Figures 129 to 132

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Support

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30787

Received: 24/02/2016

Respondent: Mr D Johnson

Representation Summary:

I am pleased to see the area of open space marked 1 on the plan - it is important to retain this as a buffer between Winstanley Court and the new development.

Full text:

I am pleased to see the area of open space marked 1 on the plan - it is important to retain this as a buffer between Winstanley Court and the new development.

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30816

Received: 02/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Yulin Ginns

Representation Summary:

the open space could also be extended to entrance.

Full text:

the open space could also be extended to entrance.

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30921

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: CRRA

Representation Summary:

The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.

Full text:

Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
Shared usage roads please see that attached report. Given the current levels of maintenance on Romsey's roads we do not feel this is a good idea that should be taken forward - especially as the development forms part of the Chisholm trail route.
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield.
Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Overall the plan represents some of the issues raised during the meetings held but avoids some in their entirety. We would like to see these addressed in the revisions to the draft and look forward to working with you on their inclusion.
We feel disappointed with the level of engagement that has been made with the local community - the duration and timing of the 'open event' was not adequate or timely enough for thorough understanding by the residents.
Cromwell Road Residents
07/03/2016

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30954

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Miss Victoria Gaillard

Representation Summary:

The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.

Full text:

Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
Shared usage roads please see that attached report. Given the current levels of maintenance on Romsey's roads we do not feel this is a good idea that should be taken forward - especially as the development forms part of the Chisholm trail route.
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield.
Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Overall the plan represents some of the issues raised during the meetings held but avoids some in their entirety. We would like to see these addressed in the revisions to the draft and look forward to working with you on their inclusion.
We feel disappointed with the level of engagement that has been made with the local community - the duration and timing of the 'open event' was not adequate or timely enough for thorough understanding by the residents.
Cromwell Road Residents
07/03/2016

Would like to stress again that communtiy consultation on this site has been consistently bad across the board I do not feel the council has done enough to solicit the views of local people or even make them aware that this consultation is under way. Key points raised as every opportunity (school, provision for the elderly, rail crossing etc) have been consistently ignored. These necessities may be expensive but they are necessities in building a sustainable city.

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30963

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Dr Catriona Crombie

Representation Summary:

Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.

Full text:

To Whom it may Concern,
I am writing to provide comment on the proposed plans for the development of the Ridgeons site on Cromwell Road Cambridge. The first point I would like to make is that the level of consultation with the community in Romsey and Cromwell Road in particular has been poor. The plan proposed does not even show lip service to points raised when the local plan was being developed. The public meetings were few and not advertised appropriately or arranged at convenient times.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield. My house is immediately opposite the proposed development and although in the catchment for St Philips school we are too far away from the school to get a place. St Matthews School is oversubscribed in catchment. This means that as for current residents any new families moving into the proposed development will have to DRIVE past the closest schools to take their children to a school at the other side of town. The plan does not provide for a new school or any facilities to get children to school by any means other than driving (it is too far for a four year old to cycle) and there is no provision for driving or parking.
Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
There is an opportunity here to make a dedicated route for cycling. The proposal for the Chisholm Trail to run down a busy cut through (one of the few roads that runs east/west across the city) is simply a recipe for accidents. Cromwell Road is already a very dangerous place to cycle, particularly at either end where the road bends round and you can't see what is coming. More traffic combined with the Chisholm Trail chucking cyclists on to a busy road is foolish at best. The site could link to quiet roads through the existing developments and link to a new bridge to make the Chisholm Trail a real option for cyclists. As it is the Chisholm Trail will be nothing more than a press release for the council, it will not be a safe route to cycle.
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community. The early years provision in Romesy is only suitable for families with one "at home" parent. For Parents that work there is no nursery facilities in Romsey.
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief. Parking is already at a premium in Romesy and is getting increasingly challenging on Cromwell Road. Parking need much more thought. People will have cars and the life style that the council is forcing us to live demands that a car is necessary. I do not want to drive my children to school but the lack of a local school means this is necessary (a bus up Mill Road into town to change buses to go back out again is not a realistic commute for any parent that has to get to work in the morning nor should it be expected of our children).

In conclusion this plan is short sited and unless action is take now it will be a missed opportunity to leave a really positive legacy for the city.
Yours sincerely
Catriona Crombie

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30969

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Ms Dodie Carter

Representation Summary:

The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.

Full text:

Open Space
The layout for the open space as it currently is depicted was flagged as being inappropriate to achieve its objective as being 'usable' open space during one of the scoping meetings. The linear nature of the space and it being bounded on all 3/4 sides by roads means that it will not provide a safe space for children to play. It is clear that its design is to enable taller development by offsetting the developments through this space.
Road design
Shared usage roads please see that attached report. Given the current levels of maintenance on Romsey's roads we do not feel this is a good idea that should be taken forward - especially as the development forms part of the Chisholm trail route.
http://www.theihe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf
Medical Practice and Early years Facility
There is demonstrable need for these services in the community - remove 'if needed' from the text (2.10.1 point 11 page 53)
Road Network
There are inconsistencies in the document to how roads are depicted - or whether they are depicted at all. Page 79 of the document and figure 127 depict a road that is running North South behind the main block of flats. This is not illustrated elsewhere in the document and it is difficult to understand how this works with the street network as currently shown on Figure 123 Access and Movement
Development within the entry way to the site will create a 'over developed' feel to Cromwell Road, and will dangerously limit access onto and off the site by creating 2 tight 90o turnings given the fact that these are proposed for vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access this presents a danger to the road users.
Cycle bridge
At no point during the development of the brief has due consideration been given to the creation of a new and safe cycle crossing for the rail way line - either over or under the tracks. We do not believe that this 'scoping work' has attempted to identify or assess all the opportunities. Stating that there is currently not the funding to undertake this project is an extension of the lack of future planning that has enabled piece-meal development of Cromwell Road to date. The rush to spend 'City Deal' money in the last year is evidence enough that this project could be undertaken at a later date for the benefit of both residents within the city and those who commute by bicycle in. Space needs to be left so that this opportunity can be realised in the future to enable the creation of a more sustainable city.
Parking
The document depicts lots of 'on street' parking justified it seems on the basis of this being the standard across much of Romsey. Given much of this road network is forming part of the Chisholm Trail the assumption should be against this; keeping the roads clear for safe passage on bike and by foot. Better design and planning for the provision of parked cars (such as that seen in Accordia development) should be included within this brief.
School Provision
As repeatedly flagged during the development of this brief there is a huge shortage of Primary School places in Romsey, this site represents one of the last remaining opportunities to site a school in a safe residential area away from main roads, the provision of the rail crossing would allow this school to service both Romsey and Petersfield.
Retirement properties
No mention is given to the need for retirement properties in this brief - this was repeatedly raised during the session held. This should be flagged as one of the 'key objectives' for the site.

Overall the plan represents some of the issues raised during the meetings held but avoids some in their entirety. We would like to see these addressed in the revisions to the draft and look forward to working with you on their inclusion.
We feel disappointed with the level of engagement that has been made with the local community - the duration and timing of the 'open event' was not adequate or timely enough for thorough understanding by the residents.
Cromwell Road Residents
07/03/2016

I endorse the response made as above. Time is too short to allow further comment. I live nearby and share the concerns.
Dodie Carter

Object

Ridgeons, Cromwell Road: Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 30982

Received: 05/02/2016

Respondent: Dr Dave Baigent

Representation Summary:

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.

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.

Creep
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.