Takeaways and New Flats on Green End Road


Wednesday, April 13th, 2016. 12:15pm

Plans have been submitted to councillors at Cambridge City Council for the demolition of the existing Mermaid Chinese Takeaway / Chip Shop at 207 Green End Road and its replacement with two takeaways and eight flats.

I have responded to the planning consultation:

I note the County Council’s consultation response as the highways authority states:

“The existing use within the site includes a takeaway use and no parking restrictions have been introduced on the frontage and so I do not consider that addition severe detriment resultant from this proposal could be demonstrated.”

It appears perhaps the County Council are unaware of the Greater Cambridge City Deal’s proposals for double yellow lines and at least 1.5m of cycleway on the road adjacent to this proposed development.

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/info/2/transport/1/transport_projects_and_consultations/3

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/download/downloads/id/117/evergreens_to_water_lane.pdf

Currently there is a lot of parking on the road, the pavement, and part on the pavement part on the road, associated with the one existing takeaway on the site which creates hazards particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.

I think the Greater Cambridge City Deal’s plans to make this area safer for walking and cycling should be considered. The City Deal’s aims are to:

  • Provide residents with better walking and cycling links to schools and employment centres
  • Help reduce congestion, which in turn improves air quality, road safety and health
  • Benefit local residents, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians
  • Support areas of growth in the City
  • Fill gaps in the existing cycling network

Green End Road at this location is a key cycling and pedestrian link in the city; linking the off road / low traffic riverside routes to residential areas of North Cambridge, the new railway station and the employment centres of the Science and Business parks.

I suggest considering the proposals in light of this context, and note policy
8/2 “Transport Impact” states “developments will only be permitted where they do not have an unacceptable transport impact”; I think there is a risk this development will have an unacceptable transport impact and would like to see councillors determine if they think it would.

I can envisage that through alterations to the plans, and the highway, parking arrangements could be provided enabling a takeaway to operate at this site without an unacceptable transport impact.

Richard Taylor
Cambridge

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

13 comments/updates on “Takeaways and New Flats on Green End Road

  1. Richard Taylor Article author

    I made a response to the City Deal’s consultation on cycle routes in this area. I’ve not yet published it.

    I would like to comment on the proposals for the Green End Road Area.

    I think the junction between Green End Road and Scotland Road needs, and warrants, much more than just an adjustment of the paint on the road. The junction is wide and hazardous for cyclists and pedestrians.

    There is a cycle and foot path from Milton Road via Eastfield which crosses this junction; though needs to be given to how cyclists and pedestrians can cross safely.

    There is currently a bus stop on the junction which is not a good place for it as a stopped bus clogs the junction.

    I largely support the double yellow lines on the section of Green End Road towards the High Street however think consideration ought be given to customers of the chip shop, perhaps with parking bays just for that purpose active only when the shop is open.

    I suggest the cycle lanes are not just white paint but red tarmac too.

    If possible some degree of segregation could be achieved with curbed islands, particularly to mark the start of the cycle lanes

    I think the connection between Green End Road and Water Lane should be included in the scheme as the popular cycling route is on to Water Lane, and then onto the traffic free paths of Stourbridge Common. Omitting the Water Lane section will leave the safer cycling network this project hopes to achieve discontinuous.

    Regards,

    Richard Taylor, Milton Road, Cambridge

    Richard Taylor
    Cambridge
    http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

    It was just a quick note, but I take the view its better to do something rather than nothing.

    See also:

  2. Richard Taylor Article author

    The application has been withdrawn.

    Councillors should ensure those who have commented are informed about any new applications. That isn’t current practice though.

    There do not appear to be any current applications for the properties.

  3. Richard Taylor Article author

    There is now a new application. The council has written to me to let me know about it.

    It’s still for two takeaways and eight flats.

    I wonder about the fire safety aspect of living above a chip shop.

