3.1 Vision

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.

The Draft offers a thorough review of the challenges and opportunities of the area and overall the proposals will make a positive impact to the conservation area and provide public benefit. It is obvious that this part of the city has been neglected and ignored and a comprehensive plan to bring it back to life is very welcome.
Several of the key areas for improvements include the current Park and Ride bus drop off and pick up area, the service areas and delivery areas, the public realm (including signage, street furniture and trees) and interconnectivity between spaces. It also looks to promote more evening activities, however, we question if this may result in competition for the proposed evening economy in the Market Square in the longer term. The Draft includes the creation of a proper visual frontage or entrance to the site, which is also welcome.
The Master Plan document appears to address most issues CambridgePPF would wish to see and is relatively all inclusive.
It is important to note that the Draft SPD cannot be adopted until the Local Plan examination has completed. As a result, no formal applications should be accepted until both the Local Plan and the SPD have been formally adopted. Applications have been submitted prematurely for other sites and this results in confusion, poor design details and lack of clarity of vision.

Wish to be updated on the progress of this document.

Cambridge has been 'renovated' enough. I was born here and fed up with all the changes. Roads are gridlocked and now disabled people are being charged for parking! There used to be concessions for parking at Cherry Hinton Rd cinema. Now that it has been sold to a private landlord disabled have to pay full price. Who was it sold to? Most disabled cannot afford it and this city is being developed for the wealthier population.

Thank you for your time during my visit to your public exhibition stand yesterday.

Following our conversation, I am writing on behalf of the Cambridge Buddhist Centre at 38 Newmarket Road. We are a large community/congregation within the new Grafton development area and we have recently become aware of proposed developments in an 'Opportunity Area Boundary', within which we find ourselves.

We ask that we be kept up to date with any applications for planning permission or any proposed works that may affect us. We are particularly interested in any plans for better pedestrian access to Newmarket Road, as well as being interested in any increase in noise levels that may impinge on our activities.

A neighbour has bought to my attention that the Council has a Proposal to redevelop the Grafton Area and this will include the Grafton car park overlooking Salmon Lane. The plan/proposal I have been told will include building either flats or houses on the upper level of the Grafton car park whilst maintaining the lower level car park for shoppers etc.

My concerns are as follows:
* Such development will cause a great deal of disturbance to residents of Maids Causeway and surrounding roads as the building works will be extensive.
* Building on the Grafton car park will cast a shadow over the properties at the rear of Maids Causeway that sit on Salmon Lane, these buildings are the annexes of the properties on Maids Causeway. Flats or houses built on the car park would cut off natural light to the annexes which are used as living accommodation, offices and workshops.
* Furthermore the privacy of the annexes on Salmon lane will be removed as the proposed development will overlook them
* There will inevitably be an increase in noise pollution from any addition of residential units
* To build residential units over an existing car park will be costly and not in the interest of the tax payer, the land where the car park is located has a history of subsidence.
* The properties on Maids Causeway are made up of listed buildings which National Heritage consider to be buildings of historic value/beauty, any development on the car park would significantly impact on these listed buildings as the setting will be ruined by surrounding buildings of beauty by modern monstrosities
I strongly object to the councils proposals and want my comments noted. I will follow this proposal closely and take all action necessary to protect my property and neighbourhood.

Yours sincerely
Mr Donald Fung

I am a local resident living in Christchurch St

These are my comments on the exhibition shown today at the Grafton, but first of all I think you must consider extending the consultation period. I was only notified of this by a leaflet through the door last week, and it is only by chance I was free to go today. There must be many others in the area who will have missed this. Why did you not leaflet us at the beginning of the consultation period in September?

1. Improving the area around the Grafton particularly the service areas we have to walk through for various activities would be a good,

2. Because the Grafton is shut at night, or almost shut apart from access to the cinema, it acts as a barrier. It is especially annoying if you forget and try to get in or out by one of the locked doors and then have to walk quite a long way round at night through the depressing service area to get home. Some thought given to enabling a better through route would be good.

3. I have very little interest in the shopping offer in the Grafton which doesn't cater for middle-aged middle-class women. I spend my money elsewhere. Nor will a gym be of much interest. The discussion I had at the display seemed all about serving younger incoming Cambridge residents. But the population of Cambridge is aging and older people have more cash. A bit more thought should be given to who might use the facilities here.

4. There are parking queues in Newmarket Rd at the weekends which block the street. Most of the people seem to be families. Attracting more people to central Cambridge to shop seems an odd idea. I think it is a fantasy to imagine these families will arrive from e.g. Waterbeach by bike, or bus as they will not want to carry purchases home. People now have the option of park & ride, but it is still busy. How are you planning to manage the transport of the increased numbers?

