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

23 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.

    1. Howard

      Hi Richard

      You are doing sterling work, keep it up. With regard to your poor experience of using the police 101 reporting service, I assume you are aware of the ability to report careless anti-social driving online via https://www.contactcambspolice.uk/Report/AcDriving.aspx

      I have done this and didn’t at the time note the ‘small print’ that:

      ‘ We are unable to accept uploads of video recordings at this time, but we ask you to make us aware if you have any footage as it may be useful in the event of prosecution. If you have footage and have told us about it, you will be contacted and we will discuss this with you in more detail. In general, evidence of provocation or disproportionate reaction will mean that no action is taken.’

      In particular, the last sentence I find disturbing in relation to my experience of reporting on-line. I reported a driver of a Blue Mercedes SUV, who, in my view, deliberately drove at me and another rider out on a Sunday morning ride. We were heading North on Horningsea Rd out of Fen Ditton, through the traffic calmed ‘chicane’ area. I do not use the ‘cycle path’ here as it is simply a footpath with blue signs. I do join the cycle path further up if I have motor vehicles behind me as further up it is sufficiently wide and constructed to be suitable for riding safely. On this morning, our decision not to use it where inadequate was validated by the couple walking their two dogs on it as we cycled by.

      However, the driver of the SUV apparently took a dislike to us being in the road, despite our travelling at 22mph, single file in a traffic calmed area with a top limit of 30mph and drove very close sounding his horn. He then stopped and shouted at us to ‘get on the cyclepath’ we didn’t stop, so he passed us again, this time accelerating and passing even closer.

      I reported it, and after the respondent from the 101 service replying by email explaining that there is nothing they can do but log it as I have no video evidence (in itself this seems slightly contrary to the statement on the website above), they also said ‘whilst we do not condone the behaviour of the driver, you should use cycle lanes where provided).

      I pointed out in reply that we do not have to use the cycle paths, particularly where, as in this case, they are inadequate. I did wonder to them whether my reference to a ‘cycle lane’ had confused them and they thought it was an on-road facility there which i was outside. I pointed this out and that I would of course have been in any on-road facility, providing it was the safest place to be. I also pointed out that it’s unhelpful from the police to be of the same misapprehension as the driver who drove at us. Such drivers feeling entitled to do so as they falsely believe we should be in the cycle lane. And perhaps they could clarify their advice? This was over two weeks ago, no response.

      I have since gathered from other local cyclists that this is a-typical of the Cambridgeshire police and their attitude to cycling safety. I am now wondering whether their definition of ‘provocation’ includes cyclists riding on the road when there are ‘cycling facilities’ provided, no matter the adequacy and safety of such ‘facilities’.

      I am also concerned that, in the supposed cycling capital of the UK, certainly a place where the most people cycle, that the police have not adopted the West Midland Police ‘close pass initiative’ that many other forces are now adopting. I wonder whether their lack of action is indicative of their attitude towards cyclists. They are certainly not doing enough to protect us from aggressive and careless drivers.

      What are your thoughts on this? What do you think we can do to put pressure on the Cambs Constabulary to rethink their attitudes and policies towards cyclists in Cambridge?

      Many thanks

      Howard

    2. Richard Taylor Article author

      Elections for Police and Crime Commissioners are the big opportunity to influence police policy now; but there is an opportunity also for local councillors to influence, or even set, local priorities. When elections come up, make matters an issue by questioning the candidates on them.

      Obtaining, and extracting, evidence of a problem is also key. Perhaps Freedom of Information requests to extract, for example the number and types of reports already being made to the police could be useful; such FOI requests can be made in public via WhatDoTheyKnow.com.

  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.

    2. Richard Taylor Article author

      The officer response to my comments has been published in a report which will go to the Greater Cambridge Partnership board and assembly:

      The County Council, in some cases, must balance the needs for improved safety and those of others in this case businesses located on Green End Road.

      The proposed parking restrictions will allow for a turnover of parked vehicles which in turn will allow the businesses to operate with minimal disruption. There was extensive informal consultation carried out prior to these proposals. Properties along Green End Road have been advised by letter and notices were put up on -
      street.

      In addition a notice was published in the press detailing the proposal, the County Council has met with all legal obligations as relates to the consultation process

      Schemes are assessed and designed in accordance with current best practice guidelines including that of the DfT. However, each scheme proposal is individual and may represent distinct challenges, in any event the County Council as the Highways Authority may seek to achieve a different balance to that being offered by current guidelines and has the right to do so.

      The TRO could then be changed as a result of any re-development that may occur. If this was to occur any on-street changes as a result would be paid for by the developer and not the taxpayer.

      Parking will be permitted outside local businesses between Mon-Fri 8am-6pm with a maximum waiting time of 2 hours.

