Figure 11

Both proposals for pedestrianisation (Figs 11 &12) or modest improvements should be resisted. They will have a detrimental impact on trade. Widening the pavements around the square will be of no benefit and would impact on the Market layout. Traffic issues could be resolved by reversing the traffic flow as it used to be with cars entering at the bottom of square and exiting at the top by the Spar building.

I consider that the plan is unsound because few local residents know of its existence. When the Co-op supermarket was being planned a meeting was held with the public attending to discuss the matter. The traders in the Square and nearby do not seem to have been consulted. I would like the disabled parking space to remain where it is as there not so much pedestrian traffic in that area. I am not clear what RAISED TABLES refers to. I support Figure 11 as I feel that traffic flow near the Spar would be helped if it were adopted.

I support the improvements outlined in Figure 11, as this helps both the buses, the traffic, the shop keepers and residents coming to and from the square.

This also retains help for people with mobility problems etc, coming to the square or being dropped off, which figure 12 does not.

1. Firstly I would like to comment on the preparation of this plan. I feel it could be considered unsound in that in general local residents know nothing about its existence. In particular there are shop-keepers in or adjoining the square who knew nothing about it and have not been consulted as they should be. The open evening(s), when the plans were shown, were not widely publicised. I found out by chance.

2. Secondly I would like to comment that the problems at the corner of West Street and south end North Street must be given overriding consideration, to try to avoid the standstills there that frequently happen, to maintain traffic flow. I think figure 11 seeks to alleviate this.

3. I personally object to the plan in figure 12, believing among other things that it does not give enough consideration to the needs of elderly/disabled people etc.

I believe that some of the shops/establishments rely on people being dropped off and picked up at least. Some taxis are essential. Flowing traffic is also important. Many of the clients/customers of some establishments are elderly, not very mobile, and rely on these facilities. Pedestrian only is not the answer. I think provision for disabled parking bays too has to be made and figure 12 does not appear to do this. Without these special bays, some people would not be able to access and support the shops etc.

4. I would personally argue for the provision of 2 disabled parking bays in even figure 11.

5. The bus route is very important here and must be able to continue its journeys without the present frequent interruptions which I have raised in my point 2.

6. Traffic flow and the avoidance of congestion around the bus stop area in West Street must be attended to. I think the wider road space in this area proposed in figure 11 is therefore constructive and vital to allow traffic to flow more effectively.

7. On the whole therefore, I feel the plans in figure 11 come closest to meeting the present needs surrounding the market square, with perhaps a 2nd disabled parking bay.