Figure 5: Vision and strategic objectives

To summarise, my comments are as follows:
PLEASE rid the area of the gyratory system which gives cars domination (racetrack mentality), scares cyclists and makes pedestrians feel marginalised.
Make the area more people-friendly and let's have a gateway to central Cambridge which we can be proud of. Cafes/independent shops.
More trees and greenery.
Improve the situation for people cycling and walking.
Ensure that developments are of good quality and use local stone and are
sympathetic to their surroundings.
Make more room for bus stops so that pedestrians passing by don't have to step onto the roads to get past.

It's far from clear what is meant by "severance of the highway layout", so cannot support this. I see absolutely no need to reduce the existing speed of traffic through this area.My fear is that "rediscovering the high street" will be a retrograde step leading to traffic jams and increased pollution, particularly if additional non-electric buses are permitted. The third column of objectives is fine. However, the objectives absolutely need to include maintenance of the efficiency of traffic throughput, which was excellent before all the traffic lights were introduced, and is now moderate - anything even worse would be disaster.

Having looked at your proposals I can say that they are probably the least you could do. Another opportunity missed and of course, the money spent without achieving what could have been achieved with some design flair.

Bearing in mind that cars already park in the bus lane, how do you propose to prevent that happening on both sides of the road? Don't say enforcement, because we all know that doesn't happen now and that won't change. Once again you are about to design in mistakes that the public will have to live with for decades.

I believe you have been given ideas that are far superior to what you are proposing, and without taking advice from highly qualified professionals in the vicinity you plough on to produce a 1970s solution.

It is hoped these measures will stabilise or reduce car traffic and reduce congestion. Is that the best you can do - hope? It is a measure of the clueless and incompetent approach that has been adopted throughout Cambridge that indicates the traffic congestion and pollution will continue.

Having looked at your proposals I can say that they are probably the least you could do. Another opportunity missed and of course, the money spent without achieving what could have been achieved with some design flair.

Bearing in mind that cars already park in the bus lane, how do you propose to prevent that happening on both sides of the road? Don't say enforcement, because we all know that doesn't happen now and that won't change. Once again you are about to design in mistakes that the public will have to live with for decades.

I believe you have been given ideas that are far superior to what you are proposing, and without taking advice from highly qualified professionals in the vicinity you plough on to produce a 1970s solution.

It is hoped these measures will stabilise or reduce car traffic and reduce congestion. Is that the best you can do - hope? It is a measure of the clueless and incompetent approach that has been adopted throughout Cambridge that indicates the traffic congestion and pollution will continue.

I wish to comment as follows on this Consultation:

1. I welcome plans to make this junction more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists and in so doing to slow down the traffic speed.

2. The proposed green area in the centre of the development will become a focus for the local community, which is much needed, and engender a greater community spirit.

3. The creation of local access only roads is a major step in the improvement to benefit folk who live and work (shops, etc.) on the current gyratory system.

4. However, if traffic lights are required at the junctions with Milton Road and Victoria Avenue these may contribute to continued congestion - why not consider a small round about?

5. Overall I think the proposed development will lead to much improvement in the Mitcham's Corner area.

In response to the consultation I would like to express my support for the proposed
changes to Mitcham's corner especially the improvement of pedestrian and cycling access. I resident of the area for approx 20 years living in Springfield Rd, Humberstone Rd and Chesterton Hall Crescent and long believed the potential of the area to grow into vibrant community has been held back by the gyratory system, which this proposal goes a long way to address. While traffic needs to flow it should not be at the expense of the community.

This letter is my response to the above consultation. I am responding in a personal capacity, and not as an agent of any other person or organisation.

1. Mitcham's Corner is, above all, a road junction. It carries a large volume of motor traffic each day. At peak times there are moderately-long queues of traffic waiting to enter the junction via all five road entrances. Any reduction in its throughput for motor traffic would lengthen these queues, which in turn would adversely affect surrounding areas.

1.1. The "Vision and Strategic Objectives" laid out in Figure 5 (page 11) do not say anything about maintaining or improving the junction's throughput for motor traffic. This is a grave oversight. The list of Strategic Objectives in Figure 5 should include (at least) maintaining, or (preferably) increasing the junction's motor traffic throughput.

