A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Petition

ePetition details

Save our rivers and meadows Lite

We the undersigned petition the council to - for the submitted application for the north Chisholm Trail that we ask for the application to be withdrawn, and that they request the applicant : 1. recognises the significant environmental, social and landscape impacts of the present application; 2. confirms that they do not believe there is evidence that cycling benefits outweigh these impacts; 3. supplies additional information to be presented to address deficiencies; 4. explores the alternatives, such as the Cheap as Chips Trail 5. submits an Environmental Impact Assessment for the Chisholm Trail to allow consideration of in-combination and cumulative effects with other projects; 6. applies at least “No net loss” approach to biodiversity within this scheme.

Explanatory text

We the undersigned object to the Chisholm Trail application as submitted. We ask that the application be withdrawn and the noted requests made of the applicant.

We believe that their location in two highly sensitive river valleys will irrevocably degrade this meadow landscape, and adversely affect the character of eastern Cambridge.

We assert that it is inseparably intertwined with that of the Abbey-Chesterton Bridge and its effects cannot be considered separately and requires an EIA.

We reach our position on it being contrary to policy, on our experiences of issues with the process and the obvious overlap of the two projects. The following are informative to this, and do not require a response.

Contrary to policy

We note the present application is contrary to Cambridge City Council development control policies and the National Planning Policy Frameworks, in particular but not exclusively that:
1. it has an adverse effect on protected and priority species e.g. otters and bats ;
2. its footprint of close to 5ha has an adverse effect on protected sites and priority habitats e.g. 4 Local Wildlife Sites and floodplain grassland;
3. it constitutes inappropriate development in a Green Belt;
4. it has an adverse effect on the landscape and character of the area, including the setting of the Riverside and Stourbridge Common and Fen Ditton Conservation Area;
5. it constitutes inappropriate development in a floodplain and increases flood risk;
6. the design quality of the bridges and scheme are poor;
7. it involves the development on contaminated land near Ditton Walk ;
8. it will have adverse impacts on heritage e.g. the Round House, Leper Chapel and quiet enjoyment of the area e.g. the Bumps course and rowing;
9. its construction will have significant social impacts on local people.
Issues with process

We take issue with the process of the application :
1. that the application form as submitted contains factual errors and an unclear description, in particular in the differences to planning application between this and the bridge ;
2. it is supported by insufficient information e.g. no full heritage assessment; no traffic assessment; effects on Fen Ditton Conservation Area
3. that the design and consultation process failed to consider alternatives e.g. use of existing cycle facilities via Cheap as Chips Trail;
4. that the consultation process has not been transparent or inclusive and is misrepresented in the application e.g. viz complaints about Local Liaison Forum;
5. that no cost-benefit analysis has been made against the “do nothing” alternative;
6. that the usage figures as presented are misleading e.g. based on entire trail construction and not northern section - including existing users of Coldhams Common;
7. that no in combination or cumulative effects with the Chisholm Trail have been considered or EIA or SIA undertaken

Overlap with Abbey Chesterton Bridge

The application for the Northern Section of the Chisholm Trail and the Abbey Chesterton Bridge are interdependent, sharing the same redline and many elements. The applications are meaningless as independent elements. The granting of either application prior to the other would create prejudicial issues, and neither would be deliverable on present submissions.

The separate applications have created confusion for consultees, who are unclear on what each scheme entails, as has been recognised by County planners.

We believe the artificial separation makes it impossible for proper consideration and an informed response.

This ePetition ran from 29/09/2016 to 18/10/2016 and has now finished.

19 people signed this ePetition.