The developers of the Red House site on Station Road presented their latest plans to Councillors yesterday.
The site, on the north side of Station Road between Tenison Road and the station has been subject to two previous applications for hotels - a smaller successful application in 2006 (that wasn't implemented), and a plan for a larger 169 room hotel in 2009 that was turned down, mostly on transport grounds.
The site is next to Great Eastern House, which Microsoft wants to rebuild as its UK HQ. Whilst it isn't part of the area covered by the CB1 outline planning permission, the new plans seek to fit in with the CB1 proposals, which include a small open space behind the hotel site.
The developers, O'Callaghan hotels, are appealing against the refusal last year, but are also going to put in this new application to address the concerns raised (presumably in case the appeal fails). They are addressing the concerns by reducing the proposed height of the new building (which will be around 7 storeys), and putting in place a valet parking scheme.
Whilst the building itself looks to be a reasonable design for a business class hotel in an area destined to become more of an urban business district, I am concerned about the valet parking plans.
The new plans propose no on-site car parking, with those hotel customers who do have cars being offered valet parking - which will involve hotel staff transporting cars to the Leisure Park car park on Clifton Road. Even if, as developers claim, few guests will arrive by car - the valet parking will still create additional traffic on busy Hills Road and Cherry Hinton Road. It seems ironic that this scheme proposes to solve the problem of lack of parking on site by creating additional trips to the Leisure Park, when the lack of parking on CB1 was the reason given why such a large redevelopment wouldn't generate significant additional traffic. Even if the additional trips are relatively few, it will still add to an existing problem with the plans for the CB1 area.
The developers also claimed to have looked at parking restrictions around the site, and concluded there was nowhere that hotel customers could freely park for long periods of time. I asked if they had considered the Rustat Road area in their analysis, less than 10 minutes walk away - and as with the CB1 developer, the answer was no, this area, and its existing commuter parking problems had been forgotten. I don't accept that hotel users won't know about this, even guests who aren't on a repeat trip - all it will take is one comment about the valet parking and the Rustat Road alternative on a website like Tripadvisor and it could significantly add to the problems Coleridge residents are already facing and will face from commuter parking in the parts of the ward near the station.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cb1. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cb1. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
What next for the station area?
View Larger Map
A period of exciting changes to the station area are planned for the future, that could be vital to transport infrastructure for the City.
To the west of the station, the Council finally signed off the s106 agreement for the CB1 development at a recent planning meeting. This gives the development permission to go ahead. We have blogged previously on the merits of the scheme as a whole, but the arguments go on about the financial viability of the whole scheme, what the Council knew about the previous developers Ashwells financial problems, and why even now their is a risk that only parts of the development will be built (like the student accommodation that appears to be most profitable), with some of the vital transport infrastructure never being built. The recent serious fire affecting listed buildings on the site only clouded the situation further.
But independently of the CB1 development, network rail has plans for the Coleridge side of the site. They would like to build a central platform, that will open up a range of options for accessing the station from Coleridge. They also have a vacant site that appears to be ripe for development, and could provide much needed housing in an area that is well served by transport links.
Further afield, we understand development of the former Cambridge Water site on Rustat Road could be about to be picked up again, and there is scope for improvements to the Leisure park.
What is the Conservative approach to the station and leisure park area?
Firstly, public consent - we need meaningful dialog with local residents before decisions are taken.
Second, we need high quality development - in such a key strategic part of the city, we must have a very high quality built environment. The Travelodge on the Leisure Park clearly fails this test - we mustn't make the same mistake with other sites.
Finally, we must develop the best possible transport links - and this means getting the agreements right when granting planning permission, and making sure developments are viable with the improvements to transport that must be provided to make the developments work without putting local residents in Coleridge to any greater inconvenience than they are already from problems such as commuter parking .
What are we doing about this?
I spent considerable time with network rail trying to setup a meeting to discuss a range of issues of public interest - what are their plans for a second platform? how will it connect to the main platform? How will it link to Coleridge? Will they help improve cycle parking at the station? Will they support the Chisholm Trail that could significantly improve cycle links from our ward? What are their plans for the vacant sidings? How can the public get involved? After emails with many people with 'communications' in their job title, I was no nearer speaking to anyone who actually had a meaningful role in decision making in these areas, and have asked the Director of Planning at the City Council to try setting up a meeting. It appears network rail, whilst enjoying all sorts of statutory protections and operating in many respects like a public body, operates outside of any type of democratic scrutiny. This needs to change!
We will be keeping up the pressure on the planning system at the Lib Dem run City Council - it isn't delivering quality, and we fear the station agreements will turn out to be a terrible deal for taxpayers - who have already funded much of the site through the bank bailouts prior to Ashwell's going bust, and who are now likely to pay for a lot of the transport infrastructure on the site as well. Our planning policies need to change, to ensure a quality build environment is not an unaffordable luxury after all the Council's other requirements have been met. Our planning policies also need to support and encourage better transport infrastructure, particularly on key sites like the station area.
Last week I also met with the owners of the Cambridge Leisure Park, along with other local Councillors. We pressed the case for better usage of the site, and talked about some of the transport issues - like how to encourage leisure park users into the multi storey car park rather than surrounding roads, and how to improve access to the site from the station area. I support some type of bridge (and/or possibly a connection to the new platform) - I could never understand why the Lib Dems allowed this to be taken out of the original planning permission for the Leisure Park in the first place...
Friday, October 10, 2008
Meeting Delay Call rejected
The City Council is has rejected calls for the Ashwell's planning meeting to be delayed, saying:
The Council policy is to make committee reports available to the public at least five full working days before a committee and this has been done in relation to the CB1 scheme (in fact the report was published a day early on Tuesday, 7 October). I appreciate that the main report is lengthy (156 pages) but this is not unusual for a major scheme of this type. Indeed reports on matters such as the local plan tend to be lengthier. The report is structured in such a way to make it easy to locate topics so that if a member of the public has a particular concern then a topic can be readily located in the report.
The Council has made considerable efforts to allow the public to be briefed and to make representations on the CB1 scheme. A series of public meetings and Development Control Fora have been held over recent months. The report sets out all the representations made during this extended process.
