Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Transport Comments
-Para 2.6.9 (and elsewhere where Chisholm Trail is referred to): the document must reflect the County Council's current proposals for the Chisholm Trail. Negotiations are under way with Network Rail on an alignment that passes through their depot and avoids emerging onto the public highway; the map extract below shows this. The Highway Authority regards delivery of this strategic infrastructure link as being of very great importance.

1 Image (attached)

-Paras 2.6.10-2.6.13 discuss a proposed bridge link across the railway; whilst County Council officers would consider proposals for this if they were to come forward, it is acknowledged that there are significant delivery challenges and that there are nearby alternatives.
-Para 2.10 sets out key objectives for the site, with numbers 3, 4 and 10 being transport-related; the County Council supports these objectives. It is proposed that objectives 10 be expanded to specifically refer to car and cycle parking
-Figure 108 shows a number of design principles for the site of which 4, 5, and 9 are transport-related. The County Council supports these but considers that the development should not only incorporate the Chisholm Trail (no 5) but should either deliver these directly or provide a contribution to cover the cost of delivery by the County Council
-Figure 109 shows principles for the wider area. Both points 13 and 14 should be addressed via a full Transport Assessment that should accompany any future planning application
-Section 4.3 discusses transport and access. Para 4.3.2 discusses the Chisholm Trail but it is proposed that text saying "but the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council" is added to the end
-Similarly 4.3.3 (and 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 discusses street design / access and again the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council
-Para 4.3.7 discusses car parking. Levels of parking provision will need to be assessed in detail as part of a Transport Assessment (TA) accompanying a subsequent planning application. Whilst the level of one per dwelling currently set out might be reasonable the County Council considers this needs to be determined through an analysis, at the TA stage, of issues such as local car ownership and the requirements of visitors
-Para 4.8.1 discusses planning obligations. The County Council welcomes recognition that other off-site transport improvements will likely be needed off-site.

Transport Comments
-Para 2.6.9 (and elsewhere where Chisholm Trail is referred to): the document must reflect the County Council's current proposals for the Chisholm Trail. Negotiations are under way with Network Rail on an alignment that passes through their depot and avoids emerging onto the public highway; the map extract below shows this. The Highway Authority regards delivery of this strategic infrastructure link as being of very great importance.

1 Image (attached)

-Paras 2.6.10-2.6.13 discuss a proposed bridge link across the railway; whilst County Council officers would consider proposals for this if they were to come forward, it is acknowledged that there are significant delivery challenges and that there are nearby alternatives.
-Para 2.10 sets out key objectives for the site, with numbers 3, 4 and 10 being transport-related; the County Council supports these objectives. It is proposed that objectives 10 be expanded to specifically refer to car and cycle parking
-Figure 108 shows a number of design principles for the site of which 4, 5, and 9 are transport-related. The County Council supports these but considers that the development should not only incorporate the Chisholm Trail (no 5) but should either deliver these directly or provide a contribution to cover the cost of delivery by the County Council
-Figure 109 shows principles for the wider area. Both points 13 and 14 should be addressed via a full Transport Assessment that should accompany any future planning application
-Section 4.3 discusses transport and access. Para 4.3.2 discusses the Chisholm Trail but it is proposed that text saying "but the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council" is added to the end
-Similarly 4.3.3 (and 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 discusses street design / access and again the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council
-Para 4.3.7 discusses car parking. Levels of parking provision will need to be assessed in detail as part of a Transport Assessment (TA) accompanying a subsequent planning application. Whilst the level of one per dwelling currently set out might be reasonable the County Council considers this needs to be determined through an analysis, at the TA stage, of issues such as local car ownership and the requirements of visitors
-Para 4.8.1 discusses planning obligations. The County Council welcomes recognition that other off-site transport improvements will likely be needed off-site.

Transport Comments
-Para 2.6.9 (and elsewhere where Chisholm Trail is referred to): the document must reflect the County Council's current proposals for the Chisholm Trail. Negotiations are under way with Network Rail on an alignment that passes through their depot and avoids emerging onto the public highway; the map extract below shows this. The Highway Authority regards delivery of this strategic infrastructure link as being of very great importance.

