Cambridge City Council are currently asking for comments on their plans for Jesus Green. The council are proposing making a bid to the National Lottery’s Parks for People fund and the BIG lottery fund.
My Comments:
- I would support a wider bridge, or a new cycle bridge over the river at Jesus Green; this would need to be integrated with an improved crossing for cyclists over Chesterton Road. The current plan for a quarter-circle bridge leading from Jesus Green to half way along the existing (grade II listed) iron foot bridge is completely bananas, literally and figuratively loopy, totally crazy.
- I do not think Jesus Green is an appropriate location for the proposed: “raised tree walk, with aerial runways and other equipment attached.”
- These plans involve concreting or tarmacing over more of the grass on Jesus Green, in many areas such as the widening of the riverside path, the creation of the “piazza”, and the creation of the new paths. I would prefer to minimize any loss of green space on Jesus Green.
- I would like to see no trees cut down.
- I support the planting of new plane trees, but think the chestnuts should be replaced with chestnuts, I would also like to see some oaks planted.
- The public toilets are appalling and urgently need upgrading, so I am in favor of this element of the plans, though I think the City Council should get on with this, and we shouldn’t be relying on, or waiting for, lottery money for this basic element.
- The plans do not consider the opportunity to improve drainage; there are many areas which become muddy and waterlogged regularly. Also there are areas of stagnant water in the ditch by Jesus College, and [potential new] flood defenses which could be considered during the works.
- There ought be better lighting of the paths; particularly the paths between the Jesus Lock Bridge and the City Centre. These paths are used by those working in the City Centre returning home on dark winters nights and are currently poorly lit. I understand overlooking residents would not want bright floodlights on all night; but in the winter in the evening I think floodlighting would be appropriate on the well used paths.
- I would like to suggest the bridge be predominantly horizontal, and should not impede navigation of the river any more than the existing bridge. I would like to see detailed public consultations on the design of the bridge and consequent alterations to Chesterton Road if the bid is successful.
I have been participating in discussions about the plans for major work on Jesus green since their inception. The consultation with stakeholders, residents and young people held in 2007 from which these plans of arisen was slated for its non-inclusive nature – neighboring residents were consulted, but not those elsewhere in the City. The public meeting (the west/central area committee) at which plans were discussed in 2007 was not advertised and consequently poorly attended. The young people consulted were paid for attending a “focus group” to discuss Jesus green, and concerns were raised by city residents that their views were being given too much prominence and the fact they were being paid by the council may have biased their views. The council have defended this policy of paying young people for their opinions, but have made no mention of it in the current consultation documents.
No information on councillors’ role in the formulating, and acceptance, of these plans is given in the consultation materials; I would have liked to see details of the council meetings to which reports based on the consultation responses will be taken included. Knowing about councillors’ involvement would let people know which councillors to lobby and when, as well as enable members of the public to make use of their opportunity to speak at council meetings.
Previous grant applications have been in the region of £40K, I have heard this one is likely to be in the region of £3-4 Million; the amount though is another omission from the council’s current consultation.
(January 2009 – Many people are visiting this page from Facebook and missing some of my more recent articles on Jesus Green. I’d be interested in knowing which Facebook group is sending people my way if someone could tell me 🙂 )
30 responses to “Jesus Green Cambridge – Lottery Bid”
I wrote to Sarah Tovell, the officer responsible at the council with some of my comments.
She responded to say their estimation of the bid value is around £2 million.
In response to my question on if the plans will be put before councillors prior to the bid being submitted the answer appears to be no, with the officer stating:
This lack of democratic oversight just isn’t good enough. And it is worth noting the Jesus Green Association meetings are not public/open meetings, and the JGA take pride in noting this on their posters advertising their AGM.
I wrote to suggest this lottery bid be placed on the Agenda for September’s West/Central Area Committee:
The Cambridge Evening News ran an article on the proposed improvements on Jesus Green this evening.
I wrote to the article’s author to comment on an apparent inaccuracy:
I wrote similarly to the council officer Sarah Tovell, whose auto reply incredibly informed me she was not at work for a whole week during the consultation process she is supposedly overseeing:
Sarah Tovell replied on the question of the submission date:
Thank you for drawing my attention to this, I will pursue with the Cambridge news as the date for submission of the application to the lottery on 30th September. The date for last submission for comments on the plan is the 8th September.
Cllr Hipkin has written to me to say:
I replied to Mr Hipkin on a few points:
Mr Knightley has replied to say:
He promised a substantive reply once he has had a chance to consult with others.