In view of these considerations, I believe that the City Council has followed its own policy and set out all therelevant considerations for the Planning Committee so that a decision can be made at the scheduled meeting on 15 October.
I have the feeling this is their final word on the matter...
The Council policy is to make committee reports available to the public at least five full working days before a committee and this has been done in relation to the CB1 scheme (in fact the report was published a day early on Tuesday, 7 October). I appreciate that the main report is lengthy (156 pages) but this is not unusual for a major scheme of this type. Indeed reports on matters such as the local plan tend to be lengthier. The report is structured in such a way to make it easy to locate topics so that if a member of the public has a particular concern then a topic can be readily located in the report.
The Council has made considerable efforts to allow the public to be briefed and to make representations on the CB1 scheme. A series of public meetings and Development Control Fora have been held over recent months. The report sets out all the representations made during this extended process.
In view of these considerations, I believe that the City Council has followed its own policy and set out all therelevant considerations for the Planning Committee so that a decision can be made at the scheduled meeting on 15 October.
I have the feeling this is their final word on the matter...
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Gremlins
A couple of errors have crept into my election literature of the last few days. Unfortunately a newsletter has a typo in my email address - it isn't chris@mouffon.co.uk, is should be moufflon in the address!
The other problem I have less responsibility for. I have written some letters describing the postcode of the Lichfield Hall polling station as CB1 7BS - this appears to be the postcode for City Homes South on Cherry Hinton Road. A more relevant postcode is CB1 3SJ if you are trying to find the polling station on streetmap or google maps. It looks like the postcode on the City Council website list of polling stations where I got the information from is wrong, which is a bit worrying - I'm waiting for Electoral Services to get back to me to confirm.
The other problem I have less responsibility for. I have written some letters describing the postcode of the Lichfield Hall polling station as CB1 7BS - this appears to be the postcode for City Homes South on Cherry Hinton Road. A more relevant postcode is CB1 3SJ if you are trying to find the polling station on streetmap or google maps. It looks like the postcode on the City Council website list of polling stations where I got the information from is wrong, which is a bit worrying - I'm waiting for Electoral Services to get back to me to confirm.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Transport Assessment for Station Area Redevelopment
There were some astonishing claims repeated at the public meeting last night about the county's traffic impact assessment for the CB1 station area redevelopment. Chris Howell, Richard Normington and I were all present to help scrutinise the report. Considering the short notice for the meeting it was very well attended.
The central claim is that there will be "only a modest increase in vehicular traffic (16%)" on account of the restricted opportunities for parking - there would be one fewer parking spaces after the redevelopment! When quizzed about this figure (since the baseline figures used were questionable) the consultant admitted that the real figure was more like 35%, although apparently even a report by the developer, Ashwell, suggests that it would be 65%.
I questioned the validity of the report's assumption that car usage could be suppressed simply by having severe restrictions on parking within the development and asked for examples of any other developments that had such limited provision for parking. The consultant had nothing to say on this point - the assumption is essentially justified by assertion.
I also asked why the report does not include any analysis of the likely extent of overspill parking in Coleridge on and around Rustat Road. The response was effectively that reactive work could be considered on consulation with residents after the development has gone ahead but that this did not need further consideration at this stage.
The transport assessment has clearly failed here - its very naive assumptions about how easy it is to limit car use may well suggest that the development would be self-contained but no evidence has been presented as to how this development would be different from any other in that regard.
Despite its flawed assumptions, the report is otherwise quite thorough, and to be fair, it is suggested that the extra vehicular traffic that is conceded will not manifest itself at the peak times and so will not be such a problem.
This transport assessment forms part of the report to the central planning committee of the City Council which will consider the CB1 application on Wednesday 15th October at 9.30am in the Long Room at New Hall.
Chris Howell asked how independent the traffic impact assessment process had been from the applicant's drawing up of the plans and it was revealed that there had been an iterative process between the two parties. While this approach may have seemed like a practical solution for saving time and effort by all we are worried that the council officers and their consultants may unintentionally become inclined to compromise their assessment as a consequence of being involved in the development of the plans.
The central claim is that there will be "only a modest increase in vehicular traffic (16%)" on account of the restricted opportunities for parking - there would be one fewer parking spaces after the redevelopment! When quizzed about this figure (since the baseline figures used were questionable) the consultant admitted that the real figure was more like 35%, although apparently even a report by the developer, Ashwell, suggests that it would be 65%.
I questioned the validity of the report's assumption that car usage could be suppressed simply by having severe restrictions on parking within the development and asked for examples of any other developments that had such limited provision for parking. The consultant had nothing to say on this point - the assumption is essentially justified by assertion.
I also asked why the report does not include any analysis of the likely extent of overspill parking in Coleridge on and around Rustat Road. The response was effectively that reactive work could be considered on consulation with residents after the development has gone ahead but that this did not need further consideration at this stage.
The transport assessment has clearly failed here - its very naive assumptions about how easy it is to limit car use may well suggest that the development would be self-contained but no evidence has been presented as to how this development would be different from any other in that regard.
Despite its flawed assumptions, the report is otherwise quite thorough, and to be fair, it is suggested that the extra vehicular traffic that is conceded will not manifest itself at the peak times and so will not be such a problem.
This transport assessment forms part of the report to the central planning committee of the City Council which will consider the CB1 application on Wednesday 15th October at 9.30am in the Long Room at New Hall.
Chris Howell asked how independent the traffic impact assessment process had been from the applicant's drawing up of the plans and it was revealed that there had been an iterative process between the two parties. While this approach may have seemed like a practical solution for saving time and effort by all we are worried that the council officers and their consultants may unintentionally become inclined to compromise their assessment as a consequence of being involved in the development of the plans.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Residents' Parking Rejected by Blinco Area
Resident's in the Blinco Grove area of Queen Edith's have rejected plans for resident's parking in the area, in a humiliating blow to local Lib Dems Councillors who have been pushing for the scheme, after forcing through the bizarre consultation arrangements at the relevant committee.
The combined results from the recent consultation exercise in the Blinco Grove/Rock Road/Hartington Grove area in response to the question: Do you support the introduction of on street parking controls in your area?
