4.4.24

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31896

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

4.4.24 We welcome the key interventions. Reference should be made in the fourth bullet point regarding the need to preserve the listed building and its setting.

Full text:

4.4.24 We welcome the key interventions. Reference should be made in the fourth bullet point regarding the need to preserve the listed building and its setting.

Support

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31908

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Flynn

Representation Summary:

I support the proposal for 24/7 two way cycling along Fitzroy Street.

Full text:

I support the proposal for 24/7 two way cycling along Fitzroy Street.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31922

Received: 03/10/2017

Respondent: Jonathan Hefford

Representation Summary:

CYCLING. The route behind the north side of Fitzroy Street shops and beyond is muddled. Conversely, on Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets I'd advise against making them too clear, since cyclists will speed up and pedestrians wander into them without thinking. Remove the time restrictions but make cyclists pick their way through obstacles.

Full text:

GRAFTON MASTERPLAN SPD

CONSULTATION PROCESS.Until by chance I came across an article in a newspaper I do not regularly read, I had no knowledge of this Masterplan. I have spoken to a few neighbours and they were similarly unaware. We are in regular receipt of letterbox drops about fun-run road closures, Guy Fawkes Night arrangements bin collections and so forth which are short term inconveniences, but nothing that I know of about the Masterplan which will have enduring effects to the neighbourhood.
There was massive public involvement in the plans leading up to construction of the Grafton Centre. This Masterplan is of course a lot less dramatic, but it extensively covers much that was discussed originally or has emerged since. By not involving Kite residents fully, you are missing out on local knowledge, and storing up trouble as aspects of the Masterplan are rolled out.
A mail drop to Kite residents should be made alerting them to the Masterplan. Opportunities should be made to engage with them. This will mean putting back the closing date for comments, but in the long run it will be time saved.

SPD BOUNDARY Extend to include Byron House, Marino House, the Severn Place Scheme (I assume this includes the redevelopment of the old fitness centre building) and Sun Street car park. They are very much tied up with access issues and a general sorting out at this messy end of The Grafton Centre.

EASTERN GATEWAY. A lot of work went into this so yes, let's keep sight of it.

FLEXIBILITY. The retail component of the Masterplan clings to the idea of the infinite carrying capacity of natural systems (or does it have another planet tucked away somewhere?), endless cheap imported products and cheap labour. None of this will endure. Neither should we assume that future generations will consider that Cambridge is of a character such it that should continue to host a large sub regional vending machine : so what we lay out and build should be capable of significant adaptation.

ENERGY. There is scope for significant energy capture on roofs.

CARS. More shopping = more cars. Shoppers will sit in car queues for ages rather than get on a bus. Let's at any rate be adamant that there will be no additional parking for shoppers.

CYCLING. The route behind the north side of Fitzroy Street shops and beyond is muddled. Conversely, on Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets I'd advise against making them too clear, since cyclists will speed up and pedestrians wander into them without thinking. Remove the time restrictions but make cyclists pick their way through obstacles.

WALKING. The nest of roads around Grafton East car park entrance is a pedestrians' nightmare. The entrance to the West car park and service area simply punches its way through the pavement on Maids' Causeway. Let us at least install surfaces to suggest to motorists that these are routes for pedestrians too.

OPENING UP ROUTES. A lot of thought went into separating residential areas, both visually and physically, from retail backsides. Particularly since many houses have no front gardens, turning streets into quieter cut-de-sacs was one of the few benefits of jamming the Grafton Centre into the area. Please note though that several streets are used unofficially to gain access to the rear of retail premises. Sat Navs have increased this.

NIGHT TIME ACTIVITIES. Very apprehensive about this. Residents have bad experiences. Litter, noise, vomit, urination, graffiti, vandalism, car keying. You get the picture.

