Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Search representations
Results for Storeys Way Residents Association search
New search
New search
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Respondent: Storeys Way Residents Association
Representation Summary:
The decision to grow Cambridge by ~ 100,000 residents within the next two decades cannot but have a major impact on the city and its residents. If the growth is not preceded by a major upgrade in the scale and quality of its infrastructure, there will be chaos. Only if such growth were ‘infrastructure led’, would it be possible to believe that the the character of this historic and famous city would not be compromised. It appears that the move is driven from Westminster, but Governments come and go and priorities can change even within the typical lifetime of a Parliament.
Change suggested by respondent:
1. The plan should make it clear that Phase one of the development should be completed before any Phase two is commenced. The phases defined as in S/NWC: Eddington.
2. The plan should make it clear that there should be no vehicular acess at all from Storeys Way, and the adjective 'private' removed from section 14, so to ensure there is no conflict with section 11(c).
3. 'The Ridgeway' runs NW from the cul de sac of Storeys Way towards Eddington eventually reaching Huntingdon Road. The Planning document shoujld reflect this and not be misled by the develper's labelling.
Full text:
New Cambridge Local Plan
Response from the Committee of Storeys Way
Residents Association
A. General
The decision to grow Cambridge by ~ 100,000 residents within the next two decades cannot but have a major impact on the city and its residents. If the growth is not preceded by a major upgrade in the scale and quality of its infrastructure, there will be chaos. Only if such growth were ‘infrastructure led’, would it be possible to believe that the the character of this historic and famous city would not be compromised.
It appears that the move is driven from Westminster, but Governments come and go and priorities can change even within the typical lifetime of a Parliament.
B. Specific to the section on Eddington (Policy S/NWC: Eddington)
1. This section is the only one where we have enough knowledge to be able to comment in detail, at least within the consultation deadline. Our overriding concern here is that the planners seem to have incorporated the so-called ‘phase two’ development plan for Eddington even though this plan is still before the planning committee seeking Outline Planning Permission. There are serious objections to the proposals. We are very concerned that a decision has been made in the absence of due process and without the residents’ objections being fairly considered.
2. We welcome in Section 4(a) the correct definition of Phase one as the completion of 3000 residences, for which outline Planning Consent was granted over 10 years ago. The developers So far only about half have been completed and occupied. In our view the original proposal is sufficient development of Eddington and should be taken to completion rather than new proposals put forward at this stage.
3. ^We have the strongest objection to the insertion of just one word in section 14 where it outlines that there will be no motor vehicle access from Storeys Way in accord with the statements of 11(c). However, the adjective ‘private’ has been inserted before ‘motor vehicle’ access. Setting aside the definition of ‘private’ in this context, we are concerned that this will mean a serious loss of amenity to residents by allowing a great many delivery and service vehicles to use the northern section of Storey’s Way. This will destroy the safe cycling/pedestrian nature of this section of the road and in the cul de sac, a route used by many cycling parents bringing their children to Eddington primary school.
4. Finally from the developer’s map, we note that the pathway connecting Storeys Way cul-de-sac to Eddington has NOT been labelled as “Ridgeway”. It has always been known as such (50 year living memories) and it is the only part of the Eddington estate which is a clear ridgeway with land falling away on both sides, albeit gently. The developers have applied the name only to the far end of this route to the North West as it turns towards Huntingdon Road. To avoid confusion this labelling should have been better, and we hope that the City planners are not misled by this shortcoming. Given that understanding, the Ridgeway defined as ‘a safeguarded strategic walking and cycling route’ in section 11(c) also seems to be mentioned as an access route for vehicles except ‘private’ ones from Storeys Way in section 14. Some clarification would be welcome, and indeed, the adjective ‘private’ simply removed.
Yours sincerely
Committee of Storeys Way Residents Association
Sarah Knight (Sec)
Geoff Levine
Florence Markham
Sarah Middleton
Jacqueline Sutton
Jane Morrill
Ed Wagener
Aki Wilson (Treasurer)
Alan Windle (Chairman)
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NWC: Eddington, Cambridge
Respondent: Storeys Way Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Concerns were raised regarding the inclusion of the 'phase two' development plan for Eddington in the consultation, as it is still awaiting Outline Planning Permission and residents' objections have not been adequately considered.
Change suggested by respondent:
1. The plan should make it clear that Phase one of the development should be completed before any Phase two is commenced. The phases defined as in S/NWC: Eddington.
2. The plan should make it clear that there should be no vehicular acess at all from Storeys Way, and the adjective 'private' removed from section 14, so to ensure there is no conflict with section 11(c).
3. 'The Ridgeway' runs NW from the cul de sac of Storeys Way towards Eddington eventually reaching Huntingdon Road. The Planning document shoujld reflect this and not be misled by the develper's labelling.