1.2. Despite relentless criticism of the present gyratory system throughout the draft SPD, and a clearly-stated objective to abolish it, the authors do concede that the "Gyratory handles high traffic levels well" (section 2.4.1, p22). The document says that a "Key Objective" for remodelling the gyratory is to "Maintain sufficient capacity and flows through and around the area" (section 3.4.2, p34). However, this objective is neither prominent enough, nor strongly-enough stated. The adjective "sufficient" is subjective, and provides wriggle room for planners to reduce the junction's throughput while asserting that this is still somehow "sufficient". The objective in section 3.4.2 should therefore be changed to "Maintain or increase motor traffic capacity through and around the area".

2. The draft SPD contains no hard data on what volume of traffic currently uses the junction, nor any simulation data to show how the proposed abolition of the gyratory outlined in Figure 27 (p33) would affect the junction's throughput. Both are severe oversights, and must be corrected. Without this information, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the desirability (or otherwise) of the SPD.

Low speed highway design a good idea but only if enforced,

"Urban Space" outside Portland Arms excellent but not likely to be used if two lanes of traffic cross it.

Please improve cycle crossing as currently I avoid Mitcham's Corner altogether when cycling. Also no allowance made currently for journeys south down Milton Road and right along Chesterton Road. Rerouting traffic coming down Milton Road to turn left at roundabout down Elizabeth Way and then right along Chesterton Lane would mean you could dispense with the traffic crossing the "Urban Space" altogether.

If the "Urban Space" does have traffic crossing it, could there be some kind of "pedestrian friendly crossing" (traditional crossings at traffic junctions are not pleasant places to stand and wait).

Please keep hard standing to a minimum. It is not pleasant to walk on, particularly in winter when icy. It increases flooding. The new development behind the Portland Arms is already causing flooding on the road in front of the Portland Arms. Grass is cooler in summer and not icy in winter and helps absorb surface water.
Good luck - it's a great idea to try and improve an area that's a nightmare for pedestrians and cyclists.

I note that one of the bullet points, which I strongly support, calls for improved buses and pedestrian links to bus stops. Yet I see nothing in the document about how this is to be implemented.

At present all buses using Mitchams Corner serve Victoria Avenue. It would be best if there were a pair of bus stops there, but the street is probably too narrow for this. Based on the existing gyratory system (and therefore, I hope, able to be introduced within a shorter timeframe),
O would recommend moving the bus stop on Chesterton Road within the gyratory further east so that buses can pull out to turn right; and adding a new bus stop on the gyratory between Milton Road and Chesterton Road east. In both cases there seems to be ample room. One or other of these stops, which should be linked by a pedestrian friendly route, could and should be used by every bus serving the area including the X5 Cambridge-Oxford and guided buses, with the sole exception of inbound buses on the Citi 2.

Theme 1: We generally support the aims but feel that getting rid of the gyratory system is absolutely essential to the success of the whole plan and severance of the gyratory system must not be stated as a potential outcome but the necessary outcome. We think the plan put forward in figure 27 is fine, but an alternative is possible by continuing Milton Road on it's current path to Chesterton Road, albeit with 2 way traffic, thereby stopping Milton Road from encroaching so much on the (yellow) open space shown.

Having lived in the Mitcham's Corner area for around 20 years I strongly support the principles set out in Figure 5 with the exception of the first bullet point under Theme 1. I do NOT support that principle i.e. "Maximise the benefits of the Greater City Deal". At the time of writing (October 2016) it is unclear that the City Deal will deliver any benefits for Mitcham's Corner (or indeed for Cambridge). Instead it appears that the City Deal proposals (e.g. for Milton Road, PCCPs etc) are likely to worsen the congestion, air quality and streetscape at Mitcham's Corner and in the surrounding roads (e.g. Victoria Road, Milton Road). I support the principle that improvements to Mitcham's Corner need to be considered in an integrated way with the City Deal proposals but I cannot support the current City Deal proposals. I also believe that if the City Deal proposals are put on hold pending further work and/or negotiation with central government, it would be feasible to continue to explore improvements to Mitcham's Corner in their own right.

The quote within the Emerging Local Plan refers to 'local centre' rather than District Centre. The SPD needs to ensure it quotes the Local Plan accurately. Suggest it is the Local Plan that is amended through a modification to provide a more accurate description of Mitcham Corner's status amongst the designated centres.
It is not considered that the aim to 'ensure new development promotes healthy and active lifestyles' relates to the theme 'creating a connected place'. Suggest that this final aim is removed.
Suggest 'residential' is inserted to the third bullet under Theme 2 so that it reads 'Facilitate the delivery of high quality new residential development within the area to help sustain a catchment population for the District Centre'. Since the aim is specifically referencing the need to sustain a catchment population, it is evident that only residential development would apply to this aim. The proposed amendment would clarify this point.
Also Change 'physical' to 'physically' so that it reads 'Promote measures to physically green the area...' at Theme 3.