5. Housing. We need more housing in Cambridge but "affordable" is not affordable for the lower paid. Social housing, not student or private housing would be a good idea, but no more parking, the area is heavily congested.

6. The picture of Fitzroy St showed a bland and anonymous shopping area. It could be anywhere. Where is the veg stall and the hot dog stall? The veg stall plays an important part in our community as people stop there and chat. They also take veg shopping to elderly people in the area. You don't get that at Waitrose. We need more of the idiosyncratic and particular, not less.

7. Shopping in Fitzroy St and Burleigh St needs to retain units that will be affordable for shops that serve local people, such as the vacuum cleaner shop. I would prefer to shop locally and on foot and would spend more in the area if there were more e.g. food shops. (Wilko has been a welcome addition to the area extending the range of goods available.)

8. East Rd. This is a fairly horrible street and the shops/restaurants seem to be marooned. The pavement is too narrow to encourage lingering, and the buildings lack any kind of coherence. So yes, to ideas about how this could be made more attractive.

Frances Dewhurst

We welcome ideas to add more plant matter to the area. We especially think that having rooftop gardens or meadows over businesses would be a wonderful idea. Trees at the public level are also very needed today, when less private residences are able to keep up trees and hedges for birds and insects.

However, we feel there has not been a satisfactory period of consultation on the matter. This process has been going on for a long time, but as residents of Christchurch Street, we were informed of this matter on the 1st of November 2017, by a hand posted leaflet through the door. This seems very convenient for the planners, as we are effectively in an "opt-out" situation, where the public must actively object to the work planned. We were not available to attend on the 1st, being available only after 8pm, and had no idea a consultation had been held on September 25th. Whenever people are unavailable to attend these meetings, it is deemed to be a lack of concern and gives the green light to go ahead with the project - but how many people are actually aware of these plans, and how many of those actually want any of these developments? Such large scale development should be opened to a public vote or more organised criticism by the public you are supposed to be serving. For example, the plans should be publicised by public advertising in the area.

There has been a lack of timely information about when meetings about these matters would occur. For example, we received a leaflet after most of the consultation period had passed, leaving us very little time to draft a response.
The reports on the proposed works around the Grafton Centre are convoluted and weasel worded. Exotic flavour language is used instead of saying what is meant, and the grammar is at times poor. Examples:
"Improve public realm"
"Intensification of height and floor space"
"permeability through better streets"
"balanced and successful destination"
There is no clear outline of what exactly is proposed. An outline document needs to be created, this time conforming to the Crystal Mark standard for Plain English. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark/7-the-crystal-mark-standard.html

Such a document should be no more than 2 pages in length, and distributed physically to every local resident at least 2 weeks before a meeting on the subject. It seems like wilful negligence that this has not already been done. Social media platforms are not a good way of disseminating information, as some people do not use them. We do not receive the Cambridge newspaper, never knew that there was a wordpress blog, and never would have expected it to contain any serious content. We are essentially uninformed by your current means.

When it comes to the disruption caused by work and the trustworthiness of partners, there is much cause for concern. The replacement of the Grafton Centre roof has caused severe disruption to local residents lives and negatively affected their health. The roof replacement is relatively minor compared to the master plan proposal, which will presumably involve significant construction work. It is therefore vital that the mental health and wellbeing of residents is considered, whereby the working hours set out in the planning permission document are strictly adhered to. It would seem that disruption was underestimated, understated to local residents before work began, and that partners have acted in bad faith.

Further, the Graft Centre is already a cause of regular noise and disturbance to residents. Visitors loiter, argue, litter and look for criminal opportunities in the area. We have had a substantial vermin problem with pigeons because of food litter, which we are sure the Grafton is aware of, but which they have never mentioned they were taking any action on. It is insulting to suggest that increasing links between the Grafton Centre and adjacent residential streets would be beneficial to anyone concerned. This is certain to increase loitering, litter and noised in the affected streets, some of which are already facing problems with drug dealing, which the Grafton Centre Security has already refused to take any action over. At a recent neighbourhood meeting (BRUNK), it became apparent that while many residents had contacted the police over drug offences, only 2 calls were officially recorded. A far larger problem exists than is officially noted.

The Draft SPD itself highlights that there is less need for physical shops due to "75%" of shoppers shopping online. Why, therefore, is this area being re-developed to include a larger than ever amount of shops, including shop fronts spilling onto the street?
The Grafton Centre has frequently housed vacant shop units in the last 5 years. An apparent misconception is that this is caused by the Grafton's former, grotty image - but it is more likely caused by high rates and a lack of physical demand for goods. Simply giving the area a facelift is not going to make businesses suddenly profitable.

