Planning Applications

19/0175/FUL Mill Road Depot Phase 2

After members of Camcycle met with developers, access to the Chisholm Trail has been expanded from a 1.8m footway (above) to a 3m shared-use pathway (below).
Image as described adjacent Image as described adjacent

We have been following the progress of this development for some years because the Chisholm Trail will run along the eastern boundary of the site. Last year, we had not satisfactorily resolved the problem of access to the Trail from within the site, because the access point straddles the boundaries between phases 1 and 2, along the future Headly Street. When the Phase 2 application was submitted we saw that little had changed: the planned access point to the future Chisholm Trail was a mere 1.8m-wide footway squeezed between a car park ramp and some hedges, somehow expected to be shared by thousands of people walking and cycling. We wrote an objection under policy 80 to this problematic arrangement. After meeting with the developers we have come to a much more agreeable outcome of a 3m shared-use pathway with a half-metre planted buffer on either side, flush transition to the road, and good visibility all around (see picture).

19/0358/FUL Car park expansion at David Lloyd’s

Proposed plans for car park expansion at David Lloyd’s reduce priority for walking and cycling on the heavily-used Tins Path.
Image as described adjacent

The applicants have proposed 45 new car parking spaces using a driveway that crosses the Tins Path (which is expected to become part of the Fulbourn Greenway). The transport assessment contained statements assuring priority for walking and cycling; however, several diagrams at the end of the document showed an interruption of the path with give-way markings added for all directions (see diagram, right). We objected under policy 80 because this would reduce priority for walking and cycling on the existing and heavily used Tins Path. In addition, they have proposed a visibility distance of only 17m, which is far short of county requirements (25m) and IAN 195/16 recommendations (31m). Such a short visibility distance could lead to collisions at the junction, especially since it is at the foot of a hill. Apart from these details, we objected to the increase in car traffic caused by 45 new car parking spaces.

C/5001/18/CC/N1 Trumpington Park & Ride

Badly-installed cycle stands at Trumpington Park & Ride will be corrected.
Image as described adjacent

An amendment to this scheme was published that would expand the P&R and also completely change around the cycle parking. Unfortunately one of the rows of Sheffield stands shown in the plans was pushed up against a fence, making it inaccessible. We wrote an objection to this arrangement, but the contractors on-site had gone ahead and installed the cycle parking anyway. Even worse, a member sent in photos showing that they had installed the stands with substandard spacing, with easily removable bolts, and trees and a kerb blocking the aisle. We wrote to the project manager outlining these problems and have since heard indirectly that the spacing and security of the stands will be corrected, and that bollards will be installed instead of the problematic fence.

S/1031/19/OL Redevelopment of Gestamp factory site, Bourn Airfield

Instead of sub-standard shared-use pavements amid heavy industrial traffic, we recommend the developer installs coherent and uninterrupted cycle routes around the perimeter of the site.
Image as described adjacent

The transport assessment for this commercial site, within the future Bourn Airfield town site, indicated that it would form part of the cycling network for the new surrounding town. However, examination of the plans revealed that the ‘cycle routes’ within the site were simply sub-standard shared-use pavements, frequently interrupted by driveways and side roads. This is a very poor proposal, compounded by the fact that we expect heavy industrial vehicles to be navigating this site, leading to a high likelihood of tragic collisions and deaths. Instead, we wrote, since the site is intended to be an industrial estate it would make much more sense for coherent and uninterrupted cycle routes to go around the perimeter in order to avoid heavy plant crossings, especially for people who don’t work on the site anyway.

Find out more about our responses to these planning applications on our members’ forum, Cyclescape. Visit:

If you’d like to get involved by helping us respond to planning applications, email us at contact@camcycle.org.uk or find out more at Cyclescape thread 4290