2.6.8 - Cycle and pedestrian network

My comments on the Draft SPD for Ridgeons follow and should be read alongside your RTF form that is also attached to my email.

At this stage I am neither for nor against the development but I have the following points to make that I hope you will consider.

The update to the plan to not include 133 Cavendish Road and some other corrections that need to be done
There has been a recent update to the plan to exclude number 133 Cavendish Road that had wrongly been included in earlier drawings as part of the Ridgeons site.

Location maps still wrongly indicate Cavendish Place as the road running to the South of the site (see page 17 for example). This road is actually a meeting point between Cavendish Road and Cavendish Place - the division occurring around the end of my property (96 Cavendish Road) - which in turn is not shown on the drawings in its properly extended form but as it was prior to an agreed and built extension.

For clarification the Ridgeons side of Cavendish Road is not in the conservation area - however, the other side of Cavendish Road is (see page 25) and this is a consideration in regard to the exit from the site onto Cavendish Road.

I believe the pictures on page 15 should rightly include a Figure 13A - a shot looking out of the site at the point where there will be a pedestrian and cycle exit and include a view of the side of 96 Cavendish Road (my home) as it will be seen from this exit.

As number 133 Cavendish Road is now recognised as not being owned by Ridgeons, I believe there should be a greater mitigation to stop 133 Cavendish Road being dwarfed by the development.

Cycling, vehicles and Cavendish Road: a two way street that cannot accommodate two vehicles or a vehicle and a bike passing each other without the use of passing places.

Page 32 refers to Cavendish Road as having two way traffic with only 3 metres being available for vehicles to travel on. This means that two cars cannot pass, nor can a car and bike. Often large vehicles cannot traverse the road because one badly parked vehicle can reduce the width to around 2 metres.

Currently vehicle drivers manage the complicated arrangement where one car going down the road, gives way to a car coming up the road by stopping in the space provided by the junctions at St Phillips or Wettenhall Road (or vice versa). This is equally true for cyclists who either give way to cars or cars give way to them.

This is managed because it is mostly local people using the roads and they understand the need to give way when another vehicle or cycle has taken the priority by entering a section of the road where two vehicles or a vehicle and a cycle cannot pass. This would become a problem if more cycles were to use Cavendish Road.

It would also be more realistic to say in Figure 67 on page 34 that not only two cars can't pass but that a car and a cycle cannot pass.

The use by the Chisholm trail of Cavendish Road will increase this complication, and a lack of local knowledge is likely to lead to a friction between vehicles and what could be at peak time be an almost endless stream of cycles.

I in no way objecting to the Chisholm Trail, but it may be judicious to be clearer that the Chisholm Trail (page 33) does follow the railway land at the back of the odd numbers on Cavendish Road and exits as it is currently shown.

The suggestion on pages 36 Figure 72, on page 52, Figure 107, and again on page 65, Figure 111 all suggest a primary network would allow cycles to enter Cavendish Road with an expectation I suspect that they access Mill Road. This is a move away from the plan on page 33 and raises concerns if allowed to happen without a rethink of the arrangements on Cavendish Road.


If Cavendish Road does actually become part of the Chisholm trail then this will inevitably cause friction in this two way road where a car and a cycle cannot pass because of parked cars.

I hope this potential danger and cause of friction will be thought about again. What is needed is either a less ambiguous route with a view to ensuring that cycles pass through the Ridgeons site to the railway side of the houses on Cavendish Road. Or, if the intention is to use Cavendish Road for even some of the cycles on the Chisholm trail then there needs to be some serious consideration of how the traffic, parked cars and cycles will mix. If this is the case then there will need to be a radical solution that will have severe implications on the surrounding roads.

The opening onto Cavendish Road/Place
On page 67, Figure 115 indicates the opening onto Cavendish Road/Place and this is a little clearer on page 77 Figure 135. However, I am also concerned that since the ownership of 133 Cavendish Road has been recognised as not being part of the site, the 'Indicative character and form' shown on page 79 Figure 136 is unclear. There needs to be more detail about how the junction with Cavendish Road/Place is proposed. I would ask that a real consideration of this junction is given to both safety and the aesthetics of how it will affect my property at 96 Cavendish Road and the surrounding properties.

I would ask when this is done that consideration is given to that this exit being opposite my property as it is now, and not as it is on the plan.

I would ask that consideration be given to how this exit will impinge on my home (some of which has windows looking directly into the proposed exit from Ridgeons. The detail is very unclear and in particular I would ask that the possibility of houses being built close to the exit be at two storeys and be pushed back so as to allow a considerable green space at this point.


I do recognise that my house has been developed in a somewhat eclectic way. The face is still in character with the rest of the conservation area and as this ends the side of my house, as it has been extended, provides a phased move from Victorian to modern design that eases towards the modern houses on Cavendish Place.

Cromwell Road
In regard to Cromwell Road I believe that a major study should take place to take advantage of the lack of traffic that will occur when Ridgeons closes. This could involve some payback for yet another development impinging on the people who live in houses on Cromwell Road. Consideration could perhaps be given to shutting Cromwell Road at one end and then putting in some greenery and landscaping to soften the whole area.

Creep
I also am wary about the possibility of creep in this type of development. The SPD should include a statement that this is the end of large scale development in this area. This would be to prevent developers gradually purchasing houses on the other side of Cromwell Road with a view to eventually knocking them down and building more flats etc.

Dave Baigent.

Why isn't the cycle route in Cromwell Road installed recently mentioned?

Cambridge Past, Present & Future's Planning Committee have reviewed and discussed the above referenced Supplementary Planning Document for the redevelopment of the Ridgeon's site. It is clear that the proposals have progressed past that seen last summer and we acknowledge some of our previous comments have been addressed.

