Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Application No: 24/01354/FUL
Site Address: 137 and 143 Histon Road
Description: Erection of 70 dwellings including
access, car parking, cycle storage, substation, landscaping and associated
works.
Applicant: Hill
Agent: Carter Jonas LLP
Address: One Station Square
Cambridge CB1 2GA
Lead Petitioner: Resident of Canterbury
Street, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB4 3QF
Case Officer:
Aaron Coe
Text of Petition:
Title: Save Histon Road Playground
Statement: We the undersigned petition the council
forego their plans to create any form of new access points whatsoever into the
Histon Road Children’s Recreation Ground (henceforth ‘HRCRG’) from the proposed
development at 137-143 Histon Road (henceforth ‘The Development’). Whilst we do
not object to the building of houses on the land in principle, we take
objection to the access points being created to offset green space and amenity
land.
Justification:
1. The
planning concerns are the following:
Safety: At
present the children’s playground is a safe, intimate space for the local
community. Any public access point(s), cutting across it, creates a
thoroughfare which shall impact negatively on the safety of the children. One
of the advantages of the way the HRCRG is landscaped is that the long wooded
area along the northern border is an unique adventure “jungle” that children
can disappear into without their parents worrying that they can emerge onto
city streets or wander into traffic. Any access points compromise this.
Pollution:
both traffic and light pollution. There are 53 allocated car parking spaces
within the development, with the very likelihood of rising to 70+ cars based
and parking in the area. That is not to mention the visitors vehicles, the
delivery trucks, the food vans, and the Deliveroo motorbikes.
Likewise, light pollution from The Development will disturb the wildlife,
especially, but not least, the bats.
Flooding.
Development, as we know, causes severe flooding issues. As we already have
drainage problems in the park, any significant development will likely
negatively impact existing properties around the park (particularly Canterbury
Close, Canterbury Street, and part of Richmond Road) by flooding.
Loss of
amenity land. Creating access points into a children’s playground is a cynical
and immoral act and sets a terrifying precedent to incorporate public land for
the sake of offsetting amenity land, which should be calculated within any
proposed development site from the start. Developers should make and contribute
their own green spaces - as well as children’s play areas, rather than poach
them from the existing community.
Protected
space. HRCRG is within the Castle and Victoria Road Conservation Area and is
listed as one of Cambridgeshire’s green spaces that property developers cannot
touch:
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/protected-green-spaces-cambridgeshire-developers-15782350.
As we understand it, Mrs Florence Emily Heath had already provisionally secured
the land as a Recreation Ground specifically for children for the city, before
she sold it to the Cambridge City Council in 1932; we therefore understand it
is under covenant.
Pressure
on local infrastructure. The Development puts pressure on local infrastructure
such as doctors’ surgeries and schools before the area has been prepared for
it. 111 secondary school children are being sent out of Cambridge into the
neighbouring villages because the city doesn't have enough secondary school
infrastructure (BBC article March 2024). The Development will add to tensions
in the area, due to the stark contrast of wealth/economic background. There is
already crime in the area, which rarely sees a police presence; yet more green
space in a city is linked with lower crime rates.
Over-development
and pricing out for Cambridge locals. Both the buying and rental market in
Cambridge has become largely unaffordable precisely because of the kind of
‘luxury’ property CIP are proposing to build. Subsequently, locals are being
forced out into the surrounding villages. Houses priced from half a million
plus are not “affordable homes” for the benefit of locals, but are blocks of
profit for developers. The financial divide between the haves and have-nots is
becoming ever more polarised - and will continue to be so with a development
proposal of this kind.
Unsatisfactory
development plans and notes. The ‘Boards’ document of November 2023 wrote ‘We
are also currently considering options for a potential pedestrian link through
to Histon Road Recreation Ground.’ The Design & Access Statement of April
2024 also barely mentions the existence of a playground.
‘The existing railings that separate the playground from the rest of the park'
(page 17) are listed as a ‘constraint' but no mention is made of the fact that
the whole perimeter of the playground is bordered by railings. The plan on the
same page (17) also highlights the railings separating the playground from the
rest of the park, but the rest of the perimeter railings are conveniently
omitted.
Unsatisfactory
advertising campaign for The Development and notifying of local residents.
Hundreds of local residents were totally unaware of it. Even Street Association
members hadn’t been notified. The meeting on 3rd April was by invitation only,
and, between 2-3pm on a weekday, at a very inconvenient time for most people to
attend. There is also a 35m frontage on the Histon Road and nowhere on it has
there been a notice about the development details.
2. What
changes could be made to the development to overcome your concerns
Change 1.
Eliminate any new access points into HRCRG.
Although
we are not against a development of some kind on this land, we are against any
access points from The Development into any part of the HRCRG. The HRCRG is
listed as one of Cambridgeshire’s protected green spaces and we understand it
is under covenant. In its current form, it is a safe space for children. There
is no reason why the HRCRG should be diminished for an access point, especially
since the only reason to do so is to maximise building plots and profits for
CIP, by avoiding having to provide any green space or playground of their own.
Eliminating any new access points will also protect any covenant in place.
Change 2.
Reduce the number of houses on The Development.
We
completely understand the need for new houses, however, they should take the
form of homes and should be in balance with the existing infrastructure,
affordable and sustainable. A reduced number of houses means that CIP can
fulfil their own legal requirement of allocating amenity land and an
appropriate playground and would help satisfy our environmental concerns
regarding The Development. It would also put less of a strain on existing
infrastructure in the community (schools, GP surgery etc).
Change 3.
A play-area/ playground should be designed as an integral part of The
Development.
The
Development should provide their own playground. The contribution of their own
green space and playground will positively impact BNG in the area and not put
stress on an already over-run playground and park. The opportunities for
children to play outside is under threat in the UK. Statistics attest to a
closing of playgrounds in the UK, and general unsatisfactory funding and
overcrowding where they do exist, including in Cambridgeshire.
Change 4.
Trees to be planted down The Development side of the boundary with HRCRG.
We suggest
that CIP plant at least one, possibly two, rows of trees all along their side
of the boundary, as a further means of contributing to their own biodiversity.
It would also help shelter light and traffic pollution from the HRCRG
playground directly adjacent.
Change 5.
Consider building a community school on this land, rather than dwellings.
The
Council could contribute to the community infrastructure we have concerns
about, and build a secondary or Forest school on the land.
Whilst CIP
might not want to provide any amenities of their own (green space, a
playground, not to mention a school, GP surgery or dentist), a document ePetition such as this exists so that there is a historical
trail of objection, representing the feelings of the local community. We
strongly object to any access points into the HRCRG and feel that the act, if
executed, would be morally wrong.