The clearest robust objective - as opposed to more general ideals - in this set of proposals is the possibility of breaking the gyratory roundabout system. This is an excellent objective provided it can be achieved without causing increased traffic tailbacks on the streets approaching the area. There needs to be a high threshold of confidence with respect to this before the gyratory system is broken.

Para 3
I agree with the need to radically alter the gyratory system. The current situation is terrifying for cyclists forced to change lanes within fast-moving traffic, and pedestrians, e.g. crossing Croftholme Lane without zebra crossing or visibility. Traffic also divides shops and other services, losing all sense of a neighbourhood. What cycle lanes there are simply stop in the middle of roads, or are used for car parking.

Proposals
There needs to be provision for all buses (including park and ride) to stop in a coherent line, so everyone can continue their journey.

Sufficient separation of pedestrians and traffic. The safety of children, both physical safety and air quality, is paramount

Planters for trees and flowers are welcome
Sitting-out areas are most popular near the river, rather than on roads

Para 4
Building in nesting facilities, especially for swifts and kestrels, would be especially welcome

While I support the general concept of improving Mitcham's Corner by making it more accessible to people walking and cycling, I have deep reservations about several of the concepts found in the document.

The proposal for a double roundel or double roundabout in Mitcham's Corner is not a good idea. The existing double roundel on Trumpington Road has been a constant source of injuries to people walking and cycling. We do not need to repeat that mistake, we need to remove it.

The concept of shared space is not appropriate for a busy junction like Mitcham's Corner. Shared space is only appropriate where levels of vehicular traffic are low enough that people walking and cycling can feel confident that their rights will be respected. That is not the case for Mitcham's Corner. It may work on some of the closed-off side streets that you have proposed, but not for the main section of the junction. Shared space does not work where there are too many vehicles because drivers do not respect so-called "courtesy crossings" and that leaves people with visual impairments at a severe disadvantage when having to deal with this space. Even the addition of simple Zebra crossings would make a world of difference. I also note that shared space does not work for cycling either, because motor vehicles moving in a stop-start pattern are incompatible with the movement of people cycling. Poynton in Cheshire, a frequently-cited example of shared space, has utterly failed to promote cycling and statistics there show lower levels of cycling than average in the UK. Frideswide Square in Oxford has been a failure in cycling terms and they have resorted to shared-use pavements instead of proper cycling provision.

In general, new streetscape infrastructure in a busy junction should incorporate protected, separate cycling lanes, good-sized pavements, and formal crossings at frequent intervals. The junctions, whether they take the form of a single, small roundabout with an island, or a traffic signal junction, should have protected, separate cycling lanes as part of the junction, following the recommendations from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and the latest engineering advice from the Netherlands.

I do hope that the gyratory is removed, that Mitcham's Corner is made more friendly to people walking and cycling, and that a proper town square can be provided there using the open space freed up by the removal of the excessive tarmac. We should be planning for a future of reduced automobile traffic within cities, and we get there by building a pleasant environment that is attractive to people, and conducive to increased use of walking, cycling and public transport.

Summary

1. In general, the SPD proposals would improve the area.

2. Removal of the gyratory is essential, and we are pleased that the SPD correctly identifies this.

3. The introduction of a double roundabout is completely unacceptable and we object in the strongest possible terms.

4. A straightforward crossroads, implemented by compulsory purchase and paid for by land reclamation, needs to be properly investigated.

5. Shared space will not work because of the presence of through traffic. Instead, dedicated pedestrian and cycle space should be allocated.

Overall

We welcome the SPD, and feel the document correctly identifies the key issues of the Mitcham's Corner Area. We look forward to the possibility of positive changes being brought about to improve the attractiveness, livability and safety of the area.

As the SPD identifies, the key problem facing the area is that currently the area is designed with a sole focus on maximizing the throughput of vehicle traffic. We would like to make the following points about the proposed solutions:


Proposed New Layout (Section 3.3)

We welcome the proposal for removing the gyratory, and returning many of the roads to two-way operation. However we have strong concerns about the solution identified.

