DOCSLIB.ORG

Councillors Submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council Electoral Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Councillors Submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council Electoral Review Councillors submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Response to LGBCE Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire ‐ New Draft Recommendations Consultation, 17th June 2016 I am the current Cambridgeshire County Councillor for the Ely South & West Division and East Cambridgeshire District Councillor for the Downham Villages Ward and I live in Ely. I therefore have extensive knowledge of the East Cambridgeshire area and its dynamics. I am concerned with three aspects of the LGBCE’s electoral review of Cambridgeshire: 1) I do not agree with the new draft recommendations in relation to a proposed Council size of 61, or with the proposed boundaries in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland. I support the submission put forward by Cambridgeshire County Council for a Council size of 63 and the proposals put forward by East Cambs District Council for 9 Councillors in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland District Council for 10 Councillors in Fenland. In particular, I support the most recent response of East Cambs District Council submitted to LGBCE in June 2016. 2) I am very concerned that LGBCE has not had an open mind about Council size and other aspects of the review, as evidenced by their internal correspondence, and therefore that the process by which the review has been conducted is questionable and open to legal challenge. 3) It is clear that this latest round of consultation is in fact a new review. The review process is dictated by statute, the effect of which determines that in fact the previous review has exhausted its process and we are now into a completely new review. This concerns me, as it is clear that the LGBCE is not open to making what it describes as “fundamental alterations” because it cannot fit in another round of consultation as the timetable is dictated by the County Council elections in 2017. This means that the LGBCE is not open minded to changes to Council size and the number of Councillors in each proposed Division, even where it can be demonstrated that they better balance and meet the statutory criteria; this is evidenced by their internal correspondence. This brings into question the purpose of this latest round of consultation, (which is not helped by the conflicting messages put out by LGBCE) and raises the possibility of legal challenge ‐ what is the point of a public consultation, the results of which will not be considered or adopted even if they better meet the statutory criteria? Draft Recommendations The dynamics of East Cambridgeshire fall into two sub‐areas. The northern part of the district is predominantly intensively farmed fenland, and contains the three market towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport. The south of the district is dominated by the horseracing industry with large areas of farmland given over to stud use. Determining boundaries in East Cambridgeshire is a necessarily restricted process due to the external boundary in the south of the district and the anomaly of the ‘hole’ produced by the exclusion of Newmarket; this largely dictates where the boundary lines in the south of the district can be drawn. The northern part of the district contains the market towns of Ely, Soham and Littleport. Each of the market towns has its own distinct identity and needs, demographically, geographically and culturally. It is important to understand the dynamics and different needs of the market towns and their surrounding villages and settlements in order to effectively balance the LGBCE’s statutory criteria. Page | 1 The LGBCE’s draft recommendations seriously fail to recognise the dynamics of the market towns and their outlying villages and settlements and in so doing fail to reflect the identity, interests and needs of local communities. The starting point of the LGBCE’s proposals, which is to split up the three market town parishes, merging bits of them with each other, is fundamentally wrong and immediately produces a flawed plan. By way of example, the proposed Littleport East and Soham North Division includes areas of all three market towns. Placing parts all three market towns into one Division fails woefully to understand the different needs of these areas, which may often be in conflict with each other. To expect one Councillor to represent the different and sometimes conflicting needs of these three areas is flawed and fails to meet two of the statutory criteria (to reflect the identity and interests of local communities and effective and convenient local government) at the expense of the third (achieving good electoral equality). The effect is an unacceptable balance and unnecessary warping of the statutory criteria. It is recognised that it is necessary to split both Ely and Soham across two Divisions, due to the numbers of electors, but it is wholly wrong and unnecessary to then pitch them against each other by lumping areas of them into Divisions together. I do not intend to revisit all aspects of why the LGBCE’s proposals for East Cambs do not meet the statutory