Figure 27: Movement proposals for Mitcham's Corner

I would need greater understanding of interconnection between various roads - traffic lights to facilitate free traffic movement.

I agree with the planning principles, especially regarding:

* removal of gyratory system,
* reduction of vehicle speeds,
* introduction of two-way traffic,

I note that the drawing figure #27 is very preliminary in nature and leaves many questions open regarding the exact nature of the traffic flows. Especially the nature of the connection between Victoria Road and Mitcham's Corner deserves a closer look. With reference to the long-term closure of Victoria Rd in 2014 during major road works and sewer repairs we now have proof that the connection between Victoria Road and Mitcham's Corner is indeed not essential. Victoria Rd itself has some interesting commercial infrastructure of historical nature which deserves consideration and could flourish under pedestrian oriented redesign, which corrects the narrow and dangerous pavements which are under-specified throughout.

My second comment relates to the connection between Mitcham's Corner and Westbrook Centre and the housing development on the former sports fields behind it. Connectivity and permeability is very poor in this area. Figure #44 shows a double sided yellow arrow which highlights this issue without offering a clear solution. Figure #17 actually shows Corona Rd open to Westbrook Centre. This is an error on the map, but also a very desirable outcome. Such permeability, especially for non-motorized modes, is essential to make Mitcham's Corner a success and it should be expressly included in the final version of the plan. I also note that the document has no specific guidance for the Westbrook area, whereas specific guidance is included for Giles House and the Staples Site. It is well known that dis-connected sites and sites that lack universal permeability create impactful transportation issues for the life of the development. Improved permeability and connectivity for all modes must be addressed in the final document.

While the proposed plan is an improvement on the existing scheme it is insufficiently bold and does not address all the problems that could be addressed at this point.

I much prefer the road layout given here: http://camcycle.cyclescape.org/media/W1siZiIsIm1lc3NhZ2VfcGhvdG9zLzhhZS84YTQvOGFlOGE0YjcxZTExMzA1NzY3ZDYxNTJkZWEyMzg5Nzk5YjYzYThiYyJdXQ?sha=1b3daa334e733220

This would see the road go through the current location of 137 Chesterton Road and the demolition of at least some of 135-155 Chesterton Road. However, many of those properties are already in poor condition and unoccupied.
The key advantages of this road layout over the one in the SPD are that it reduces the number of junctions between Victoria Avenue and Milton Road from two to one. It also removes the unnecessarily long local access roads and provides the minimal amount which maximises the area available for positive outdoor space.

If that is too radical then the plan could be improved by reducing the local access roads so that the Victoria Road section only continues as far as the junction with Corona Road with a pedestrianised area beyond that and the section from Chesterton Road only goes directly to Springfield Road. This would free up substantial additional area.

I like the proposals for positive gateways into the area.
A foot and cycle bridge from Jesus Green through the present location of Barclays Bank would provide a much better connection between the new area and Jesus Green, particularly as the Victoria Road bridge is too narrow for segregated cycling provision and there would likely be a lot of foot traffic between a new positive Mitcham's corner area and Jesus Green.

We like it. Should help to create a much more cohesive community.

The proposal is sensible but the interaction between the road system and the yellow area could be a problem especially turning right at the junction of Milton and Chesterton roads. The traffic routes need to be clearly defined.

I would support a good look at the cycle lane provision through Victoria road to Chesterton Road, but this could be undertaken without severing the gyratory system.

I agree that the area could do with decluttering, and some decent signage, and some re-thinking of the cycleways, particularly east-west, but I'm not convinced that a large T junction (controlled how?) is either necessary or desirable, and I am concerned that it will simply create a large bottleneck, which will not enhance a 'destination'.

In previous parts of the documentation, it was commented about how the entire gyratory system was set up because of bad traffic flow, and because it was infamous for complete chaos. The gyratory flow works spectacularly well, and there is rarely any traffic problems. This suggests returning back to a pre 1970s traffic flow which has already been proven not to work. This is completely daft and ridiculous, and will cause the North of Cambridge to become as big a traffic jam as South Cambridge (thinking in particular of Hills Road, Lensfield Road area).

This seems to forget that people do not choose to drive through Cambridge - they are forced to drive through Cambridge. Causing even more massive traffic jams will not alleviate the problem, and will just make it worse for everyone living here.

