Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

4.3.20 is too prescriptive.
The paragraph starts by acknowledging that reconnections should be made 'where feasible' which is supported. This highlights that specific connections cannot be fixed at this pre-design stage.
It is therefore suggested that the subsequent sentence should reflect this uncertainty by encouraging the specified connections rather than stating that they should be provided. It is suggested that 4.3.20 is updated to read as follows:
'Development should reconnect with existing streets and spaces where feasible. Links from Chesterton Road into the site and reconnecting through to Grasmere Gardens are encouraged. If incorporated, these new linkages could be restricted to through access for cycles and pedestrians only and possess a more intimate green lane character, where space is shared'.

Suggest that smaller, more resilient features distributed throughout the development are 'encouraged' rather than 'should be used'. Until detailed assessment is undertaken, it cannot be known the level of mitigation and design credentials associated with the scheme. Flexibility is still required at this stage, although it is agreed that certain principles can be encouraged. In any event, having one larger management feature could be beneficial in the context of 4.3.23 which notes that there is an opportunity to create dynamic focal space that deals with water.

Suggest that this refers broadly to 'landscaping' rather than specifically 'street trees' to provide some flexibility, depending on the final design intentions and relationship with highway design/safety. This would also ensure accordance with the development principles set out in Figure 52 where planting on the Chesterton Road frontage is listed as one of the 'Opportunities for new tree planting/landscape'. It should therefore not automatically be assumed to involve trees and is an opportunity rather than certainty.
Finally, it is suggested that the need for agreement with the Local Highways Authority is referenced. Suggest 4.3.28 is updated as follows:
'Street trees or other landscaping is encouraged along the Chesterton Road frontage as part of any public realm improvements, subject to approval from the local highways authority'.

The quote within the Emerging Local Plan refers to 'local centre' rather than District Centre. The SPD needs to ensure it quotes the Local Plan accurately. Suggest it is the Local Plan that is amended through a modification to provide a more accurate description of Mitcham Corner's status amongst the designated centres.
It is not considered that the aim to 'ensure new development promotes healthy and active lifestyles' relates to the theme 'creating a connected place'. Suggest that this final aim is removed.
Suggest 'residential' is inserted to the third bullet under Theme 2 so that it reads 'Facilitate the delivery of high quality new residential development within the area to help sustain a catchment population for the District Centre'. Since the aim is specifically referencing the need to sustain a catchment population, it is evident that only residential development would apply to this aim. The proposed amendment would clarify this point.
Also Change 'physical' to 'physically' so that it reads 'Promote measures to physically green the area...' at Theme 3.

Figure 52 sets the development principles for Henry Giles House. The majority of the principles
are supported and indicate opportunities to achieve a high quality scheme with a high density
reflecting its urban environment and existing built form.
However, it is suggested that reference to 'creation of pedestrian and cycle green links/lanes' is
too fixed and fails to provide the necessary flexibility at this high level stage. It is therefore
suggested that this is updated to read 'Opportunities for pedestrian and cycle green links/lanes'.
It is also suggested that the massing design principles are too cautious and don't seek to
maximise the opportunities at the site but instead place undue restriction on storey heights.
Given that it is at the planning application stage where scale and massing are assessed in
detail, the SPD should not restrict opportunities before the acceptability of heights has first been
tested.
It is suggested that the height of the southernmost block fronting onto Carlyle Road could
certainly sustain 3+1 development given the character of 1a. It is also suggested that the
northern frontage of this southern block could then rise to 4+1 within the site before then
increasing to the potential of 5+1 centrally within the site. It is also suggested that the northern
block could sustain 3+1 rather than 2+1 along Carlyle Road given the existing context and
massing at the site with 3 storey commercial floors at this point.
The easternmost section of the northern block could sustain 3+1 given the scale of the adjacent
flats on Grasmere Gardens and the separation from the properties on Albert Street.
Finally there is opportunity for 4+1 storeys on the Chesterton Road frontage, given the existing
four commercial storeys at the existing site and the contribution that this variety would have to
the staggered building line and creating a distinctive and interesting character.
It is crucial that the SPD maximises the opportunities of the site rather than providing undue
restriction. The SPD is not to confirm the acceptability of storey heights but to indicate such
height could be possible, subject to detailed testing. If the SPD is too cautious unjustified
limitations would be placed on the site. The full scale and massing would be subject to detailed
modelling at the application stage and so ensure a design that did not adversely affect either the
character of the area or residential amenity.
As will be appreciated, it is more straightforward to propose lower heights than established
within a SPD where evidence illustrates this is required to mitigate impacts rather than seeking
to push beyond the principles set.

'Located to the north east of the City Centre...' rather than 'north west'.

A black line is meant to indicate 'Building frontage'. However, this is not the case. Grey lines mark the base layer of the plan. The only black line is associated with the 'Remnants of Historic High Street'. Suggest 'Building Frontage' is removed from key.
Key includes 'Opportunity for New Urban Space'. However, there is no such area shown on Figure 1. Suggest that this is removed from the Key.

Final sentence does not make sense. Suggest updated to 'At the time, this was reported as Cambridge's Chaos Corner'.

Suggest final sentence is updated to 'Stop-vehicle movement patterns and one way flows create perceptions of high traffic speeds'.

Should refer to 'within the Opportunity Area' rather than 'on the site'.