criteria here ‐ these are well documented in previous consultation rounds and by others in this round of consultation. I strongly urge you to consider carefully the proposal put forward by East Cambs District Council. The boundaries proposed achieve single Councillor Divisions, good electoral equality, provide for convenient and effective local government and offer the best solution, by some margin, in terms of reflecting community interests and identity; they represent an acceptable balance of the statutory criteria which is evidentially preferable to the LGBCE proposal. Suffice to say that I support the well made arguments in the East Cambs District Council June 2016 submission in support of a Council size of 63 with 9 Councillors for East Cambridgeshire. Retaining an Open Mind about Council Size I am concerned that the previous submissions for 9 Councillors in East Cambridgeshire and 10 Councillors in Fenland were not given due consideration and that the LGBCE has had, and continues to have, a closed mind to a Council size of 63, which is contrary to its statutory requirements and the messages it has put out about the purpose of consultation. The LGBCE initially agreed to the County Council’s proposal for a Council size of 63 and invited proposals for Division arrangements based on a Council size of 63. However, during the development of the draft recommendations, the LGBCE “changed” the proposed Council size to 61 as it considered it would better reflect the Commission’s statutory criteria and provide a better allocation of Councillors between districts. The LGBCE has stated that this meant that comments put forward based on a Council size of 63 “could not” be taken into account as part of the draft recommendations because they would not meet the statutory criteria under a Council size of 61; this statement is inaccurate and procedurally flawed. In information obtained from the LGBCE, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request, it is stated that: “We launched full public consultation on division boundaries (on the basis of a council size of 63) on 28 October 2014 – 19 January 2015. Page | 2 We then examined the submissions received and developed out draft recommendations. During this we noted that changing the council size by 2 (to 61) provided a better allocation of councillors overall and a better overall scheme. As we changed the council size, there were proposals put forward to us during the previous consultation period (based on the original council size of 63) that we could not take account of. We therefore worked on the basis of 61 councillors and published draft recommendations on 12 May 2015. It was at this point that local people would have been aware of and been able to comment on the different council size and provide proposals based on this number. The consultation ran until 6 July 2015.” This statement, and particularly the words “could not take account of”, appears to indicate that the LGBCE was not open minded to proposals relating to a different Council size at any stage, and did not even take the proposals into account or give them any consideration. The words “there were proposals put forward to us during the previous consultation period (based on a council size of 63)...” are wholly misleading. The “previous” round of consultation to which the LGBCE refers is the preliminary process of consultation with the County Council on the most appropriate Council size. The “full period of public consultation on division boundaries” consultation which ran from October 2014 to January 2015 was the first opportunity that the public and organisations had to make representations about the detail of Divisions, including that of Council size and number of Councillors per district and Division. Indeed, consultees were encouraged to comment on the proposed Council size of 63. Given that the LGBCE itself has identified that during this period it changed its mind to a Council size of 61 and “could not” take account of proposals based on a Council size of 63 it is absolutely clear that the LGBCE has never considered the East Cambs and Fenland proposals based on a Council size of 63 and dismissed them from the very beginning. Given that the LGBCE Electoral Reviews Technical Guidance 2014, allows, at paragraph 4.291 for changes to be made to Council size throughout the review process (and in the case of the Hertfordshire review, at the final decision stage, where one seat was added to Welwyn Hatfield District’s allocation without any opportunity for objection or consultation) then it follows that the LGBCE must fully consider proposals for alternative Council size at all stages of the review and must not close its mind to alternatives.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan This Determination Statement