This raises the further question - why do we need to invest this money in this area? Public safety and willingness to invest in the area could be helped by just investing more into police patrols. Efforts could be made to prevent the exploitation of beggars and drug dealing in the back alleys.

The proposal to restrict East road to single lane traffic or presumably interrupt traffic by bus stops or traffic calming represents extremely backward thinking. Pollution in Cambridge is caused by congestion and waiting taxi ranks running their engines constantly while stationary. Cars run most efficiently when they are not forced to constantly stop and then accellerate again. Having queues of traffic does not shorten journeys, it makes them less efficient. Restricting East road will cause larger bottlenecks, more aggravation to local residents and discourage people from either visitng or even living in Cambridge. Many people, particularly commuters and the disabled cannot simply be forced onto bicycles or public transport.
Simple tasks such as buying food are often impractical by bus, cycle or walking. There has been a concerted effort in recent years to vandalise Cambridge's infrastructure, punishing vehicle owners and in doing so, strangling the city centre and surrounding areas. Such moves are disguised as reducing pollution or improving cycle access, but the results are far less than ideal, and cause very lengthy and expensive disruption.

From a cyclist's perspective, converting road lanes into dedicated cycle lanes is not safer than previously, where it is possible for unseen pedestrians exiting buses to walk in front of cyclists, endangering both the cyclist and the pedestrians. E.g. Hills road, Huntingdon road, proposed on Milton Road etc. The extra wide cycle paths may seem like they benefit cyclists, but this has resulted in far more invasion of the cycle lane by traffic and confusion by cyclists thinking that the large cycle path is a two-way cycle path. Furthermore, the useless decorative elements at the sides of the cycle paths used to grow alpines are also dangerous. They contain a sharp right angled edge which has not been fully filled in with gravel, and is a hazard to cyclists. It is easy for a cyclist to veer into the sharp edges and may result in an accident.

Quite simply, if Cambridge is to continue choking roads up, I shall not continue to live here. I shall not work here or do business here, and will advise other to do the same.

I have a number of concerns about the proposed development, but these could be addressed in ways explained in this response. believe that this could be a wonderful opportunity for the proposed development to reflect the Regency legacy of many of the properties in the immediate area, many of which are Grade 2 listed. I live in Maids Causeway and our house backs onto Salmon Lane, a narrow road serving the garages of the Maids Causeway houses.

I would become more supportive of the proposals if the residential development was sympathetic to the regency style of many of the houses and also if Salmon Lane was not used for access to such new properties. Salmon Lane should retain its current style and charm and not be widened to allow further vehicular access, so access to any new dwellings should be via the Grafton Centre not Salmon Lane.

The new development adjacent to Salmon Lane should not be greater than two storeys, as any higher development would overlook many of the gardens at the bottom of the lane and would also interfere with light.

While in principal I agree with improving the area I am concerned we will lose the pedestrian precinct which we currently have. Cyclists already do not conform to the time restrictions but any car/lorry/taxi access to the area is worrying. This would add to environmental concerns - quality of air. I feel strongly that taxi access is not necessary and wish to have my concerns on the record.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has not been consulted on the above consultation. This office received notification through the tool Devplan.
The MODs principle concern relates to ensuring that tall structures especially tall buildings do not cause an obstruction to air traffic movements at MOD aerodromes or compromise the operation of air navigational transmitter/receiver facilities located in the area.
As you will be aware air traffic approaches and technical installations at MOD aerodromes are protected with statutory safeguarding zones which identify height consultation zones in the area surrounding MOD aerodromes relative to topography and distance from the site (s).
The aerodromes are also protected with statutory birdstrike safeguarding consultation zones. Therefore, DIO Safeguarding is concerned with the development of open water bodies, the creation of wetland habitat, refuse and landfill sites. These types of development have the potential to attract large flocking bird species hazardous to aviation safety.
On reviewing the Masterplan and Guidance SPD, I wish to register the following comments:
The areas of Fitzroy Street, Burleigh Street and Grafton Area fall within the statutory 15.2m height and technical safeguarding consultation zones surrounding Cambridge Airport and also fall within the statutory birdstrike safeguarding consultation zones.
This office would need to be consulted on any development at this location exceeding the 15.2m height criterion and for any SUDs schemes or development including the creation of balancing ponds / green roofs as these types of development may have the potential to attract flocking bird species hazardous to air traffic safety.
I can confirm the MOD has no objection to proposals for future development within the Grafton Area, but would wish to be consulted upon any relevant planning applications in accordance with the procedures set out under Town and Country Planning (Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosive Storage Sites) Direction 2002.
Please note the above comments are purely related to the DIO Statutory Safeguarding interests. I trust this adequately explains our position on this matter.

