5.33

Good afternoon, I am a resident of Church End, Cherry Hinton, and attended the public consultation exhibition at St Andrew's Church on 17/8/17 and wish to give our response to proposals. As far as possible, we have grouped these responses according to number/title reference from the original document. They are in no particular order of importance, however we save our most valid and impactful comment until last.

3,5 Character and Form, 3 Urban Form and Gain, 5 Neighbourhood analysis, 3 Edges
The report notes that housing in Teversham Drift is 'arranged around internal courtyards' and we wish to point out that this generates issues for residents who desire to park their car right outside their property (or as close as), as inevitably the design of this has meant that some residents cannot, and so parking overspills into surrounding main roads such as March Lane, the main highroad of Teversham Drift and Church End.
The new plans offer no housing of one storey e.g. bungalows, and yet the character and form of this area of housing around Teversham Drift comprises a signifiant community of one storey residences.The new plans offer no care home or senior citizen sheltered housing. Whilst we accept that this may at the moment fall under the 'social housing' requirements by law of new developments, it concerns us that single storey dwellings have been left out. The largest growth demographic in Cambridgeshire is in the 65+ and 80+ age brackets and yet no specific provision has been made for this group, whereas other demographic groups are named in the report.
The report makes mention of potential further housing developments along 'safeguarded land' by Coldham's Lane. This, coupled with the proposed development opposite by the Anderson Group will mean that Cherry Hinton will be joined to Cambridge and Romsey along this arterial link, thereby losing its 'separate village identity', something that this report highlights as important: 'The proposals must create a clear identity that is cognisant of the 'village' character that existing resident of Cherry Hinton cherish'. We echo this and do not want Cherry Hinton to lose its village feel. This corner of Cherry Hinton has already seen division between the districts of City and South Cambs made more visual with the new village sign opposite the NISA shop to mark a boundary, new play equipment has been provided in South Cambs open spaces whereas the play area in Church End was ripped out and never replaced, bus stops around Gazelle Way are labelled Teversham Council. Further division should be avoided.

5 Noise
When purchasing a property this side of Cherry Hinton, awareness of the airport and its day-to-day running are an inevitable factor and one that ultimately cannot be used as a negative if purchase goes ahead. Indeed, residents of Cherry Hinton appreciate our unique relationship with Marshalls and the aircraft that use it: we are treated to aerial displays by the Red Arrows (and not just at Marshalls 100 year celebrations) and by the smaller aircraft that dip and glide above us, it provides a useful landmark, is a valued local employer and is part of the village. We were delighted at the award of MoD contracts for the RAF Hercules earlier this year as a way of continuing its presence. We are concerned that this land development will be used in the future as a case study for noise pollution or for highlighting the danger of flying routes above residential areas and that future pressures will be placed upon Marshalls to close. This is not a chicken/egg situation, the airport was here first, and residents would not want to see re-routing of take offs or runway angles, or closure at all.

3 Utilities
It concerns us that there may have to be a major re-routing of gas supplies during this work, and we do not wish our gas supply to be disturbed, suspended or face any related issues without prior notice and financial recompense.

3 Drainage Features, 5 flooding, flood risk and existing watercourses
There have been historic instances of surface water flooding adjacent to existing drainage ditches which run through the proposed site and into current residential fringes of Cherry Hinton. As acknowledged in the report 'the site is within an area of water stress'. We wholeheartedly support installing any water saving devices, any surface water storage systems or management systems that can be incorporated into the design of buildings and infrastructure.

5 Land Uses, Education
It concerns us that a shortage of school places has been used to justify the inclusion of a primary school and secondary school in this development. Currently, Cherry Hinton has 4 primary schools all of which have undergone significant expansion schemes in recent years. This area of Cherry Hinton is currently served by two secondary schools one of which, Bottisham Village College, has had plans to extend each year group by three form entry and its buildings as a result. Both are part of the same Multi Academy Trust and so form a 'monopoly' this side of the city. It concerns us greatly to hear plans that the proposed secondary school for this development will be a 'Free School' the nature of which as described in local press will not help local secondary students. As a free school this would have the option of selection, and as part of the West London Free School Academy Trust, the Cambridge City Free School will provide a liberal, classical curriculum with instrumental lessons and Latin. As a secondary school teacher, experience shows that these Free Schools inevitably do not provide places for children within catchment area, meaning that students attending this school will place extra pressure on transport infrastructure, and inevitably will result in parents driving their children in to school, placing further parking demands on this new development. This itself will also not aid integration into the village identity.