This complicated intersection has many one-way elements that would be greatly improved by converting most to two way traffic. The lanes are very wide thus lots of concrete, (up-to three lanes). Please reduce the width and number of lanes. Significantly increase tree cover to really beautify junction.

Although Mitcham's Corner gets a bad rep, with the houses and shops on the Island it is considerably better than other large open junctions like Elizabeth Way roundabouts.

I also think that reversing the narrow lane opposite the Portland arms by LLoyds bank would be better for most cars rather than sending them round Staples.

I think the plan is insufficiently bold.
As such its has most of the draw back associated with change (cost, disruption, etc) without actually achieving a great benefit for the area.
I think the most appropriate solution would be the demolition of some of the houses on Chesterton Road between Milton Road and Victoria Avenue. This would allow a simple, efficient (especially in space) cross-roads to be created, and free up a massive amount of new space.

I wish to make the following points on this proposal:

1. I understand there are to be traffic lights Milton Rd/ Chesterton Rd and a second set Chesterton Rd/Victoria Avenue.
I am concerned that traffic moving north and south will find insufficient queuing space between the two sets of lights while waiting for the green phase.

2. No consideration is given to the junction Westbrook Avenue/Milton Rd. This junction is increasingly heavily used as the new build 'inside the Westbrook Centre' nears completion. Visibility for exiting onto Milton Rd is poor. The result is that cars creep forward and encroach onto the cycle way in order to gain a line of visibility to the right. The juxtaposition of the bus stop here aggravates this difficult junction. Move the bus stop? Reduce pavement parking towards Mitcham's Corner.

3. Future development of Wychwood. I see that this development is currently outside the plan. Why should this be? The handout suggests that in future there will be three buildings on this site. What provision is being made to accommodate this quantity of people spilling out onto the very narrow road Springfield Rd which exits directly onto Mitcham's corner roundabout or Herbert Street - already realistically a single lane road?

4. Other pink shaded areas on your leaflet shows four potential development areas. That is really scary!

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.

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.

I would prefer to see traffic kept off the eastern end of the space I front of the Portland Arms. It would loop behind the terrace, as now, but two-way.

Is there scope for encouraging traffic to go east along Chesterton Road from Victoria Avenue, instead of up Milton Road? It would then turn left/north up Elizabeth Way to Milton Road (and vice-versa).

I await new cycle routes across the junction with interest!

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 do not object to the proposals as such, but would like to see clarification of the proposals for buses (as I have referred to elsewhere) and pedestrian movements before supporting the scheme. For pedestrians my own preferences are to have zebra rather than signalled crossings; where crossings are signalled for pedestrians the lights should be green for them whenever traffic is stopped; pedestrians should have right of way over traffic turning into the relevant road; and no guard rails.

Or you could use the City Deal money to send through traffic *under* the junction. Yes, this is expensive, but that's the point of the City Deal money! It would also provide far more space on the surface for public transport, bikes and pedestrians. If the planners here had real vision, they would do something like this, factoring in to the cost that it's a long term solution, not the proposed short-term fix (which is much like previous short-term fixes).

We generally support this. Another option could be similar but with Milton Road continuing on to Chesterton Road as it does now but with 2 way traffic. This would eliminate Milton Road crossing the yellow open space and might be more open space and pedestrian friendly.

although there are many crossing points, many people cross Chesterton Road on foot or bike opposite the Coop as this is the quickest route from Herbert St to Ferry Path. any design needs to take this into consideration....

I would like to see "movement proposals" for pedestrians, cyclists, and buses as well as just "traffic".

The proposal involves making some streets quiet streets without any through motor traffic; I would have thought it would be best if the streets with shops on them had such traffic reduction (while keeping easy access to park near the shops).

I note the document being consulted on omits any junction detail; (T-junction with traffic lights, a free for all, roundabout(s)) a key point appears to be being avoided.

There is a lot of pedestrian traffic across Chesterton Road to and from the Co-op, which needs to be taken into account in the provision for pedestrians.

1. The removal of the gyratory and the changes in road layout could impact negatively on the Citi8 bus route which at the moment uses the gyratory between Victoria Avenue and Victoria Road. If the new road layout causes greater delays to the Citi8 it is likely to be rerouted along Gilbert Road and one third of Histon Road and the whole of Victoria Road will lose their only bus service.

