5.111

Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1

Object

Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD

Representation ID: 31703

Received: 24/08/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Em and Kev Ritchie

Representation Summary:

It concerns us that there may have to be a major re-routing of gas supplies during this work, and we do not wish our gas supply to be disturbed, suspended or face any related issues without prior notice and financial recompense.

Full text:

Good afternoon, I am a resident of Church End, Cherry Hinton, and attended the public consultation exhibition at St Andrew's Church on 17/8/17 and wish to give our response to proposals. As far as possible, we have grouped these responses according to number/title reference from the original document. They are in no particular order of importance, however we save our most valid and impactful comment until last.

3,5 Character and Form, 3 Urban Form and Gain, 5 Neighbourhood analysis, 3 Edges
The report notes that housing in Teversham Drift is 'arranged around internal courtyards' and we wish to point out that this generates issues for residents who desire to park their car right outside their property (or as close as), as inevitably the design of this has meant that some residents cannot, and so parking overspills into surrounding main roads such as March Lane, the main highroad of Teversham Drift and Church End.
The new plans offer no housing of one storey e.g. bungalows, and yet the character and form of this area of housing around Teversham Drift comprises a signifiant community of one storey residences.The new plans offer no care home or senior citizen sheltered housing. Whilst we accept that this may at the moment fall under the 'social housing' requirements by law of new developments, it concerns us that single storey dwellings have been left out. The largest growth demographic in Cambridgeshire is in the 65+ and 80+ age brackets and yet no specific provision has been made for this group, whereas other demographic groups are named in the report.
The report makes mention of potential further housing developments along 'safeguarded land' by Coldham's Lane. This, coupled with the proposed development opposite by the Anderson Group will mean that Cherry Hinton will be joined to Cambridge and Romsey along this arterial link, thereby losing its 'separate village identity', something that this report highlights as important: 'The proposals must create a clear identity that is cognisant of the 'village' character that existing resident of Cherry Hinton cherish'. We echo this and do not want Cherry Hinton to lose its village feel. This corner of Cherry Hinton has already seen division between the districts of City and South Cambs made more visual with the new village sign opposite the NISA shop to mark a boundary, new play equipment has been provided in South Cambs open spaces whereas the play area in Church End was ripped out and never replaced, bus stops around Gazelle Way are labelled Teversham Council. Further division should be avoided.

5 Noise
When purchasing a property this side of Cherry Hinton, awareness of the airport and its day-to-day running are an inevitable factor and one that ultimately cannot be used as a negative if purchase goes ahead. Indeed, residents of Cherry Hinton appreciate our unique relationship with Marshalls and the aircraft that use it: we are treated to aerial displays by the Red Arrows (and not just at Marshalls 100 year celebrations) and by the smaller aircraft that dip and glide above us, it provides a useful landmark, is a valued local employer and is part of the village. We were delighted at the award of MoD contracts for the RAF Hercules earlier this year as a way of continuing its presence. We are concerned that this land development will be used in the future as a case study for noise pollution or for highlighting the danger of flying routes above residential areas and that future pressures will be placed upon Marshalls to close. This is not a chicken/egg situation, the airport was here first, and residents would not want to see re-routing of take offs or runway angles, or closure at all.

3 Utilities
It concerns us that there may have to be a major re-routing of gas supplies during this work, and we do not wish our gas supply to be disturbed, suspended or face any related issues without prior notice and financial recompense.

3 Drainage Features, 5 flooding, flood risk and existing watercourses
There have been historic instances of surface water flooding adjacent to existing drainage ditches which run through the proposed site and into current residential fringes of Cherry Hinton. As acknowledged in the report 'the site is within an area of water stress'. We wholeheartedly support installing any water saving devices, any surface water storage systems or management systems that can be incorporated into the design of buildings and infrastructure.

5 Land Uses, Education
It concerns us that a shortage of school places has been used to justify the inclusion of a primary school and secondary school in this development. Currently, Cherry Hinton has 4 primary schools all of which have undergone significant expansion schemes in recent years. This area of Cherry Hinton is currently served by two secondary schools one of which, Bottisham Village College, has had plans to extend each year group by three form entry and its buildings as a result. Both are part of the same Multi Academy Trust and so form a 'monopoly' this side of the city. It concerns us greatly to hear plans that the proposed secondary school for this development will be a 'Free School' the nature of which as described in local press will not help local secondary students. As a free school this would have the option of selection, and as part of the West London Free School Academy Trust, the Cambridge City Free School will provide a liberal, classical curriculum with instrumental lessons and Latin. As a secondary school teacher, experience shows that these Free Schools inevitably do not provide places for children within catchment area, meaning that students attending this school will place extra pressure on transport infrastructure, and inevitably will result in parents driving their children in to school, placing further parking demands on this new development. This itself will also not aid integration into the village identity.

