18/1518/FUL Abacus House
The applicants have proposed an extension and an increase in cycle parking. Unfortunately they have proposed 24 cycle parking spaces provided by Sheffield stands crammed between two walls with no aisle space to access the stands. We have objected to that arrangement under Policy 82, and also to the presence of ‘wheel bending’-type stands on the existing site, and to the fact that the site would still not meet the city’s minimum requirements for cycle parking even if the issues with the proposal were fixed.
18/1397/FUL 38 Ramsden Sq
Three additional flats are proposed by extension and subdivision of the existing property. Cycle parking would be provided in the rear garden, using some under-sized ‘cedar-clad cycle lockers’. Access to the cycle parking is along a passageway that is 27m long and only 1.1m wide. We objected under Policy 82 to this arrangement of cycle parking because if cycle parking must be in a rear garden then (a) the guide requires passageways to be 1.5m wide, although it allows narrowing to 1.2m of width over a stretch of no more than 10m; (b) the wooden shed must have walls at least 18mm thick; and (c) the proposed shed dimensions of 1.8m by 1.8m are too small.
S/3957/18/FL 26 Fen Road, Milton
Within an existing site having four one-bedroom flats, the applicants propose an additional two one-bedroom dwellings. However, no cycle parking is provided in the plans. We objected under Policies TI/2, TI/3 and HQ/1 to the lack of cycle parking and asked the applicant to include at least one secure and covered cycle parking space per bedroom as required by the Local Plan. In the absence of a South Cambridgeshire Cycle Parking Guide, we recommend the use of the Cambridge City Cycle Parking Guide to lay out the stands properly and ensure their security.
18/1245/FUL 156-160 Chesterton Road
On the site of the former Hamilton Lodge Hotel a developer has proposed 32 studios and 14 one-bedroom flats. They have claimed to include 81 cycle parking spaces, however we count only 46 ‘wheel bender’-type stands, which are unacceptable under the Cycle Parking Guide requirements. Furthermore, the cycle parking is in the basement with access via the car lifts in the rear or the main lifts in the front. We objected under policy 82 to the improper cycle parking stands, and also asked that a condition be attached ensuring that access to the basement cycle parking would always be allowed via either set of lifts.
Would you like to get involved by helping us respond to planning applications? Trustee Matthew Danish recently ran a workshop for volunteers; you can view his slides and find out more about supporting Camcycle in this way at Cyclescape thread 4290