1.4.3

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31865

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

1.4.3 typographical area - should read northern end of East Road

Full text:

1.4.3 typographical area - should read northern end of East Road

Support

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31918

Received: 03/10/2017

Respondent: Jonathan Hefford

Representation Summary:

EASTERN GATEWAY. A lot of work went into this so yes, let's keep sight of it.

Full text:

GRAFTON MASTERPLAN SPD

CONSULTATION PROCESS.Until by chance I came across an article in a newspaper I do not regularly read, I had no knowledge of this Masterplan. I have spoken to a few neighbours and they were similarly unaware. We are in regular receipt of letterbox drops about fun-run road closures, Guy Fawkes Night arrangements bin collections and so forth which are short term inconveniences, but nothing that I know of about the Masterplan which will have enduring effects to the neighbourhood.
There was massive public involvement in the plans leading up to construction of the Grafton Centre. This Masterplan is of course a lot less dramatic, but it extensively covers much that was discussed originally or has emerged since. By not involving Kite residents fully, you are missing out on local knowledge, and storing up trouble as aspects of the Masterplan are rolled out.
A mail drop to Kite residents should be made alerting them to the Masterplan. Opportunities should be made to engage with them. This will mean putting back the closing date for comments, but in the long run it will be time saved.

SPD BOUNDARY Extend to include Byron House, Marino House, the Severn Place Scheme (I assume this includes the redevelopment of the old fitness centre building) and Sun Street car park. They are very much tied up with access issues and a general sorting out at this messy end of The Grafton Centre.

EASTERN GATEWAY. A lot of work went into this so yes, let's keep sight of it.

FLEXIBILITY. The retail component of the Masterplan clings to the idea of the infinite carrying capacity of natural systems (or does it have another planet tucked away somewhere?), endless cheap imported products and cheap labour. None of this will endure. Neither should we assume that future generations will consider that Cambridge is of a character such it that should continue to host a large sub regional vending machine : so what we lay out and build should be capable of significant adaptation.

ENERGY. There is scope for significant energy capture on roofs.

CARS. More shopping = more cars. Shoppers will sit in car queues for ages rather than get on a bus. Let's at any rate be adamant that there will be no additional parking for shoppers.

CYCLING. The route behind the north side of Fitzroy Street shops and beyond is muddled. Conversely, on Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets I'd advise against making them too clear, since cyclists will speed up and pedestrians wander into them without thinking. Remove the time restrictions but make cyclists pick their way through obstacles.

WALKING. The nest of roads around Grafton East car park entrance is a pedestrians' nightmare. The entrance to the West car park and service area simply punches its way through the pavement on Maids' Causeway. Let us at least install surfaces to suggest to motorists that these are routes for pedestrians too.

OPENING UP ROUTES. A lot of thought went into separating residential areas, both visually and physically, from retail backsides. Particularly since many houses have no front gardens, turning streets into quieter cut-de-sacs was one of the few benefits of jamming the Grafton Centre into the area. Please note though that several streets are used unofficially to gain access to the rear of retail premises. Sat Navs have increased this.

NIGHT TIME ACTIVITIES. Very apprehensive about this. Residents have bad experiences. Litter, noise, vomit, urination, graffiti, vandalism, car keying. You get the picture.

BUILDING DESIGN. The document has some encouraging things to say, but do you really think the Primark building is an improvement on its grand, confident, quirky predecessor, whose facade we worked so hard to try and keep? (Developer pressure won the day). Buildings put up before this in Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets at the time of Grafton One had a reasonable shot at using sympathetic materials, facades and scale . The artist's impression on p.66 should give an Awful Warning of lowest denominator boxes by a developer who knows the Council cannot afford an Appeal.

STREET SCENES. Back to p66 again. Gone are the cycle racks, market stalls, cafe seating. A developer's sterile street scene. Not much life and bustle here.

SMALL SHOPS. Grafton Management seems not to like small units and squashed a number out of existence, though I suppose those twee faux market stalls inside provide some opportunities. I'd be happy to see more of the genuine stalls in the street. Will rent rises push out the smaller traders? The charity shops are popular and provide an excellent way of putting secondhand goods back into circulation at affordable prices.

HOUSING. Cambridge is desperate for affordable social housing, but will we get exclusive penthouses for Hong Kong purchasers?

TREES AND GREENERY AND OTHER LANDSCAPING. Fine, as long as they are maintained. I can think of five trees planted at the time of Grafton One that either failed to thrive or were vandalised. Never replaced. Planted beds in private sector areas filled with rank weeds and litter and fly tipped. Scabby patched surfaces. Cycle route markings not renewed. General shabbiness. Interior of Grafton pristine.

PRIVATE v PUBLIC I fear that much that is good within the Masterplan has been devised in the Public Sector and will be down to that Sector to deliver, but we know that this is a severely cut back . I fear that what we will get is a cherry picked Developer led scheme for shareholders, not Cambridge citizens.

Support

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32046

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Martin Lucas-Smith

Representation Summary:

Support, but there has been a *complete failure* to implement anything in the Eastern Gate proposals, due to the lack of a costed study setting out actual change. There has been large amounts of development going on, and yet all that potential S106 money is being lost. For instance, the Severn Place development was allowed not to have to improve the appallingly bad crossing facilities over East Road, because there is no plan in place.

Full text:

Support, but there has been a *complete failure* to implement anything in the Eastern Gate proposals, due to the lack of a costed study setting out actual change. There has been large amounts of development going on, and yet all that potential S106 money is being lost. For instance, the Severn Place development was allowed not to have to improve the appallingly bad crossing facilities over East Road, because there is no plan in place.