The new layout being proposed is a double roundel. This would be similar to the double roundel at Lensfield Road and Trumpington Road. That junction is currently the most dangerous in the city for cyclists. We do not believe that creating another similar junction is the best way forward for the area. Ironically, the County Council is coming forward with proposals to remove the existing double roundel at Trumpington Road.

We believe that the best long-term solution for the area would be to purchase and demolish at least some of 133-155 Chesterton Road. This would allow the creation of a straightforward crossroads or roundabout joining Milton Road, Chesterton Road and Victoria Avenue, and a large new public space over part of the existing gyratory. We note that both student groups studying the junction a few years ago independently came to the same conclusion.
Shared Space

The SPD points towards several recent schemes that have used so-called shared space principles to improve an area including Poynton in Cheshire and Frideswide Square in Oxford, but we believe that shared space is not appropriate for the through routes of Mitcham's Corner. Camcycle welcomes alterations that reduce traffic speeds, and improve the look and feel of the area. However we believe it is vital that these spaces include dedicated space for cycle tracks, pavements, and clear indications of pedestrian and cycle priority and crossing points.

We believe that true shared space only works when the number of people walking or cycling is equal to or higher than that of the cars. This will likely never be true for Mitcham's Corner, which is a through route in several directions, including for several bus routes.

We would like to see a Dutch-inspired solution that clearly separates the modes of transport, and minimizes conflict. The aim should be for the cycle infrastructure to be safe, reasonably direct and convenient so that it useful and attractive for everyday cycling by people of all ages and abilities.

In the example above the traffic routes are still plain tarmac, but have clear crossing points and cycle tracks. The sense of place is created in the areas where the through traffic is absent. We feel this is a more successful approach than hoping that new paving will create pleasant areas that still have large amounts of traffic (including many buses) passing through them.

This is also likely to be a cheaper solution, both to create and in the long term. Tarmac is very good at supporting many heavy vehicles over long periods of time. Many paving solutions are only good for light use, in areas of low traffic. We feel that may well be appropriate for the newly created access roads in the space, which should see low levels of motor traffic, and therefore could become successful new public spaces.

I live in East Chesterton, and walk and cycle through the Mitcham's Corner area, including on my commute. I currently do not shop in the area, as it is so unpleasant.

I support removal of the gyratory, which destroys any sense of place at Mitcham's corner, and makes cycling in the area very scary, putting many people off using active and sustainable transport.

However, I object to so-called 'shared-space' schemes such as the example shown from Oxford, which reduce distinctions between pedestrian and motor vehicle space, and ignore cycling as a separate mode of transport entirely. Most of the unpleasantness of Mitcham's Corner is due to the volume of motor traffic, and the noise and pollution and danger that this creates. A pretty, busy road is still a busy road. Frideswade Square in Oxford was the source of multiple objections from the local cycling campaign. The same objections and problems will be true for Cambridge.

Shared space is only appropriate in a low traffic environment, otherwise it results in bullying of pedestrians and people cycling, and makes crossing difficult without proper crossings. This is particularly true for partially sighted pedestrians, who need clear crossing points, and for other groups, such as children, who do not understand how to behave without clear separation of walking and driving spaces.

I object to any version of the scheme which does not include proper segregated cycling facilities so that cycling is safe and attractive for people of all ages, and is separated from pedestrians. Cycling-specific facilities are entirely absent in the detail of the consultation.

Narrowing the carriageway without provision of separate cycling facilities is likely to make it more unpleasant to cycle rather than less. People do not like feeling that they are blocking traffic, and more aggressive drivers will still try to overtake in limited space.

Changes to the environment to encourage low speeds on the road are welcome, but these are not a substitution for separate cycle provision on a busy through-road.

Pedestrians and people cycling through should not be made to share space - shared-use paths are a constant source of complaint and conflict in Cambridge, for both sets of users. This is particularly true for an area where pedestrians will be encouraged to enjoy the area and relax and linger, while many people cycling will be trying to move through on longer journeys.

A double-roundel was previously mentioned for the junction with Victoria Avenue. The current version of the SPD fudges the issue of this junction, but proposes no alternative. The double-roundabout copies a junction in Cambridge (Trumpington Rd / Lensfield Rd) which is the most dangerous junction in Cambridge for cycling. The County Council are currently planning to replace it due to its awful safety record, and we should not be re-creating this mistake. I object to any design of junction which has a variation on a double roundabout. Even a single roundabout is a poor junction for cycling, unless it has an annular ring for cycling, separate from pedestrians and motor vehicles.