      Currently people visiting Whitefriars appear to be crossing the verge to access off-street car parking that can already be accessed correctly using a driveway that is already in existence. It is likely that people park on the verge overnight or during peak visiting periods. This manoeuvre is technically unlawful. Double yellow lines here will prevent people parking on the verge and improve safety at the junction.

      Double yellow lines are not required to be signed. The proposed parking restriction outside the Green End Road shops will have at most two signs and associated posts on the edge of the kerb line, facing the carriageway.

      The reason for intending to make the above named Order is to facilitate the movement of traffic and to enhance safety for all road users

  8. Richard Taylor Article author

    Officers at the City Deal organisation are recommending councillors allow parking for up to two hours outside the shops.

    The report is on the agenda to the 19 July Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly, which will later go to the board.

    The relevant section states:

    In June 2016 the Board approved a scheme for Green End Road which included double yellow lines , subject to advertising a TRO, in the length from Scotland Road to Water Lane, located within resurfaced, red tarmac, advisory cycle lanes.

    Following the Board meeting local members contacted the Project Team and Councillor Herbert to alert concerns raised by local businesses in this length, as to the negative impact that the new restriction could have on custom and operation of their b usinesses .

    Officers met with some local members and discussed a compromise. This is the scheme advertised, and entails retaining a length in front of the businesses as parking limited to two hours, Monday to Friday, between 8am and 6pm, to allow a relatively high turnover of parking spaces outside shops. Parking in this short length would be permissible between 6pm and 8am and on Sundays going some way to address concerns raised by residents regarding losing parking all together in this length of road.

    Signage is not required for no waiting at any time and is simply demarcated with double yellow lines. Other restrictions do require signs, and if restrictions become complex the signs can appear large and difficult to understand. The two hour limited waiting restriction is a relatively simple, easily understood restriction that can be clearly signed.

    In terms of the objections, six have commented that the scheme to provide safe cycling would be undermined by allowing parking in the length outside the shops. A further two objectors feel that parking should remain unrestricted in the area as parked cars act as a good form of traffic calming, and residents and their visitors should not lose this facility.

    I think the report is a little unclear where it states:

    Parking in this short length would be permissible between 6pm and 8am and on Sundays

    as what it means is unrestricted parking is to be allowed at those times (up to 8am the next morning), and outside of them – 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday parking will also be allowed, but only for up to two hours. It’s clear enough if you read it all carefully I suppose.

    I suspect it would have helped board members if the proposed orders were reproduced in the report.

    The consultation responses objecting to parking in the cycle lanes have been responded to with the following statement:

    The County Council must balance the needs for improved safety and those of others in this case businesses located on Green End Road. The proposed parking restrictions will allow for a turnover of parked vehicles which in turn will allow the businesses to operate with minimal disruption

    Those joining me objecting to allowing parking in the cycle lanes stated:

    At present, the cycle lane is being used as extra parking for residents and it is dangerous for cyclists to use the new lane provided for them. If no yellow lines are there, the whole exercise to construct cycle lanes will have failed.

    The proposed single yellow out side the take away and barbers. This will legalise parking in the cycle lane at that point. In other words, you have decided to prioritise ease of parking over the safety of those who cycle. And on a corner, too. There is parking available only a very short walk away on Chesterton High Street. Not only that, but there is lots of evidence to suggest that removing car parking not only doesn’t negatively impact businesses, but actually has a positive effect on sales.

    Specifically I think it would be a dreadful mistake if there was any parking allowed in any part of the new cycle lanes at any time. I understand that there are existing businesses that will be negatively impacted (at least to some extent) by customers not being able to park their motor vehicles immediately outside their premises but that must be possible to resolve with short – term parking elsewhere and, besides, this is not as important as establishing separated cycleways as not being appropriate, or legal, for car users to use as a convenience to the disadvantage of cyclists. The County Council must balance the needs for improved safety and those of others in this case businesses located on Green End Road.

    The proposed parking restrictions will allow for a turnover of parked vehicles which in turn will allow the businesses to operate with minimal disruption.

    A cycle route is only perceived to be as safe as its most dangerous point, and if that danger has been introduced as a result of a parked car simply
    blocking the lane then I despair at the money having been spent on the much improved road layout in that area which should, if properly
    enforced, encourage non-cyclists young and old to consider switching transport mode. As far as I know that ambition is a priority aim of the
    City’s transport policy, and to compromise such a promising new development to accommodate privately owned motor vehicles and local
    businesses, rather than trying to address those issues with more appropriate solutions, would be a major failing.

    There is a wider issue too that to allow this sort of compromise here will diminish the status of all dedicated cycle facilities around the city. There
    is plenty of evidence that a significant minority of vehicle owners consider it acceptable to treat cycleways and pavements as overflow parking
    when required. I think compromise solutions such as this will only help to encourage that view.

