3.4.2

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.

I fully support these aims if they mean what I would mean by the words - but fear that what you and I consider "sufficient capacity" may differ. I also think that it will be very difficult to simultaneously achieve them all.

I generally support the proposals set out in the planning document, especially those intended to improve the quality of Mitcham's Corner. However, I am sceptical that traffic can be kept flowing freely.

The sooner it is done , the better.

The priority must be to support local communities and businesses by making the area safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Well located bus stops would be welcome, along with wider footpaths and more trees.

Where Paragraph 3.1.5 references Manual for Streets 2 and lists the benefits of improved streets, we would welcome recognition that better streets can also have a positive benefit for the historic environment: minimising the impact of transport on heritage (Manual for Streets 2, 2010).

We encourage you to draw on Historic England's publication Streets for All: East of England for further guidance. This can be found via the following link:

https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/streets-for-all-east-of-england/east-eng-streets.pdf/

Where the placemaking objectives for the remodelled gyratory system are set out in Paragraph 3.4.2, we request a further bullet point as follows;

* Preserve and enhance the Central Conservation Area and the wider historic environment and make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

We welcome the design principles as likely to help to achieve a positive contribution to local character.

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.

This objective would be a lot easier to achieve if the volume of vehicle traffic could be reduced, and therefore the ideas in the document should be combined with strong demand management measures targeted at private cars.

I think the "improve safety" objective ought be stressed, and made more specific.

The objective should be a reduction in deaths and injuries; as well as an improvement in people's perception of safety when travelling through the area in particular via when as more vulnerable road users - pedestrians and cyclists.

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

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.