It is not clear if the 'local-access only' roads will actually be blocked to through-motor traffic, to create a low-traffic environment which would be quieter, more attractive and safer, and would encourage people to want to shop and spend time in the area. If there is no physical restriction to driving, I have no confidence in people sticking to restrictions, or that they will ever be enforced. Physical constraint on through-motor traffic is required.

While changes to the public realm are welcome, the whole consultation is based on the idea that a busy through-road can be a 'place': the two uses are contrary. The solution should focus on creating 'places' which have low traffic volumes, and separately roads for through-traffic which separate walking, cycling and motor traffic, with safe junctions for walking and cycling.

Figure 5:
Theme 1 - Creating a connected place
Not maximise the benefits of "Greater city deal" but "increase the use of sustainable modes of travel" supporting the aims of the Transport Strategy for Cambridge.

Leave out "potentially" in "through severing the gyratory system"
Should be "create a low-speed, simplified and integrated highway space", followed by "considering safety for cyclist and pedestrians around Mitcham's Corner"

Theme 4
Sitting and meeting spaces and pop-up markets need careful design.

Additional objectives
There needs to be an emphasis on affordable residential accommodation in the Mitcham's Corner area. No more student hostels or apart-hotels, which turn the locality into a dormitory district and diminish cohesion for the community and its sustainability. There needs to be a balance between commerical units and residential property.
Provision of car parking is not addressed adequately. This needs immediate attention. Not to be dealt with at a later stage. The demand for short term parking is high because of inadequate bus services. The P&R bus should regularly stop at Mitcham's Corner. There needs to be more cycle parking to attract cyclists to the Mitcham's Corner area.
Planning Guidance (page 44)
Henry Giles House and Staples Site: "development should comprise of improve quality of public realm...and urban-design-led approach should be taken - surely this should always be the case!

Heights recommended will be the starting point of any new development, but where are these guidelines apart from Henry Giles House and Staples? Please no 5+1 storeys for Henry Giles House!
Barclay's and the Tivoli site: guidelines to be to included please. Tivoli should be dual use; commercial and residential. Tivoli frontage to remain.
Page 45
What architects must do and how they should design should include developers and landowners, not just architects.
Uses of recent developments in Mitcham's Corner area have been altered at Student Castle, Your Space (Trafalgar Rd), King's residence. Development Guidelines must be adhered to, also after planning approval.

The Friends of Mitcham's Corner (FMC) have participated in preliminary meetings, attended the public consultation exhibitions, read through the Draft Development Framework, and consulted our membership. The proposed framework advances the thinking about Mitchamʼs Corner hugely, and FMC greatly appreciate the effort and expertise which have gone into compiling it. We believe this represents the start of a process to facilitate the successful regeneration of the area.

The following points have been raised in response to the consultation:

1 Objectives
We suggest that the list of objectives (page 11) be polished more so that it is a good, persuasive summary of the proposals. It would be good to eliminate repetition and reduce the number of items, to increase impact. We have the following comments on specific objectives:

Theme 1 - Creating a connected place

Maximise the benefits of the Greater Cambridge City Deal. We believe this point should have less prominence. Moreover, given the highly controversial nature of some City Deal proposals so far, it might be better phrased (borrowing from page 34) as "Increase the use of sustainable modes of travel, supporting the aims of the Transport Strategy for Cambridge and the Greater Cambridge City Deal".

The first item should be the transformation of the highway layout by severing the gyratory system. We strongly believe that removing the gyratory system is a precondition for any significant redevelopment of Mitchamʼs Corner, and therefore the word "potentially" should be deleted.

Create a low-speed, simplified and integrated highway space. This is the key to the approach being suggested in the Development Framework. Our impression is that while most stakeholders want a low-speed and simplified system, they need more convincing about an "integrated space" with no segregation of cars, cycles and pedestrians. There is no precedent in Cambridge for such an innovative design at a major junction, and people need evidence-based assurance that the approach would be safe (and - importantly - perceived as safe). We appreciate the examples from other towns and cities that are used to illustrate the ideas being put forward. Nevertheless, for the layperson it is hard to visualise what the concrete application to Mitchamʼs Corner might mean. In the next stage it would be good to have more visual impressions of the proposals for the junctions and public space; some videos of similar schemes elsewhere would also be useful, plus comments by users on how well those schemes have worked.

