A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Petition

ePetition details

Development Control Forum for 19/0175/FUL

We the undersigned petition the council to We, the undersigned, petition the council to convene a Development Control Forum in relation to planning application 19/0175/FUL at Mill Road Depot. We object to this application under Local Plan policies 80 and 82 because the access to the Chisholm Trail is dangerously designed and there are several problems with the cycle parking. We do not object to the principle of development on this site, instead we offer recommendations to overcome our objections.

Policy 80 states that development will support walking and cycling by 'safeguarding existing and proposed routes for walking, cycling, and public transport, including the Chisholm Trail, from development that would prejudice their continued use and/or development.'

However, the applicants have proposed that the primary routes between the Chisholm Trail and the site (phases 1 and 2) via Headly Street will involve mixed walking and cycling on (a) a narrow 1.8m footway, or (b) a narrower 1.5m gravel path. This is highly inappropriate and dangerous for what is supposedly the main accessway, along the major desire line, for people walking and cycling to the Chisholm Trail.

Instead, the applicants should create a revised plan showing at least one proper walking and cycling link built to appropriate standards of width and turning radii and with a sealed, all-weather surface that can be easily cleared of ice and snow when necessary. It must also connect with Headly Street at a safe point, with a flush kerb transition, away from the underground car park ramp. Should this access link remain a shared-use pathway then it should be 3.5m wide with at least 3m corner radii and have visibility splays onto the Chisholm Trail of 2.4m by 31m. Phase 2 offers the last chance to make this essential provision.

Policy 82 requires secure and convenient cycle parking be provided that is designed to the standards of the cycle parking guide SPD. However, we see several problems with the proposed cycle parking that render it non-compliant. The two indoor cycle parks on the east side of the site have doors that are significantly narrower than the required 1000 mm. The first Sheffield stand inside each would block access to the rest of the cycle parking if a bike was parked there. The access path to each indoor cycle park is via narrow gravel trails. The entry door to the cycle parking in B_11 is 870 mm rather than the required 1000 mm. There is no information about the 'architect design' cycle shelter at southwest corner.

The applicants should create a revised plan showing cycle parking that is compliant with the cycle parking guide SPD which resolves these problems.

This ePetition ran from 07/03/2019 to 01/08/2019 and has now finished.

Nobody signed this ePetition.