Strong support - 91 (27%)
Support - 27 (8%)
Don't know - 13 (4%)
Disagree - 30 (9%)
Strongly disagree - 171 (52%)
A clear majority of 61% disagreeing with the plans, that would have seen local residents forced to by resident's parking permits if they wanted to park on the road.
As part of the dogs breakfast of a consultation, Coleridge residents in the Rustat Road area were asked what they thought of the plans to introduce resident's parking in the adjacent Blinco Grove area, and its pretty clear from the results that the question was misinterpreted as should resident's parking be introduced in their area (the question as posed being ridiculous - there is clearly only downsides to resident's parking in an adjacent area). As such, the support in this area was evenly split. Hopefully the Lib Dems on the joint traffic committee will now take note of this fiasco and the objections to the consultation that we raised at the time.
On the Blinco Grove area, I think all Coleridge Councillors agree that most of the problem relates to a relatively small number of vehicles from Hills Road Sixth Form College, that could be fixed instantly if the school had more robust policies on student car usage. But the situation could change rapidly for Coleridge once new developments are built. We would like to ensure Rustat Road area residents are given the opportunity to introduce resident's parking if clearly supported, once the effects developments such as the CB1 station redevelopment and former Cambridge Water site start to be felt.
But in the long term, when are the planners (leaned on by central government policy) going to realise that you can't solve transport problems by pretending that people can be forced out of their cars just by providing insufficient parking spaces. In existing areas, verge parking and other related 'lack of parking' issues are just about the biggest complaint in Councillors' in trays, but at least they have the excuse of being built in an era before near universal car ownership. To build a new generation of developments like Ashwell's CB1 and the Tim Brinton flats that make a virtue of providing wholly insufficient onsite parking is amongst the most shortsighted decisions being made in planning today. In 30 years time we we look back with our carbon-neutral personal vehicles and wonder what on earth people were thinking.
The combined results from the recent consultation exercise in the Blinco Grove/Rock Road/Hartington Grove area in response to the question: Do you support the introduction of on street parking controls in your area?
Strong support - 91 (27%)
Support - 27 (8%)
Don't know - 13 (4%)
Disagree - 30 (9%)
Strongly disagree - 171 (52%)
A clear majority of 61% disagreeing with the plans, that would have seen local residents forced to by resident's parking permits if they wanted to park on the road.
As part of the dogs breakfast of a consultation, Coleridge residents in the Rustat Road area were asked what they thought of the plans to introduce resident's parking in the adjacent Blinco Grove area, and its pretty clear from the results that the question was misinterpreted as should resident's parking be introduced in their area (the question as posed being ridiculous - there is clearly only downsides to resident's parking in an adjacent area). As such, the support in this area was evenly split. Hopefully the Lib Dems on the joint traffic committee will now take note of this fiasco and the objections to the consultation that we raised at the time.
On the Blinco Grove area, I think all Coleridge Councillors agree that most of the problem relates to a relatively small number of vehicles from Hills Road Sixth Form College, that could be fixed instantly if the school had more robust policies on student car usage. But the situation could change rapidly for Coleridge once new developments are built. We would like to ensure Rustat Road area residents are given the opportunity to introduce resident's parking if clearly supported, once the effects developments such as the CB1 station redevelopment and former Cambridge Water site start to be felt.
But in the long term, when are the planners (leaned on by central government policy) going to realise that you can't solve transport problems by pretending that people can be forced out of their cars just by providing insufficient parking spaces. In existing areas, verge parking and other related 'lack of parking' issues are just about the biggest complaint in Councillors' in trays, but at least they have the excuse of being built in an era before near universal car ownership. To build a new generation of developments like Ashwell's CB1 and the Tim Brinton flats that make a virtue of providing wholly insufficient onsite parking is amongst the most shortsighted decisions being made in planning today. In 30 years time we we look back with our carbon-neutral personal vehicles and wonder what on earth people were thinking.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Relieving parking pressure
Welcome news for Cambridge today:
Coleridge residents have been hit badly by the impact of inadequate parking on new developments, such as those off Rustat Road, compounding commuter parking problems and soon to be made much worse by the cb1 development.
Time after time, when developments should have been rejected due to lack of parking such as cb1 as well as all over the city and most recently the former Texaco petrol station on Castle Hill, councillors have been unable reject on that basis, even if they would like to.
The Liberal Democrats are taking a very short term view on this subject: limiting parking does not stop people from owning cars it just causes parking chaos, while future technological developments may lead to more sustainable personal transport solutions. They would be doing more good for the city if they focused their efforts on enforcing minimum cycle parking standards, which are often ignored.
Parking problems are one of the biggest issues in this city but the Lib Dems have done nothing but make it worse. Conservatives won't stand by on this issue and will be standing at the local elections on a policy of scrapping this bonkers rule from our local plan.
Limits on car spaces for new homes and guidance encouraging higher parking charges are being abolished ending the war on motorists, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles and Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced today.The former Labour government's policy of maximum parking spaces for new developments (1.5 per dwelling), gold-plated (page 134 - 1 per dwelling) by the ideologically-obsessed local Liberal Democrats, have been creating huge structural problems for Cambridge.
Coleridge residents have been hit badly by the impact of inadequate parking on new developments, such as those off Rustat Road, compounding commuter parking problems and soon to be made much worse by the cb1 development.
Time after time, when developments should have been rejected due to lack of parking such as cb1 as well as all over the city and most recently the former Texaco petrol station on Castle Hill, councillors have been unable reject on that basis, even if they would like to.
The Liberal Democrats are taking a very short term view on this subject: limiting parking does not stop people from owning cars it just causes parking chaos, while future technological developments may lead to more sustainable personal transport solutions. They would be doing more good for the city if they focused their efforts on enforcing minimum cycle parking standards, which are often ignored.
Parking problems are one of the biggest issues in this city but the Lib Dems have done nothing but make it worse. Conservatives won't stand by on this issue and will be standing at the local elections on a policy of scrapping this bonkers rule from our local plan.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Ashwells Going Bust: What did the Council know?