3 Public transport connections, 5 public transport
Unlike Northstow or Orchard Park we do not have the inclusion of a guided busway network built into this development. At the public meeting, officials were keen to persuade that a large development like this will guarantee a public service infrastructure. The harsh reality is that Cherry Hinton residents struggle to use a bus service that for the most part is run as a monopoly by Stage Coach. Bus services to and from Cherry Hinton have been cut and cut again: the previous service down Coldham's Lane was cut and Wippet attempted to include it in a partial route, and there have been cuts to Citi 1 and 3 in the village with buses changing numbers at designated stops, and the Citi 1 has not met its original ten minute service provision since the first year it was introduced. At one point, it was cheaper to drive our car to the Park and Ride. My husband working shifts cannot use the bus service at either exreme of the day. Rather than promise something new, please work harder to ensure that existing promises with services, routes and fares, and competition are met.

3 Urban form and gain, 5 Neighbourhood analysis: parking
Parking is a big issue this side of Cherry Hinton. We have seen previously empty pockets of land being developed and this has provided a squeeze on parking opportunities. Examples of this include the development of the Rosemary Branch, the development of the old shop on the corner of March Lane, the work beginning at Hatherdene Close, proposals by the Anderson Group and more immediately the development of Neath Farm Court. Residents here are particularly suspicious of promises surrounding parking since the developers reneged on promises of parking and a roundabout, leaving instead a landscaped siding and a dangerous exit onto a blind bend. Parking problems have been exacerbated by the increase in new businesses based around cars, with both garage businesses still breaking Highways Laws by parking across pavements, on double yellow lines and crossing verges to leave vehicles. There are two businesses that park big commercial vehicles in the side streets around. We know of commuters parking in these streets free of charge and then either walking or taking the bus into town. Any new development must make parking a priority. It is all very well and good to quote green ideals at the public exhibition but the reality is that most houses have two cars, and sometimes more given the rise of young adults living at home due to exorbitant living costs. Please consider extensive underground parking as an option. Please consider town house styles with parking at ground level as at Great Kneighton. Please do not place covenants on parking such as those at Orchard Park which state for example that commercial vans cannot be parked on the street. In reality all these do is move the problem down the road to existing residential areas, dealing with their own issues.

3 Public footpath, 5 cycle and pedestrian movement, Access and Primary Routes
We have saved our most pressing concern for last. Option A still leaves Church End, March Lane and Teversham Drift as a rat run. As the report states any placement of primary access routes should not create a 'bypass peripheral route' that will jigsaw into an existing rat run with significant, documented issues that have been reported extensively to the police, insurance companies and public council meetings. Option B will only create another new rat run. This new development places significant importance on access for pedestrians and cyclists. The main access route for cyclists and pedestrians into and out of the development will follow the existing footpath line, meaning that these people will be funnelled into the junction at the base of March Lane and Church End: a blind corner with parking issues on both side of the road, and documented accidents and speeding issues. There have been numerous local requests for action to solve the existing problems: speed restrictions introduced ( a 20mph speed limit, speed humps) simply do not work. Requests to local businesses flouting Highways Laws have had little sustained impact. Currently residents are petitioning to close the road between March Lane and Reilly Way. The footpaths along all these interconnecting roads have had no resurfacing work done in ten years and are in a dangerous uneven state, despite being dug up for utilities attentions. The footpath on one side of Church End bordering the green just simply stops. If this road closure does not happen then a development with 1200 residences, plus members of the public using new centre facilities, plus school children accessing the two new proposed schools will be forced down a funnel leading to one of the most dangerous junctions in the village. PLEASE use this (as yet) future plan to help with some joined up thinking to deal with the current situation. This junction is already dangerous, it has already been proven with speed cameras that the corner does not slow vehicles down, myself and my husband have both been the subject of collisions (non-fault) reported to the police and claimed for via insurance within 20m of it. With an increase in usage the odds of a fatality increase. Here is the only point on which we are unashamedly NIMBYs. Close Church End.

We appreciate that these are our opinions and views. We appreciate that not everyone will or can agree, and that some level of fait-accompli has probably already happened. We trust in the consultation process and that our views will be read, applied if relevant and discarded if not. Many thanks for taking the time to add our views to this process,

Em and Kev Ritchie

David Henry BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI FRICS FRGS
AIEM
Unex House
132-134 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PA
savills.com