Council officer Sarah Tovell has written to clarify the current status of the plans for the bridge. It appears 1/2 a bridge is seriously being considered, albeit only at this very early stage and being thought unlikely to come into being :
Success:
I have now been told:
I wrote to the Council Officer having viewed the consultation responses at the Guildhall:
A few points: Consultation with Jesus Green association is a poor substitute for actual consultation. Who are these people?
They have a noticeboard on Jesus Green (with no contact details or committee details) and no website – what is their constitution.
Why has the costs of this project gone up by £2 million given the bridge has been removed?
Who exactly wants ornamental flower beds when Cambridge City COuncil struggles to look after its existing ones?
I have been asking the council since the 30th of September to publish the bid document as submitted. This has not happened so as far as I am aware no one outside the council is yet aware what is in the current plans or how much they are proposed to cost.
As of the 10th of November the City Council’s webpages relating to the Jesus Green works have not been updated since the bid’s submission.
In the printed, not the online edition, of the Cambridge Evening News on the 7th of November, Anne Garvey of Hertford Street is quoted as being a spokesperson for a new campaign the “Don’t make Jesus Green Less Green Campaign”. I do know know if they have obtained a copy of the bid, the supposed campaign has no hits on Google at the time of writing, I have seen no posters or flyers and no contact details are available.
There have been a number of recent developments in the progress of the Jesus Green lottery bid.
The total project costs are now given as £4,373,852. This figure has been stated in the formal report of the Executive Councillor’s decision to approve the bid. This decision will be up for “scrutiny” at the City Council’s Community Services Scrutiny Committee on Thursday the 13th of November 2008.
This is a huge increase over the £2 million quoted by the council during the consultation prior to the bid’s submission. It is also huge increase over the £2 million of lottery money plus £500 000 of taxpayers’ money which you reported on Friday.
The report to Thursday’s meeting reveals that some controversial elements of the plans such as the “raised tree walk, with aerial runways and other equipment attached” remain in the plans; though the proposed bridge, and new path have been removed.
A large new area of tarmac/concrete has appeared on the plans to be presented to Thursday’s meeting; a new entrance and sculpture near the riverside boardwalk is now proposed, this was not present on the plans during the pre-bid consultation.
Other questions raised by the report on the decision include – why did the council need to employ Phil Back, a research consultant from Tadcaster to report on the results of the consultation, when council officers already had the information and had presented it to councillors. In relation to the latest consultation the consultant appears to have been engaged in work which entirely duplicates that conducted in-house by the council. And finally, the Executive Councillor Julie Smith states: “The Chair and Spokesperson of Community Services Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.” In fact, at the West Central Area Committee on the 18th of September she promised much wider consultation in the final stages, including with representatives of the West Central and North Area Committees.
Phil Back organised the recent consultation of stakeholders. I was contacted in May as Chair of SOS Cambridge to take part in an ‘Audience Development Plan’, building on research h said was carried out last year. The findings were presented to the stakeholders at a meeting, and preliminary designs produced by a designer were also presented. These have now been modified after further public consultation. I don’t think that this is a duplication of research as you seem to, I am not aware that the Council already had researched this other than through Phil. I certainly share your frustration at not being able to access the bid document. This has probably only served to fuel fears among those who want to preserve the essential character of the common, witness the recent CEN articles. My other frustration with the Council is with their manifest long term neglect of Midsummer Common.
I believe there has been duplication in collating and interpreting the results of the consultation held online and though the events on Jesus Green July-September 2008. I am not objecting to the Audience Development Plan, but the “Consultation and Feedback Supplement” appended to the record of the Executive Councillor’s decision.
I was told that Sarah Tovell had herself prepared the presentation on the consultation results which was made on the 11th of September in the Guildhall and on the 18th of September at the West-Central Area Committee. I can see no additional value in the report produced by Phil Back over and above the presentation provided by Sarah Tovell.
On both the 11th and the 18th I expressed my concern that there was no written summary of the consultation responses. Sarah Tovell had produced a display board and, along with colleagues gave a verbal report. Sarah Tovell clearly had the material which has now been published in Phil Back’s report. Perhaps had the council not been waiting for Mr Back’s report councillors could have had a paper copy of the consultation summary on the 11th and an updated version on the 18th.
I am not suggesting there has been a duplication of effort in the consultation itsself here.
I also note the council employs a consultations officer. I am astounded that this work has not been conducted in-house.