The City Council is facing increasing criticism over what it knew about the financial health of Ashwell's, the now-bust developer of the CB1 Station Area redevelopment project, amid concerns that the vital transport infrastructure that the must be delivered as part of planning permission for the project is at serious risk.
The Council worked closely with the developer prior to the application being approved by the planning committee, and also will have had extensive discussions after the initial outline planning permission was granted.
Conservatives have raised concerns from early on in the process about the financial ability of Ashwells to deliver, and asked the Council what it was doing to look into the financial circumstances of Ashwells in view of how key it was to delivering transport improvements.
Now GTARA, the Glisson Road and Tenison Road Area Residents Association has submitted a formal complaint to the Council about its handling of the issue - alleging that the Council didn't properly take into account the financial status of the development when renegotiating the section 106 agreement (that specifies the transport improvements, and when they need to be provided) in Nov 2009. This could be relevant, as the original planning application and s106 agreement was approved taking into account a confidential commercial viability report, that does not appear to have been updated to reflect the new circumstances. GTARA points to a similar Ashwells development in Chelmsford, where planning officials were clearly aware of Ashwell's perilous financial state. The chair of GTARA, Frank Gawthrop ends his complaint:
"In my view the actions of the Planning Dept are of a poor standard as it has failed to give Councillors sufficient information to make informed decisions. I do not believe that your department has exercised due diligence in this matter and that this is likely to cause substantial loss to the public purse."
I understand that separately a freedom of information request has also been submitted to the Council asking about the Council's relationships with Ashwells, and what financial appraisals of Ashwells were undertaken.
To date the planning department and the chair of the planning committee have insisted it is business as usual, nothing to worry about, and the developer going bust and being taken over makes no difference. In reality, the scheme is a set of related developments, with trigger points for the key transport infrastructure to be built.
I do get the impression of considerable complacency in the planning department about this issue, and a very poor level of scrutiny of what is effectively a large - to the point of unaffordable - level of taxation being levied on a developer, on which the Council is then placing huge reliance in order to provide some pretty vital transport infrastructure - not least the cycle parking in the planned new multi-storey car park.
East Area committee has summoned the Director of Environment and Planning to its next meeting on 18th February, and hopefully Councillors will have more opportunity then to get to the bottom of the problems.
The Council worked closely with the developer prior to the application being approved by the planning committee, and also will have had extensive discussions after the initial outline planning permission was granted.
Conservatives have raised concerns from early on in the process about the financial ability of Ashwells to deliver, and asked the Council what it was doing to look into the financial circumstances of Ashwells in view of how key it was to delivering transport improvements.
Now GTARA, the Glisson Road and Tenison Road Area Residents Association has submitted a formal complaint to the Council about its handling of the issue - alleging that the Council didn't properly take into account the financial status of the development when renegotiating the section 106 agreement (that specifies the transport improvements, and when they need to be provided) in Nov 2009. This could be relevant, as the original planning application and s106 agreement was approved taking into account a confidential commercial viability report, that does not appear to have been updated to reflect the new circumstances. GTARA points to a similar Ashwells development in Chelmsford, where planning officials were clearly aware of Ashwell's perilous financial state. The chair of GTARA, Frank Gawthrop ends his complaint:
"In my view the actions of the Planning Dept are of a poor standard as it has failed to give Councillors sufficient information to make informed decisions. I do not believe that your department has exercised due diligence in this matter and that this is likely to cause substantial loss to the public purse."
I understand that separately a freedom of information request has also been submitted to the Council asking about the Council's relationships with Ashwells, and what financial appraisals of Ashwells were undertaken.
To date the planning department and the chair of the planning committee have insisted it is business as usual, nothing to worry about, and the developer going bust and being taken over makes no difference. In reality, the scheme is a set of related developments, with trigger points for the key transport infrastructure to be built.
I do get the impression of considerable complacency in the planning department about this issue, and a very poor level of scrutiny of what is effectively a large - to the point of unaffordable - level of taxation being levied on a developer, on which the Council is then placing huge reliance in order to provide some pretty vital transport infrastructure - not least the cycle parking in the planned new multi-storey car park.
East Area committee has summoned the Director of Environment and Planning to its next meeting on 18th February, and hopefully Councillors will have more opportunity then to get to the bottom of the problems.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tescos East Area Committee date set
It has been confirmed that a special East Area meeting to discuss the potential options for dealing with Tesco's announcement that they intend to ignore the planning condition on deliveries when they open their new store will take place on:
Thursday 20 August 10.00 (presumably 10am - its not 100% clear...)
St Phillips Church
185 Mill Road
Cambridge
CB1 3AN
A formal agenda will be published on Monday.
Still no date set yet for a briefing for Councillors on the issue - I am yet to have the benefit of knowing what advice the Council has taken to date about this issue, what it thinks are the options, along with what it thinks are the relative merits of each option, or even why the Council thinks East Area Committee is the right place to take any decisions. In fact, the Council is still deciding whether or not it can give us a briefing at all before the meeting - possible legal issues apparently - (How did that episode of Yes Minister finish up in the end...)
As a random aside - if you are a large organisation thinking of pulling a fast one on the local planning department, I can highly recommend August as the month to try it on...
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Station Area Comments
Prior to the deadline for comments last week, I have submitted the following comments on the amended Station Area planning application for Ashwell's CB1 scheme:
I am writing to object to the above (revised) planning application.
The essence of the objection is that the density of the proposed
redevelopment for the whole site (in terms of total sq ft of
floorspace) is too high, with the following adverse consequences:
1. Lack of sufficient public open space. The area dedicated to public
open space generally, and the new station square specifically is
insufficient.
This is particularly important for this application in view of the
need for space in station square for a transport interchange, coupled
with the need for an area suitable for welcoming visitors to the City,
and providing facilities appropriate to waiting for and accessing
transport.
If we do not get this right now, and require extra space for transport
in the future in the station square, it will not be possible to extend
the square with the buildings proposed.
A commuted sum in lieu of sub-standard public open space would not be
acceptable in this instance. The space is needed in this area, and
there is already considerable unspent s106 funds available in the City
for public open space from other schemes and other developers, so it
is unclear how a commuted sum could be used to increase public open
space elsewhere or even be used at all sensibly.
