FIVE LAMPS 2

An inquiry inspector has decided that, although the multi-million pound Connecting Derby scheme, which is aimed at completing the inner ring road, should proceed, changes to the road network at Five Lamps should not go ahead. The inspector's findings were ratified by Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, who agreed that there was not enough evidence to support the need for the changes at Five Lamps and said dropping that aspect would not have a huge impact on the project as a whole.

Council leader, Chris Williamson, said the "much-needed" work was long overdue and criticised campaign group Derby Heart for delaying it. He said, "Derby Heart have been trying to frustrate the plans all the way through. I think we are something like two years behind the schedule. The inner ring road should have been built by now." Derby Heart Chairman Richard Butler said that, while he was pleased with the decision, he was disappointed that the inspector did not throw out plans to build new road behind the Seven Stars pub in Kings Street, close to Five Lamps. (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Dec/07)

The city council has been given government permission to redesign the Five Lamps junction and create a link road between St Alkmund's Way and Garden Street. It means the council only needs to finalise planning details with its own development department and to obtain orders enabling it to buy land standing in the way of the Connecting Derby scheme.

Work on moving gas and water pipes could begin by the start of 2007 but the major roadworks are unlikely to start until the middle of that year. The council aims to complete Connecting Derby late in 2009. Dave Powner, project manager of Connecting Derby, said, "This is a huge leap forward in being able to get on with Connecting Derby."

The government's decision follows English Heritage dropping objections to the Phase 3B, involving changes in King Street and Five Lamps, following months of negotiations with the council. Phase one, alterations to city centre traffic flow, has been completed. Phases two and three, which would involve linking Ford Street and Bradshaw Way, were approved in 2005.

English Heritage had said the plans in Phase 3B would "erode the historic character" of the area, chiefly because of proposals to demolish number 40 West Avenue, part of an attractive curved terrace. The organisation has now agreed the building can come down, but the council will create a new, smaller building in the same style on a part of that site not needed for the road.

Another objection was to plans for a car park running up the side of the new link road, both cutting across St Helen's Street to directly link St Alkmund's Way with Garden Street. English Heritage felt the car park would be damaging to the street scene. In response, the council has entered into talks with a developer to create houses or flats fronting the street to improve its appearance.

A third objection was over the treatment of number 85 King Street, which would, under the original plans, have left a brick wall facing motorists exiting Derby via the new link road but the council now proposes an imaginative rounded extension to the building to make the street more attractive. (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Aug/06)

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

<<< Prev