CambridgePPF welcome the principle of development on this brownfield land. This is both positive and encouraging, especially as this falls in line with our own development principles. However, whilst this is good to see, we believe there are still issues that need addressing.

First, regardless of our comments on the document, there is a fundamental issue that remains, which is that the SPD is not capable of being adopted unless and until the draft Local Plan proposals are approved by the Inspector in due course. This presents a potential challenge if either the draft Local Plan or the draft SPD are not supported. As a result, it is strongly recommended that the principles and objectives of developing the site (as outlined in the SPD) would remain regardless of the proposal to ensure the same considerations are given.

Second, CambridgePPF raises the following comments and concerns on the draft SPD:
2.2.6/7- there is an opportunity for enhancement
2.2.11- ensure mitigation against noise and air pollution
2.5.7 and 2.5.9- CambridgePPF are not commenting specifically on the provisions of health care, child care or schools, but acknowledge an allocation of a space within the site has been included in the SPD. The location, design, and use of this space/building needs to be better understood and carefully considered. If after an assessment it is found that the facilities aren't required, what will happen to the allocated land or building? A better understanding of the developer's obligations is worth inclusion to assure residents, such as Section 106 or CIL monies.
2.6- is a section that invariably raises concerns that the SPD does not address other than making promises. This is an already congested area and it is imperative to demonstrate what the additional numbers of cars would be and how an increase might be managed. It would be worthwhile to compare the existing heavy good vehicle and patron vehicle movements against the proposed residential use, both in terms of volume and timing. Is it a balanced trade off? What about visitors to the homes? Disabled parking? Deliveries, refuse, etc.? The SPD infers a variety of parking typologies, but again there is no detail on what, where or how.
2.6.8- the inclusion of the City Deal's Chisholm Trail for cycle and pedestrian movements is supported, however, what remains unclear is the practicalities of incorporation with the site, timing and coordination, especially in light of the EIP of the Local Plans and the overall City Deal programme. Without being overly prescriptive, fleshing this out more may be worthwhile.
2.6.10- the relatively casual dismissal of a pedestrian bridge is unfortunate. It is suggested that further discussions with the City Deal are explored to see if funding could be leveraged through the Chisholm Trail or through developer contributions. This is something that the residents have asked for and are passionate about. The nearest existing routes over the rail are Mill Road and Coldham's Lane. Both of these are far from the site, particularly on foot and the result could isolate the site from the city.
2.7- despite the availability of open space adjacent to the site, it is vital that sufficient and well-designed landscaping is available within this site. Figure 136 depicting a more undulating and organic green space is preferred to the overly simplistic linear form.
2.8- this section only talks about what is adjacent and within the immediate area, but nothing site specific
2.9.3- this section only talks about what is adjacent and within the immediate area, but nothing site specific
2.10- key objectives are supported, but how will they be implemented in this site, this is just a promise without evidence of how it will be implemented
3.2- key principles are supported, but how will they be implemented in this site, this is just a promise without evidence of how it will be delivered
4.2- 40% affordable housing provision is welcome, but location and types need to be varied and integrated into the site, this includes one bedroom and bungalow sized properties which the market is failing to provide
4.2.3- how and where is this within the site?
4.3.4- one entrance for 300 plus cars is questioned, and considerations of a secondary access south of site should be made
4.3.8- the variety of parking options mentioned is welcome, but the indicative plan does not show any cars at all- this is visually confusing and misleading, which may raise concerns about practicalities
4.3.11- Figures 125-128 do not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed elevation cut through and this graphic should be made clearer
4.4- the existing site has no internal trees or green space, therefore the proposed open space should include mixture of mature and newly planted trees. Should the Chisholm Trail follow a tree lined path? How obvious should the trail be? There is no mention of street furniture, benches, bins, maintenance, who will own the land, etc.

4.5- it is appreciated that a mix of housing types and heights are required to accommodate the density and that the taller buildings be located adjacent to the railway. However, every effort should be made to minimise the maximum height to accord with the adjacent residential area.
4.6- Figure 136 is the most helpful and enables some opportunity to visualise the concept. This is also the form and shape preferred compared to the over simplified linear figures. Those flats located adjacent the railway may be most disadvantaged due to noise, odour and vibration. Mitigations should be suggested in the SPD to allay fears. Figure 136 shows some sort of structures located against the boundary- would these be storage units? Clarification is recommended. There are two buildings (one being the marker) that are hexagon shaped and could mislead people. Further clarification on both structures and an in-principle statement about the nature and intent to be derived from the 'marker' or 'landmark' building should be included. Key elevations include views from existing rear gardens onto side of proposed new terraces, views from railway and other key views. Perhaps further description of how these key viewpoints will be dealt with would again ease neighbour concerns.
4.7- key objectives are supported, but how will they be implemented in this site. Further details would be very helpful
Additionally, there is no mention of public art within the site. The small development located at Yarrow Road and Cambridge Road demonstrates how art, enclosure, sustainability and quality can be done quite well. Also, there are no clear proposals for enhancing biodiversity, wildlife, etc.? The document shows the potential use of bird boxes and solar panels, but little else.
Finally, CambridgePPF requests that it is included in future discussions about the specific details and design parameters that typically precede a formal planning application. The draft SPD is an excellent starting point, but we feel some of the detail that gives character and definition, such as offering a palette of materials, details, etc. could be useful. We encourage a variety to avoid further developments taunting [?] the new 'Cambridge vernacular'.
CambridgePPF look forward to reviewing further versions of this draft SPD when available. Thank you