2. Height of the proposed buildings is out of character with the area
and Cambridge generally, and will dominate the skyline.
3. The high density increases the number of people that need to access
buildings on the site, so will add to the traffic management problems
of the site.
The suggestion that severely limiting car parking will control car
access to the site may prove to be naive, and will add to already
significant parking problems in Coleridge ward, particularly in the
Rustat Rd area. To mitigate this, if permission is granted, I would
request conditions or agreements are made to ensure the developers
will fund and implement consultations with residents and parking
control measures if appropriate to reduce the problems for Rustat Rd
area residents.
Whilst I believe the high density will have an unacceptable impact on
car traffic levels in the area, if the application is accepted, I
believe these impacts can and should be mitigated by further
improvements and access to the site for sustainable transport such as
cycling and pedestrians. The connection from Carter bridge needs to be
quick and convenient. I am concerned that the cycle parking proposed,
whilst a significant improvement on current levels may still prove to
be inadequate and fail to support future demand. Also, the cycle
parking should all be at ground level and as near to the entrances as
possible. Finally, to encourage non-car access to the site, I believe
a new pedestrian and cycle bridge should be built as a condition of
the application to connect the Leisure Park area to the station area
more directly than the already overcrowded Hills Road Bridge.
Other issues and comments:
Management - That acceptability of the plans will depend crucially on
management of the site going forwards. Assurances from the applicant
that they will manage relevant parts of the site themselves so far as
is possible should be backed up by appropriate planning conditions. In
particular, I am concerned about the usage of student accommodation
during the summer holidays, and how problems experienced elsewhere
with a succession of short term occupants of the accommodation over
the holiday period can be avoided. There also needs to be stingent
conditions to reduce noise concerns from the student accommodation,
and strong enforcement on prohibitions of car ownership by students.
I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of the 'modernist'
design vision implied in the application supporting documents to date.
Design should be distinctive, high quality, with exceptional quality
of materials and construction, to reflect the high profile of the
area, but must be consistent with the architectural heritage of the
City of Cambridge (which is not the City of London).
On the plus side, this is an area that desperately needs
redevelopment, and I welcome the proposed improved transport access to
the site in general (without commenting on the specific details of the
implementations proposed) in so much as the application provides
additional access to the area, both for cars and cyclists, strongly
support the increased number of cycle spaces, and recognise that the
application as it stands is a significant improvement in terms of the
transport interchange at the station site.
I am writing to object to the above (revised) planning application.
The essence of the objection is that the density of the proposed
redevelopment for the whole site (in terms of total sq ft of
floorspace) is too high, with the following adverse consequences:
1. Lack of sufficient public open space. The area dedicated to public
open space generally, and the new station square specifically is
insufficient.
This is particularly important for this application in view of the
need for space in station square for a transport interchange, coupled
with the need for an area suitable for welcoming visitors to the City,
and providing facilities appropriate to waiting for and accessing
transport.
If we do not get this right now, and require extra space for transport
in the future in the station square, it will not be possible to extend
the square with the buildings proposed.
A commuted sum in lieu of sub-standard public open space would not be
acceptable in this instance. The space is needed in this area, and
there is already considerable unspent s106 funds available in the City
for public open space from other schemes and other developers, so it
is unclear how a commuted sum could be used to increase public open
space elsewhere or even be used at all sensibly.
2. Height of the proposed buildings is out of character with the area
and Cambridge generally, and will dominate the skyline.
3. The high density increases the number of people that need to access
buildings on the site, so will add to the traffic management problems
of the site.
The suggestion that severely limiting car parking will control car
access to the site may prove to be naive, and will add to already
significant parking problems in Coleridge ward, particularly in the
Rustat Rd area. To mitigate this, if permission is granted, I would
request conditions or agreements are made to ensure the developers
will fund and implement consultations with residents and parking
control measures if appropriate to reduce the problems for Rustat Rd
area residents.
Whilst I believe the high density will have an unacceptable impact on
car traffic levels in the area, if the application is accepted, I
believe these impacts can and should be mitigated by further
improvements and access to the site for sustainable transport such as
cycling and pedestrians. The connection from Carter bridge needs to be
quick and convenient. I am concerned that the cycle parking proposed,
whilst a significant improvement on current levels may still prove to
be inadequate and fail to support future demand. Also, the cycle
parking should all be at ground level and as near to the entrances as
possible. Finally, to encourage non-car access to the site, I believe
a new pedestrian and cycle bridge should be built as a condition of
the application to connect the Leisure Park area to the station area
more directly than the already overcrowded Hills Road Bridge.
Other issues and comments:
Management - That acceptability of the plans will depend crucially on
management of the site going forwards. Assurances from the applicant
that they will manage relevant parts of the site themselves so far as
is possible should be backed up by appropriate planning conditions. In
particular, I am concerned about the usage of student accommodation
during the summer holidays, and how problems experienced elsewhere
with a succession of short term occupants of the accommodation over
the holiday period can be avoided. There also needs to be stingent
conditions to reduce noise concerns from the student accommodation,
and strong enforcement on prohibitions of car ownership by students.
I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of the 'modernist'
design vision implied in the application supporting documents to date.
Design should be distinctive, high quality, with exceptional quality
of materials and construction, to reflect the high profile of the
area, but must be consistent with the architectural heritage of the
City of Cambridge (which is not the City of London).
On the plus side, this is an area that desperately needs
redevelopment, and I welcome the proposed improved transport access to
the site in general (without commenting on the specific details of the
implementations proposed) in so much as the application provides
additional access to the area, both for cars and cyclists, strongly
support the increased number of cycle spaces, and recognise that the
application as it stands is a significant improvement in terms of the
transport interchange at the station site.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Cambridge Station Area Redevelopment
Ashwells have submitted revisions to their planning application for the station area, partly to reflect points raised at the development control forum. I think it is fair to say this is a fairly final set of changes and they are really hoping to get these plans through, but we'll see how well they go down with the planning committee.
The CEN is claiming the news plans represent a significant reduction in floor area, although I have to say I'm struggling to see the significant changes from the summary I have seen, other than the plans now including vehicle access to the new Station Square and multi-storey car park via a northern access road off Tenison Road, so I'm trying to find out what the reductions in size have been from and to.
