Figure 44: Composite plan

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31222

Received: 08/09/2016

Respondent: Michael Cahn

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Support

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31297

Received: 12/10/2016

Respondent: Emmanuel College

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Emmanuel College owns 26-30 Chesterton Road (Barclays Bank) show in figure 44 as an opportunity for new urban space and redevelopment. The College is generally supportive of the SPD and would request a meeting with officers to agree how the College can assist in improving the SPD and delivering Policy 21 as appropriate whilst protecting its interests.

Full text:

Emmanuel College owns 26-30 Chesterton Road (Barclays Bank) shown in figure 44 as 1) 'an opportunity for new urban space; 2) through redevelopment of Barclays Bank and a potential future opportunity for redevelopment' (with new indicative building frontages).
The College understands this opportunity is not allocated within the emerging local plan but if it were, a proposal would be considered by the LPA as a 'windfall site'. The College supports the purpose, scope, vision and strategic objectives of the SPD to seek to improve safe movement, improved facilities and a better sense of community around Mitcham's Corner.
However, the College (as a stakeholder) requests a meeting with officers to seek to ensure the College's interests are protected and, where appropriate, assist in improving the SPD and delivering Policy 21.

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31302

Received: 19/09/2016

Respondent: Mr David Taylor

Representation Summary:

The closure of Victoria Road to through traffic presents the opportunity to create an attractive and secluded area. This could be acheived through resurfacing, tree planting and retail frontages.

The proposed closure of Milton Road to through traffic allows for new building, which would fill a resulting gap, screen views of the rear of Chesterton Terrace and provide finance from the change of use of the land.

Land behind Chesterton Terrace sould provide car parking facilities for shoppers (25 spaces). Local traders consider this a priority. Access could be from Chesterton Road and provide serious tree planting to improve the outlook from surrounding residential properties.

Full text:

See attached document.

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31309

Received: 04/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Rabia Dada-Oughton

Representation Summary:

There is currently limited access to the Mitcham's Park development behind the Westbrook Centre. Residents of that development are isolated from the local community as a result. This is recognized in the plans (fig 44) but no solution offered. Any final document must include a solution to the lack of access available to and from this site.

Full text:

The new development behind the Westbrook centre (Mitcham's Park) is completely isolated from the Mitcham's Corner area and nearby neighborhoods due to lack of access - currently there is only one route to/from the development to Milton Road. This has created an isolated development and I suspect it will be very difficult for residents to become a part of the local community, as a result. Figure 44 recognizes this issue with double sided yellow arrows, but no solution is offered in these plans.
Given that 100+ families will be impacted by this it is vital that this issue be addressed in the first phase. Improved access (at least for pedestrians and cyclists) must be addressed in the final document.

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31338

Received: 10/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Philip Lund

Representation Summary:

While supporting the plan in general I object to the retention of the houses in the middle of Mitchams Corner. Under the new scheme vehicles and cycles coming south down Milton Road and wanting to cross Victoria Bridge will have to execute a left turn into Chesterton Road then a right onto the bridge approach. The loss of the buildings would enable a proper crossroads at the bottom of Milton Road with a straight-over way onto the bridge. The space from the demolished buildings not needed for the road could be incorporated into the general green space of the square.

Full text:

While supporting the plan in general I object to the retention of the houses in the middle of Mitchams Corner. Under the new scheme vehicles and cycles coming south down Milton Road and wanting to cross Victoria Bridge will have to execute a left turn into Chesterton Road then a right onto the bridge approach. The loss of the buildings would enable a proper crossroads at the bottom of Milton Road with a straight-over way onto the bridge. The space from the demolished buildings not needed for the road could be incorporated into the general green space of the square.

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31355

Received: 10/10/2016

Respondent: Dr may block

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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!

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31455

Received: 17/10/2016

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Bennett

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31479

Received: 17/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Caroline Stephens

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31507

Received: 20/10/2016

Respondent: Friends of Mitcham's Corner

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

Representation ID: 31520

Received: 31/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Jocelynne Scutt

Representation Summary:

I generally support the submissions made by the Friends of Mitcham's Corner:

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.

Full text:

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.