2. Why has the Barclays Bank site been identified as "a potential future opportunity for redevelopment"? The building may lack aesthetic appeal but it has an important asset - it is the only bank north of the river with a dedicated car park which customers such as the infirm and disabled and from as far afield as Milton can use. Take away the car park and personal banking for some will became an impossibility.

3. How many pedestrian and cyclist casualties have there been on the gyratory since it was created fifty years ago? This is surely the test that should be used in deciding whether it is dangerous and should be replaced. Perceptions of safety or danger are not good indicators as these are personal to the individual and will vary from person to person.

Although redesign to provide better streetscape and reduced traffic speed is supported, the proposed concept, similar to Frideswide Square, Oxford is entirely inappropriate. There is no concept of segregation of motor vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

To encourage Cambridge cycling, cycle routes must be segregated from cars and pedestrians. The images shown are of people on bicycles riding on pavements. Cyclists in the road will have to take the road behind and in front of buses and cars.

It is suggested to amend so that Dutch quality cycle routes around Mitcham's corner are designed into the plan.

There is an opportunity for a new cycle bridge from behind Barclays to Jesus Green, thus avoiding Victoria Road.

The document is extremely lengthy, but does not address the need to provide a functional intersection of five major roads critical to effective functioning of the city, the local community, Cambridge residents, and the inner ring. Until and unless an intersection with sufficient capacity is designed and modelled accurately, the rest of the document is premature, manipulative and presumptuous.

The council should not have taken this document to consultation until a working intersection of sufficient capacity was part of the plans. Only once an intersection of sufficient capacity is part of the plans should they be brought for public consultation. Otherwise the danger is that the consultation may falsely give approval to a design which is guaranteed to fail.

In the current climate of poor quality and inadequate proposals from council and city deal, the current premature proposals give the impression that the council are attempting to deliberately manipulate the consultative process to provide skeleton approval to a plan with inadequate space reserved for the necessary intersection, and hence cause further damage to the local economy.

In general I welcome the degree of attention and commitment that the Council has invested in Mitcham's Corner. I believe that the proposals, if implemented, would represent a significant improvement to the existing environment of this area, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.

However, I am disappointed that the Council has only entertained one masterplan for the remodelling of the gyratory system (the "shared space" approach). I am not convinced that this is the ideal solution for this exceptionally busy junction. I am concerned about the impact, from a traffic flow perspective, of the S-bend connection between Milton Road and Victoria Avenue. Long tailbacks at this junction would not benefit users of buses and other vehicles, and they would not benefit pedestrians and cyclists either.

In my view an alternative scheme, the "IDBE" design, should be drawn up alongside the current proposal, and both schemes subjected to a feasibility exercise, including traffic flow modelling. The choice of scheme to be implemented would then be made on the basis of cost, feasibility and public preference. The IDBE scheme consists of the following elements:

1) Compulsory purchase and demolition of the terrace of houses in the middle of the gyratory;

2) Realignment of Milton Road to line up with Victoria Avenue, and creation of a conventional crossroads where these roads intersect Chesterton Road;

3) Extension of the remaining terrace site to the north and east (via a land swap) and redevelopment of the site for retail and housing;

4) Creation of a longer pedestrian square in front of the Portland Arms and stretching as far east as the frontage of the potential new supermarket building.

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 think the plan is very exciting and has many really good points particularly the aim to make the area more pedestrian and cycle friendly by removing the gyratory system, the new pedestrian link routes and an aim to green up have an amenity space.
It is important that the remaining pavements are suitably wide.

Moving to an integrated scheme seems ambitious and it may be difficult to persuade everyone of the benefits and there is a genuine concern about how it can be used by people with sight problems or poor mobility.
Maybe a mixed scheme would be possible with one or two crossings.
I couldn't see from the system whether the junctions would be mini roundabouts or T junctions.

The opportunity area should include the space( currently dotted line ) down to the river and wichcote now that it has been sold.

I think care needs to be taken with the outdoor amenity space 1 to avoid an unused concrete area as it is right by two roads and there aren't any obvious cafes near by. It is vital to use trees as much as possible to green it up.

The access road behind the tall buildings in the middle of the area doesn't need to extend further than Springfield road and the space behind could also be amenity space or under tree parking as there isn't any provision for parking which local businesses would value.

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.

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.