4.3.9

4.3.9 We note the reference to the demand for hotel uses and the identification of potential frontages for hotel uses in figures 35 and 36. It is not clear from these figures whether the location would affect the grade II listed 17 Fitzroy Street. We would note that any proposals (for a hotel or other uses) in this area will need to give careful consideration to the listed building and its setting.

2.7.2
Second point. As this document has been written so that members of the public can have their say on the
council's vision for this area, use of planning jargon is unhelpful.
3.2.3 The area should be primarily for pedestrians and those on bikes. We need far fewer cars.
3.2.7 I would argue for future proofing not just in terms of building use, but in transport terms too. We must
be aiming for far fewer cars and delivery lorries and therefore lower pollution levels.
4.2.4 Again, let's not think car here. Walking and cycling must come first.
Fig. 33 It's not entirely clear to me if the yellow shading is an indication that you wish to see junction
improvement here. (This is a problem with several plans. The key doesn't always match the drawing.)
Fitzroy Lane needs a pavement.
Enhanced public space. There is potential for conflict in a shared space environment as this would turn out to
be. Fig 34 strongly suggests there would be.
4.2.18 I object to on-street servicing. It causes conflict with pedestrians and bike users.
4.2.30 Suggest sites for cycle parking. Although if Grafton East went underground, could the overground part
become a cycle park?
Fig 35 I am uneasy about suggesting no. 17 Fitzroy Street could turn into an hotel. I envisage conflict with
pedestrians and bikes because of the servicing needed and the guests arriving.
4.3.9 I am uneasy about more central hotels. What about some affordable flats instead?
4.4.14 Let us hold to this. When you say exceptional, let us mean exceptional, not a 5 storey building that
could be anywhere in the country. Maybe they could echo no 17?
4.4.24. I strongly object to the space being used by pedestrians, bikes with taxis and servicing vehicles. This
is not a recipe for a pleasant, attractive boulevard, but a stressful, noisy, mall. There would also be damage
to any surfacing used.
Yes to 24/7 use by bikes.
4.4.26 Reduce carriageway for motor traffic and add a cycle route for the whole length.
Improve Norfolk St end with a clearer cycling and walking routes to follow.
This plan must integrate with the Eastern Gate SPD. It must be a goal that it does, not a vague desire. There
is no point in having a piecemeal approach to the area.
Fig 42. Shows limited space for pedestrians, trees removed, bike racks gone, seating gone. It looks a lot like
shared space and I strongly object to that.
4.4.28. Jargon. (See first point.) Contraflow bike lane, yes. Servicing too? No, no, no.
4.5.3 Either this is to be a 'c' road, or it is a pedestrianised shopping centre. It can't be both.
Fig 45 No guard rail at all, thank you. Crossings can be effectively designed for busy roads without them.
Fig 47. A bus lane shared with bikes? No. Not on East Road, thanks.

Use of scarce land for hotels in an area with low housing affordability seems very odd. There are new hotels on Newmarket Road and that seems a far more sensible place.