Full text:
New Cambridge Local Plan
Response from the Committee of Storeys Way
Residents Association
A. General
The decision to grow Cambridge by ~ 100,000 residents within the next two decades cannot but have a major impact on the city and its residents. If the growth is not preceded by a major upgrade in the scale and quality of its infrastructure, there will be chaos. Only if such growth were ‘infrastructure led’, would it be possible to believe that the the character of this historic and famous city would not be compromised.
It appears that the move is driven from Westminster, but Governments come and go and priorities can change even within the typical lifetime of a Parliament.
B. Specific to the section on Eddington (Policy S/NWC: Eddington)
1. This section is the only one where we have enough knowledge to be able to comment in detail, at least within the consultation deadline. Our overriding concern here is that the planners seem to have incorporated the so-called ‘phase two’ development plan for Eddington even though this plan is still before the planning committee seeking Outline Planning Permission. There are serious objections to the proposals. We are very concerned that a decision has been made in the absence of due process and without the residents’ objections being fairly considered.
2. We welcome in Section 4(a) the correct definition of Phase one as the completion of 3000 residences, for which outline Planning Consent was granted over 10 years ago. The developers So far only about half have been completed and occupied. In our view the original proposal is sufficient development of Eddington and should be taken to completion rather than new proposals put forward at this stage.
3. ^We have the strongest objection to the insertion of just one word in section 14 where it outlines that there will be no motor vehicle access from Storeys Way in accord with the statements of 11(c). However, the adjective ‘private’ has been inserted before ‘motor vehicle’ access. Setting aside the definition of ‘private’ in this context, we are concerned that this will mean a serious loss of amenity to residents by allowing a great many delivery and service vehicles to use the northern section of Storey’s Way. This will destroy the safe cycling/pedestrian nature of this section of the road and in the cul de sac, a route used by many cycling parents bringing their children to Eddington primary school.
4. Finally from the developer’s map, we note that the pathway connecting Storeys Way cul-de-sac to Eddington has NOT been labelled as “Ridgeway”. It has always been known as such (50 year living memories) and it is the only part of the Eddington estate which is a clear ridgeway with land falling away on both sides, albeit gently. The developers have applied the name only to the far end of this route to the North West as it turns towards Huntingdon Road. To avoid confusion this labelling should have been better, and we hope that the City planners are not misled by this shortcoming. Given that understanding, the Ridgeway defined as ‘a safeguarded strategic walking and cycling route’ in section 11(c) also seems to be mentioned as an access route for vehicles except ‘private’ ones from Storeys Way in section 14. Some clarification would be welcome, and indeed, the adjective ‘private’ simply removed.
Yours sincerely
Committee of Storeys Way Residents Association
Sarah Knight (Sec)
Geoff Levine
Florence Markham
Sarah Middleton
Jacqueline Sutton
Jane Morrill
Ed Wagener
Aki Wilson (Treasurer)
Alan Windle (Chairman)
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NWC: Eddington, Cambridge
Respondent: Storeys Way Residents Association
Representation Summary:
The completion of phase one, which involves 3000 residences, should be prioritised over new proposals, as only half of the original residences have been completed and occupied.
Change suggested by respondent:
1. The plan should make it clear that Phase one of the development should be completed before any Phase two is commenced. The phases defined as in S/NWC: Eddington.
2. The plan should make it clear that there should be no vehicular acess at all from Storeys Way, and the adjective 'private' removed from section 14, so to ensure there is no conflict with section 11(c).
3. 'The Ridgeway' runs NW from the cul de sac of Storeys Way towards Eddington eventually reaching Huntingdon Road. The Planning document shoujld reflect this and not be misled by the develper's labelling.
Full text:
New Cambridge Local Plan
Response from the Committee of Storeys Way
Residents Association
A. General
The decision to grow Cambridge by ~ 100,000 residents within the next two decades cannot but have a major impact on the city and its residents. If the growth is not preceded by a major upgrade in the scale and quality of its infrastructure, there will be chaos. Only if such growth were ‘infrastructure led’, would it be possible to believe that the the character of this historic and famous city would not be compromised.
It appears that the move is driven from Westminster, but Governments come and go and priorities can change even within the typical lifetime of a Parliament.
B. Specific to the section on Eddington (Policy S/NWC: Eddington)
1. This section is the only one where we have enough knowledge to be able to comment in detail, at least within the consultation deadline. Our overriding concern here is that the planners seem to have incorporated the so-called ‘phase two’ development plan for Eddington even though this plan is still before the planning committee seeking Outline Planning Permission. There are serious objections to the proposals. We are very concerned that a decision has been made in the absence of due process and without the residents’ objections being fairly considered.
