2.10.1

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30820

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Felix Sanchez Garcia

Representation Summary:

Early years facilities are already needed, even more after the plans to close Anglia Ruskin's nursery. The proposal shouldn't be ambiguous about this.

Full text:

Early years facilities are already needed, even more after the plans to close Anglia Ruskin's nursery. The proposal shouldn't be ambiguous about this.

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30867

Received: 06/03/2016

Respondent: Chris Smith

Representation Summary:

The SPD has been previously stated as supporting all the local plan policies and objectives. This should be added as the first objective.
The density should be deleted as an objective as it is not demonstrated anywhere in the document why 75 per hectare is appropriate to the location or achievable without a deleterious effect on the location. Density is an outcome of the design process not an objective.

Full text:

The SPD has been previously stated as supporting all the local plan policies and objectives. This should be added as the first objective.
The density should be deleted as an objective as it is not demonstrated anywhere in the document why 75 per hectare is appropriate to the location or achievable without a deleterious effect on the location. Density is an outcome of the design process not an objective.

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30868

Received: 06/03/2016

Respondent: Chris Smith

Representation Summary:

Objective 7 ignores the local authority duty to have regard to biodiversity, both by protecting existing biodiversity and enhancing it.
It should be replaced by "protect existing biodiversity and demonstrate positive gain for wildlife".

Full text:

Objective 7 ignores the local authority duty to have regard to biodiversity, both by protecting existing biodiversity and enhancing it.
It should be replaced by "protect existing biodiversity and demonstrate positive gain for wildlife".

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30869

Received: 06/03/2016

Respondent: Chris Smith

Representation Summary:

Objectives should include further guarantees of protection for visual amenity and character.

Full text:

There is no objective indicating that adverse visual impact or character impact from the sites development on the adjacent TWO conservation areas ( since also across the railway is another ) and the 1930s suburban streets will be prevented. Furthermore the site presents strong potential framing views against the skyline e.g. from Fairfax Road or Sleaford Street, and there are important views from passing trains into the conservation area. We suggest that there should be an objective that :"Development should be of a scale, character and form that prevents adverse impact on the character of and views from surrounding properties, in particular framing views between buildings and at street ends"

Support

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30912

Received: 28/02/2016

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council - Transport Assessment Team

Representation Summary:

-Para 2.10 sets out key objectives for the site, with numbers 3, 4 and 10 being transport-related; the County Council supports these objectives. It is proposed that objectives 10 be expanded to specifically refer to car and cycle parking

Full text:

Transport Comments
-Para 2.6.9 (and elsewhere where Chisholm Trail is referred to): the document must reflect the County Council's current proposals for the Chisholm Trail. Negotiations are under way with Network Rail on an alignment that passes through their depot and avoids emerging onto the public highway; the map extract below shows this. The Highway Authority regards delivery of this strategic infrastructure link as being of very great importance.

1 Image (attached)

-Paras 2.6.10-2.6.13 discuss a proposed bridge link across the railway; whilst County Council officers would consider proposals for this if they were to come forward, it is acknowledged that there are significant delivery challenges and that there are nearby alternatives.
-Para 2.10 sets out key objectives for the site, with numbers 3, 4 and 10 being transport-related; the County Council supports these objectives. It is proposed that objectives 10 be expanded to specifically refer to car and cycle parking
-Figure 108 shows a number of design principles for the site of which 4, 5, and 9 are transport-related. The County Council supports these but considers that the development should not only incorporate the Chisholm Trail (no 5) but should either deliver these directly or provide a contribution to cover the cost of delivery by the County Council
-Figure 109 shows principles for the wider area. Both points 13 and 14 should be addressed via a full Transport Assessment that should accompany any future planning application
-Section 4.3 discusses transport and access. Para 4.3.2 discusses the Chisholm Trail but it is proposed that text saying "but the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council" is added to the end
-Similarly 4.3.3 (and 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 discusses street design / access and again the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council
-Para 4.3.7 discusses car parking. Levels of parking provision will need to be assessed in detail as part of a Transport Assessment (TA) accompanying a subsequent planning application. Whilst the level of one per dwelling currently set out might be reasonable the County Council considers this needs to be determined through an analysis, at the TA stage, of issues such as local car ownership and the requirements of visitors
-Para 4.8.1 discusses planning obligations. The County Council welcomes recognition that other off-site transport improvements will likely be needed off-site.

