4.4.26

I agree to this. Reduce the highway space as much as possible.

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.

East Road is currently very unattractive. The key element of the proposed changes will be good architectural designs that lift the area , not merely be service providers.

Proper, segregated cycle route needed along East Road.

We welcome ideas to add more plant matter to the area. We especially think that having rooftop gardens or meadows over businesses would be a wonderful idea. Trees at the public level are also very needed today, when less private residences are able to keep up trees and hedges for birds and insects.

However, we feel there has not been a satisfactory period of consultation on the matter. This process has been going on for a long time, but as residents of Christchurch Street, we were informed of this matter on the 1st of November 2017, by a hand posted leaflet through the door. This seems very convenient for the planners, as we are effectively in an "opt-out" situation, where the public must actively object to the work planned. We were not available to attend on the 1st, being available only after 8pm, and had no idea a consultation had been held on September 25th. Whenever people are unavailable to attend these meetings, it is deemed to be a lack of concern and gives the green light to go ahead with the project - but how many people are actually aware of these plans, and how many of those actually want any of these developments? Such large scale development should be opened to a public vote or more organised criticism by the public you are supposed to be serving. For example, the plans should be publicised by public advertising in the area.

There has been a lack of timely information about when meetings about these matters would occur. For example, we received a leaflet after most of the consultation period had passed, leaving us very little time to draft a response.
The reports on the proposed works around the Grafton Centre are convoluted and weasel worded. Exotic flavour language is used instead of saying what is meant, and the grammar is at times poor. Examples:
"Improve public realm"
"Intensification of height and floor space"
"permeability through better streets"
"balanced and successful destination"
There is no clear outline of what exactly is proposed. An outline document needs to be created, this time conforming to the Crystal Mark standard for Plain English. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark/7-the-crystal-mark-standard.html

Such a document should be no more than 2 pages in length, and distributed physically to every local resident at least 2 weeks before a meeting on the subject. It seems like wilful negligence that this has not already been done. Social media platforms are not a good way of disseminating information, as some people do not use them. We do not receive the Cambridge newspaper, never knew that there was a wordpress blog, and never would have expected it to contain any serious content. We are essentially uninformed by your current means.

When it comes to the disruption caused by work and the trustworthiness of partners, there is much cause for concern. The replacement of the Grafton Centre roof has caused severe disruption to local residents lives and negatively affected their health. The roof replacement is relatively minor compared to the master plan proposal, which will presumably involve significant construction work. It is therefore vital that the mental health and wellbeing of residents is considered, whereby the working hours set out in the planning permission document are strictly adhered to. It would seem that disruption was underestimated, understated to local residents before work began, and that partners have acted in bad faith.

Further, the Graft Centre is already a cause of regular noise and disturbance to residents. Visitors loiter, argue, litter and look for criminal opportunities in the area. We have had a substantial vermin problem with pigeons because of food litter, which we are sure the Grafton is aware of, but which they have never mentioned they were taking any action on. It is insulting to suggest that increasing links between the Grafton Centre and adjacent residential streets would be beneficial to anyone concerned. This is certain to increase loitering, litter and noised in the affected streets, some of which are already facing problems with drug dealing, which the Grafton Centre Security has already refused to take any action over. At a recent neighbourhood meeting (BRUNK), it became apparent that while many residents had contacted the police over drug offences, only 2 calls were officially recorded. A far larger problem exists than is officially noted.

The Draft SPD itself highlights that there is less need for physical shops due to "75%" of shoppers shopping online. Why, therefore, is this area being re-developed to include a larger than ever amount of shops, including shop fronts spilling onto the street?
The Grafton Centre has frequently housed vacant shop units in the last 5 years. An apparent misconception is that this is caused by the Grafton's former, grotty image - but it is more likely caused by high rates and a lack of physical demand for goods. Simply giving the area a facelift is not going to make businesses suddenly profitable.

This raises the further question - why do we need to invest this money in this area? Public safety and willingness to invest in the area could be helped by just investing more into police patrols. Efforts could be made to prevent the exploitation of beggars and drug dealing in the back alleys.

The proposal to restrict East road to single lane traffic or presumably interrupt traffic by bus stops or traffic calming represents extremely backward thinking. Pollution in Cambridge is caused by congestion and waiting taxi ranks running their engines constantly while stationary. Cars run most efficiently when they are not forced to constantly stop and then accellerate again. Having queues of traffic does not shorten journeys, it makes them less efficient. Restricting East road will cause larger bottlenecks, more aggravation to local residents and discourage people from either visitng or even living in Cambridge. Many people, particularly commuters and the disabled cannot simply be forced onto bicycles or public transport.
Simple tasks such as buying food are often impractical by bus, cycle or walking. There has been a concerted effort in recent years to vandalise Cambridge's infrastructure, punishing vehicle owners and in doing so, strangling the city centre and surrounding areas. Such moves are disguised as reducing pollution or improving cycle access, but the results are far less than ideal, and cause very lengthy and expensive disruption.

From a cyclist's perspective, converting road lanes into dedicated cycle lanes is not safer than previously, where it is possible for unseen pedestrians exiting buses to walk in front of cyclists, endangering both the cyclist and the pedestrians. E.g. Hills road, Huntingdon road, proposed on Milton Road etc. The extra wide cycle paths may seem like they benefit cyclists, but this has resulted in far more invasion of the cycle lane by traffic and confusion by cyclists thinking that the large cycle path is a two-way cycle path. Furthermore, the useless decorative elements at the sides of the cycle paths used to grow alpines are also dangerous. They contain a sharp right angled edge which has not been fully filled in with gravel, and is a hazard to cyclists. It is easy for a cyclist to veer into the sharp edges and may result in an accident.

Quite simply, if Cambridge is to continue choking roads up, I shall not continue to live here. I shall not work here or do business here, and will advise other to do the same.

We object only because we would like to see another key principle added, which is to support safe and inclusive cycling with protected facilities for cycling separate from motor traffic and separate from footways, using modern Dutch-style standards.

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.