18 April 2005
Flat threat to idyllic edge of Cromer
Last weekend my small grandson learnt to pedal a tricycle in a children’s play area. He was watched by his great-grandmother, who had come by wheelchair from her home up the road.
Some months earlier, he had sailed his first boat on the pond about fifty yards away, again watched by his great-grandmother, his grandparents and parents, who were sitting outside an unpretentious small café in a lovely clifftop setting, close to bowling and putting greens and round the corner from quite presentable toilets.
It would be nice if he could come back in a few years to see where he did these things. The odds are against it, however, because North Norfolk District Council ambitions may mean it is lost for ever.
This is because it is part of the grounds surrounding the lovely North Lodge – Cromer Town Council headquarters. The district, which owns the Lodge, would like to sell it to developers for no doubt vast sums of money and the unwelcome prospect of more luxury flats.
Diligent EDP readers will know that locals are up in arms against it, and formed a human chain round the Lodge a week ago in protest. More recently, the district has said it will not sell the Lodge in secret, which is somehow not totally reassuring.
Go-ahead councillors of all colours do not like the status quo. They no doubt look at this area and see no entrance fees, no sophisticated 21st-century leisure facilities, no flashy electronics and a disturbing lack of rules and regulations. They ache to get at it.
Under pressure, they are willing to talk first. The Liberal Democrat leader of the district council is so eager to talk that he is willing to put off a decision until after the General Election – not that there is any ulterior motive there. He has said so, and I certainly believe him. Oh, yes.
The North Lodge area is a quiet haven for people – many of them elderly – living in the roads on the east side of Cromer. It is a haven that costs almost nothing. It is also a lovely spot for those of all ages who prefer old-fashioned ways of enjoying themselves.
It would be nothing short of criminal if the district council destroyed it in order to rake in cash, or for some other unpardonable reason – whether before the Election or, coincidentally, after.
Folk memories at Felthorpe?
There was some discussion on this page many months ago about the disappearance of the hill that gave Morton-on-the-Hill, near Lenwade, its name. I believe I suggested that it could be a victim of Norfolk Drift – like Continental Drift, only slower.
Noted Norfolk explorer Richard “Volcano” Meek, who was associated with this theory, recently stumbled across the nearby settlement of Felthorpe while leading an expedition into the interior. He reports: “The local people obviously make a living by selling produce to passing travellers, and I could not help but notice the hand-written sign offering ‘Crabs – fresh boiled daily’ and nearby a sign for the Mariners car park. “Do these people retain some sort of folk memory of the time when Felthorpe nestled between Cromer and Sheringham?” It makes you think.
Council may insist on kerb-crawling
Kerb crawling used to be discouraged in Norwich. But if the Liberal Democrats have their way, it will soon become compulsory.
Two of the widest streets in the city, Rouen Road and Ber Street, are coincidentally also in what is inaccurately known as the Red Light district, where young ladies look for lifts. The city council has plans for us to drive at a maximum of 20mph down these streets.
This is obviously far slower than would be required to ensure safety, so what is the council up to?
Slow, slow drift into the ditches
A correspondent informs me that when travelling in Suffolk “on those long dreary stretches of the A140 restricted to a wholly unnecessary 30mph”, she is often tempted to see how far she dare drive with her eyes closed, or without her hands on the wheel.
She may be joking (I hope so), but the point she makes is valid: speed limits that are too slow make you lose concentration. And losing your concentration is dangerous.
Driving needs to be demanding enough to make us keep our minds on it. Police traffic officers know that, which is why for years they advocated progressive driving – that is, driving as quickly as is safe and legal.
This has been undermined in the past decade by the misguided emphasis on speed as a major cause of accidents. It has resulted in an increase in road deaths (which had formerly been falling) and the introduction of totally unrealistic speed limits in many places.
North Wales Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, who is also the road policing supremo for the Association of Chief Police Officers, has been one of the biggest advocates of speed cameras. But he recently admitted to a national newspaper that 6000 speed cameras placed in so-called accident blackspots had failed to cut road deaths. He called for a rethink.
He has also told the Institute of Advanced Motorists that some speed limits are “barmy” and should be changed, because they have no credibility.
If someone as committed to speed cameras as Mr Brunstrom is urging us to think again, we can hardly argue against the response of the much-abused Association of British Drivers that “if he thinks the limits should be higher, he cannot credibly use safety as a justification for their indiscriminate enforcement”.
It adds: “The failure of the ‘speed kills’ policy to reduce road deaths over the last ten years means that he has to deal with the fundamental problem - the road safety industry has got the relationship between speed and accidents completely wrong.”
We're not talking about this at all
Here’s a perfect model for party spokespersons who want to avoid talking about sensitive issues during the Election campaign. It’s none other than Peter Williams, a US Defence Department spokesman, who was asked about the use of missiles in the Gulf War.
He said: “We don’t discuss that capability. I can’t tell you why we don’t discuss it, because then I’d be discussing it.”