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30923

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: CRRA

Representation Summary:

Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)

Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Full text:

Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
Shared usage roads please see that attached report. Given the current levels of maintenance on Romsey's roads we do not feel this is a good idea that should be taken forward - especially as the development forms part of the Chisholm trail route.
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield.
Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Overall the plan represents some of the issues raised during the meetings held but avoids some in their entirety. We would like to see these addressed in the revisions to the draft and look forward to working with you on their inclusion.
We feel disappointed with the level of engagement that has been made with the local community - the duration and timing of the 'open event' was not adequate or timely enough for thorough understanding by the residents.
Cromwell Road Residents
07/03/2016

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30940

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30956

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Miss Victoria Gaillard

Representation Summary:

Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)

Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Full text:

Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
Shared usage roads please see that attached report. Given the current levels of maintenance on Romsey's roads we do not feel this is a good idea that should be taken forward - especially as the development forms part of the Chisholm trail route.
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield.
Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Overall the plan represents some of the issues raised during the meetings held but avoids some in their entirety. We would like to see these addressed in the revisions to the draft and look forward to working with you on their inclusion.
We feel disappointed with the level of engagement that has been made with the local community - the duration and timing of the 'open event' was not adequate or timely enough for thorough understanding by the residents.
Cromwell Road Residents
07/03/2016

Would like to stress again that communtiy consultation on this site has been consistently bad across the board I do not feel the council has done enough to solicit the views of local people or even make them aware that this consultation is under way. Key points raised as every opportunity (school, provision for the elderly, rail crossing etc) have been consistently ignored. These necessities may be expensive but they are necessities in building a sustainable city.

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30965

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Dr Catriona Crombie

Representation Summary:

Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)

Full text:

To Whom it may Concern,
I am writing to provide comment on the proposed plans for the development of the Ridgeons site on Cromwell Road Cambridge. The first point I would like to make is that the level of consultation with the community in Romsey and Cromwell Road in particular has been poor. The plan proposed does not even show lip service to points raised when the local plan was being developed. The public meetings were few and not advertised appropriately or arranged at convenient times.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield. My house is immediately opposite the proposed development and although in the catchment for St Philips school we are too far away from the school to get a place. St Matthews School is oversubscribed in catchment. This means that as for current residents any new families moving into the proposed development will have to DRIVE past the closest schools to take their children to a school at the other side of town. The plan does not provide for a new school or any facilities to get children to school by any means other than driving (it is too far for a four year old to cycle) and there is no provision for driving or parking.
Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
There is an opportunity here to make a dedicated route for cycling. The proposal for the Chisholm Trail to run down a busy cut through (one of the few roads that runs east/west across the city) is simply a recipe for accidents. Cromwell Road is already a very dangerous place to cycle, particularly at either end where the road bends round and you can't see what is coming. More traffic combined with the Chisholm Trail chucking cyclists on to a busy road is foolish at best. The site could link to quiet roads through the existing developments and link to a new bridge to make the Chisholm Trail a real option for cyclists. As it is the Chisholm Trail will be nothing more than a press release for the council, it will not be a safe route to cycle.
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community. The early years provision in Romesy is only suitable for families with one "at home" parent. For Parents that work there is no nursery facilities in Romsey.
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief. Parking is already at a premium in Romesy and is getting increasingly challenging on Cromwell Road. Parking need much more thought. People will have cars and the life style that the council is forcing us to live demands that a car is necessary. I do not want to drive my children to school but the lack of a local school means this is necessary (a bus up Mill Road into town to change buses to go back out again is not a realistic commute for any parent that has to get to work in the morning nor should it be expected of our children).

In conclusion this plan is short sited and unless action is take now it will be a missed opportunity to leave a really positive legacy for the city.
Yours sincerely
Catriona Crombie

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30971

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Ms Dodie Carter

Representation Summary:

Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)

Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Full text:

Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
Shared usage roads please see that attached report. Given the current levels of maintenance on Romsey's roads we do not feel this is a good idea that should be taken forward - especially as the development forms part of the Chisholm trail route.
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield.
Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Overall the plan represents some of the issues raised during the meetings held but avoids some in their entirety. We would like to see these addressed in the revisions to the draft and look forward to working with you on their inclusion.
We feel disappointed with the level of engagement that has been made with the local community - the duration and timing of the 'open event' was not adequate or timely enough for thorough understanding by the residents.
Cromwell Road Residents
07/03/2016

I endorse the response made as above. Time is too short to allow further comment. I live nearby and share the concerns.
Dodie Carter