Final comments need to be received by Tuesday 12th August, and there will be a public feedback meeting held on Thursday 7th August from 7pm to 10pm in the Small Hall, Guildhall (date presumably subject to David Howarth's travel plans) where the developers will present proposals and take questions from members of the public. (questions should be submitted in advance by 4th August to consult.cb1@cambridge.gov.uk).
The CEN is claiming the news plans represent a significant reduction in floor area, although I have to say I'm struggling to see the significant changes from the summary I have seen, other than the plans now including vehicle access to the new Station Square and multi-storey car park via a northern access road off Tenison Road, so I'm trying to find out what the reductions in size have been from and to.
Final comments need to be received by Tuesday 12th August, and there will be a public feedback meeting held on Thursday 7th August from 7pm to 10pm in the Small Hall, Guildhall (date presumably subject to David Howarth's travel plans) where the developers will present proposals and take questions from members of the public. (questions should be submitted in advance by 4th August to consult.cb1@cambridge.gov.uk).
Monday, September 29, 2008
D Day for Station Area redevelopment
The planning application for the CB1 Station Area Redevelopment will be considered at a special meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 15 October 2008 at a venue to be confirmed.
The City Council's website will be updated with this information as soon as possible.
The City Council's website will be updated with this information as soon as possible.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Call for Meeting delay
I have written to the Council today to ask that the planning meeting scheduled for 15th October to look at the Ashwell's CB1 station area redevelopment application should be delayed.
It has become clear following the public meeting on Tuesday to discuss the transport implications that there simply hasn't been enough time for the public to digest the huge volumes of information, some of which has only been available at a very late stage, and to comment on the final amendments that were only submitted by Ashwell's. These were only finalised at the end of September and are yet to be subject to a formal public consultation period.
It has become clear following the public meeting on Tuesday to discuss the transport implications that there simply hasn't been enough time for the public to digest the huge volumes of information, some of which has only been available at a very late stage, and to comment on the final amendments that were only submitted by Ashwell's. These were only finalised at the end of September and are yet to be subject to a formal public consultation period.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Ashwell's Goes Bust - what now for the Station Area redevelopment
The Cambridge Evening News is reporting that Ashwells, developer for the CB1 station area redevelopment, has gone bust. It is as yet unclear what impact this will have on the development plans, but it seems inconceivable that it won't delay things, if not changing the plans more radically.
I commented at the time the application was approved on how much faith the Councils had put in this application from an early stage, and how much they had at stake in terms of meeting their transport infrastructure objectives - so this is yet another fiasco for the Lib Dems running the planning system in Cambridge.
Now it has failed, we need answers to how this transport infrastructure will be provided - not least the very urgent problem of cycle parking which is an absolute disgrace (bike finally released after 3 days - no thanks to the station authorities or the police).
I have just written to the Director of Planning at the City Council:
"Following the financial collapse of Ashwell's reported in the CEN, I would appreciate an urgent update on the Council's current assessment of the impact this will have on the transport infrastructure elements of the project, and in particular the multi-storey car park and increase in cycle spaces. I would describe the latter situation as a crisis, and one that reflects very poorly on Cambridge as a cycling city. Cambridge Cycle Campaign are due to hold a meeting this week to discuss this problem and it really now needs urgent action."
UPDATE: Not sure what Council officers are doing answering emails from Councillors late on Sunday evening, but I've had a reply back already indicating that the latest news isn't expected to be a problem "I believe the announcement last week actually brings the prospect of the scheme forward rather than making it less likely." Have to say I'm a little sceptical at that suggestion...
I commented at the time the application was approved on how much faith the Councils had put in this application from an early stage, and how much they had at stake in terms of meeting their transport infrastructure objectives - so this is yet another fiasco for the Lib Dems running the planning system in Cambridge.
Now it has failed, we need answers to how this transport infrastructure will be provided - not least the very urgent problem of cycle parking which is an absolute disgrace (bike finally released after 3 days - no thanks to the station authorities or the police).
I have just written to the Director of Planning at the City Council:
"Following the financial collapse of Ashwell's reported in the CEN, I would appreciate an urgent update on the Council's current assessment of the impact this will have on the transport infrastructure elements of the project, and in particular the multi-storey car park and increase in cycle spaces. I would describe the latter situation as a crisis, and one that reflects very poorly on Cambridge as a cycling city. Cambridge Cycle Campaign are due to hold a meeting this week to discuss this problem and it really now needs urgent action."
UPDATE: Not sure what Council officers are doing answering emails from Councillors late on Sunday evening, but I've had a reply back already indicating that the latest news isn't expected to be a problem "I believe the announcement last week actually brings the prospect of the scheme forward rather than making it less likely." Have to say I'm a little sceptical at that suggestion...
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Guided Bus Works Latest
On Tuesday I attended the latest Guided Bus Southern section liaison meeting. Work is continuing apace across the whole project, which is expected to open in Spring 2009.
The construction works are being planned by the County Council to minimise disruption where possible - the parapet work on the bridge to Addenbrokes is happening during a rail closure the weekend of 13th/14th September, planned so that work can be done on both new rail bridges (including the Addenbrokes Southern Access road) at the same time.
The barrier work required on Long Road will hopefully happen at night, to avoid inconveniencing motorists as much as possible.
The station area works include construction of an unguided section of roadway for buses, pedestrians and cyclists, now due to start in January 09. This will involve moving the short stay car parking to an area in the current season ticket car park, but otherwise the disruption should be minimal - certainly trivial compared to the disruption that would occur during Ashwells construction of CB1 if they are granted permission next month.
The main area of concern that remains is the Hills Road bridge works, and related traffic management. A date has now been set next week to meet with the police to try finding out why they have been so useless with regard to stopping dangerous actions from car drivers. Unfortunately the complex engineering work being carried out on the bridge has not been problem free, and works are currently 4 weeks behind schedule. This may delay the final period of single lane working, scheduled to last 2 weeks from end of Sept/early Oct - if the dates of this change as seems likely, people really do need to know in advance so alternative arrangements can be made. I am also going to request that the City Council's mobile CCTV is deployed to the area so the powers that be can monitor any problems being caused.