  4. Richard Taylor Article author

    The new application is before councillors on the 30th of November 2016:

    http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=181&MId=2988

    The report doesn’t mention the Greater Cambridge City Deal plans for double yellow lines and a cycle lane; the report merely states:

    There is an existing takeaway use and no parking restrictions have been imposed to the frontage.

    http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s36915/161413FUL%20-%20Report.pdf

    Perhaps the Greater Cambridge City Deal should become statutory consultees on relevant planning applications.

  5. Martin

    Thankfully the application has been refused according to the decision notice at:
    https://idox.cambridge.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OB2BE3DXMWQ00

    The officer report is deficient in that the issue of the proposed cycle infrastructure is noted, but it isn’t considered in the text.

    http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s36915/161413FUL%20-%20Report.pdf
    states:

    7.3 The representations can be summarised as follows:
    Objections
    [...]
    City Deal proposes double yellow lines and cycle lanes to this
    part of Green End Road for safety
    [...]

    but there is no discussion of this in the text. The officer has simply forgotten about it, as far as I can see.

    1. Richard Taylor Article author

      The cycleway and double yellow line proposals are not mentioned in the highway safety part of the report, or anywhere else other than in the summary of comments on the application.

      CamCycle have written to the council to ask why consideration wasn’t given to the proposed double yellow lines and cycle lanes (and their impact on parking and road safety). The letter is available via the online planning file

      There were two similar applications here

      16/1413/FUL was considered by the committee and refused.
      16/0455/FUL was the application I and others, including apparently a council cycling officer had commented on. It’s not clear if the comments were carried forward from the original application to its replacement. Two consultations are referred to but it appears they both relate to the second application. Councillors usually fail to carry forward relevant comments from one application to another so resubmitting an application can result in comments being ignored. I suggested the public shouldn’t have to repeatedly make the same points in response to consultations when I replied to councillors’ consultation on consultation.

      The council’s cycling officer appears, like me, to only have objected to the first application:

      However one commenter, from 18 Bourne Road, Cambridge did respond to both applications, writing in respect of the latter:

      I reiterate my comments from the previous version of this application (under 16/0455/FUL):

      The Greater Cambridge City Deal Cross-city cycling proposals (http://www.gccitydeal.co.uk/citydeal/info/2/transport/1/transport_projects_and_consultations/3) calls for this part of Green End Road to receive double yellow lines and cycle lanes, to improve safety. I am surprised that the response from the highways team does not mention this.

      The reasons for the rejection relate to scale and massing, and bins; so if another similar application on the site returns to the committee I suspect councillors will feel bound by those reasons and will be unwilling to consider other reasons for refusal such as road safety impact.

  6. Richard Taylor Article author

    I made the suggestion that Cambridge City Councillors should consult both Cambridgeshire County Council and the Greater Cambridge City Deal Board when they are seeking views on the highways impact of planning applications, noting the fact the County Council didn’t mention the City Deal plans in this case.

    Direct link to the exchange:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7ChPQUzVYw&t=62m20s

    County Cllr Manning suggested the committee seek clarification on if the City Council is able to ask the City Deal to comment on planning matters; and the chair appeared to accept that as an action to follow up.

  7. Richard Taylor Article author

    I have responded to a consultation, (see this City Deal webpage for details), on a proposed traffic regulation order – which allows parking in the new cycle lanes outside the takeaway:

    I’m writing to object to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for waiting restrictions on Green End Road in Cambridge. Your reference: PR0371

    Objection criteria one: I think allowing parking in the cycle lane makes using the cycle lane dangerous and renders having the cycle lane in the first place pointless. I think allowing parking in the cycle lane will increase the risk of injury and death of cyclists. Drivers killing and injuring cyclists will face financial, criminal and mental consequences.

    Objection criteria two: The Greater Cambridge City Deal has not in my view adequately publicised this consultation to users of the highway in this location; the decision to leaflet residents of immediately adjacent properties will not have alerted commuting cyclists, and others, who make use of the route to the consultation. I don’t think “advertising” in the small print in the back of a newspaper can be considered to make a significant contribution towards modern adequate publicity for proposals such as these.

    Further comments:

    I note the introduction of the cycle lanes and parking restrictions are part of the same Greater Cambridge City Deal project.