    24 August 2021 Strategic Environmental Assessment Determination Statement: Draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan This determination statement has been produced by Fenland District Council (FDC) as “responsible authority”, to meet the requirements of Regulation 9 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. This Determination Statement forms a Submission Document for the purposes of neighbourhood planning, as required by The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) (reg. 15(e)(ii)). A Screening Assessment was undertaken by FDC during the preparation of the draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan. As part of this assessment, FDC consulted the statutory bodies. The SEA Screening Report follows this Determination Statement. The Screening Report examines the strategic policy and environmental context relevant to Whittlesey, and presents the findings of the screening assessment. The report identifies that the draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan does not seek to increase the overall quantum of growth beyond that which has already been permitted through the planning system. Other policies generally accord with the adopted Local Plan, the potential environmental effects of which were duly assessed through the plan-making process. The Screening Report was sent to consultation bodies for comment (13 July to 23 August 2021). Responses were received from Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England. Through its response to the draft Screening Report consultation, Historic England concurred with the Council that the preparation of a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not required. Natural England confirmed it agrees with the report’s conclusions that the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan would not be likely to result in a significant effect on any European Site, either alone or in combination and therefore no further assessment work is required.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire Tydd St
    C D To Long Sutton To Sutton Bridge 55 Cambridgeshire Tydd St. Mary 24 24 50 50 Foul Anchor 55 Tydd Passenger Transport Map 2011 Tydd St. Giles Gote 24 50 Newton 1 55 1 24 50 To Kings Lynn Fitton End 55 To Kings Lynn 46 Gorefield 24 010 LINCOLNSHIRE 63 308.X1 24 WHF To Holbeach Drove 390 24 390 Leverington WHF See separate map WHF WHF for service detail in this area Throckenholt 24 Wisbech Parson 24 390.WHF Drove 24 46 WHF 24 390 Bellamys Bridge 24 46 Wisbech 3 64 To Terrington 390 24. St. Mary A B Elm Emneth E 390 Murrow 3 24 308 010 60 X1 56 64 7 Friday Bridge 65 Thorney 46 380 308 X1 To Grantham X1 NORFOLK and the North 390 308 Outwell 308 Thorney X1 7 Toll Guyhirn Coldham Upwell For details of bus services To in this area see Peterborough City Council Ring’s End 60 Stamford and 7 publicity or call: 01733 747474 60 2 46 3 64 Leicester Eye www.travelchoice.org 010 2 X1 65 390 56 60.64 3.15.24.31.33.46 To 308 7 380 Three Holes Stamford 203.205.206.390.405 33 46 407.415.701.X1.X4 Chainbridge To Downham Market 33 65 65 181 X4 Peterborough 206 701 24 Lot’s Bridge Wansford 308 350 Coates See separate map Iron Bridge To Leicester for service detail Whittlesey 33 701 in this area X4 Eastrea March Christchurch 65 181 206 701 33 24 15 31 46 Tips End 203 65 F Chesterton Hampton 205 Farcet X4 350 9 405 3 31 35 010 Welney 115 To Elton 24 206 X4 407 56 Kings Lynn 430 415 7 56 Gold Hill Haddon 203.205 X8 X4 350.405 Black Horse 24.181 407.430 Yaxley 3.7.430 Wimblington Boots Drove To Oundle 430 Pondersbridge 206.X4 Morborne Bridge 129 430 56 Doddington Hundred Foot Bank 15 115 203 56 46.
    [Show full text]
  • C:Ambridg Eshire.) ~Ub 247
    TRAbES DIRECTORY.] C:AMBRIDG ESHIRE.) ~UB 247 Page Frederick1 Fulbourn, Cambridge Freeman Henry, Delph, Whittlesey Jones Henry, St. Mary's street, Ely tPalmer George; Doddington, March Goddard Waiter, Fridaybridge, Wisbech Leach & Son, 26 High street, Wisbech Parish W. Swavesey, St. Ives (Hunts) Granger Fredk. Whitmore st. Whittlesey Metcalfe & Co. Limited, Trinity street Parsons W. 34 Little South st. Wisbech Grimmer Robert, Leverington road, & Ro11e crescent, Cambridge ' Pauley Jonathan, Cottenham, Cambrdg Wisbech. See advertisement Newman Robert, 47! Fitzroyst. Camb Peck Charles Wm. Trumpington, Carob Harlow Mrs. Emma 0. West end, March PalmerJonatbn.9&roAlexandra st.Camb tPeck H. High st.&Kingston yd.Newmkt Marks Philip (W. W. Searle, agent), Piggott F.Ca.xton court, Sidney st.Camb Pitstow William, 38 J ames street, New- Market place, Whittlesey Pitt Press or University Printing Office market road, Cambridge Negus William, High st. Littleport, Ely (Charles John Clay M.A. & Sons), tPratt William, Bottisham, Cambridge Pym George, Delph, Whittlesey Trumpington street, Cambridge Ratcliff L. Mill rd. Romsey town, Carob Skelton George, Creek road, March Poyser William, Gt. Church st. Wisbech Rolfe Samuel, Cheveley, Newmarket Unicorn Trading Co. Wilburton, Ely Rcdin & Co. 16 Trinity st. Cambridge Rooke Harry, 17 King street, Cambrdg Wilson John, jun. Eastrea, Peterborough Robertson & Co. Eagle printing works, Rust William M. 38 Market pl. Wisbech 6A, Market hill, Cambridge Scales A. E. 6 Round Church st. Carob POTATO SALESMEN Robertson Mrs. J. S. Market hill, Carob Seekings Robert, Market place, March · Seaton William, 27 Mill rd. Cambridge Smith Ed ward, Thorney, Peterborough See Salesmen-Potato. Sharman & Co. Machine printing works, Spinks King, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Report Contents