1 Image (attached)

-Paras 2.6.10-2.6.13 discuss a proposed bridge link across the railway; whilst County Council officers would consider proposals for this if they were to come forward, it is acknowledged that there are significant delivery challenges and that there are nearby alternatives.
-Para 2.10 sets out key objectives for the site, with numbers 3, 4 and 10 being transport-related; the County Council supports these objectives. It is proposed that objectives 10 be expanded to specifically refer to car and cycle parking
-Figure 108 shows a number of design principles for the site of which 4, 5, and 9 are transport-related. The County Council supports these but considers that the development should not only incorporate the Chisholm Trail (no 5) but should either deliver these directly or provide a contribution to cover the cost of delivery by the County Council
-Figure 109 shows principles for the wider area. Both points 13 and 14 should be addressed via a full Transport Assessment that should accompany any future planning application
-Section 4.3 discusses transport and access. Para 4.3.2 discusses the Chisholm Trail but it is proposed that text saying "but the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council" is added to the end
-Similarly 4.3.3 (and 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 discusses street design / access and again the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council
-Para 4.3.7 discusses car parking. Levels of parking provision will need to be assessed in detail as part of a Transport Assessment (TA) accompanying a subsequent planning application. Whilst the level of one per dwelling currently set out might be reasonable the County Council considers this needs to be determined through an analysis, at the TA stage, of issues such as local car ownership and the requirements of visitors
-Para 4.8.1 discusses planning obligations. The County Council welcomes recognition that other off-site transport improvements will likely be needed off-site.

Transport Comments
-Para 2.6.9 (and elsewhere where Chisholm Trail is referred to): the document must reflect the County Council's current proposals for the Chisholm Trail. Negotiations are under way with Network Rail on an alignment that passes through their depot and avoids emerging onto the public highway; the map extract below shows this. The Highway Authority regards delivery of this strategic infrastructure link as being of very great importance.

1 Image (attached)

-Paras 2.6.10-2.6.13 discuss a proposed bridge link across the railway; whilst County Council officers would consider proposals for this if they were to come forward, it is acknowledged that there are significant delivery challenges and that there are nearby alternatives.
-Para 2.10 sets out key objectives for the site, with numbers 3, 4 and 10 being transport-related; the County Council supports these objectives. It is proposed that objectives 10 be expanded to specifically refer to car and cycle parking
-Figure 108 shows a number of design principles for the site of which 4, 5, and 9 are transport-related. The County Council supports these but considers that the development should not only incorporate the Chisholm Trail (no 5) but should either deliver these directly or provide a contribution to cover the cost of delivery by the County Council
-Figure 109 shows principles for the wider area. Both points 13 and 14 should be addressed via a full Transport Assessment that should accompany any future planning application
-Section 4.3 discusses transport and access. Para 4.3.2 discusses the Chisholm Trail but it is proposed that text saying "but the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council" is added to the end
-Similarly 4.3.3 (and 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 discusses street design / access and again the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council
-Para 4.3.7 discusses car parking. Levels of parking provision will need to be assessed in detail as part of a Transport Assessment (TA) accompanying a subsequent planning application. Whilst the level of one per dwelling currently set out might be reasonable the County Council considers this needs to be determined through an analysis, at the TA stage, of issues such as local car ownership and the requirements of visitors
-Para 4.8.1 discusses planning obligations. The County Council welcomes recognition that other off-site transport improvements will likely be needed off-site.

Transport Comments
-Para 2.6.9 (and elsewhere where Chisholm Trail is referred to): the document must reflect the County Council's current proposals for the Chisholm Trail. Negotiations are under way with Network Rail on an alignment that passes through their depot and avoids emerging onto the public highway; the map extract below shows this. The Highway Authority regards delivery of this strategic infrastructure link as being of very great importance.

1 Image (attached)

-Paras 2.6.10-2.6.13 discuss a proposed bridge link across the railway; whilst County Council officers would consider proposals for this if they were to come forward, it is acknowledged that there are significant delivery challenges and that there are nearby alternatives.
-Para 2.10 sets out key objectives for the site, with numbers 3, 4 and 10 being transport-related; the County Council supports these objectives. It is proposed that objectives 10 be expanded to specifically refer to car and cycle parking
-Figure 108 shows a number of design principles for the site of which 4, 5, and 9 are transport-related. The County Council supports these but considers that the development should not only incorporate the Chisholm Trail (no 5) but should either deliver these directly or provide a contribution to cover the cost of delivery by the County Council
-Figure 109 shows principles for the wider area. Both points 13 and 14 should be addressed via a full Transport Assessment that should accompany any future planning application
-Section 4.3 discusses transport and access. Para 4.3.2 discusses the Chisholm Trail but it is proposed that text saying "but the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council" is added to the end
-Similarly 4.3.3 (and 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 discusses street design / access and again the details of this will need to be agreed with the County Council
-Para 4.3.7 discusses car parking. Levels of parking provision will need to be assessed in detail as part of a Transport Assessment (TA) accompanying a subsequent planning application. Whilst the level of one per dwelling currently set out might be reasonable the County Council considers this needs to be determined through an analysis, at the TA stage, of issues such as local car ownership and the requirements of visitors
-Para 4.8.1 discusses planning obligations. The County Council welcomes recognition that other off-site transport improvements will likely be needed off-site.