2.6.1

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.

I live on St Matthews Street.
I am sorry that I missed the workshops held earlier about the Grafton proposals. North Petersfield is integral to the Grafton area so it is a pity that residents missed the opportunity to take part.

I have read through the suggestions and in relation to East Road they seem most positive.
However currently the three crossings of East Road from Petersfield at Anglia Ruskin, Norfolk St and St Matthews Street are operated as if they a a nuisance to traffic flow. At all the pedestrian phases have significantly worsened over the last two years. Work must be done to unify Petersfield and Grafton across East Road at these crossings and elsewhere.

Proposals that seek to make East a Road more a city boulevard are to be welcomed. The south end is already a much more positive area. However much of East Road is a hostile chasm, threatening chasm and not appropriate for what is now inner city.
The dualled part of the street is terrible. There is even a fence along the Central Reservation that separates the two worlds of Grafton and Petersfield!

The dualled part of the road should be singled, the fence taken out. Currently in the peak it is a four lane "car park" pumping out noxious fumes into the adjacent housing. There is no need for East Road to be 4 lanes. It long ago ceased to be a part of planned 'motor way' ring for the city. Narrow it. Use part for the reduced width for cycle lanes and make the rest up to Newmarket Road a linear park. Off peak the road is used a speed way. Make the road less of a through-way and plant it with trees etc..

I think the idea of change of use of the Grafton Bus Station is good. Currently buses using it are the two Park and Ride services. The detour in the bus station delays them although they currently form no useful service to local residents are they no longer go through the city to the railway station and Bio Medical Campus. It would be quicker for the P&R bus services to access the city via the quieter Maids Causeway route using a quality bus stop near Sun Street / Napier Street along with the Citi3 and 10/11 routes. Interchange between routes can made if they all went that way. Currently many P&R services divert to the via Maids Causeway route from the Grafton Bus station on an ad hoc basis anyway thus avoiding the difficult right turn at the Junction with Mill Road and Parkside.

The Grafton Bus station could be opened out onto East Road and developed as an inner city square linked to the the linear park mentioned earlier....with a much calmer and narrower East Road along side it.

The volume of traffic using East Road is too much. Particulates from engines, dust from tyres wear, dust from brake linings and road asphalt wear is a major problem from this road and it should be an imperative to discourage as traffic as possible from this road. Many people have chest problems caused by this pollution. Hopefully "benign" design such as narrowing and the creation of a linear park will discourage through traffic.

There are three major Anglia Ruskin sites along East Road and apart from the residents alongside East Road, the many hundred movements of young people along this road most be taken into account into designs.

Many thanks for your attention,

Peter Wakefield,

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.

My family and I have been residents in 5 Fitzroy Lane, which is one of the leasehold properties within the area of proposed major change, since the year 2000. I have never once been directly contacted by the developers or the council about a proposal which - to judge from the illustrative plans - involves destroying my family home and replacing it with a different building. On on occasion we received a note from the Grafton inviting us to a meeting to hear about plans for the development of the shopping mall area, but as my wife and I both work full-time we could not attend; and there was no indication in the letter that there were plans to destroy our home. This is utterly astonishing, and although I have no doubt that the bare minimum of legality has been followed, this lack of honest or direct consultation of the inhabitants of the building is frankly immoral and probably indefensible if subject to legal challenge. I shall be contacting my councillor to make formal representations separately, and also be taking legal advice.

please see attached letter.