Registered office: 33 Margaret Street, London, W1G 0JD
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: LAND NORTH OF CHERRY HINTON, DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT:
REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ANDERSON DESIGN & BUILD LIMITED.
We write, as agents, on behalf of Anderson Design & Build Limited, an operating subsidiary of The Anderson Group ('Anderson Group' hereafter), to provide you with representations in respect of the above draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
As you will be aware, land south of Coldham's Lane (LSCL) is proposed within the emerging replacement Cambridge Local Plan as an Area of Major Change (AMC), and is identified for that purpose on both the Key Diagram and the Policies Map of the emerging Local Plan. A specific policy, Policy 15, then sets out the City Council's intended approach towards supporting the wider regeneration of this area. This AMC neighbours the land to the north of Coldham's Lane which is subject of the draft SPD.
Principal Comment
The City Council, the Environment Agency and other local stakeholders are aware that The Anderson Group intend to bring forward shortly comprehensive proposals for its land holdings as part of the wider regeneration of the LSCL AMC. At present, the draft SPD does not make any obvious reference to the adjacent LSCL AMC. It thus presents an incomplete picture to the reader of the strategic plans for the area. It is considered that the draft SPD should include due consideration of the LSCL AMC. This deficiency can be remedied by minor modification of the SPD. The following representations propose how this might be undertaken.
Paragraph 1.4: Support in Principle
The purpose of the SPD is stated as being to support policy in both the draft Cambridge City Local Plan and the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. If that is so, then it is appropriate to take into account the adjacent LSCL AMC as a material consideration in the preparation of the SPD. Failure to do so would result in the SPD being deficient in terms of the 'plan led' requirements established by national planning policy.
Paragraph 1.8: Support in Principle
The vision for the land north of Cherry Hinton is described as being to create a vibrant, high quality and distinctive extension to the existing settlement, reflecting and enhancing the special character of the surrounding area, whilst working in synergy with Cambridge as a whole. This vision is supported in principle, although it is considered reasonable for the development in seeking to fulfil these aims to have due regard to both its current and proposed surroundings, including the AMC just metres away south of Coldham's Lane.
26th September 2017
CAPL401107/A3/DH/BW
Planning Policy
Cambridge City Council
PO Box 700
Cambridge
CB1 0JH
By post and email
a
Page 2
Paragraph 2.6: Support in Principle
The acknowledgement that national and local policy has evolved since the adoption of the Cambridge East Area Action Plan February 2008 is supported. So, as stated within paragraph 1.4 (see above), the draft SPD ought to have due regard to the more recent policies and proposals of the draft City Local Plan, including the adjacent AMC, as well as its South Cambridgeshire counterpart.
Paragraphs 2.8 - 2.13: Suggested Amendment
Whilst no objection is made in principle to the allocation of the land north of Cherry Hinton for development, this section of the SPD, headed 'Local plan policies', is considered to be incomplete. It fails to make reference to other significant, material policies and proposals within the emerging Cambridge City Local Plan, contrary to the aims of the SPD set out in paragraph 1.4 of the document, for example.
Policy 13 of the emerging Cambridge City Local Plan, and the associated Proposals Map, identifies a number of AMCs and Opportunity Areas in and around the City. These are described in Paragraph 3.18 of the emerging Cambridge City Local Plan as being "extensive areas of development comprising defined and known sites collectively shaping the spatial structure of Cambridge". No reference is yet made within the draft SPD to one such neighbouring extensive, defined and already known AMC. Policy 15 of the emerging Local Plan then goes on to describe that the aim of the City Council is to encourage the regeneration of the LSCL AMC, which is directly adjacent to the area covered by the SPD.
To remedy this omission, an additional sentence should be added within this section of the SPD to inform the user that; "The emerging Cambridge Local Plan also allocates adjacent land to the south of Coldham's Lane as an Area of Major Change, under Policies 13 and 15 of the draft City Local Plan".
Figure 5: Object
Neither Figures 4 nor 5 of the SPD present the reader with the important, relevant contextual information to be found within the Key Diagram of the City Local Plan and on its associated Policies Map. In short, the draft SPD makes a significant "jump" between the Area Action Plan (Figure 4) and the partial information provided by the Proposed Modifications to the emerging Local Plan (within Figure 5). It does not show the proposals of the emerging City Local Plan itself.
The Key Diagram to the Local Plan, or the relevant part thereof, as proposed to be modified, should be included as an additional Figure.
Paragraphs 3.1 - 3.3: Suggested Amendment
This section of the draft SPD is titled 'Surrounding areas and adjacent uses'. Regretfully, it fails in this aim by not acknowledging existence of the important AMC immediately to the south of Coldham's Lane, and only metres away from the area covered by the SPD.
It is proposed that a new paragraph is added, as paragraph 3.4, to say that 'Land to the south of Coldham's Lane is allocated under Policy 15 of the emerging Cambridge Local Plan as an Area of Major Change. Here regeneration is being encouraged by its appropriate redevelopment and the creation of an urban country park to serve the east of the City'.
Paragraph 3.47: Suggested Amendment
