Show signs of common sense YOU report in your paper (January 26) that the small shops in High Street Passage have been told to remove their advertising boards as the council regularly get complaints from people with pushchairs and wheelchairs and the par
Show signs of common sense
YOU report in your paper (January 26) that the small shops in High Street Passage have been told to remove their advertising boards as the council regularly get complaints from people with pushchairs and wheelchairs and the partially-sighted and blind.
But why do they allow all the cars that park along the High Street to come onto the pavement and the pedestrian area?
If the full amount of pavement was clear of car bumps and wheels there would be plenty of room for the odd board.
You may also want to watch:
If we drive our shops away, we will end up with a town full of the same shops as everywhere else and then where will we be?
HILARY van de WATERING
- 1 Rowdy passengers force train cancellation
- 2 Daughter sets fire to father's bedroom after food outrage
- 3 Sparkling sake brewery launches in Ely
- 4 Man, 20, rapes woman as she slept, court told
- 5 Police buy clothes for Iranian children rescued from lorry
- 6 Woman delighted to finally be a mum after infertility heartache
- 7 Child rapist from St Ives has been jailed after abuse
- 8 Have your say on plans to improve city rail station
- 9 Teen rape case prompts city market safety review
- 10 St Neots murder to feature in 24 Hours in Police Custody
St Mary's Court
Parked cars, not the advert boards, are the real problem
THE news item on council action over A-boards shows a pettiness that is hard to credit.
I have, over the years, seen a number of such boards in Ely and have never been inconvenienced by them.
I am sure that, if anyone does find their way obstructed by one, a word with the shopkeeper would soon sort things out, as Ms Haynes remarks show. There would be no need to report to the council.
However, if the highways supervisor wants to do a worthwhile job, he or she should go to High Street. There they will find cars and vans parked at an angle to the kerb contrary to the road markings with their front obstructing the pavement. They do not need an order from a government department to take action, as the Highways Code is quite clear.
Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, the visually impaired and people with prams or pushchairs.
In addition, vans often park entirely on the pavement opposite Chequers Lane and High Street Passage, completely blocking the way for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs. When the highways supervisor has put an end to these practices, they can then consider A-boards, which have a useful function of giving information, as Mrs Marston points out, something that the bonnet of a car doesn't do.
By the way, if the highways supervisor is threatening to confiscate any boards on the pavement, can we expect the cars and vans to be impounded?
If not, what punishment will be meted out to the drivers?
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Staff welfare issues need to be detailed
I WRITE in reply to your story of February 2 (Limited repairs for £2 million).
Surely it is best we spend £2 million now (if they have it.) and give the councillors 15 years to properly plan, both technically and financially for the office relocation. That is if an acceptable case can be made for it to future tax payers.
Regarding the £458,000 for staff welfare issues, further details please councillors? Expenditure of this amount so vaguely described gives rise for concern in these lean times.
Further concerns must be expressed that this same asset management committee over-seeing these matters are soon to have car park budgets moved into the asset management programme.
Why would this be necessary as we have been assured that should parking charges be levied all revenue would be ring-fenced.
The easiest way for this to be achieved and make it transparent would be to separate it from all other budgets. Once again the waters seem to be muddied and we will be left wondering exactly how our cash is being spent.
Local turnout left meeting with standing room only
REGARDING Cllr Mary Maccauliffe's remarks in last week's paper I would like to add something.
I was at this meeting and there were no empty chairs except the vacant chair of county councillor Philip Bailey. People were standing in the hall and I was one of them!
My neighbours were standing along with several others and they are in ill health yet they were concerned enough about the issue to stand.
Doesn't Cllr Maccauliffe realise that if all the parish councillors had resigned it would have made a clear statement to East Cambs District Council about the concerns of the people of Little Downham.
As for Cllr Maccauliffe "putting the record straight" maybe she should check her own facts.
The footpath she mentions has not been moved over the years.
It's recorded in the parish magazine of 1896 and it's been there ever since. It has never been private and was at one time maintained by the local authority - probably until they ran out of money.
Why did the council not register the footpath when asked instead of leaving it to the locals who have used the path for 100 years?
Just because a footpath is not on the definitive map it doesn't mean it's not there.
Time to restore the 'peace dividend'
I AM delighted our MP Jim Paice is in discussion with the defence minister about US military planes flying over Ely. While canvassing in the recent county election and participating in the listening week for ECDC this subject was raised by local residents.
I believe Mildenhall commanders have, in the past, restricted flying over Ely and night flying in consideration for Ely's population. The situation worsened during both Iraq operations and has not returned to 'peace time' routine. Mediation by our MP will be welcomed by all residents concerned about noise and pollution.
COUNCILLOR BILL PICKESS