| |
|
FIVE LAMPS 2
The
planners at Roman House revealed what they intend to do
to our city's transport infrastructure. Or, to be more
precise, they revealed a document made up of errors,
omissions and pipe dreams. Yet they expect our elected
councillors to make a reasoned judgement based on this
fairytale and then take our city forward. I would not
touch it with a barge pole if I was them. Perhaps it was
an early April Fools joke.
The Environmental Statement is not included: what are
they hiding? What was discovered by the archaeological
survey at the marble works? Surely it would be helpful
for politicians to know the facts before making such
important decisions? The maps used at the public
consultations last November clearly show option 1
requiring more of the gardens at Five Lamps than option
2.
Yet in the report to council, it is stated that option 1
will require less of the gardens. Which is it? Or do we
the public just get fobbed off with any old map? Lip
service consultation or confusion? Are they concerned
about our heritage? It is page 21 before the fact that
the plans affect a conservation area is mentioned. No
mention at all is made about it being a World Heritage
Site Buffer Zone.
Perhaps to road obsessed planners these little matters in
a residential area do not matter. Planning in a
conservation area is supposed to preserve and enhance the
area (PPG 15). How does knocking down 40 West Avenue
achieve that? Safety, of course, is their number one
priority. Except that on page 23 they admit that cars
will be able to go faster at Five Lamps, but do not worry
about such minor details, as they will control the
speeding drivers with traffic lights.
How? If they are green, the traffic goes. Still, as the
engineers do not consider Five Lamps and Kedleston Road a
residential area, perhaps that is why they are designing
a racetrack. On a closing note, page 23 states that
congestion will still exist at Five Lamps, even if 40
West Avenue is knocked down and the capacity of the
junction is the same whichever scheme is chosen.
But it is not the planners' money, so why not blow
£500,000 to achieve very little except destroy a
conservation area? Is it only egos that prevent the
lights being turned off when pedestrians do not need
them? Richard
Butler
A car was flipped on to
its roof and two people were taken to hospital after it
collided with another vehicle in the latest accident at
the controversial Five Lamps junction. Now residents are
calling for Derby City Council to take immediate action
to reduce the number of accidents before someone is
killed. This accident is the sixth at the redesigned Five
Lamps junction since September.
A resident, whose home in Kedleston Road looks onto the
junction, said, "Accidents are occurring too
regularly in the Five Lamps area. The council didn't
listen to anyone around here when it decided how it was
going to design the junction. The problem comes from the
confusion of the traffic lights. The easiest solution
would be to make Kedleston Road and Duffield Road one-way
so there's no crossover of traffic." The council
maintain the accidents are nothing to do with the lights.
No?
<<<
Prev
|