    Whittlesey DRAFT Neighbourhood Plan Baseline Report Contents Introduction...............................................................1 Relevant Planning Policy.........................................4 Basic Conditions......................................................5 People and Place......................................................6 Flooding...................................................................11 Greenspace.............................................................16 Heritage...................................................................20 Land Use.................................................................24 Roads....................................................................... 28 Walking, Cycling and Public Transport..................32 Introduction This baseline report accompanies the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan and provides some context for the policies set out within it. It aims to give a high-level impression of the Neighbourhood Plan Area; it is not intended to be a detailed technical report but rather an introduction to the Parish, signposting to more detailed information and supplementary documents where necessary. Whittlesey Buttercross 1 Whittlesey Location The map opposite shows the Neighbourhood Plan Boundary. Whittlesey Edinburgh Town Council applied to Fenland District Council to designate the whole of the Peterborough Newcastle Parish of Whittlesey as a ‘Neighbourhood Wisbech Area’. Planning Committee on 29 April 2015 determined the application: The Leeds March entire Parish
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Secondary School Provision in the Fenland District
    REVIEW OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE FENLAND DISTRICT PROPOSAL FOR A NEW SECONDARY SCHOOL IN WISBECH BACKGROUND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to: • Draw attention to the rising number of primary aged pupils across Fenland, the impact of proposed new housing and the resultant pressure to provide additional places in secondary schools in the District. • Outline the conclusions of the Council’s review of secondary school provision in Fenland and its recommendations in respect of each of the four market towns within the District; Wisbech, Chatteris, March and Whittlesey. • Seek, in principle support for the proposal to provide a new secondary school in Wisbech in response to the forecast demand for places and expand provision in March, Chatteris and Whittlesey when required. • Obtain the views of parents and the local community on the Council’s early site search work, which identified the site of the former College of West Anglia (CWA) horticultural and equine facility adjacent to Meadowgate School, as having the potential to be developed for a secondary school (location plan included). OR • For respondents to identify and consider whether there are any alternative sites within Wisbech that may provide a better site for a secondary school and which the Council should consider 1 2. BACKGROUND Demography There are four secondary schools in Fenland: Neale-Wade Academy (March), Thomas Clarkson Academy (Wisbech), Sir Harry Smith Community College (Whittlesey) and Cromwell Community College (Chatteris). There is a distance of between 6-13 miles separating each school (measured in a straight line). A review of secondary school provision in Fenland was undertaken in response to: • demographic change (the population of the District has grown by 13.9% to 95,300 since 2001) • rising pupil numbers in the primary schools and • the proposed levels of housing development (11,000 homes across the District in the period up to 2031) included in the Fenland District Local Plan (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy
    Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy Page 1 of 176 June 2011 Contributors The Strategy has been shaped and informed by many partners including: The Green Infrastructure Forum Anglian Water Cambridge City Council Cambridge Past, Present and Future (formerly Cambridge Preservation Society) Cambridge Sports Lake Trust Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Record Centre Cambridgeshire County Council Cambridgeshire Horizons East Cambridgeshire District Council East of England Development Agency (EEDA) English Heritage The Environment Agency Fenland District Council Forestry Commission Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group GO-East Huntingdonshire District Council Natural England NHS Cambridgeshire Peterborough Environment City Trust Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) South Cambridgeshire District Council The National Trust The Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire & Peterborough The Woodland Trust Project Group To manage the review and report to the Green Infrastructure Forum. Cambridge City Council Cambridgeshire County Council Cambridgeshire Horizons East Cambridgeshire District Council Environment Agency Fenland District Council Huntingdonshire District Council Natural England South Cambridgeshire District Council The Wildlife Trust Consultants: LDA Design Page 2 of 176 Contents 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................11 2 Background
    [Show full text]
  • Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan February 2016
    Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan February 2016 Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) February 2016 1 Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 3 2. What is meant by Infrastructure? 6 3. Evidence Background 8 4. Infrastructure Requirements and Constraints 9 Highways and Transport 10 Road Network 10 Rail Based Transport 12 Cycle and Walking Improvements 13 Car Parking 13 Public Transport and Buses 13 Waterways 13 Market Town Transport Strategies 13 Utilities Infrastructure 15 Water Supply 15 Waste Water 16 Electricity 18 Gas 18 Broadband 18 Flood Risk Management Provision 19 Social and Community Infrastructure 21 Health and Elderly Care Provision 21 Education Provision 21 Community Facilities 25 Culture and Heritage Attractions 25 Emergency Services 26 Open Space and Green Infrastructure 27 5. Potential Funding and Delivery Options 28 6. Monitoring 33 7. Report Summary and Recommendations 33 8. Infrastructure Delivery Schedule 34 2 1 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of the Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is to outline the key infrastructure requirements needed or desired to support growth in Fenland up to 2031. The IDP will help to coordinate infrastructure provision and ensure that funding and delivery timescales are closely aligned to those in the Local Plan. It is a living document which will be updated regularly to incorporate changes in project progress or the availability of funding. 1.2 This IDP supersedes the Fenland IDP adopted in February 2013. The previous document mainly set out the high level strategic infrastructure required to support the adoption of the Local Plan. With an adopted plan (May 2014) now in place this updated IDP seeks to provide a basis for the delivery of the policies in that plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Group Submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council Electoral Review
    Political group submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Political Groups. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document. Submission to the Boundary Commission on the Review of the Divisions in Cambridgeshire by the Liberal Democrat Group on Cambridge City Council. 1. The Timing of this Submission. The Commission has allowed submissions from Cambridge City Council to be sent after the official closing date of 19th January up to 31st January, This submission is by the Liberal Democrat group on Cambridge City Council. It would have been impossible to have got a meaningful submission in by the 19th January as the correct numbers were not available at that date (see item 2). We contend that the scheme submitted by the Cambridge Labour Party through the City Council is fundamentally flawed as it is based on incorrect numbers and not compliant with the rules governing reviews of County Council electoral arrangements in two-tier areas (see item 3). 2. The Numbers of Electors. The numbers of electors in Cambridge has changed in two ways since summer 2014 when the Commission indicated that it was “minded to” fix the numbers of members of the County Council (and hence the Divisions) at 63. Number of students underestimated. The original numbers overlooked new student accommodation in the city which is projected to house 2,410 students. As Cambridge University records show that approximately 16% of students are not citizens of the UK, EU or a Commonwealth country, it is reasonable to assume that 84% (ie 2,025) are expected to be eligible to vote in some UK elections.
    [Show full text]
  • 0900265S73 (Renewal of Consent/Vary Conditions)
    AGENDA ITEM NO. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 15 JUN 09 Case No: 0900265S73 (RENEWAL OF CONSENT/VARY CONDITIONS) Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 16 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 0213092OUT TO STATE AS FOLLOWS:' THE USE HEREBY PERMITTED SHALL BE CARRIED ON ONLY BY COLLMART GROWERS LTD AND QUALITY FRUIT AND VEG LTD Location: COLLMART GROWERS LTD THE DROVE PONDERSBRIDGE Applicant: COLLMART GROWERS LTD Grid Ref: 525914 292082 Date of Registration: 10.03.2009 Parish: FARCET RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 This application has been referred to Panel at the request of a local Member. 1.2 The proposal is to vary condition 16 of outline planning permission 0213092OUT for the erection of buildings for packing, grading, preparation and distribution of vegetables. A copy of the Panel report and decision notice for that application are attached. The condition states "The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Collmart Growers Ltd". This application is to vary the condition to also allow Quality Fruit and Veg Ltd (QFAVL) to use the land and buildings. 1.3 The site is in the countryside approximately 11km south-east of Peterborough and 20 km north of Huntingdon. The applicant’s existing operation includes a 1.47ha site which fronts onto The Drove with a building, yard and weighbridge used in association with grading, washing, bagging and distributing vegetables, particularly onions but also other root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes, parsnips and swede. 1.4 The outline permission is for the erection of buildings with a floor space of 10,000sqm on a site of 8.2ha to the north of the existing premises.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Review 2019 - 2020