Finally, the meeting heard from one of the four artists commissioned by the Council to create some public art for the Guided Busway. He is planning some art that is influenced by interesting features near the guideway that people may not be aware of, and is keen to hear any suggestions from local people!
The construction works are being planned by the County Council to minimise disruption where possible - the parapet work on the bridge to Addenbrokes is happening during a rail closure the weekend of 13th/14th September, planned so that work can be done on both new rail bridges (including the Addenbrokes Southern Access road) at the same time.
The barrier work required on Long Road will hopefully happen at night, to avoid inconveniencing motorists as much as possible.
The station area works include construction of an unguided section of roadway for buses, pedestrians and cyclists, now due to start in January 09. This will involve moving the short stay car parking to an area in the current season ticket car park, but otherwise the disruption should be minimal - certainly trivial compared to the disruption that would occur during Ashwells construction of CB1 if they are granted permission next month.
The main area of concern that remains is the Hills Road bridge works, and related traffic management. A date has now been set next week to meet with the police to try finding out why they have been so useless with regard to stopping dangerous actions from car drivers. Unfortunately the complex engineering work being carried out on the bridge has not been problem free, and works are currently 4 weeks behind schedule. This may delay the final period of single lane working, scheduled to last 2 weeks from end of Sept/early Oct - if the dates of this change as seems likely, people really do need to know in advance so alternative arrangements can be made. I am also going to request that the City Council's mobile CCTV is deployed to the area so the powers that be can monitor any problems being caused.
Finally, the meeting heard from one of the four artists commissioned by the Council to create some public art for the Guided Busway. He is planning some art that is influenced by interesting features near the guideway that people may not be aware of, and is keen to hear any suggestions from local people!
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Station Area Public Meeting
As hoped, the Council is holding a public meeting to discuss the transport elements of the station area redevelopment plans.
The briefing by officers of the County Council on the transport implications of the Ashwell proposals for CB1 will be held on Tuesday, 7 October 2008, 1900-2130 hours, at Main Hall, Hills Road Sixth Form College, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 8PE
There will be an opportunity for questions after the presentation.
The short notice is due to the decision being considered by the Planning Committee of the City Council on 15 October. The Committee meeting will be held in the Long Room at Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall), Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DF and will start at 0930 hours. This is also a public meeting, see here for more details of the (limited) public speaking rights.
The briefing by officers of the County Council on the transport implications of the Ashwell proposals for CB1 will be held on Tuesday, 7 October 2008, 1900-2130 hours, at Main Hall, Hills Road Sixth Form College, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 8PE
There will be an opportunity for questions after the presentation.
The short notice is due to the decision being considered by the Planning Committee of the City Council on 15 October. The Committee meeting will be held in the Long Room at Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall), Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DF and will start at 0930 hours. This is also a public meeting, see here for more details of the (limited) public speaking rights.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Spinning the Station Development
When I wrote that final amendments had been submitted by Ashwells, the developer behind the proposed CB1 station redevelopment, I was certainly a bit confused by what had actually happened.
The notification to Councillors of the amendments did not appear to amount to much in terms of scale - the biggest change being a proposed northern access road to the site. So it was surprising to say the least to read the spin in the local papers - final amendments had been submitted, and the plans had been scaled back 25%, implying those final amendments had significantly reduced the scale of the development.
In fact, nothing of the sort had occured. The first Ashwells planning application a year or two ago had been for a huge overdevelopment of the site, and was rejected by a Cambridge record number of planning reasons for refusal. A new application was submitted earlier this year, with a reduction of around 25% in building floor area, that Ashwells are currently trying to get through the planning process. The latest 'final' (although they probably won't be) amendments that were the basis of the stories in the local press did not make significant changes to floor space from the original resubmission earlier this year.
I would be very interested to know how the local press came up with its spin that the 'final amendments' represented a huge reduction in scale. If I was being cynical, this could be one of the oldest tricks in the book. Submit an application for a really gross overdevelopment of the site that is soundly rejected, then significant reductions in scale can be made sounding like a huge compromise, when in fact it is still more than the site should have.
What do I think of the application? I am not going to be making the decision on the planning committee, so am free to make my views known. (Cue repeat of my rant about Area Committees)
This still looks like an overdevelopment of the site to me.
The open space element is less than the City Council's planning standards require, and the proposal is for the developers to pay a 'commuted sum' to the Council, to spend on open space elsewhere in the City to compensate for this. Except the Council already has almost £4m in the bank for formal and informal open space previously paid by developers in similar situations -I don't know what this will be spent on, or even if the Council will be able to spend it, but it certainly won't be compensation for the fact that the station development needs more open space, particularly in front of the station in the new station square.
The development density also raises transport concerns - the plan to massively restrict car parking could result in huge additional parking pressure in Coleridge ward, and if we are going to make this work there needs to be huge improvements to cycle access to the site, including in my opinion a new southern cycle/foot bridge.
But the Council is to some extent being blackmailed - if we don't deliver the additional density and the sub-standard open space, the desperately needed redevelopment of the transport interchange at the station is at risk as Ashwell's claim the whole development won't be 'commercially viable'. As Mandy Rice-Davis might say if she was interested in planning and development control, they would say that wouldn't they.
We need to look very carefully at such claims by the developers, but we also need to look carefully at all the obligations being placed on the developers of the site, and what they are costing the developer. As ever, the Council is trying to get as many allocation rights to 'affordable' housing on the site as it thinks it can get away with, by forcing the developers to provide 40% of the residential land free to a housing association. But if the scheme really is on the borderline of commercial viability, it could well be the case that the subsidised rents enjoyed by the Council's chosen tenants on the site are far from costless - they could be being paid for by the travelling public in Cambridge suffering from an overdense site lacking public open space. As downward pressures continue on both the residential and commercial property sectors, Council's will have to stop seeing developers as a costless resource to meet their policy aims (which they never have been), and start to think about the economic effect of their planning obligations and how the policy objectives can be met in today's very different commercial environment.