It would be good to explicitly mention safety in this point, as this is a major concern for pedestrians and cyclists who use Mitcham's Corner. There is also the question of how the elderly, visually impaired and users of mobility vehicles will be able to cross the highway safely and with confidence: expert advice and consultation with relevant stakeholders are essential to ensure the design meets the needs of these users.

We note that only a single approach to redesigning the highway system is being suggested - the "shared space" concept. This runs the risk that if the traffic modelling is unfavourable, or if stakeholders dislike the proposal, there is no Plan B. We would suggest putting forward at least one other design for consideration and modelling - for example, a scheme with more traditional segregation of vehicles, cycles and pedestrians, or a design that simplifies the connection between Milton Road and Victoria Avenue, eliminating the "dog leg".

Improve bus facilities and connections to them. Again, this is a very desirable objective: local stakeholders want better services and less spatially dispersed stops (the term "rationalised" is used on page 22 and should be included here).

Improve access and connections through the area. We agree that connectivity should be encouraged throughout the Opportunity Area, as illustrated on the plan on page 43.

Theme 2 - Improving the District Centre
We agree with the objectives grouped under this theme; in particular, we strongly endorse the aim of promoting connections from Mitchamʼs Corner to the River Cam. Since this could be achieved through appropriate redevelopment of the site of Barclays Bank or the Tivoli, we suggest adding some guidelines on these windfall sites to the Development Framework. On a related point, we agree with the proposal that the boundary of the Opportunity Area should be extended to the riverside, as shown in the map on page 33.

Theme 3 - Creating places for people
Again, good objectives. The idea of a public space where people can sit and meet is an attractive one, but for this to be achieved successfully, the space needs to be designed carefully so it is suitable and appealing for casual relaxation as well as occasional public events such as pop-up markets.

2 Additional objectives
A couple of objectives that were high in our survey results are missing from the list of objectives:

An emphasis on affordable residential accommodation for local people. Many of our members are uneasy about opportunistic development of aparthotels and student hostels turning the area into a dormitory district. These erode the cohesion of the community and its sustainability. (At the same time, it would be destructive to Mitcham's Corner as a thriving local centre if too many commercial premises were turned into flats. A balance must be struck.)

In general there is scant mention of car parking facilities. Provision of parking is relegated to phase 3 of the redevelopment project, when it should be designed in from the start. Some stakeholders (especially retailers) regard parking as an extremely important issue. With the redesign of the highway system there would be space for "woodland parking", i.e. an area primarily for car parking planted attractively with small trees, and also suitable for occasional other uses such as pop-up events.

We note that one reason why there is demand for short-term parking is that the bus services are unreliable and poorly coordinated, and in particular the Park and Ride does not stop at Mitchamʼs Corner with regularity.

There is also considerable opportunity for additional cycle parking: at present the provision of dedicated parking spaces for cycles in the area is really poor, despite the number of shops and pubs. This should be improved greatly, thus encouraging more people to visit Mitcham's Corner on their cycles.

3 Planning guidance

In the discussions of both Henry Giles House and the Staples site there are statements that "development should improve the quality of the public realm" and that an "urban-design-led approach" should be taken - this should be made a general principle applicable to any new developments in the area.

On page 44 it is said that "the heights recommended in this guidance will be the starting point for consideration of any new development" - but we could actually find no explicit guidelines on building heights except when specifically discussing Henry Giles House and the Staples site. On a similar topic, the discussion of Henry Giles House mentions the 'possibility' of 5+1 storeys, which is surely just placing temptation in the way of developers!

We have already mentioned the possibility that redevelopment of the Barclays Bank or Tivoli sites could provide a connection to the River Cam, and have suggested that the Development Framework should include some guidelines on these windfall sites. We recently canvassed our members on what uses the Tivoli should be put to: there was a strong preference for a use that continues to serve the public in some way, perhaps with flats above. The historic frontage should be retained, and conceivably the rear of the site could provide access to a pedestrian/cycle bridge over the river. Similar possibilities may exist for the Barclays site should it become available.

In the design guidance, reference is made several times (e.g. page 45) to what architects must do and how they should design. However, developments are primarily the result of clients' requirements and briefs, and therefore it would be more appropriate to direct the comments on e.g. G.R.A.I.N and water-sensitive design at developers and landowners.

FMC are concerned that many recent developments in the area have been implemented in a way that is different from that authorised by the planning department. For example, the Student Castle is not solely for Anglia Ruskin students as stated originally; the Trafalgar Road flats are not residential in nature, but like an aparthotel; and Kings Residence is no longer for PhD students but consists of private flats. In order for the development guidelines to achieve the desired objectives, it is vital that they are enforced robustly.

