. Are there still some maps around of the situation at the time? Not asking because I want to double-check on what you're saying, just curious now to see how far my recollection is at odds with the facts ...

No doubt maps were submitted to the planning authority for approval, probably also to the sea defences dept, whose name I forget, long since swallowed up by the Environment Agency. Whether maps still exist and, if so, whether CBC can find them is another matter. This was of course long before electronic access to planning stuff.

And here's a further update on the recent attempt to re-open Queens Road, from the viewpoint of the QRRA. I attended the NAP meeting, and was also a little surprised about the continued call to re-open Queens Road.

No surprise really about the call to re-open queens road, as valley road is disintegrating under the volume of tonnage grinding its way to Cook's. Wish we had the influence their residents committee wields...

There is always the scope to start a campaigning Park Road / Valley Road Resident's Association ;)

Valley Road might be suffering under the 'tonnage' using it, but take a walk up Queens Road and look at the damage to all the walls where large vehicles tried to get down and couldn't over recent years.

I totally agree that Valley Road isn't exactly suitable either, but at least it's plenty wide enough, and is the only approach road that actually is.

 

 

Keith seems to have missed the point that Valley Rd would indeed wide enough but it's cluttered up with lines of parked cars on both sides. They block the pavements too, which I find even more annoying.

Hi Tom,

Didn't miss the point - I was just reluctant to mention that, as it was about parking, not the closure of Queens Road, but I agree.

Regularly walking up Valley Road, I always think about taking my camera and taking some pictures of the drives!  Nearly every drive is completely empty though many of them have room for two, or even three, cars.  And where are they?  Parked illegally on the pavement!

You cannot get a pram, pushchair, wheelchair, or disability buggy along Valley Road without walking in the road.

And this in an area where residents regularly complain about traffic, and press the safety argument!!

 

Parking is an issue that regularly crops up at the Neighbourhood Action Panel meetings. The next meeting is on 8th February, 7pm at the Town Council offices. I'm not sure how you can get an issue on the agenda (Tom?) but details of the panel are over here.

Ahem. Tom seems to have forgotten his own point about driveways in valley road being so steep that you risk removing exhaust and more if you don't have a car which sits high enough above the surface. Perhaps both he and Keith are unaware that residents in valley road regularly receive warning letters from Cooks development contractors, warning them to park well up on pavements to avoid damage to wing mirrors etc (a regular problem here). Most people try to leave enough space for pedestrians, prams etc., but before we get on our high horse we should recall that this is really all about some spineless council policy decisions before the financial muscle of developers, and recognise that valley road residents are between a rock and a hard place on this one!

And that would be Colchester Borough Council, because WTC are largely ignored on planning matters.

The  main problem in Wivenhoe is that there are too many cars struggling for space and access via the old part of the town which was built before cars were invented.  Many families now have two or three cars per household rather than the old single family car.  I think WTC could well look to their own town plan published in 2008 which intended to encourage people to use non-car forms of transport apart from essential use.  There are also shared car schemes and other innovative ideas like minibus 'transport on demand' which could improve the situation and make Wivenhoe a better place to live.  I did suggest a rickshaw taxi at one point for short journeys around the town but that didn't go down too well!

Re an earlier point-  the Environment Agency used to be called the National Rivers Authority in an earlier incarnation.

 

queenie - yes, agreed that non-car forms of transport should be encouraged. A town this size can't sustain the transport infrastructure that was built more than a century ago.

I've spoken with the good Nigel down at the Cansdale & Ross about this. He mentioned a previous WTC initiative to have council owned bicycles around the town? The slowness of this project led Nigel to simply buy a couple of bikes himself, and then place these outside the church.

I'm not suggesting that if a few people start cycling then the congestion will go away, but it is a small step.

And with perfect timing, here comes Keep Colchester Cycling...

From the highway code:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and
should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the
pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people
in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or
pushchairs.

Parking on pavements is my pet hate. However, ask a traffic warden to do something about it and they tell you to call the cops.

However, if developers are sending letters to residents encouraging them to break the law, maybe those letters should be forwarded to the local constabulary. Isn't it a crime to incite another to commit a crime?

As for leaving space to walk on Valley Road - yes, if you're very thin, and don't carry bags, or push a pram etc...

Perhaps its best not to generalise about car owners: most do their best in almost impossible circumstances in valley road. I did take one developers letter to my councillor, over six months ago: 'nuff said?

Who's generalising about car owners? Whilst pedestrians continue to have to walk in the road, no 'nuff not said.'

Did the councillor actually follow the matter up?

Re Puffin's earlier comment: I wouldn't say that QRRA 'wields influence'.  It spends most of its time trying to correct misleading and emotive innuendo by providing logical statements on material issues.