In a predictable outcome, the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee has approved the controversial TRO plan 2 in a move that totally disregards any of their own policies or the views of the majority of SMG residents and of those residents in the surrounding streets.
Whilst we do accept the democratic process, we refuse to accept the deception that has played a part in order to get the TRO approved.
It is a travesty that none of the AJC members managed to detect any wrong doing and that nobody voted against the proposal.
The approved TRO (plan 2) was planned by the Steering Group and Council members. Deceptive measures were taken in order for it to be passed:
A deceptive reference is made in plan 1 of the informal consultation to 11 car spaces because there is absolutely no correlation between plan 1 and 11 spaces - plan 1 clearly shows a far greater number than this. Whoever put forward this notion had plan 2 in mind from the beginning as this number cannot be justified regarding plan 1 without allocating 13.3 metres per car (see below).
The SMG residents' support was gained in the informal consultation for plan 1 - a plan they were never going to get in reality. Plan 1 was then switched to plan 2 without the support of the majority of SMG residents who responded to the informal consultation, and plan 2 became the advertised TRO proposal and objections to this plan (4:1 not in favour) were either omitted or disregarded.
No reference was made to 11-18 on street spaces in the informal consultation. This was mentioned at a later date when it emerged that people were questioning the 11 spaces in connection with plan 1. The number 11-18 was then arrived at in an effort to cover up the shortfall and even this falls short of the actual number accommodated by plan 1 (26.5 spaces).
Cllr Harrison's involvement in this TRO is very dubious. Complaints have been made about how she conducted her informal consultation to serve the interests of the Steering Group as she is not impartial, having lived herself in SMG for 4.5 yrs, maintaining strong ties with the Steering Group & fellow private owners. The fact that she obviously shares the Steering Group's objectives was made very clear by the way she fought for plan 2 at the AJC meeting and throughout the entire process and the question remains as to why this was the case.
It is also shocking that Cllr Harrison, who was not even a member of the AJC committee, was given a strong platform and allowed to join and even dominate the debate without any reservation or observance of the normally followed protocol. She also enjoyed obvious support having been given a green light by the chairperson enabling her to achieve her objectives without any counter representations of the views of the SMG residents.
In summary, whoever did the following should be held accountable for having deceived the SMG residents and the AJC members:
How difficult can it be to take precise measurements from the plans in order to establish the actual reduction of spaces from plan 1 to plan 2?
The total length of parking spaces shown on plan 1 (informal consultation) is 146 metres in comparison with 66 metres on plan 2. Based on the same given space per car in the proposed plan 2 (5.5 meters/per car) plan 1 will accommodate 26.5 cars in comparison with 12 cars in plan 2. Who is behind this deception and why have the AJC members been deceived? Who is behind the stripping of 14.5 car spaces and who switched plan 1 that most residents supported, for an unsupported plan?
How difficult is it to get confirmation from the planning department as to whether part of the design of SMG was to provide on-street parking for the Granta residents rather then relying on misleading information from a source with a clear agenda?
| In favour | Abstentions |
|---|---|
| A Pellew (substituting for S Whitebread) | C Shepherd |
| K Wilkins | G Bird |
| S Brown | D Brown (substituting for N Clarke) |
| G Marchant-Daisley | L Nethsingha |
| C R Rosenstiel | |
| P Tucker | |
| D Tunnacliffe | |
| C Carter |