4 Further points of detail
We list below a range of comments on specific points within the Development Framework.

Move the gateway on Victoria Road up to Greens Road, to slow traffic down before it gets to Mitcham's Corner.

Include Whichcote House on Milton Road within the Opportunity Area because it has now been sold to a private developer.

The discussion of potential funding sources (page 48) should also mention the possibility of selling freed-up land for development ("land exchange").

5 Conclusions
FMC are delighted at the progress that has been made in recent years in thinking about Mitchamʼs Corner. After being largely ignored for many years, the area's importance and potential is being recognised: it has been designated as an Opportunity Area and given its own section in the Local Plan; it has received much media attention and been assigned a Co-ordinator; and a sense of community and purpose has grown among local stakeholders. The development framework is another major step forward, and we are pleased to give it our full support. We urge the Council to approve it as a binding Supplementary Planning Document associated with the Local Plan, and begin the process of identifying funding.

I write in support of the proposals for improvements at Mitcham's Corner. I generally support the submissions made by Friends of Mitcham's Corner:

Full text from Friends of Mitcham's Corner (Representor ID 5919):

The Friends of Mitcham's Corner (FMC) have participated in preliminary meetings, attended the public consultation exhibitions, read through the Draft Development Framework, and consulted our membership. The proposed framework advances the thinking about Mitchamʼs Corner hugely, and FMC greatly appreciate the effort and expertise which have gone into compiling it. We believe this represents the start of a process to facilitate the successful regeneration of the area.

The following points have been raised in response to the consultation:

1 Objectives
We suggest that the list of objectives (page 11) be polished more so that it is a good, persuasive summary of the proposals. It would be good to eliminate repetition and reduce the number of items, to increase impact. We have the following comments on specific objectives:

Theme 1 - Creating a connected place

Maximise the benefits of the Greater Cambridge City Deal. We believe this point should have less prominence. Moreover, given the highly controversial nature of some City Deal proposals so far, it might be better phrased (borrowing from page 34) as "Increase the use of sustainable modes of travel, supporting the aims of the Transport Strategy for Cambridge and the Greater Cambridge City Deal".

The first item should be the transformation of the highway layout by severing the gyratory system. We strongly believe that removing the gyratory system is a precondition for any significant redevelopment of Mitchamʼs Corner, and therefore the word "potentially" should be deleted.

Create a low-speed, simplified and integrated highway space. This is the key to the approach being suggested in the Development Framework. Our impression is that while most stakeholders want a low-speed and simplified system, they need more convincing about an "integrated space" with no segregation of cars, cycles and pedestrians. There is no precedent in Cambridge for such an innovative design at a major junction, and people need evidence-based assurance that the approach would be safe (and - importantly - perceived as safe). We appreciate the examples from other towns and cities that are used to illustrate the ideas being put forward. Nevertheless, for the layperson it is hard to visualise what the concrete application to Mitchamʼs Corner might mean. In the next stage it would be good to have more visual impressions of the proposals for the junctions and public space; some videos of similar schemes elsewhere would also be useful, plus comments by users on how well those schemes have worked.

It would be good to explicitly mention safety in this point, as this is a major concern for pedestrians and cyclists who use Mitcham's Corner. There is also the question of how the elderly, visually impaired and users of mobility vehicles will be able to cross the highway safely and with confidence: expert advice and consultation with relevant stakeholders are essential to ensure the design meets the needs of these users.

We note that only a single approach to redesigning the highway system is being suggested - the "shared space" concept. This runs the risk that if the traffic modelling is unfavourable, or if stakeholders dislike the proposal, there is no Plan B. We would suggest putting forward at least one other design for consideration and modelling - for example, a scheme with more traditional segregation of vehicles, cycles and pedestrians, or a design that simplifies the connection between Milton Road and Victoria Avenue, eliminating the "dog leg".

Improve bus facilities and connections to them. Again, this is a very desirable objective: local stakeholders want better services and less spatially dispersed stops (the term "rationalised" is used on page 22 and should be included here).

Improve access and connections through the area. We agree that connectivity should be encouraged throughout the Opportunity Area, as illustrated on the plan on page 43.

