Ghost Passage Revisited (Twice Updated)

03/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

Note: Sections of this blog post were updated with new information on 6th July 2009 and where there have been changes they are marked (Update)

Note: A second update has taken place on 10th July 2009 following an email from Val Bolem.  My records have been adjusted accordingly.

Ghost Passage Revisited

Before I start: Can I once again stress that I am not the County Councillor for the division in which Ghost Passage resides (Cllr Simon King is) and so this post is written as a resident and business owner and not in my capacity as a councillor.  Can I also say that I respect the opinions of those on the other side of this debate and that my comments are made because in this instance I do not share those opinions and feel obliged to speak out for myself and the many other residents who apparently feel the same way.

Since I last posted about Ghost Passage and the police plan to close it there have been some developments in the matter.  Since the previous posts elicited several comments and a whole bunch of emails I thought it was worth writing a brief update on where we are now. 

As some readers will know I hand-delivered letters to all the local residents to research their actual opinions rather than just presuming the police view of the matter was correct.  I’m glad I did.  Of the people who have responded so far not a single one has been in favour of the police plan exactly as stated.  Most have been against the plan completely.  Two have been for the plan in a limited form - but against full closure. Not a single person who has responded liked the proposals by the police as they currently stand 

Here is a sample of some of the pertinent comments received:

John Anker emailed a lengthy letter to tell me he opposed the plan.  An extract of the email included: “I do not agree with the closure of Ghost Passage and consider that the consultation is based on a few ‘’special constables’’ or the like talking to a few people. If we are to have a consultation let’s have an open meeting to discuss the matter at a pre-arranged date!!” 

Cllr Michael Hill confirmed to me in person at the mayor’s function today in St. Peter’s Church that he was opposed to the idea of closing Ghost Passage and asked to be kept in the loop so that he could contribute to the discussions.

Janet Stott said that she had signed up to the original idea (the first person who had even heard about it during the much-vaunted ‘consultation’) but that the final plan bore significant differences to the original suggestions - and that she did not support the current plan for complete closure.

Juliet Cairns also emailed me in support of my position saying: “Thanks for your letter regarding the closure of Ghost Passage.  I am in complete agreement with you that the passage should remain open.  I certainly have not received any communication about this so they cannot state that everyone has been consulted. So if they are going to close the passage, won’t that lead to an area which is perfect for the actual activities like drinking, drug taking etc,which they want to stop.  What we actually need is more of a police presence just walking through and actually doing something about the problem, not just shutting it off, so no one can see it, because it certainly won’t stop it. I use the passage daily.  It is needed for the car park at the rear and for access into the town.  There are always little ‘hotspots’ like this in every town, but shutting the passage is not the answer.”

Rupert Wilkes is one of the people who supports the plan in a limited form, but not the plan as outlined by the police.  He said: “If you are right that the police’s draft closure order means that the passage is closed in its entirety, this appears to us unacceptable.  The direct route from under 7 The Crescent to Love Lane is an important pedestrian thoroughfare.  Closing it leaves inbound foot traffic either to pass along Love Lane to the Museum (equally unpoliceable and detrimental to the former almshouses) or to walk against the traffic, with virtually no pavement, up Post Office Lane.  Conversely the path behind the Masonic Hall and your property, which ends up in York Row, does not strike us as too significant a route.  Going via the front of The Crescent and York Row is no major detour.”

Cllr Jonathan Farmer (who has been very supportive and helpful on this matter and whose ideas form most of our alternative proposal) is completely opposed to the police plan saying: “I could not agree with you more. This is a classic example of a consultation being highly selective in who it consults to verify the pre-conceived judgement already decided at.”  His lengthy email went into some detail as to his considered objection to the present plan. 

Cllr Simon King seems a little isolated right now but remains supportive of the original idea: “The police have put in a huge amount of work to try to improve the Ghost Passage area but because of the layout of the alleys it has proved impossible to achieve this other than by gating.  All those who have access onto the alleys were consulted and were very enthusiastic about the proposals, as, indeed, am I.”

(Update) Philip Stokes was one of the minority who supported closure but with the following comment: “You somewhat miss the point when you suggest that we all love the idea of closing Ghost Passage. Ideally it would be far better if it was policed properly. But like the rest of Wisbech this is not going to happen. Alternatively they could put CCTV cameras there – too costly so I’ve found out, so that’s not going to happen either. This leaves what?”

(Update) Jane Coates seems to agree with the compromise plan saying: “I agree that it’s sad to lose the character of Wisbech in the process. Is there a half way solution in gating between A and B on the map hence allowing usage of the passage from Love Lane to the Crescent? Also why couldn’t security cameras be sited in the passage? Just a couple of thoughts and a bit of support.”

(Update) Jeff & Robi Harper sent a brief text saying:  Sorry 4 delay in reply 2 letter re ghost passage , we both agree with your reasons not to close.

Apparently there is a local resident with whom I have not yet spoken who is very taken with the plan.  Luckily, I am at a function on Sunday where I will be sitting at the same table as this individual, which will give me a chance to discuss it over a nice meal (always a good way to get to the heart of things, I find!)
(SECOND Update) The mystery person was Val Bolam with whom I had an interesting chat on Sunday.  Val felt that the police had misrepresented the original idea and agreed that partial closure as per our compromise suggestion was more in keeping with the original plan - and preferable.  Val has emailed me to say that he does not, in fact, feel the police have misrepresented him and has asked me to remove that statement.  Although the original idea was (according to other residents, at least) only two gates and the final plan was for three, Val does not agree with my view of this or feel that any misrepresentation has taken place.  I appreciate Val taking the time to correct me on this and apologise if I misunderstood his original comments to me.

A Way Forward:
Having discussed all this (at length) with most of the local residents now there seems to be a concensus position becoming clear.  A compromise which is acceptable to most of us and is more in keeping with the original idea that the few people who were consulted on this were “sold” in the first place and less like the blanket ban the police seem to have decided will make their life easier.

The current police plan involves three gates which will prevent access to most of the alley and close down the important route from The Crescent to Love Lane.  Our amended proposal would involve only two gates, one at the location the police call “Gate A” exactly as per their plan.  The other on the same length of alley just after the entrance to the Masonic Lodge. 

The effect of this would be to cut off the section of Ghost Passage which is unlit, known to be a “problem area” and which residents frequently complain about, while leaving the well-lit main pedestrian route from The Cresent to Love Lane accessible by all.  This would mean the most attractive and historic section of the alley would be open, but the more standard ‘back alley’ section, which is also seldom used by pedestrians, would be closed except for residents.  This would preserve the right of way for people using the St Raphael centre, the Car Park and the Masonic Lodge without hindrance.  All in all, as compromises go, this seems pretty much perfect.  Every resident I have spoken to agrees this is an excellent way to address the concerns on both sides of the argument. 

But will the police and the Powers That Be go for it?  I suppose that depends on whether they are open-minded enough to accept they misjudged this a bit and are flexible enough to adjust their plans to suit the residents and users of the passage.  I’ll be having a meeting next week (accompanied by Cllr. Jonathan Farmer) to argue the case and then we’ll see!

Posted in Ghost Passage, Wisbech | No Comments »