    Pro-cycling policies have been adopted by local councils, public bodies and the Greater Cambridge city deal; allowing parking in cycle lanes is contrary to the approach being taken towards encouraging cycling, and making it safer, on grounds including health, reducing congestion, and making getting around the city a pleasurable experience.

    The takeaway may well be redeveloped (there is currently a planning application being considered). The takeaway is on a large site, some of which could be used for parking. There is also space within the highway (the pavement) which could be used for parking. There is the potential, and opportunity, with some will, imagination and leadership, to provide both a couple of short term parking spaces and safe cycle lanes, clear of parked cars, in this area.

    If the only tools considered to be available are paint, the traffic regulation order, and perhaps some dropped curbs, I’d suggest one, or two, parking spaces on what’s currently pavement, restricted to 30 minutes waiting.

    I would like councillors to consider research showing businesses benefit from cycling customers, some of which has been collated at: https://bikeswelcome.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/businesses-benefit-from-cycling-customers/ I think it’s important not to over-estimate the importance of car parking to the success of a business.

    If parking is to be permitted in the cycle lane I suggest not permitting parking in the morning peak commuter hours of 8-10am; the proposal in the draft order is for parking to be permitted, to an extent, at all hours.

    The introduction of double yellow lines outside the Whitefriars sheltered housing scheme needs to be considered carefully; this area needs redesigning; I don’t know if driving across the concrete apparently intended as strengthened grass to park next to the building will still be permitted or not as I don’t know where the highway boundry is in the area; what’s permitted and what’s not needs to be made clear on the ground to those who have not read the traffic regulation order or purchased land ownership details from the land registry. I note Cambridgeshire County Council doesn’t routinely publish traffic regulation orders online, and the land registry charges a fee for access to information.

    The proposals don’t include details of signage. I urge clear signage which doesn’t obstruct the pavement, or obstruct any parking areas.

    I am writing this consultation response without having access to the statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing to make the order nor the consultation leaflet, despite having asked for them / having noted their absence from the project webpage.

    The Greater Cambridge City Deal board on the 9th of June 2016 approved plans including a ban parking in the cycle ways and did not delegate powers to amend that.

    http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=65265

    It has not been clear throughout this process if the County Council is running this consultation and determining the Traffic Regulation order, or if the Greater Cambridge City Deal is doing so.

    The text of the proposed Traffic Regulation Order was only posted online by the Greater Cambridge City Deal on the 17th of May 2017 and the consultation deadline is the 19th of May 2017

    https://twitter.com/gccitydeal/status/864800964947193857

    The plans associated with the draft order appear, inexplicably, to contain unrelated content about parking restrictions on Water Lane which are not mentioned in the text of the order.

    I suggest consulting again on the plans as approved by the Greater Cambridge City Deal board in June 2016; or returning to the board looking more broadly at the options to design the road environment and parking in the area around the mini-roundabout, barbers and takeaway.

    Regards,

    Richard Taylor
    Cambridge
    http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

    1. Richard Taylor Article author

      My submission has been acknowledged, the officer providing the acknowledgement appears unsure of who will take the final decision on the double yellow lines; notably their email footer says the email just contains the officer’s individual views and not those of the council. (Generally I don’t give such footers much weight, I assume they’re often automatically applied without due consideration of their relevance)

      Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:19:21 +0000
      Dear Sir or Madam

      Thank you for your comments regarding the above proposed scheme.

      As there have been some objections a decision to carry out the scheme will need to be made. At present I believe the decision makers will be the City Deal Executive Board as this scheme is part of the Cross City Cycling Projects.

      I will endeavour to update you as events unfold.

      Kind regards
      Andhika Caddy
      Policy & Regulation Engineer
      Highways Service
      Rm209
      SH1204
      Shire Hall
      Castle Street
      Cambridge
      CB3 0AP
      0345 045 5212

      The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council. All sent and received email from Cambridgeshire County Council is automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues. Visit http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk

      I’m confident nothing in the email does in-fact have the potential to be confidential.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.
Please consider saying where you are from eg. "Cambridge".
Required fields are marked *

*

Powered by WP Hashcash