Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
Representation ID: 31767
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
Most contentious parts of consultations was requirement by the LP Policy for 'spine road' in development. The reason behind this may be due to AAP and about larger site's interconnectivity. This fragmentary approach to development is contextually inappropriate. This is the most rigid and constraining of requirements for site -the road is dictating the development- a tail wagging the dog scenario.
There is still a lack of credible evidence to demonstrate why this must be included, what benefit this will provide for wider transport/congestion and what alternatives there are. How will spine road address thru traffic, prevention of rat runs?
Most contentious parts of consultations was requirement by the LP Policy for 'spine road' in development. The reason behind this may be due to AAP and about larger site's interconnectivity. This fragmentary approach to development is contextually inappropriate. This is the most rigid and constraining of requirements for site -the road is dictating the development- a tail wagging the dog scenario.
There is still a lack of credible evidence to demonstrate why this must be included, what benefit this will provide for wider transport/congestion and what alternatives there are. How will spine road address thru traffic, prevention of rat runs?