The notification to Councillors of the amendments did not appear to amount to much in terms of scale - the biggest change being a proposed northern access road to the site. So it was surprising to say the least to read the spin in the local papers - final amendments had been submitted, and the plans had been scaled back 25%, implying those final amendments had significantly reduced the scale of the development.
In fact, nothing of the sort had occured. The first Ashwells planning application a year or two ago had been for a huge overdevelopment of the site, and was rejected by a Cambridge record number of planning reasons for refusal. A new application was submitted earlier this year, with a reduction of around 25% in building floor area, that Ashwells are currently trying to get through the planning process. The latest 'final' (although they probably won't be) amendments that were the basis of the stories in the local press did not make significant changes to floor space from the original resubmission earlier this year.
I would be very interested to know how the local press came up with its spin that the 'final amendments' represented a huge reduction in scale. If I was being cynical, this could be one of the oldest tricks in the book. Submit an application for a really gross overdevelopment of the site that is soundly rejected, then significant reductions in scale can be made sounding like a huge compromise, when in fact it is still more than the site should have.
What do I think of the application? I am not going to be making the decision on the planning committee, so am free to make my views known. (Cue repeat of my rant about Area Committees)
This still looks like an overdevelopment of the site to me.
The open space element is less than the City Council's planning standards require, and the proposal is for the developers to pay a 'commuted sum' to the Council, to spend on open space elsewhere in the City to compensate for this. Except the Council already has almost £4m in the bank for formal and informal open space previously paid by developers in similar situations -I don't know what this will be spent on, or even if the Council will be able to spend it, but it certainly won't be compensation for the fact that the station development needs more open space, particularly in front of the station in the new station square.
The development density also raises transport concerns - the plan to massively restrict car parking could result in huge additional parking pressure in Coleridge ward, and if we are going to make this work there needs to be huge improvements to cycle access to the site, including in my opinion a new southern cycle/foot bridge.
But the Council is to some extent being blackmailed - if we don't deliver the additional density and the sub-standard open space, the desperately needed redevelopment of the transport interchange at the station is at risk as Ashwell's claim the whole development won't be 'commercially viable'. As Mandy Rice-Davis might say if she was interested in planning and development control, they would say that wouldn't they.
We need to look very carefully at such claims by the developers, but we also need to look carefully at all the obligations being placed on the developers of the site, and what they are costing the developer. As ever, the Council is trying to get as many allocation rights to 'affordable' housing on the site as it thinks it can get away with, by forcing the developers to provide 40% of the residential land free to a housing association. But if the scheme really is on the borderline of commercial viability, it could well be the case that the subsidised rents enjoyed by the Council's chosen tenants on the site are far from costless - they could be being paid for by the travelling public in Cambridge suffering from an overdense site lacking public open space. As downward pressures continue on both the residential and commercial property sectors, Council's will have to stop seeing developers as a costless resource to meet their policy aims (which they never have been), and start to think about the economic effect of their planning obligations and how the policy objectives can be met in today's very different commercial environment.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Grrrr....
There is something very wrong with this picture. On the right is my bike (the battle bike). Amazingly when I got to the station at 5pm on wednesday, there was a spare rack for me to lock it to. When I returned at midnight, the bike on the left had appeared, locked to the rack through my frame, leaving my bike 'kebabed', unable to be moved.
Thursday morning, offending bike still there - and I get a rare insight into the world of bus travel in Cambridge. Thursday afternoon - offending bike still there. Even more remarkable - a British Transport police office was on hand to ask what I could do.
His manner gave every impression of someone who has been asked this a number of times before, I wasn't going to like the answer, and he didn't particular like the answer he was giving either.
Basically, the rules have recently changed, and neither the police nor station staff will help remove the offending bike, for fear it could be deemed 'criminal damage'. He suggested I ask the station supervisor, and put in a complaint - he also suggested I point out the bike to him so he could let his colleagues know 'what is going on'.
Inside, the supervisor confirmed a rule change, and insisted there was nothing they could do, and I should just wait for the offending bike to move.
This situation if frankly ridiculous. The sign clearly indicates that there are powers to remove bikes causing problems, I suspect they just couldn't be bothered coming up with a proper procedure that will involve storing the removed bikes. If they really are worried, they could change the sign to say something even more obvious like 'permission to park your bike here is conditional on you not locking other peoples bikes - if you lock your bike in these racks such that other bikes are disabled, we reserve the right to remove your bike to storage at the owners cost' or something similar that their lawyers will like.
The whole situation with station cycle parking makes Cambridge look like a joke when it comes to supporting cyclists - the root cause of the problem is the woeful lack of spaces. With the CB1 redevelopment some way away (if ever with the current economic mess), they need to take urgent measures to increase cycle parking.
A letter of complaint will be on its way, and if I can't get my bike back today, I will be along with some boltcutters later (unless anyone has any better ideas...)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Station Area Application Accepted
The city council's planning committee accepted the 'cb1' station area redevelopment application shortly before 7pm.
The vote was 6-2 in favour.
The two votes against were by the only two opposition councillors and were on the following grounds from Cambridge's Local Plan:
The vote was 6-2 in favour.
The two votes against were by the only two opposition councillors and were on the following grounds from Cambridge's Local Plan:
- Insufficient open areas and recreational spaces
- Urban design criteria
- Co-ordinated development
- Impact on conservation area
- Mixed and balanced community considerations
More later...
Friday, October 10, 2008
Freedom of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives the power to literally anyone to request information (with limitations) from public authorities and there is an obligation for authorities to respond within 20 working days.Today I submitted an FOI request to the county council to discover what communication took place between the council and the applicant in the course of assessing the traffic implications for the CB1 station area redevelopment plan.
The traffic assessment is supposed to be an analysis by the transport authority, the county council, of a planning application being put before the planning authority, the city council. It seems that in this case the county's consultants, Atkins, were working with the developer to ensure that the plan would be acceptable.
Coleridge Conservatives are concerned that this relationship might render the traffic impact analysis insufficiently independent. We hope that the FOI response, when it comes, will shed light on the extent of interworking.
The progress of my FOI request can be tracked on the excellent WhatDoTheyKnow? website - one of the many really useful open source tools from mySociety for improving democratic scrutiny and empowerment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