Salmon Lane forms part of the Kite Conservation Area. The houses (mostly Grade II listed buildings) and the coach houses were built in the 1820s. The present development offers an opportunity to enhance Salmon lane. However, it is very important that a number of points are considered:

(1) Salmon Lane cannot accommodate more traffic access. The entrance by the Hopbine Pub is already busy with cars, delivery vans and bin lorries and residents already often have to queue in the morning to get onto fair street. The houses between Maids Causeway and Salmon lane have no front access for cars and so Salmon Lane is their only access.
- No further access to cars to Salmon Lane should be permitted. This means the approach for vehicles to any new dwellings should be via the Grafton Centre not Salmon Lane.

(2) Scale, Height and Density of Buildings. The outline speaks of 2-3 storey houses being built. There are no 3 story buildings currently on Salmon lane. The current coach houses are low pitch two storey houses or single story with attic rooms. They are also currently of a low density. Any building on the Salmon lane should be keeping with height, scale and density of the rear coach houses currently on Salmon lane.
- The scale, height and density of any proposed new building on the Lane side of the Centre should be in keeping with the look and feel of current coach houses.

(3) The houses and coach houses between Maids Causeway and Salmon Lane are of a regency style of the 1820s. Any new building on Salmon lane must be of a similar style. This would follow the recent president set by the excellent improvements to the University Arms Hotel by the Architect John Simpson.
- The architecture of any new dwellings should fit the Regency style of Maids Causeway, Salmon Lane and the wider Kite area.

(4) It is important that Salmon Lane is not narrows and that the grass and tree strip on the Grafton side of Salmon Lane is maintained and enhanced.
- The new dwellings should be set behind the current trees, grass strip and wall.

If the new housing on the Grafton side of Salmon Lane were of a similar height, density and historic period as the coach houses on the Maids Causeway side of Salmon Lane then I think that this development offers an excellent opportunity to restore Salmon lane as a Regency mews. This would continue the excellent recent work by the Council in the Kite area in redeveloping the University Arms Hotel.

please see attached letter.

I am writing to you about the outline consultation papers for the Grafton Centre plan and outline proposals for development. My general concern arising from the outline is about size, height, mass and scale. In particular I would like to focus on the implications of the outline envisaged for the Grafton Centre Car park which is by Salmon Lane.

As you will know Salmon Lane is part of the Kite Conservation Area. It provides the setting for the rear terrace and gardens developed through 1820/30s. The houses, mostly are grade II listed and have small scale outbuildings to the rear, mostly dating from the period of the houses. The look and feel of Salmon Lane is by and large harmonious, small scale , with brick walls, small rear buildings, over which gardens and greenery lead the eye to the rear terraces of the houses, with wooden sash windows yellow brick walls and slate roofs.

My particular concerns are about:-

(1) A potential increase in vehicle traffic accessing Salmon Lane. Salmon Lane cannot accommodate any more traffic. Residents of Maids Causeway use it for their vehicle access, because they have no on street access for cars on Maids Causeway. It is also busy because of deliveries and bin collection, and also for pedestrians and cyclists, both residents and those using it as a short cut for the Grafton Centre.

No further access to cars to Salmon Lane should be permitted. This means the approach for vehicles to any new dwellings should be via the Grafton Centre not Salmon Lane.

(2) Scale, Height and Density of Buildings. The outline speaks of 2-3 storey houses being built. Buildings of such a height, scale and density facing Salmon Lane will be inconsistent with its character and be detrimental to the setting and rear aspect of the Grade II listed terrace.

The scale and density of any proposed new building on the Lane side of the Centre should be in keeping with the look and feel of the rear terrace and in line with the one storey building recently approved for Willow Walk.
https://idox.cambridge.gov.uk/online-applications/files/4E380D513A8EC0B6CFA17EA9B8662DA6/pdf/16_1942_FUL-REVISED_PROPOSED_WILLO_WALK_BUILDING-2078722.pdf

(3) Salmon Lane is at the rear of a Regency terrace, mostly grade-two listed, with original sash windows, slate grooves and bricks seen through gardens and low garden walls. Any new development on the Salmon Lane side of the Grafton Centre, should not only be kept to one storey, but it should be built in the same style as the Maids Causeway terrace, following the precedent recently set by John Simpson's renovation of the University Arms Hotel.

The architecture of any new dwellings should fit the Regency style of Maids Causeway and the Kite area.