    Annual Review 2019 - 2020 (2nd edition) Citizens Advice Rural Cambs is a registered charity with The Charity Commission under Registration No 1146277 Like many other organisations during the final weeks of the financial year 2019/2020, Citizens Advice Rural Cambs (CARC) was being dramatically affected by the Covid-19 Emergency and having to operate in a totally unprecedented way. In addition the degree of uncertainty concerning future threats and opportunities has never been greater. Whatever they turn out to be the organisation is well placed to respond to them. Despite some difficulties 2019/2020 was a successful year. Although financial reserves are still less than their target level, huge progress has been made in rebuilding them following the significant write down in 2018/2019. More modest progress over the next year or two should see financial reserves restored to an adequate level. In addition the Trustee Board was strengthened in the last quarter of 2019/2020 with the appointment of two experienced Directors. During 2019 there were a number of changes at board level, including the stepping down of my predecessor as Chairman Trevor Evans and the departure of Peter Arch, who had been the founding Chairman of CARC in 2012. Their contribution to the organisation over the years has been and is much appreciated. The recruitment of new Trustees continued during 2020/2021 with the appointment of Bill Grieve as Treasurer and the current six person Trustee Board is well placed to support Nick Blencowe Chief Officer and his team. Our thanks must go to Jenny Darroch, Bill's predecessor, who will now step down to concentrate on her other business interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire Regional Metro
    Cambridgeshire Regional Metro Railfuture East Anglia is promoting Cambridgeshire Metro, a service of trains of such frequency that for most journeys reference to a timetable is unnecessary. The train service will be provided by the existing regional rail network, planned higher service frequencies, greater passenger capacity, shorter end to end journey times together with some selected line re-openings and improved access from other forms of transport including a light-rail line linking housing and employment areas in and around Cambridge. The number of stations are already adequate especially with the recent addition of the station at Cambridge North and with that planned at Cambridge South and that aspired to the Cherry Hinton- Fulbourn area. Within 10 years the new railway from Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford will provide even more connectivity and capacity to the County's rail network. Both Greater Anglia and Govia Thameslink Railway will provide a huge uplift in capacity with completely new fleets and many new services. "The Cambridgeshire Metro" can be provided by using the existing rail network with two short extensions, a longer extension and additional capacity. The short extensions are: • bringing back into passenger use the 7 miles of the mothballed Wisbech to March railway; • reinstating the Newmarket West Curve to allow through running from Soham to Newmarket and Cambridge; The longer extension: • heavy or light rail to Haverhill; Capacity expansion requirements of existing routes principally are: • around Ely including the junctions at Ely North; • doubling the track between Soham-Ely and Newmarket-Cambridge and from Downham Market towards Littleport. The train services, existing or planned, are largely adequate though there are notable weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire 164
    BRI CAMBRIDGESHIRE 164 BRICK & TILE MAKERS-co7ltd. '~heldrick Henry, Triplow, Royston Leonard Elias, Pratt street, Sollam Marshall.lchn Thos. Tydd Gote & Tydd Shepperson John, Swavesey, St. Ives Lofts Edmund & Son, Barton sq. Ely station, Wisbech Smith Daniel, KirtIing, Newmarket Mansfield L. 'Watel'bt'ach, Cambridge MURtill Robert, Over, St. !Tes Spra~g William, High street, March Martin William, Burwell, Cambridge Owers John, Fordham road, Soham Sutton William, Over, St. Ives Mills George Etches, jun. 10 Elllmanue Plowman George Sneeds, Great Heath, Sutton William, Upwf-ll, Wisbech road, Cambridge Gamlingay, Sandy Swan John, O.'well, Rayston Mitham John, Swavesey, St. Ives Porter Henry John, Haddenllam, Ely Talbot John Shaw, Isleham, 80ham Morriss George, Chief's lane, Ely Rfflrling & Son, Tennis Court road & Tigerdine A. E. Guyhirn, Wishech Nunn WiIliam, Duxtord, Cambridge Newmarket l'oad, Camhridg-e 'figerdine A. E.jun. Guybirn, Wisbech Owers John, Wicken, Soham Robinson Mrs. M. Station rd.Whittlespy Trolley Robert, Newton, Wisbech Pavis AIling-ton, Cheveley, Newmarke Swan C.& Son8,Gt.Eversden,Cambridge Unwin Geor2;e, Landheach, Cambridge Peachey Frederick, 'Vicken, Soham Swann & Sons, Newmarket rd. Cambdg Unwin John, Cottenhnm, Cambridge Pearson William, Cht've!ey, Newmarket TurrellW.Croydon-cum-Cloptn.Roystn Unwin John, Sumps, March Porter William, Bridge st. ChatterisS.O UnwinH.Mllton rd.Chesterton,Cambdg- \Vakefield William, Bourn, Cambridj:!;e Pryor J .l\Iortlock st.'\Ielbourn, Royston Verrall George Henry. Ley,Dullin~ham, Walker J n. Victoria ~t. Littleport. Ely Randiil Henry & Sons, Elm rd. Witlbech Newmarket; residence, Sussex lodge, Willmott J. & B. Htlington, Rnyston Rattee & Ketr, Hills road, Cambridge Snaihnll road, Newmarket Wright C.
    [Show full text]