Figure 52: Development principles for Henry Giles House

Changing the usage of this site should also significantly reduce the need for car parking on this stretch of Chesterton Road.

I own and live in properties on Chesterton road. I want to comment on the Henry Giles House area, in particular the lane behind 81 to 93 Chesterton Rd (Spring Terrace). I note that it is proposed to build houses on the north west side of the wall separating the present car park and our lane. It is not clear that account has been taken of the fact that there is a 2 metre drop from the car park to the lane. Apart from the issue of stability, the residents would be closely overlooked by the equivalent of a 3 story house at an angle of about 40 degrees. In addition, over the years residents have planted a number of trees, now mature. Unless there are felled (to which residents would object) they would form an obstruction to the houses and would grade the environment

1. Protruded positioning of the new development. The new development should not front any further than the existing building. Doing so as drawn, despite the reduction in height will overshadow our property and cut out well needed light to the rear/our garden. We currently have planning permission for an extension to our rear that will feature a roof terrace to enjoy views of Jesus Green and the lock/river. Any building further forward to the existing will negate all purpose of this extension.

2. Scale and height of the proposed. In Figure 15 building heights clearly show Henry Giles House as disproportionate. The proposed stories of 4 and 5+1 are grossly unsuitable. Spring Terrace is 2 + 1 stories and west of the site are 3+1 townhouses. Other than the main building at Henry Giles House the rest of the office site is only 2-3 stories maximum at present. The carpark area is also free from existing buildings.

3. Overlooking and height (again). No account has been taken for the elevation of the site from the road. The rear of Spring Terrace (nos. 81 to 93) is some meters higher than the road. From the rear of our garden to the lane behind is at least 1m. The land behind on the site is likely a further 2m. The proposed heights of the buildings will remove all light from our garden and new properties would notably overlook nos. 81 to 93.

4. Access to the lane behind nos. 81 to 93. This is from the road to the left of no. 81. This is highly used access. Residents have a right of way and long standing use of the access way to park - much required in an area with grossly inadequate residents parking. We have an outbuilding here with a garage door and require clearance for the garage door should we use this building as a garage again. We also have a side gate requiring access. Bin collections are made by the council right up to the rear and with access to the lane behind the terrace also.

5. The proposed pedestrian and cycle access from the new development through to Chesterton Road. We strongly object to this. As access is required to our lane and our garage it would be inappropriate for a cycle/pedestrian cut-through. It would also increase noise and disturbances to residents of the terrace, of which we have enough from the main road (Chesterton Road) presently. Refuse collections using this access way as well would suggest pedestrian and cycle traffic is inappropriate. A cut-through via the development should lead to Carlyle Road. This would not impact journey time and people will likely be wanting to cross the road at the pedestrian crossing at the bottom of Carlyle Road anyway.

We would strongly request that the residence of Spring Terrace (nos. 81 to 93 Chesterton Road) and residents of Albert Street be consulted further with regards to proposals for site 4.3 Henry Giles House as it will have significant impact on all of us.

