Mill Road Depot Draft Planning and Development Brief SPD

Object

Representation ID: 31193

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

There is going to be further strain put on any new junction from the proposed Chisholm Trail cyclists; yet this has not been acknowledged or accounted for within the council commissioned traffic study.

Mott McDonald are also negligent in failing to highlight the more than 10 times increase (22 to 262 trips, even excluding Chisholm Trail traffic) in cycle trips projected in their report, or consider its implications in terms of the number and frequency of cycles (coupled with the increase in pedestrians) crossing traffic flows.

While the draft SPD includes an acknowledgement (paras 4.3.4 and 4.3.5) that there are issues requiring "careful design review in the context of potential junction enhancements to ensure a safe, formalised means of access", no such analysis or design has been provided.

These issues have to be resolved now, before the SPD is approved, because the nature of any redevelopment of the Depot site is totally dependent on the capacity of the site access.

Object

Representation ID: 31195

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

What has also not been considered at all is the increased strain on the already overworked and frequently dangerous road conditions that exist on Mill Road.

The draft SPD and Policy 23 of the draft Local Plan both seek to achieve public realm improvements on Mill Road. However this depends on resolving the issues relating to the access and Mill Road without harming the character of the area.

Mill Road is known to the police and planning inspectors in appeals decisions, as well as to local users, as a road of very busy traffic with limited crossings.

There is nothing in the draft SPD to suggest how these public realm improvements can be achieved. Instead, there is an assumption it is possible to inject more movements of people by car, bike and walking onto Mill Road with no consequent adverse affects.

These issues have to be resolved now, before the SPD is approved, because the nature of any redevelopment of the Depot site is totally dependent on the capacity of the site access.

Object

Representation ID: 31196

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

There should be no approval of the draft SPD unless and until;

(i) a comprehensive, credible and realistic analysis of the access, movement, and traffic management issues has been provided, and

(ii) the City and County Councils have together provided demonstrably credible proposals for resolving these issues.

These are not matters to be left to a developer. Both individually, and in collaboration they are the responsibility of the respective Councils, and require justification to the community, who rely on their local authorities for their safety on the roads.

Object

Representation ID: 31197

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

The draft SPD's assessment of context is flawed, and so wrong in very significant respects that it invalidates the whole draft SPD in its present form:

Planning context (fig 3 and 1.4.2): fig 3 is misleading in that it uses a superseded version of the Local Plan fig 3.10, which claims to show Designated Heritage Assets, but completely omits the key Assets relevant to the SPD - the Conservation Area boundary and the former Library within the site. This misleading version of fig 3.10 has been corrected by the Council as part of the Local Plan process: failure to use the up-to-date correct version for the draft SPD is inexcusable.

Object

Representation ID: 31198

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

The draft SPD's assessment of context is flawed, and so wrong in very significant respects that it invalidates the whole draft SPD in its present form:

Land uses (fig 14 and 2.2.15): fig 14 is misleading in that it shows 'community and education' as a single block. What this actually comprises is: the Bharat Bhavan (the former Library, which is now in very limited community use); Council offices (not at all in community use); and the Regent Language school (in private commercial hands not in community use).

The existing land uses need to be clearly and fully distinguished; this is vital for properly assessing the SPD's scope for influence and change.

Object

Representation ID: 31199

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

The draft SPD's assessment of context is flawed, and so wrong in very significant respects that it invalidates the whole draft SPD in its present form:

Building heights (fig 16 and 2.2.20-21): the assessment is completely wrong and completely misrepresentative:

(i) The text fails to mention that almost all buildings in the area are of traditional form with pitched roof construction. What is key to the character of the area is not just total building height (i.e. to the ridge), but the height to the eaves. In the street scene, attic storeys (dormers and gables) within traditional pitched roofs are subsidiary to eaves heights (as is demonstrated by the photos in fig 21). Yet the text in 2.2.20-21 overlooks this.
(ii) Fig 16 compounds this problem by falsely claiming that the context includes a significant number of 3 and 4 storey buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 31200

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

(i) para 2.2.26 fails to mention the Mill Road Conservation Area Appraisal's identification (p55) of the former Library as a Building at Risk. This is a key issue directly relevant to the Depot site. Why is it not even mentioned, let alone addressed, anywhere in the draft SPD? The unsubstantiated claims by Council officers in a recent Local Plan Hearing that the former Library is no longer at risk, are contrary to all evidence: see Appendices 1 and 2.

(ii) para 2.2.26 does not mention the "Overlarge advertising hoarding on the side elevation of 'Emporium' No. 117 Mill Road, opposite the Free Library" (Mill Road Conservation Area Appraisal, "positive negative and neutral issues" p44). This hoarding disfigures the entrance to the whole site.

Object

Representation ID: 31201

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

Design response to context: while para 3.2.3 proposes a "contextual approach to scale and massing" neither figs 42 and 45-53, nor the text in 4.6.6-8 acknowledge or tackle the disparity (clear in fig 53) between the scale of the traditional pitched roof forms in the area, and the bulk and height of what the SPD suggests for the Depot site.

Object

Representation ID: 31202

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

In 2.2.2 the draft SPD states that the former library has now been converted into a community centre, which is a misnomer as this is not a building available to the general community but for the Indian Community.

Object

Representation ID: 31203

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

The draft SPD seeks to retain the former Library, a Grade II listed building, without consideration to the issues and challenges relating to the now Bharat Bhavan.

Its condition and future has been a concern since the Library closed. There have been unauthorised internal alterations and progressive deterioration of key architectural details. The building was independently noted as being "at risk", in the Mill Road Conservation Area Appraisal(p.55), and continued to deteriorate since then.

There is no evidence of efforts to repair the former Library which now requires potentially expensive specialist manufacture and repair works. Given this, the City Council's claim in a Local Plan hearing that the building is no longer at risk was untenable to the point of absurdity.

Retention of the listed building will depend not only on resourcing the major repairs, but also on providing a viable long-term beneficial use. These in turn depend on achieving;
(a) secondary means of escape; and
(b) adequate external functional space for servicing etc.

The draft SPD does not recognise the challenges, let alone offer solutions. Notably, the draft access layout impinges even more on the limited space adjoining the listed building. The consequence is that the difficult situation will be made worse.