2. We welcome in Section 4(a) the correct definition of Phase one as the completion of 3000 residences, for which outline Planning Consent was granted over 10 years ago. The developers So far only about half have been completed and occupied. In our view the original proposal is sufficient development of Eddington and should be taken to completion rather than new proposals put forward at this stage.
3. ^We have the strongest objection to the insertion of just one word in section 14 where it outlines that there will be no motor vehicle access from Storeys Way in accord with the statements of 11(c). However, the adjective ‘private’ has been inserted before ‘motor vehicle’ access. Setting aside the definition of ‘private’ in this context, we are concerned that this will mean a serious loss of amenity to residents by allowing a great many delivery and service vehicles to use the northern section of Storey’s Way. This will destroy the safe cycling/pedestrian nature of this section of the road and in the cul de sac, a route used by many cycling parents bringing their children to Eddington primary school.
4. Finally from the developer’s map, we note that the pathway connecting Storeys Way cul-de-sac to Eddington has NOT been labelled as “Ridgeway”. It has always been known as such (50 year living memories) and it is the only part of the Eddington estate which is a clear ridgeway with land falling away on both sides, albeit gently. The developers have applied the name only to the far end of this route to the North West as it turns towards Huntingdon Road. To avoid confusion this labelling should have been better, and we hope that the City planners are not misled by this shortcoming. Given that understanding, the Ridgeway defined as ‘a safeguarded strategic walking and cycling route’ in section 11(c) also seems to be mentioned as an access route for vehicles except ‘private’ ones from Storeys Way in section 14. Some clarification would be welcome, and indeed, the adjective ‘private’ simply removed.
Yours sincerely
Committee of Storeys Way Residents Association
Sarah Knight (Sec)
Geoff Levine
Florence Markham
Sarah Middleton
Jacqueline Sutton
Jane Morrill
Ed Wagener
Aki Wilson (Treasurer)
Alan Windle (Chairman)
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NWC: Eddington, Cambridge
Respondent: Storeys Way Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Objections were made to the insertion of the word 'private' before 'motor vehicle' access in section 14, as it may lead to increased delivery and service vehicle traffic, compromising the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
Change suggested by respondent:
1. The plan should make it clear that Phase one of the development should be completed before any Phase two is commenced. The phases defined as in S/NWC: Eddington.
2. The plan should make it clear that there should be no vehicular acess at all from Storeys Way, and the adjective 'private' removed from section 14, so to ensure there is no conflict with section 11(c).
3. 'The Ridgeway' runs NW from the cul de sac of Storeys Way towards Eddington eventually reaching Huntingdon Road. The Planning document shoujld reflect this and not be misled by the develper's labelling.
Full text:
New Cambridge Local Plan
Response from the Committee of Storeys Way
Residents Association
A. General
The decision to grow Cambridge by ~ 100,000 residents within the next two decades cannot but have a major impact on the city and its residents. If the growth is not preceded by a major upgrade in the scale and quality of its infrastructure, there will be chaos. Only if such growth were ‘infrastructure led’, would it be possible to believe that the the character of this historic and famous city would not be compromised.
It appears that the move is driven from Westminster, but Governments come and go and priorities can change even within the typical lifetime of a Parliament.
B. Specific to the section on Eddington (Policy S/NWC: Eddington)
1. This section is the only one where we have enough knowledge to be able to comment in detail, at least within the consultation deadline. Our overriding concern here is that the planners seem to have incorporated the so-called ‘phase two’ development plan for Eddington even though this plan is still before the planning committee seeking Outline Planning Permission. There are serious objections to the proposals. We are very concerned that a decision has been made in the absence of due process and without the residents’ objections being fairly considered.
2. We welcome in Section 4(a) the correct definition of Phase one as the completion of 3000 residences, for which outline Planning Consent was granted over 10 years ago. The developers So far only about half have been completed and occupied. In our view the original proposal is sufficient development of Eddington and should be taken to completion rather than new proposals put forward at this stage.
3. ^We have the strongest objection to the insertion of just one word in section 14 where it outlines that there will be no motor vehicle access from Storeys Way in accord with the statements of 11(c). However, the adjective ‘private’ has been inserted before ‘motor vehicle’ access. Setting aside the definition of ‘private’ in this context, we are concerned that this will mean a serious loss of amenity to residents by allowing a great many delivery and service vehicles to use the northern section of Storey’s Way. This will destroy the safe cycling/pedestrian nature of this section of the road and in the cul de sac, a route used by many cycling parents bringing their children to Eddington primary school.
