4.3.7 - Car Parking

Only one car parking space per dwelling, with the dwellings capable of housing married couples, is asking for big trouble with car parking disputes. This is already a problematic issue in many parts of Cambridge, and adding to the problem is reckless and irresponsible.Many married couples nowadays find themselves forced by economic pressures to both work, and inevitably a sizable fraction of these find themselves both needing to drive to work.

less than 2 car parking spaces per dwelling, with the dwellings capable of housing married couples, is asking for big trouble with car parking disputes. This is already a problematic issue in surrending neighbor hood and adding to the problem is reckless and irresponsible. for examples. 14 cars are parking at the private road for Cromwell road 77 - 83, only 5 parking spaces were designed. The bin man have difficulties to drive through and the road because so narrow that people lived in 81,83,83a and 83b can not drive their cars through.

As a car-free development apparently is seen as unrealistic (why???), this seems to be the best deal we can get.
According to he gentleman from the council at the recent meeting the roads will be private roads; thus the police cannot enforce parking regulations. This is a really big issue with the other four developments in our area. Parked cars block emergency access to the development next to Ridgeons and pavements at Hampton Gardens at all times.

The departure from the local plan provision is unsupported by facts and should be removed and dealt with via a planning permission based on specifics e.g. home types. Presently it is irrelevant to the document, but prejudicial.
The provision of insufficient parking will cause overspill parking on adjacent streets with an adverse effect on residents. This is a significant issue and cannot be controlled. The reduction in parking therefore simply benefits the developer by increasing densities, but is deleterious to the existing residents.

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.

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

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing re the Cromwell Rd/ Romsey Town development proposals.

I am concerned that adequate provision for parked cars has not been provided on the plans. On street parking is in my opinion not adequate for a new development for two reasons 1) there is already inadequate on street parking In Cromwell Road and neighbouring streets because of previous housing developments on Cromwell Rd and Cavendish Crt, and also as overspill from station commuters 2) the proposed Chisholm Trail would require car-free access.

I would strongly hope that sufficient numbers of designated parking places would be provided within the development to protect existing residents' safety and parking.

With kind regards
Lyn Alcantara

Dear Sir / Madam,

With regard to the Cromwell Road / Ridgeons development site, I would like to make the following comments:

I am a resident of Cavendish Road, living 25m from where the Ridgeons site border. I am greatly concerned that insufficient parking spaces will be provided on the proposed development. The effect of this will be that people living in the new development will park on Cavendish road, prompting the Council to introduce a residents parking scheme on neighbouring roads.

I am very much against residence parking schemes, they will add a further £52 cost per year to owning a car, and are a form of stealth taxation.

I would also like to add my support for the addition of a cycle / pedestrian bridge or underpass across the railway. This would greatly increase the cohesion between Romsey and Petersfield.

many thanks

Jake Grimmett

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.

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

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