BUILDING DESIGN. The document has some encouraging things to say, but do you really think the Primark building is an improvement on its grand, confident, quirky predecessor, whose facade we worked so hard to try and keep? (Developer pressure won the day). Buildings put up before this in Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets at the time of Grafton One had a reasonable shot at using sympathetic materials, facades and scale . The artist's impression on p.66 should give an Awful Warning of lowest denominator boxes by a developer who knows the Council cannot afford an Appeal.

STREET SCENES. Back to p66 again. Gone are the cycle racks, market stalls, cafe seating. A developer's sterile street scene. Not much life and bustle here.

SMALL SHOPS. Grafton Management seems not to like small units and squashed a number out of existence, though I suppose those twee faux market stalls inside provide some opportunities. I'd be happy to see more of the genuine stalls in the street. Will rent rises push out the smaller traders? The charity shops are popular and provide an excellent way of putting secondhand goods back into circulation at affordable prices.

HOUSING. Cambridge is desperate for affordable social housing, but will we get exclusive penthouses for Hong Kong purchasers?

TREES AND GREENERY AND OTHER LANDSCAPING. Fine, as long as they are maintained. I can think of five trees planted at the time of Grafton One that either failed to thrive or were vandalised. Never replaced. Planted beds in private sector areas filled with rank weeds and litter and fly tipped. Scabby patched surfaces. Cycle route markings not renewed. General shabbiness. Interior of Grafton pristine.

PRIVATE v PUBLIC I fear that much that is good within the Masterplan has been devised in the Public Sector and will be down to that Sector to deliver, but we know that this is a severely cut back . I fear that what we will get is a cherry picked Developer led scheme for shareholders, not Cambridge citizens.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31969

Received: 14/10/2017

Respondent: Bev Nicolson

Representation Summary:

4.4.24. - I strongly object to the space being used by pedestrians, bikes with taxis and servicing vehicles. This is not a recipe for a pleasant, attractive boulevard, but a stressful, noisy, mall. There would also be damage to any surfacing used.
Yes to 24/7 use by bikes.

Full text:

2.7.2
Second point. As this document has been written so that members of the public can have their say on the
council's vision for this area, use of planning jargon is unhelpful.
3.2.3 The area should be primarily for pedestrians and those on bikes. We need far fewer cars.
3.2.7 I would argue for future proofing not just in terms of building use, but in transport terms too. We must
be aiming for far fewer cars and delivery lorries and therefore lower pollution levels.
4.2.4 Again, let's not think car here. Walking and cycling must come first.
Fig. 33 It's not entirely clear to me if the yellow shading is an indication that you wish to see junction
improvement here. (This is a problem with several plans. The key doesn't always match the drawing.)
Fitzroy Lane needs a pavement.
Enhanced public space. There is potential for conflict in a shared space environment as this would turn out to
be. Fig 34 strongly suggests there would be.
4.2.18 I object to on-street servicing. It causes conflict with pedestrians and bike users.
4.2.30 Suggest sites for cycle parking. Although if Grafton East went underground, could the overground part
become a cycle park?
Fig 35 I am uneasy about suggesting no. 17 Fitzroy Street could turn into an hotel. I envisage conflict with
pedestrians and bikes because of the servicing needed and the guests arriving.
4.3.9 I am uneasy about more central hotels. What about some affordable flats instead?
4.4.14 Let us hold to this. When you say exceptional, let us mean exceptional, not a 5 storey building that
could be anywhere in the country. Maybe they could echo no 17?
4.4.24. I strongly object to the space being used by pedestrians, bikes with taxis and servicing vehicles. This
is not a recipe for a pleasant, attractive boulevard, but a stressful, noisy, mall. There would also be damage
to any surfacing used.
Yes to 24/7 use by bikes.
4.4.26 Reduce carriageway for motor traffic and add a cycle route for the whole length.
Improve Norfolk St end with a clearer cycling and walking routes to follow.
This plan must integrate with the Eastern Gate SPD. It must be a goal that it does, not a vague desire. There
is no point in having a piecemeal approach to the area.
Fig 42. Shows limited space for pedestrians, trees removed, bike racks gone, seating gone. It looks a lot like
shared space and I strongly object to that.
4.4.28. Jargon. (See first point.) Contraflow bike lane, yes. Servicing too? No, no, no.
4.5.3 Either this is to be a 'c' road, or it is a pedestrianised shopping centre. It can't be both.
Fig 45 No guard rail at all, thank you. Crossings can be effectively designed for busy roads without them.
Fig 47. A bus lane shared with bikes? No. Not on East Road, thanks.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32003