Figure 52 sets the development principles for Henry Giles House. The majority of the principles
are supported and indicate opportunities to achieve a high quality scheme with a high density
reflecting its urban environment and existing built form.
However, it is suggested that reference to 'creation of pedestrian and cycle green links/lanes' is
too fixed and fails to provide the necessary flexibility at this high level stage. It is therefore
suggested that this is updated to read 'Opportunities for pedestrian and cycle green links/lanes'.
It is also suggested that the massing design principles are too cautious and don't seek to
maximise the opportunities at the site but instead place undue restriction on storey heights.
Given that it is at the planning application stage where scale and massing are assessed in
detail, the SPD should not restrict opportunities before the acceptability of heights has first been
tested.
It is suggested that the height of the southernmost block fronting onto Carlyle Road could
certainly sustain 3+1 development given the character of 1a. It is also suggested that the
northern frontage of this southern block could then rise to 4+1 within the site before then
increasing to the potential of 5+1 centrally within the site. It is also suggested that the northern
block could sustain 3+1 rather than 2+1 along Carlyle Road given the existing context and
massing at the site with 3 storey commercial floors at this point.
The easternmost section of the northern block could sustain 3+1 given the scale of the adjacent
flats on Grasmere Gardens and the separation from the properties on Albert Street.
Finally there is opportunity for 4+1 storeys on the Chesterton Road frontage, given the existing
four commercial storeys at the existing site and the contribution that this variety would have to
the staggered building line and creating a distinctive and interesting character.
It is crucial that the SPD maximises the opportunities of the site rather than providing undue
restriction. The SPD is not to confirm the acceptability of storey heights but to indicate such
height could be possible, subject to detailed testing. If the SPD is too cautious unjustified
limitations would be placed on the site. The full scale and massing would be subject to detailed
modelling at the application stage and so ensure a design that did not adversely affect either the
character of the area or residential amenity.
As will be appreciated, it is more straightforward to propose lower heights than established
within a SPD where evidence illustrates this is required to mitigate impacts rather than seeking
to push beyond the principles set.

Mrs Diane Todd
83 Chesterton Road
Cambridge

17/10/2016

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED CONCEPT OF SITE 4.3 HENRY GILES HOUSERE: MITCHAMS CORNER DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK.

Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to make an objection to the proposed development works mentioned in the above heading, my objections are based on the following.
1. Protruded positioning of the new development. We do not get much light in the rear garden as it is and your proposal would stop us from any light.
2. Scale and height of the proposed. In Figure 15 building heights clearly show Henry Giles House as disproportionate. The proposed stories of 4 and 5+1 are grossly unsuitable. Spring Terrace is 2 + 1 stories and west of the site is 3+1 townhouses. Other than the main building at Henry Giles House the rest of the office site is only 2-3 stories maximum at present. The carpark area is also free from existing buildings.
4. Access to the lane behind nos. 81 to 93. This is highly used by residents and we have a right of way and long standing use of the access way to park - much required in an area with grossly inadequate residents parking. We have parking space behind our house and also bin collections are made by the council so access is needed down the lane. Your plan includes the rear access lane within your site boundary when this is land occupied by the owners of 81 to 93 Chesterton Road such that we have ownership and it also provides vehicle access to the rear of the properties - it cannot be developed.
5. As access is required to our lane and our parking space it would be inappropriate for a cycle/pedestrian cut-through. It would also increase noise and disturbances to residents of the terrace, of which we have enough from the main road (Chesterton Road) presently.

Sandra Haylock ( P.O.A FOR Diane Todd)

I approve the council's intention that Mitcham's Corner be developed and improved, however have specific concerns about the proposals in respect of Henry Giles House.

1.Section 4.3 and in particular figure 52 contains a number of errors in relation to the area located behind 81 to 93 Chesterton Road and the existing access alongside no 81:
a) The plan fails to include existing trees planted on the rear access lane (i.e. behind 81-93)
b) The plan fails to reflect the differing levels of the site and the fact that natural differences have been exacerbated by the reconfiguration of the existing Henry Giles House car park
c) The plan fails to take into account the drop in height of more than 2 metres from the Henry Giles House car park into the rear access lane
d) The plan uses an out of date map which fails to record any of the developments that have occurred at the rear of 81 to 93 in the last 20 years
e) The plan pointlessly includes the rear access lane within the site boundary when this is land occupied by the owners of 81 to 93 Chesterton Road such that they have ownership and when it provides vehicle access to the rear of the properties - it cannot be developed.

2. At 4.3.21 the plan states "The status of the existing access to the rear of Chesterton Road will need to be established" - this can be established by simply checking the land registry which records for ## Chesterton Road "The land has the benefit of a right of way over the passageway at the back leading into Chesterton Road on keeping in repair such portion of the said passageway as abuts on and is co-extensive with the north western boundary of the land in this title".