3 Public transport connections, 5 public transport
Unlike Northstow or Orchard Park we do not have the inclusion of a guided busway network built into this development. At the public meeting, officials were keen to persuade that a large development like this will guarantee a public service infrastructure. The harsh reality is that Cherry Hinton residents struggle to use a bus service that for the most part is run as a monopoly by Stage Coach. Bus services to and from Cherry Hinton have been cut and cut again: the previous service down Coldham's Lane was cut and Wippet attempted to include it in a partial route, and there have been cuts to Citi 1 and 3 in the village with buses changing numbers at designated stops, and the Citi 1 has not met its original ten minute service provision since the first year it was introduced. At one point, it was cheaper to drive our car to the Park and Ride. My husband working shifts cannot use the bus service at either exreme of the day. Rather than promise something new, please work harder to ensure that existing promises with services, routes and fares, and competition are met.

3 Urban form and gain, 5 Neighbourhood analysis: parking
Parking is a big issue this side of Cherry Hinton. We have seen previously empty pockets of land being developed and this has provided a squeeze on parking opportunities. Examples of this include the development of the Rosemary Branch, the development of the old shop on the corner of March Lane, the work beginning at Hatherdene Close, proposals by the Anderson Group and more immediately the development of Neath Farm Court. Residents here are particularly suspicious of promises surrounding parking since the developers reneged on promises of parking and a roundabout, leaving instead a landscaped siding and a dangerous exit onto a blind bend. Parking problems have been exacerbated by the increase in new businesses based around cars, with both garage businesses still breaking Highways Laws by parking across pavements, on double yellow lines and crossing verges to leave vehicles. There are two businesses that park big commercial vehicles in the side streets around. We know of commuters parking in these streets free of charge and then either walking or taking the bus into town. Any new development must make parking a priority. It is all very well and good to quote green ideals at the public exhibition but the reality is that most houses have two cars, and sometimes more given the rise of young adults living at home due to exorbitant living costs. Please consider extensive underground parking as an option. Please consider town house styles with parking at ground level as at Great Kneighton. Please do not place covenants on parking such as those at Orchard Park which state for example that commercial vans cannot be parked on the street. In reality all these do is move the problem down the road to existing residential areas, dealing with their own issues.

3 Public footpath, 5 cycle and pedestrian movement, Access and Primary Routes
We have saved our most pressing concern for last. Option A still leaves Church End, March Lane and Teversham Drift as a rat run. As the report states any placement of primary access routes should not create a 'bypass peripheral route' that will jigsaw into an existing rat run with significant, documented issues that have been reported extensively to the police, insurance companies and public council meetings. Option B will only create another new rat run. This new development places significant importance on access for pedestrians and cyclists. The main access route for cyclists and pedestrians into and out of the development will follow the existing footpath line, meaning that these people will be funnelled into the junction at the base of March Lane and Church End: a blind corner with parking issues on both side of the road, and documented accidents and speeding issues. There have been numerous local requests for action to solve the existing problems: speed restrictions introduced ( a 20mph speed limit, speed humps) simply do not work. Requests to local businesses flouting Highways Laws have had little sustained impact. Currently residents are petitioning to close the road between March Lane and Reilly Way. The footpaths along all these interconnecting roads have had no resurfacing work done in ten years and are in a dangerous uneven state, despite being dug up for utilities attentions. The footpath on one side of Church End bordering the green just simply stops. If this road closure does not happen then a development with 1200 residences, plus members of the public using new centre facilities, plus school children accessing the two new proposed schools will be forced down a funnel leading to one of the most dangerous junctions in the village. PLEASE use this (as yet) future plan to help with some joined up thinking to deal with the current situation. This junction is already dangerous, it has already been proven with speed cameras that the corner does not slow vehicles down, myself and my husband have both been the subject of collisions (non-fault) reported to the police and claimed for via insurance within 20m of it. With an increase in usage the odds of a fatality increase. Here is the only point on which we are unashamedly NIMBYs. Close Church End.

We appreciate that these are our opinions and views. We appreciate that not everyone will or can agree, and that some level of fait-accompli has probably already happened. We trust in the consultation process and that our views will be read, applied if relevant and discarded if not. Many thanks for taking the time to add our views to this process,

Em and Kev Ritchie