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Mr John Coyle

Representation Summary:

I object to any cycling along Fitzroy Street. Make these superfit humans walk like the rest of us.

Full text:

I object to any cycling along Fitzroy Street. Make these superfit humans walk like the rest of us.

Support

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32037

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Heather Coleman

Representation Summary:

​I​ ​support​ ​the​ ​principle​ ​of​ ​finding​ ​a​ ​way​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​safe​ ​cycle​ ​route
on​ ​Fitzroy​ ​and​ ​Burleigh​ ​Streets.​ ​I am somewhat​ ​puzzled​ ​why​ ​this​ ​is​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​as​ ​a 'contraflow​ ​cycle​ ​lane'​ ​because​ ​that​ ​presumes​ ​a​ ​certain​ ​type​ ​of​ ​infrastructure.​ ​I think ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​best​ ​if​ ​this​ ​was​ ​left​ ​as​ ​'Provision​ ​for​ ​a​ ​bidirectional​ ​cycle​ ​route​ ​on Fitzroy​ ​Street​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​day'.

Full text:

​I​ ​support​ ​the​ ​principle​ ​of​ ​finding​ ​a​ ​way​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​safe​ ​cycle​ ​route
on​ ​Fitzroy​ ​and​ ​Burleigh​ ​Streets.​ ​I am somewhat​ ​puzzled​ ​why​ ​this​ ​is​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​as​ ​a 'contraflow​ ​cycle​ ​lane'​ ​because​ ​that​ ​presumes​ ​a​ ​certain​ ​type​ ​of​ ​infrastructure.​ ​I think ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​best​ ​if​ ​this​ ​was​ ​left​ ​as​ ​'Provision​ ​for​ ​a​ ​bidirectional​ ​cycle​ ​route​ ​on Fitzroy​ ​Street​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​day'.

Support

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32131

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Representation Summary:

We support the principle of finding a way to have a safe and inclusive cycle route on Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets. We are puzzled why this is referred to as a 'contraflow cycle lane' because that presumes a certain type of infrastructure. We believe it would be best if this was left as 'Provision for a bidirectional cycle route on Fitzroy Street throughout the day'.

Full text:

We support the principle of finding a way to have a safe and inclusive cycle route on Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets. We are puzzled why this is referred to as a 'contraflow cycle lane' because that presumes a certain type of infrastructure. We believe it would be best if this was left as 'Provision for a bidirectional cycle route on Fitzroy Street throughout the day'.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32162

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Marion Bailey

Representation Summary:

Taxi movement is an issue and 'after hours' access would encourage vehicular access.

Full text:

2.3.2 The scale of Grafton has increased. This does not give license to increase other buildings in the low rise area!
2.2.9 Yes cycling occurs 10-4 but is a hazard for the infirm and families. An alternative cycle route should be provided for non-shoppers (I think most of the cyclists are not shopping!)
2.2.16 and 2.2.3 Access to Adam and Eve car park is poor. Visibility to traffic approaching from Paradise Street is poor.
The rear of East Road premises which back onto car park should not be considered as 'frontage'.
2.4.9 Agree with designation oh historical buildings. They are delightfully 'small scale'.
2.4.9 What are these improvements to green and hard areas in John / City / Paradise?
2.4.19 Agreed
2.5.3 Photo 23. Charlie's Coffer Companay overspills its space - delightful as it service is. A cart; The tables / chairs exceed allowance. Difficult corner with Paradise Street. Large seating area outside Valeries restricts pedestrians.
2.5.7 Opps for green space (not just hard landscaping).
2.6.2 New student accommodation open between Newmarket / East / New Street. Create housing for workers!
2.7.2 Area let down by poor quality shops. Charity, betting, cheap food. Why not encourage controls / craft ("Auk" went to central area!) instead of just "artisan food".
3.2.7 Area not suitable for hotel.
4.2.1 Extend primary route to East Road but connect with busses, car park and buke park.
4.4.13 Agree no.17 should dominate. That means surroundings must be lower.
4.4.14 Respect to low buildings. Don't smother them by 5-6 stories nearby.
4.4.17 Tall blocks make the nearby conservation area feel disrespected, absurd, and in time (as can be seen by the language used to describe hoe much bigger Grafton and how courts are) will lead to increased heights becoming the norm - I see its suggested 'up to 6 or 6 storeys". This is disproportionate - even 4 storeys should be exceptional. The illustration F.39 is bland and detracts from the beauty of no.17 which gives me pleasure everytime I look upwards. Flat squares do not draw the eye to the beauty!
4.4.24 Taxi movement is an issue and 'after hours' access would encourage vehicular access.
4.4.28 Figure 42 is imaginative.
4.5.3 Add an extra chair to each of those tables and there is little space for pedestrians. And cyclist will be weaving between pushchairs. Please be realistic. Add mobility scooter. Older people with shopping bags on wheels. The vision is unrealistic. Re-route cyclists. Restrict café fronts. Give priority to pedestrians.
4.5.7 Trees on East Road look good but surely reducing lanes for vehicles will cause huge problems?
Biggest concern - Height! Bland, uniform architecture. Safety of pedestrians.
Thank you for organising this consultation (even if I received notice rather late). Commenting on such a long document online is difficult.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32167

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Prof. Rob Miller

Representation Summary:

Salmon Lane cannot accommodate more traffic access. The entrance by the Hopbine Pub is already busy with cars, delivery vans and bin lorries and residents already often have to queue in the morning to get onto fair street. The houses between Maids Causeway and Salmon lane have no front access for cars and so Salmon Lane is their only access.
- No further access to cars to Salmon Lane should be permitted. This means the approach for vehicles to any new dwellings should be via the Grafton Centre not Salmon Lane.

Full text:

Salmon Lane forms part of the Kite Conservation Area. The houses (mostly Grade II listed buildings) and the coach houses were built in the 1820s. The present development offers an opportunity to enhance Salmon lane. However, it is very important that a number of points are considered:

(1) Salmon Lane cannot accommodate more traffic access. The entrance by the Hopbine Pub is already busy with cars, delivery vans and bin lorries and residents already often have to queue in the morning to get onto fair street. The houses between Maids Causeway and Salmon lane have no front access for cars and so Salmon Lane is their only access.
- No further access to cars to Salmon Lane should be permitted. This means the approach for vehicles to any new dwellings should be via the Grafton Centre not Salmon Lane.

(2) Scale, Height and Density of Buildings. The outline speaks of 2-3 storey houses being built. There are no 3 story buildings currently on Salmon lane. The current coach houses are low pitch two storey houses or single story with attic rooms. They are also currently of a low density. Any building on the Salmon lane should be keeping with height, scale and density of the rear coach houses currently on Salmon lane.
- The scale, height and density of any proposed new building on the Lane side of the Centre should be in keeping with the look and feel of current coach houses.

(3) The houses and coach houses between Maids Causeway and Salmon Lane are of a regency style of the 1820s. Any new building on Salmon lane must be of a similar style. This would follow the recent president set by the excellent improvements to the University Arms Hotel by the Architect John Simpson.
- The architecture of any new dwellings should fit the Regency style of Maids Causeway, Salmon Lane and the wider Kite area.