Objection is made to the description that the southern edge of the site made within this paragraph. Although it is predominantly characterised by residential streets, this is an incomplete description. Part of the southern edge of the SPD area abuts Coldham's Lane, and is proposed to gain access from it. This frontage faces onto the AMC, which at this point is of a distinctly and prominent commercial character. Therefore, it is proposed that 3.47 should be modified to add at the end of the sentence "except where it abuts Coldham's Lane".
a
Page 3
Paragraph 3.54: Suggested Amendment
This paragraph is headed 'Safeguarded Land'. Correctly, it identifies the area immediately to the west of the site as having long term potential for further development. However, it fails to identify the LSCL AMC to the south of the SPD's location. Since the AMC is a similarly important policy consideration, this is a significant omission.
It is proposed that the heading to the paragraph should be altered to say 'Safeguarded Land and Area of Major Change'. An additional sentence should then be added to the end of the paragraph to say "Land to the south of Coldham's Lane is identified within the emerging Cambridge Local Plan as an Area of Major Change, for regeneration, appropriate redevelopment, and the creation of an urban country park". This should be shown accordingly on Figure 28 and the title of the Figure modified likewise.
Paragraph 5.11: Suggested Amendment
Although the principles set out in this paragraph are supported, the first bullet point could be misleading by implying that there is only a need to reduce travel by car 'within the development'. This aim should apply both to trips within and beyond the development. The phrase 'within the development' should be deleted in the interests of clarity.
Paragraph 5.13: Suggested Amendment
It is clearly important that a balanced and inclusive view is taken of possible traffic impacts arising from the development of this area. Hence, in acknowledgement of the commitment to the LSCL AMC, for completeness, the list of local junctions that should be included within a Transport Assessment ought to include the junction between Coldham's Lane and Norman Way. This provides an access into both an existing Protected Industrial Site and the AMC. Similarly, it is proposed that the important local junctions at Brooks Road/Brookfields Road, plus the Cherry Hinton High Street railway crossing, should likewise be included.
Paragraph 5.19: Suggested Amendment
This section concerns main vehicular access points to the site. Yet it fails to have regard to the implications of the adjacent strategic AMC. To remedy this omission, it is proposed that an additional sentence is added at the end of the paragraph to read: 'Similarly, the design of the access point will need to have regard to the implications of the forthcoming regeneration of the Area of Major Change on the opposite side of Coldhams Lane'.
Paragraph 5.24: Object
Objection is made to the suggestion that a bus gate is a 'possibility 'on the spine road to restrict through connections between Cherry Hinton Road and Colham's Lane. If this were implemented, then traffic from the proposed development could have a greater impact on Coldham's Lane, especially at the High Street signalised junction. In the absence of sufficient justification, it is proposed that this option is omitted.
Paragraph 5.29: Suggested Amendment
The intention of connecting the proposed development to the wider cycle network mooted in paragraph 5.25 is, of course, supported, as is the requirement to demonstrate an appropriate walking and cycling strategy. Figure 44 suggests indicative pedestrian cycle routes, including a connection to the TINS route. To achieve this, in a safe and convenient manner, a crossing point would likely be required over Coldham's Lane to Norman Way. Although this is supported in principle, again, this needs to acknowledge the requirement to integrate such proposals effectively with other significant committed and planned developments. In this case, the connection to the TINS route will need to also have regard to the continued operation of the Protected
a
Page 4
Industrial Area and the intention to regenerate the Area of Major Change. Therefore, it is proposed that an additional phrase is added, after 'the proposals' to say 'where practicable'.
Paragraph 5.33: Suggested Amendment
The proposal that any strategy for public transport must be lead by the County Council in partnership with local authorities, bus companies and developers is supported. The reference to 'developers' is capable of misinterpretation as being only the developers of the NCH site. It is important to acknowledge that there is need to harmonise proposals with the emerging strategy for the surrounding area as a whole, including the adjacent LSCH AMC. Therefore, it is proposed that after the term 'developers' the phrase is added 'of the NCH site and adjacent strategic proposals'.
Summary
The Anderson Group remain highly supportive of the proposed development of land north of Cherry Hinton, the vision for it and the general principles set out within the draft supplementary planning document. These representations are provided with the positive intention of assisting the process of bringing forward this vibrant and distinctive extension to the existing settlement. Support is given where appropriate, therefore. However, objections and suggested amendments are also made. This has been done with the aim of improving the document, particularly to ensure that it recognises other nearby strategic development proposals. This will make it an even more practical, accurate and up to date delivery tool.
The Anderson Group and their team remain keen to continue to engage with the Local Authorities and other stakeholders to explore and explain any of the points made in further detail. To that end, please contact the undersigned in first instance to continue these discussions.
We look forward to hearing from you shortly and thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Yours sincerely
David Henry
Director

Please see attached document
Summary:
*Impact the development will have on the local road network, and the modal shift required to offset that impact.
*Inadequacy of the proposed mitigations.
*Role of a railway station in stimulating modal shift.
*Opportunity to improve the urban environment of Cherry Hinton by re-routing through traffic away from the village.
*Requirement for walking and cycle routes to be available from when residents first move in.