4. Finally from the developer’s map, we note that the pathway connecting Storeys Way cul-de-sac to Eddington has NOT been labelled as “Ridgeway”. It has always been known as such (50 year living memories) and it is the only part of the Eddington estate which is a clear ridgeway with land falling away on both sides, albeit gently. The developers have applied the name only to the far end of this route to the North West as it turns towards Huntingdon Road. To avoid confusion this labelling should have been better, and we hope that the City planners are not misled by this shortcoming. Given that understanding, the Ridgeway defined as ‘a safeguarded strategic walking and cycling route’ in section 11(c) also seems to be mentioned as an access route for vehicles except ‘private’ ones from Storeys Way in section 14. Some clarification would be welcome, and indeed, the adjective ‘private’ simply removed.
Yours sincerely
Committee of Storeys Way Residents Association
Sarah Knight (Sec)
Geoff Levine
Florence Markham
Sarah Middleton
Jacqueline Sutton
Jane Morrill
Ed Wagener
Aki Wilson (Treasurer)
Alan Windle (Chairman)
Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation
Policy S/NWC: Eddington, Cambridge
Respondent: Storeys Way Residents Association
Representation Summary:
The pathway connecting Storeys Way to Eddington should be correctly labelled as 'Ridgeway' to avoid confusion, and clarification is needed regarding its designation as a strategic walking and cycling route while allowing vehicle access.
Change suggested by respondent:
1. The plan should make it clear that Phase one of the development should be completed before any Phase two is commenced. The phases defined as in S/NWC: Eddington.
2. The plan should make it clear that there should be no vehicular acess at all from Storeys Way, and the adjective 'private' removed from section 14, so to ensure there is no conflict with section 11(c).
3. 'The Ridgeway' runs NW from the cul de sac of Storeys Way towards Eddington eventually reaching Huntingdon Road. The Planning document shoujld reflect this and not be misled by the develper's labelling.
Full text:
New Cambridge Local Plan
Response from the Committee of Storeys Way
Residents Association
A. General
The decision to grow Cambridge by ~ 100,000 residents within the next two decades cannot but have a major impact on the city and its residents. If the growth is not preceded by a major upgrade in the scale and quality of its infrastructure, there will be chaos. Only if such growth were ‘infrastructure led’, would it be possible to believe that the the character of this historic and famous city would not be compromised.
It appears that the move is driven from Westminster, but Governments come and go and priorities can change even within the typical lifetime of a Parliament.
B. Specific to the section on Eddington (Policy S/NWC: Eddington)
1. This section is the only one where we have enough knowledge to be able to comment in detail, at least within the consultation deadline. Our overriding concern here is that the planners seem to have incorporated the so-called ‘phase two’ development plan for Eddington even though this plan is still before the planning committee seeking Outline Planning Permission. There are serious objections to the proposals. We are very concerned that a decision has been made in the absence of due process and without the residents’ objections being fairly considered.
2. We welcome in Section 4(a) the correct definition of Phase one as the completion of 3000 residences, for which outline Planning Consent was granted over 10 years ago. The developers So far only about half have been completed and occupied. In our view the original proposal is sufficient development of Eddington and should be taken to completion rather than new proposals put forward at this stage.
3. ^We have the strongest objection to the insertion of just one word in section 14 where it outlines that there will be no motor vehicle access from Storeys Way in accord with the statements of 11(c). However, the adjective ‘private’ has been inserted before ‘motor vehicle’ access. Setting aside the definition of ‘private’ in this context, we are concerned that this will mean a serious loss of amenity to residents by allowing a great many delivery and service vehicles to use the northern section of Storey’s Way. This will destroy the safe cycling/pedestrian nature of this section of the road and in the cul de sac, a route used by many cycling parents bringing their children to Eddington primary school.
4. Finally from the developer’s map, we note that the pathway connecting Storeys Way cul-de-sac to Eddington has NOT been labelled as “Ridgeway”. It has always been known as such (50 year living memories) and it is the only part of the Eddington estate which is a clear ridgeway with land falling away on both sides, albeit gently. The developers have applied the name only to the far end of this route to the North West as it turns towards Huntingdon Road. To avoid confusion this labelling should have been better, and we hope that the City planners are not misled by this shortcoming. Given that understanding, the Ridgeway defined as ‘a safeguarded strategic walking and cycling route’ in section 11(c) also seems to be mentioned as an access route for vehicles except ‘private’ ones from Storeys Way in section 14. Some clarification would be welcome, and indeed, the adjective ‘private’ simply removed.
Yours sincerely
Committee of Storeys Way Residents Association
Sarah Knight (Sec)
Geoff Levine
Florence Markham
Sarah Middleton
Jacqueline Sutton
Jane Morrill
Ed Wagener
Aki Wilson (Treasurer)
Alan Windle (Chairman)
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