(4) It is important that Salmon Lane is not narrows and that the grass and tree strip on the Grafton side of Salmon Lane is maintained and enhanced.
- The new dwellings should be set behind the current trees, grass strip and wall.

If the new housing on the Grafton side of Salmon Lane were of a similar height, density and historic period as the coach houses on the Maids Causeway side of Salmon Lane then I think that this development offers an excellent opportunity to restore Salmon lane as a Regency mews. This would continue the excellent recent work by the Council in the Kite area in redeveloping the University Arms Hotel.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32179

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Russell Whitehead

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

A current problem with Fitzroy Street is that there is insufficient signage to use the intended cycle routes through the area and so too many irresponsible cyclists cycle along Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets, often with risk to pedestrians. There is little evidence of attempts to police this.
The solution is NOT to turn both pedestrian areas into streets for cycles. Even in the simulated artwork, one can see a child in proximity to a cyclist.
Where would all the existing things in the streets go? (Café seating, public seating, cycle parking, street trading etc) There isn't much space as it is.
There is no reason why this pedestrian area should be given over to cyclists.

Full text:

We would like to make the following points about the draft Masterplan:

Generally, enhancing the area and in part making up for previous erroneous decisions is to be welcomed, and it is preferable to house more people within cities than to take over more green spaces, be they agricultural or other amenity spaces.

Of particular concern, however, are aspects of the transport arrangements.

1 A current problem with Fitzroy Street is that there is insufficient signage to use the intended cycle routes through the area and so too many irresponsible cyclists cycle along Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets, often with risk to pedestrians. There is little evidence of attempts to police this.
The solution is NOT to turn both pedestrian areas into streets for cycles. Even in the simulated artwork, one can see a child in proximity to a cyclist.
Where would all the existing things in the streets go? (Café seating, public seating, cycle parking, street trading etc) There isn't much space as it is.
There is no reason why this pedestrian area should be given over to cyclists.

2 Reducing parking spaces in conjunction with turning East Road into a sort of bus station will cause a significant increase in congestion (and pollution).
As it is, several streets in the Kite area are treated as free car parks by non-residents and this problem would worsen.
The obstructed traffic caused will of course include taxis used by non-car-owners, tradespeople such as emergency plumbers and those maintaining homes and businesses, doctors and carers on visits, and delivery vehicles of all sorts. For these categories of user, switching to bicycle, bus or foot is generally not a viable solution.

3 We would suggest, incidentally, that the Dover Street car-park is made into residents-only, including cycle parking, freeing up some of the street parking to return to no-parking and making the zone no-other-parking except residents and their permitted visitors. With effective signage, the zone could be protected from those seeking free alternatives to the paying car-parks and prevent the current problem of cars circulating apparently endlessly looking for spaces.

While we support the provision of more homes and amenities etc, they will of course only add to these challenges as they will all order things online, need to get to the hospital occasionally, have things that need mending in their homes from time to time, and so on.

It seems to us that the disadvantages caused in these respects outweigh the potential advantages, and we hope further consideration and consultation is undertaken.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 32184

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: John Marenbon

Representation Summary:

Moreover, unless all vehicular access is from the other side, there will be impossible congestion in Salmon Lane and danger to the pedestrians and cyclists who use it. More dwellings in the area will also increase the number of cars, which already congest the city centre. The best solution would be to put the car park underground and replace it with a green space. Less good, but tolerable, would be one-storey dwellings designed to blend into the architectural environment.

Full text:

I am writing to object to the part of the proposals which has two to three-storey dwellings fronting Salmon Lane. Such large buildings in such density will destroy the character of this laneway and be detrimental to that of the whole conservation area. Moreover, unless all vehicular access is from the other side, there will be impossible congestion in Salmon Lane and danger to the pedestrians and cyclists who use it. More dwellings in the area will also increase the number of cars, which already congest the city centre. The best solution would be to put the car park underground and replace it with a green space. Less good, but tolerable, would be one-storey dwellings designed to blend into the architectural environment.