Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1


Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30985

Received: 05/02/2016

Respondent: Dr Dave Baigent

Representation Summary:

I also am wary about the possibility of creep in this type of development. The SPD should include a statement that this is the end of large scale development in this area. This would be to prevent developers gradually purchasing houses on the other side of Cromwell Road with a view to eventually knocking them down and building more flats etc.

Full text:

My comments on the Draft SPD for Ridgeons follow and should be read alongside your RTF form that is also attached to my email.

At this stage I am neither for nor against the development but I have the following points to make that I hope you will consider.

The update to the plan to not include 133 Cavendish Road and some other corrections that need to be done
There has been a recent update to the plan to exclude number 133 Cavendish Road that had wrongly been included in earlier drawings as part of the Ridgeons site.

Location maps still wrongly indicate Cavendish Place as the road running to the South of the site (see page 17 for example). This road is actually a meeting point between Cavendish Road and Cavendish Place - the division occurring around the end of my property (96 Cavendish Road) - which in turn is not shown on the drawings in its properly extended form but as it was prior to an agreed and built extension.

For clarification the Ridgeons side of Cavendish Road is not in the conservation area - however, the other side of Cavendish Road is (see page 25) and this is a consideration in regard to the exit from the site onto Cavendish Road.

I believe the pictures on page 15 should rightly include a Figure 13A - a shot looking out of the site at the point where there will be a pedestrian and cycle exit and include a view of the side of 96 Cavendish Road (my home) as it will be seen from this exit.

As number 133 Cavendish Road is now recognised as not being owned by Ridgeons, I believe there should be a greater mitigation to stop 133 Cavendish Road being dwarfed by the development.

Cycling, vehicles and Cavendish Road: a two way street that cannot accommodate two vehicles or a vehicle and a bike passing each other without the use of passing places.

Page 32 refers to Cavendish Road as having two way traffic with only 3 metres being available for vehicles to travel on. This means that two cars cannot pass, nor can a car and bike. Often large vehicles cannot traverse the road because one badly parked vehicle can reduce the width to around 2 metres.

Currently vehicle drivers manage the complicated arrangement where one car going down the road, gives way to a car coming up the road by stopping in the space provided by the junctions at St Phillips or Wettenhall Road (or vice versa). This is equally true for cyclists who either give way to cars or cars give way to them.

This is managed because it is mostly local people using the roads and they understand the need to give way when another vehicle or cycle has taken the priority by entering a section of the road where two vehicles or a vehicle and a cycle cannot pass. This would become a problem if more cycles were to use Cavendish Road.

It would also be more realistic to say in Figure 67 on page 34 that not only two cars can't pass but that a car and a cycle cannot pass.

The use by the Chisholm trail of Cavendish Road will increase this complication, and a lack of local knowledge is likely to lead to a friction between vehicles and what could be at peak time be an almost endless stream of cycles.

I in no way objecting to the Chisholm Trail, but it may be judicious to be clearer that the Chisholm Trail (page 33) does follow the railway land at the back of the odd numbers on Cavendish Road and exits as it is currently shown.

The suggestion on pages 36 Figure 72, on page 52, Figure 107, and again on page 65, Figure 111 all suggest a primary network would allow cycles to enter Cavendish Road with an expectation I suspect that they access Mill Road. This is a move away from the plan on page 33 and raises concerns if allowed to happen without a rethink of the arrangements on Cavendish Road.

If Cavendish Road does actually become part of the Chisholm trail then this will inevitably cause friction in this two way road where a car and a cycle cannot pass because of parked cars.

I hope this potential danger and cause of friction will be thought about again. What is needed is either a less ambiguous route with a view to ensuring that cycles pass through the Ridgeons site to the railway side of the houses on Cavendish Road. Or, if the intention is to use Cavendish Road for even some of the cycles on the Chisholm trail then there needs to be some serious consideration of how the traffic, parked cars and cycles will mix. If this is the case then there will need to be a radical solution that will have severe implications on the surrounding roads.

The opening onto Cavendish Road/Place
On page 67, Figure 115 indicates the opening onto Cavendish Road/Place and this is a little clearer on page 77 Figure 135. However, I am also concerned that since the ownership of 133 Cavendish Road has been recognised as not being part of the site, the 'Indicative character and form' shown on page 79 Figure 136 is unclear. There needs to be more detail about how the junction with Cavendish Road/Place is proposed. I would ask that a real consideration of this junction is given to both safety and the aesthetics of how it will affect my property at 96 Cavendish Road and the surrounding properties.

I would ask when this is done that consideration is given to that this exit being opposite my property as it is now, and not as it is on the plan.

I would ask that consideration be given to how this exit will impinge on my home (some of which has windows looking directly into the proposed exit from Ridgeons. The detail is very unclear and in particular I would ask that the possibility of houses being built close to the exit be at two storeys and be pushed back so as to allow a considerable green space at this point.

I do recognise that my house has been developed in a somewhat eclectic way. The face is still in character with the rest of the conservation area and as this ends the side of my house, as it has been extended, provides a phased move from Victorian to modern design that eases towards the modern houses on Cavendish Place.

Cromwell Road
In regard to Cromwell Road I believe that a major study should take place to take advantage of the lack of traffic that will occur when Ridgeons closes. This could involve some payback for yet another development impinging on the people who live in houses on Cromwell Road. Consideration could perhaps be given to shutting Cromwell Road at one end and then putting in some greenery and landscaping to soften the whole area.

I also am wary about the possibility of creep in this type of development. The SPD should include a statement that this is the end of large scale development in this area. This would be to prevent developers gradually purchasing houses on the other side of Cromwell Road with a view to eventually knocking them down and building more flats etc.

Dave Baigent.