3.The proposed pedestrian and cycle green link alongside 81 Chesterton Road takes no account of the right of the owners of 81 to 93 to use this route for vehicle access or for weekly rubbish collections by the Local Authority to the rear of their properties, and the need for sufficient width for a turning circle into the rear access lane and into the garage of no 81. It also take no account of the right of the owners of 81 to 93 to park alongside the boundary of 81.

4.The proposed two-storey limit on the south-eastern edge of the site boundary next to the rear access lane relates to land more than two metres higher than the properties 81 to 93 Chesterton Road. Any two-storey building at that location will tower over the existing properties; reduce light; and be out of proportion with the scale and intimacy of the rear of the existing properties. The limit should be only one storey on this part of the site.

5.The proposed 4 and 5+1 storey buildings in the centre of the site are taller than the existing two-storey building at that part of the site - they will tower over all of the properties 81-99 Chesterton Road and 19-31 Albert Street, as well as the properties on Carlyle Road - they would be wholly out of proportion.

6. At 4.3.8 the proposal is stated to be intended to "inform the appropriate scale and massing" in order to result in "a well designed scheme that fits into its context" - I endorse this approach but cannot see that the framework takes this properly into account on the south-eastern boundary. The primary element of this site is the changing level of the site itself - this is not reflected in the framework.

7. The framework should be amended as set out above.

Section 4.3 and in particular figure 52 contains a number of errors in relation to the area located behind 81 to 93 Chesterton Road and the existing access alongside no 81:
a) The plan fails to include existing trees planted on the rear access lane (i.e. behind 81-93)
b) The plan fails to reflect the differing levels of the site and the fact that natural differences have been exacerbated by the reconfiguration of the existing Henry Giles House car park
c) The plan fails to take into account the drop in height of more than 2 metres from the Henry Giles House car park into the rear access lane
d) The plan uses an out of date map which fails to record any of the developments that have occurred at the rear of 81 to 93 in the last 20 years
e) The plan pointlessly includes the rear access lane within the site boundary when this is land occupied by the owners of 81 to 93 Chesterton Road such that they have ownership and when it provides vehicle access to the rear of the properties - it cannot be developed.

2. At 4.3.21 the plan states "The status of the existing access to the rear of Chesterton Road will need to be established" - this can be established by simply checking the land registry which records for ## Chesterton Road "The land has the benefit of a right of way over the passageway at the back leading into Chesterton Road on keeping in repair such portion of the said passageway as abuts on and is co-extensive with the north western boundary of the land in this title".

3. The proposed pedestrian and cycle green link alongside 81 Chesterton Road takes no account of the right of the owners of 81 to 93 to use this route for vehicle access to the rear of their properties, and the need for sufficient width for a turning circle into the rear access lane and into the garage of no 81. It also take no account of the right of the owners of 81 to 93 to park alongside the boundary of 81.

4. The proposed two-storey limit on the south-eastern edge of the site boundary next to the rear access lane relates to land more than two metres higher than the properties 81 to 93 Chesterton Road. Any two-storey building at that location will tower over the existing properties; reduce light; and be out of proportion with the scale and intimacy of the rear of the existing properties. The limit should be only one storey on this part of the site.

5. The proposed 4 and 5+1 storey buildings in the centre of the site are taller than the existing two-storey building at that part of the site - they will tower over all of the properties 81-99 Chesterton Road and 19-31 Albert Street, as well as the properties on Carlyle Road - they would be wholly out of proportion.

6. At 4.3.8 the proposal is stated to be intended to "inform the appropriate scale and massing" in order to result in "a well designed scheme that fits into its context" - I endorse this approach but cannot see that the framework takes this properly into account on the south-eastern boundary. The primary element of this site is the changing level of the site itself - this is not reflected in the framework.

7. The framework should be amended as set out above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theme 1 - Creating a connected place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Planning guidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theme 1 - Creating a connected place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Planning guidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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