Theme 2 - Improving the District Centre
We agree with the objectives grouped under this theme; in particular, we strongly endorse the aim of promoting connections from Mitchamʼs Corner to the River Cam. Since this could be achieved through appropriate redevelopment of the site of Barclays Bank or the Tivoli, we suggest adding some guidelines on these windfall sites to the Development Framework. On a related point, we agree with the proposal that the boundary of the Opportunity Area should be extended to the riverside, as shown in the map on page 33.

Theme 3 - Creating places for people
Again, good objectives. The idea of a public space where people can sit and meet is an attractive one, but for this to be achieved successfully, the space needs to be designed carefully so it is suitable and appealing for casual relaxation as well as occasional public events such as pop-up markets.

2 Additional objectives
A couple of objectives that were high in our survey results are missing from the list of objectives:

An emphasis on affordable residential accommodation for local people. Many of our members are uneasy about opportunistic development of aparthotels and student hostels turning the area into a dormitory district. These erode the cohesion of the community and its sustainability. (At the same time, it would be destructive to Mitcham's Corner as a thriving local centre if too many commercial premises were turned into flats. A balance must be struck.)

In general there is scant mention of car parking facilities. Provision of parking is relegated to phase 3 of the redevelopment project, when it should be designed in from the start. Some stakeholders (especially retailers) regard parking as an extremely important issue. With the redesign of the highway system there would be space for "woodland parking", i.e. an area primarily for car parking planted attractively with small trees, and also suitable for occasional other uses such as pop-up events.

We note that one reason why there is demand for short-term parking is that the bus services are unreliable and poorly coordinated, and in particular the Park and Ride does not stop at Mitchamʼs Corner with regularity.

There is also considerable opportunity for additional cycle parking: at present the provision of dedicated parking spaces for cycles in the area is really poor, despite the number of shops and pubs. This should be improved greatly, thus encouraging more people to visit Mitcham's Corner on their cycles.

3 Planning guidance

In the discussions of both Henry Giles House and the Staples site there are statements that "development should improve the quality of the public realm" and that an "urban-design-led approach" should be taken - this should be made a general principle applicable to any new developments in the area.

On page 44 it is said that "the heights recommended in this guidance will be the starting point for consideration of any new development" - but we could actually find no explicit guidelines on building heights except when specifically discussing Henry Giles House and the Staples site. On a similar topic, the discussion of Henry Giles House mentions the 'possibility' of 5+1 storeys, which is surely just placing temptation in the way of developers!

We have already mentioned the possibility that redevelopment of the Barclays Bank or Tivoli sites could provide a connection to the River Cam, and have suggested that the Development Framework should include some guidelines on these windfall sites. We recently canvassed our members on what uses the Tivoli should be put to: there was a strong preference for a use that continues to serve the public in some way, perhaps with flats above. The historic frontage should be retained, and conceivably the rear of the site could provide access to a pedestrian/cycle bridge over the river. Similar possibilities may exist for the Barclays site should it become available.

In the design guidance, reference is made several times (e.g. page 45) to what architects must do and how they should design. However, developments are primarily the result of clients' requirements and briefs, and therefore it would be more appropriate to direct the comments on e.g. G.R.A.I.N and water-sensitive design at developers and landowners.

FMC are concerned that many recent developments in the area have been implemented in a way that is different from that authorised by the planning department. For example, the Student Castle is not solely for Anglia Ruskin students as stated originally; the Trafalgar Road flats are not residential in nature, but like an aparthotel; and Kings Residence is no longer for PhD students but consists of private flats. In order for the development guidelines to achieve the desired objectives, it is vital that they are enforced robustly.

4 Further points of detail
We list below a range of comments on specific points within the Development Framework.

Move the gateway on Victoria Road up to Greens Road, to slow traffic down before it gets to Mitcham's Corner.

Include Whichcote House on Milton Road within the Opportunity Area because it has now been sold to a private developer.

The discussion of potential funding sources (page 48) should also mention the possibility of selling freed-up land for development ("land exchange").

5 Conclusions
FMC are delighted at the progress that has been made in recent years in thinking about Mitchamʼs Corner. After being largely ignored for many years, the area's importance and potential is being recognised: it has been designated as an Opportunity Area and given its own section in the Local Plan; it has received much media attention and been assigned a Co-ordinator; and a sense of community and purpose has grown among local stakeholders. The development framework is another major step forward, and we are pleased to give it our full support. We urge the Council to approve it as a binding Supplementary Planning Document associated with the Local Plan, and begin the process of identifying funding.