Comments on: Arbury Park North Edge Design Brief http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/arbury-park-north-edge-design-brief.html Cambridge, United Kingdom. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:05:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Richard http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/arbury-park-north-edge-design-brief.html#comment-75 Richard Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:22:11 +0000 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/arbury-park-north-edge-design-brief.html#comment-75 I went to look today to see if there were any signs restricting traffic going accross the centre of the "circle" in Arbury park. There were not, but clearly there is a lot of painting of road markings, crossings and street furniture including signs yet to go up. Currently there is a straight route from Kings Hedges Road to the site of the proposed offices by the A14 at the back of the site. <img src="images/arburyparkcircle.jpg" alt"Arbuty park circle" /> I also saw some "Stirling" bike racks in use, they appear potentially functional in the manner they were being used in: <img src="images/arburyparkbike.jpg" alt"Arbury park bike - ineffectively locked" /> I took a picture of that particular bike as it's owner had apparantly graduated from the David Cameron school of bike security, locking the lock over both bars of the stand in such that it could be slid off the end. I went to look today to see if there were any signs restricting traffic going accross the centre of the “circle” in Arbury park. There were not, but clearly there is a lot of painting of road markings, crossings and street furniture including signs yet to go up. Currently there is a straight route from Kings Hedges Road to the site of the proposed offices by the A14 at the back of the site.

I also saw some “Stirling” bike racks in use, they appear potentially functional in the manner they were being used in:

I took a picture of that particular bike as it’s owner had apparantly graduated from the David Cameron school of bike security, locking the lock over both bars of the stand in such that it could be slid off the end.

]]> By: Richard http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/arbury-park-north-edge-design-brief.html#comment-74 Richard Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:28:48 +0000 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/arbury-park-north-edge-design-brief.html#comment-74 Mr Pym wrote to acknowledge my comments and let me know comments will be collated and presented in a report to members in September/October. Mr Pym wrote to acknowledge my comments and let me know comments will be collated and presented in a report to members in September/October.

]]> By: Nick Warren http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/arbury-park-north-edge-design-brief.html#comment-73 Nick Warren Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:28:31 +0000 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/arbury-park-north-edge-design-brief.html#comment-73 Richard - thanks so much for a comprehensive summary and a positive response to John Pym. I was unable to attend as I am away on a business trip, but had supplied a range of comments directly to SCDC prior to the meeting last night. I'm interested to hear that the current planning applications are expected by SCDC officers to be refused...the residential application was strongly rejected by residents and the parish council, and we are still waiting for the appeal decision by a planning inspector. Obviously the design brief prepared by Savills significantly contradicts the current planning applications for the remaining commercial areas as well as the resedential applciation that's at appeal. I hope that the interests of the residents are best served in all these decisions that are so far out of their hands!! Whilst the widened A14 may use a quieter surface, it will also carry additional traffic and support higher average speeds (the current 'saturation' of the A14 regularly creates very slow moving traffic along the Arbury Park section). I think a proper analysis of all the conditions is required, that will be monitored and amended through the implementation as well. More concerning is the levels of noise on Arbury Park that SCDC consider 'acceptable' - these are 'massively' higher than those considered acceptable by the World Health Organisation, and higher than other 'standards'...I don't have the details to hand at this moment, but will blog them on my IAP site in the next couple of days. I'm also very interested about the Cambridge City land info...especially as we were advised by Cambridge City Councillors at their recent North Area committee meeting that they had indeed sold the land at Arbury Park...all this confusion sounds like the basis of a conpsiracy theory to me...! I'm also very concerned to hear that SCDC are relying on Gallagher's future plans at Northstowe to generate action at Arbury Park...it seems to confirm that the legal Section 106 contract that Gallagher, SCDC and others signed is either otpions or unenforceable. And from what I've seen as a resident, it doesn't seem to be working well either! Thanks, Nick (These comments are my own and in no way represent the views of any organisation for which I work, any organisation to which I belong or attend, nor my family, neighbours, friends or my cat) Richard - thanks so much for a comprehensive summary and a positive response to John Pym. I was unable to attend as I am away on a business trip, but had supplied a range of comments directly to SCDC prior to the meeting last night. I’m interested to hear that the current planning applications are expected by SCDC officers to be refused…the residential application was strongly rejected by residents and the parish council, and we are still waiting for the appeal decision by a planning inspector. Obviously the design brief prepared by Savills significantly contradicts the current planning applications for the remaining commercial areas as well as the resedential applciation that’s at appeal. I hope that the interests of the residents are best served in all these decisions that are so far out of their hands!!

Whilst the widened A14 may use a quieter surface, it will also carry additional traffic and support higher average speeds (the current ’saturation’ of the A14 regularly creates very slow moving traffic along the Arbury Park section). I think a proper analysis of all the conditions is required, that will be monitored and amended through the implementation as well.

More concerning is the levels of noise on Arbury Park that SCDC consider ‘acceptable’ - these are ‘massively’ higher than those considered acceptable by the World Health Organisation, and higher than other ’standards’…I don’t have the details to hand at this moment, but will blog them on my IAP site in the next couple of days.

I’m also very interested about the Cambridge City land info…especially as we were advised by Cambridge City Councillors at their recent North Area committee meeting that they had indeed sold the land at Arbury Park…all this confusion sounds like the basis of a conpsiracy theory to me…!

I’m also very concerned to hear that SCDC are relying on Gallagher’s future plans at Northstowe to generate action at Arbury Park…it seems to confirm that the legal Section 106 contract that Gallagher, SCDC and others signed is either otpions or unenforceable. And from what I’ve seen as a resident, it doesn’t seem to be working well either!

Thanks, Nick
(These comments are my own and in no way represent the views of any organisation for which I work, any organisation to which I belong or attend, nor my family, neighbours, friends or my cat)

]]>