The City Council’s FOI officer has written to me:
The Jesus Green Association are holding an open meeting on the 2nd of December at 8.00pm in the Octagon room of Wesley Methodist Church which is by the roundabout at intersection of Short Street, Maid’s Causeway, Victoria Avenue and Jesus Lane.
This is the first time the JGA have held an open meeting as far as I am aware. I think this is an excellent step forward for their organisation.
I plan to attend Cambridge City Council’s Community Services Scrutiny Committee on the 13th of November to comment on the Jesus Green Lottery bid.
i/ I want to comment on the fact the content of the bid document has not yet been made available despite assurances that it would be. My Freedom of Information Act request has not been fulfilled, and the council say it will take a further two weeks to get the document online. This is not acceptable and has resulted in many of those commenting on this bid doing so in relative ignorance.
ii/ I want to question the input my local councillors have been able to have in the process of the final acceptance of the bid; specifically asking what representations the Executive Councillor received during the decision making process from the North and West/Central area committees. At the West/Central area committee she reeled off quite a list of councillors she planned to consult before agreeing the bid. I want to find out if these consultations happened, which other councillors actually saw the bid document before it was approved?
iii/ I would like to draw attention to the fact a new area of grass to be lost appears to have been introduced which was not shown on the plans during the consultation period. This is the area surrounding the proposed statue and entrance near the riverside boardwalk.
iv/ Question why the report to that meeting says the new bridge was removed from the bid in response to consultation comments, whereas the West Central Area Committee was told that the bridge always was outside the scope of funds which were being bid for. This appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to make the council look as though they are responding to people’s views as expressed during the consultation when in fact they’re not. The report is not clear on if the new bridge was in fact not supported by consultees. The summary says it was not supported, but the body of the report says respondents were equally split, and that’s not commenting on any bridge, but the specific ludicrous quarter circle, half bridge proposals.
v/ I question how the total project cost has risen so dramatically in the days preceding the submission of the bid. £2 million sounded like a lot of concrete, £4.4 million sounds like even more concrete.
vi/ I want to ask why there was a need for an outside consultant to provide the consultation summary? I suggest this has duplicated work conducted internally by the council and has detracted from the process by delaying the publication of a written summary of responses until well after the bid’s submission.
I may finally question, if I have time, why it doesn’t appear that the views of those commenting on the loss of green space have been included in the consultation summary.
Update – I did attend and the outcome is recorded here.
Also see my article on the bid document itsself this includes a breakdown of how it is proposed the £4.4 million is to be spent on the green.
Hi all,
I believe these plans will destroy the historic character of Jesus Green and all it represents in terms of green spaces in the city environment. Having swum daily in Jesus Green over the summer months this year and in previous years, it is obvious that the Council has let this pool go into decay when in London and other cities the true origins of the spirit of Lido’s are being restablished with less expenditure and more authenticity. Why not heat the pool, keep it open all year round (see the Oasis in Camden as an example) and encourage more visitors to come. These Cambridge City Council plans will produce a “plastic ” environment turning a historic area into one that could be in any modern city. They will destroy the character of Jesus Green, cost an outrageous and destroy all that is good and special about Jesus Green.
Boni Sones
Boni Sones,
It has been reported to a number of council meetings that the swimmers as a group vehemently oppose even a simple solar scheme to heat the pool. I have recently though discovered that while this is often presented as a unanimous opinion from the swimmers this is far from the true case. I have met a daily swimmer and also a member of the Friends of Jesus Green Pool both of whom would support some heating and who recognise the benefits which would arise from more people using the pool and an extended season.
My most recent discussion with Council Officers regarding putting a pool heating proposal in this bid is reported in my notes from the 11th September Council meeting.
The London Lidos are thriving because they have adapted and changed, including heating all winter round, but staying true to the value of all.
Please do not put any more hard paving onto Jesus Green .. it is lovely as it is and I would hate to see any less greenery than currently exists. There is far too much paving around Cambridge .. lets preserve something for the benefit of the wildlife and for future generations, please, please.
I am a lifelong resident of Cambridge (or very close by), currently living in Histon.
Cambridge.
There needs to be a ramp at one end of the pool so that the elderly and disabled can get out. Swimming is one of the best exercises for these groups of people.
The Jesus Green footbridge needs to have the slope at a gentler angle. I cannot use it because I cannot control my tricycle on it when walking. The same probably applies to anyone pushing a wheelchair or pram.
The case officer at the Heritage Lottery Fund has told me the decision on the bid has been made but it is embargoed.
I wonder who knows and has agreed to keep it secret:
Councillors?
Council Officers?
The Cambridge News?