    As a daily cycle commuter through this area, I am writing to ask for a complete ban on parking in the new cycle lanes on Green End Road. The current situation is a joke, and is worse than what we had before which was terrible and dangerous. When I was watching the new cycle lanes being built, I was excited by the hope that this section of road would become safer and more cycle friendly. Imagine my dismay when every time I use the new road layout there are a series of cars parked in the new cycle lane and I am forced out into traffic to get around.

    I support the introduction of Waiting Restrictions along Green End Road. Without these restrictions the recent addition of cycle lanes is worthless.

    The restrictions will require good enforcement; a focus on the area soon after implementation would be a good idea. We are disappointed that the restrictions are not more extensive. In particular outside the businesses near the junction with Water Lane and High Street there should at the very least be no parking during peak commuting hours, rather than the two hours waiting that will be permitted. The lack of restrictions southbound between Frank’s Lane and Scotland Road is very disappointing. Of particular concern is parking and waiting immediately after the bus-stop bypass, as there is no time to re-join the carriageway after using the bypass if there are cars here.
    However, we would rather see these incomplete restrictions introduced as soon as possible than face the delay of a further consultation.

  9. Richard Taylor Article author

    There has been another planning application on this site. Ref 17/1023/FUL.

    I have submitted the following comment:

    The Greater Cambridge City Deal organisation, now known as the Greater Cambridge Partnership, has plans which at the time of writing are part-completed intended to make Green End Road in the area around this proposed development safer for walking and cycling; I think the application should be considered in light of that project. The aims of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s “cross city cycling” schemes 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

    https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/Cross-City-Cycling/

    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 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, as a result of increased parking on the road, and in particular in the cycle lanes, and would like to see councillors determine if they think it would.

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

    I see the highways consultation response from Cambridgeshire County Council recommends the applicant reassess the proposed parking provision; while their comment relates to the proposed residential use, I think such reconsideration should also take into account those parking to use the takeaways.

    Perhaps councillors could use planning conditions to prohibit the proposed development unless double yellow lines preventing parking in the cycle lanes in the area around the proposed development are put in place?

    I note there is no consultation response at the time of writing from the Greater Cambridge Partnership; given the Partnership has been delegated all powers relevant to its schemes by the County and District Councils I think that the Partnership should have been explicitly consulted and should have commented. It is the Partnership, not the County Council which is taking decisions on the remodelling of the highway in this location.

    There is currently a large amount of danger arising due to parking in the cycle lanes on Green End Road outside the existing takeaway. Cyclists weave in and out of cars parked in the cycle lanes.

    I would like to suggest councillors take into account relevant comments on previous similar recent applications in relation to this site on the basis it’s not reasonable to expect people to repeatedly write to the council making the same points; and submitting a new application should not be a means of causing previously raised objections to disappear.

    I would like to see a detailed highway safety element to the report on this application considering in particular the expected impact of the various options open to councillors on rates of road users’ injury and death.

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

    I made a further submission having seen a comment on Twitter:

    In order to ensure work is carried out safely I would like to suggest a planning condition aimed at preventing construction vehicles associated with the implementation of the proposals from unnecessarily parking in the cycle lanes and on the pavements, causing an additional hazard to road users.

    -

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

    Cllr Abbott has already requested the application be considered by the planning committee.

  10. Richard Taylor Article author

    At the 22nd of June North Area Committee I received a response to my suggestion that the Greater Cambridge City Deal / Partnership respond to relevant planning consultations, and be pro-actively consulted. The response was:

    Yes, the City Deal issues are all taken account of and I think it’s a formal process by the city council the planning authority.

    Cllr Todd-Jones added: “I don’t think we need to say any more, that’s what we do, it can be taken off the list”.

    The Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership was neither consulted, nor has it yet protectively submitted a consultation response on the application being discussed in this thread.

  11. anadapter

    As I understand it, there are specific people they have in mind when allowing the car parking here. People who can’t get to the shops any other way because of mobility issues, so why put a bike lane in at all? I don’t get that.

    1. anadapter

      On that, if these people do need car parking, then why not make it disabled only bays? It sounds to me what’s proposed is a free for all. An explanation for Ian Manning’s and Peter Sarris’s intervention would be much appreciated. Is what I’ve said correct or not? And if not, what is going on? At the moment I feel the bike lane should be taken out entirely for the sake of bike users who will get no benefit from it at all.

  12. Richard Taylor Article author

    A huge number of Tweets followed the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s decision to support parking in the new cycle lane outside the takeaway on Green End Road:

    Hopefully some of the tweeted comments might become public questions put to the board of the Greater Cambridge City Deal organisation, the Greater Cambridge Partnership, when they consider the matter on the 26th of July 2017.

    My comments are already in the board papers; it appears reporting of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly’s support for the parking in the cycle lane has prompted more interest in the matter.

Leave a Reply to Martin Cancel 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