We've sent an updated objection to the Planning Inspectorate who are currently dealing with a developer appeal on this site.
We object to the proposed access route to this development. The space available is far too narrow for an adequate access route. Our objection is focused on the proposed worse-than-substandard shared-use pavement alongside the proposed access road into this development. We maintain that this highly unsatisfactory shared-use pavement in combination with a number of the factors raised by other objectors should lead to the final rejection of this access route so that much better access routes (which the Bell School have so far failed to put forward because they would be close to their own buildings) can at last be assessed.
We draw attention to updated government guidance. In particular, LTN 1/12 which is government guidance that any such shared-use pavement should be a minimum of 3.7 metres wide (3 metres with 0.7 metres added for proximity on one side to a kerb and on the other to a fence). The developers propose a width far below that indicated by this government guidance and seek to justify their view.
This follows on from our previous objection to the City Council Planning Department in August 2012, in which we wrote:
In the Netherlands, North Germany and Denmark, it has been shown time and time again that provision of attractive, safe routes greatly increases the number of people who cycle. New developments like the Bell School development provide by far the best opportunity to achieve Dutch standards in Cambridge. We must not settle for worse-than-substandard provision which does not even meet the requirements of existing UK government guidance or the Cambridge Local Plan and is well below the Dutch standards which we believe could be achieved by a pedestrian, cycle and motor vehicle access route close to the Bell School buildings.