Planning applications

This article was published in 2022, in Magazine 154.

S/0559/17/COND29 A10 pedestrian and cycle route

Close up from a technical plan of the A10 with the text 'No opportunities to increase the width of the existing footway / cycle track'We supported Milton Cycling Campaign’s continued objection to the inadequate improvements to the shared-use path between Waterbeach and Cambridge that were conditions for the development of Waterbeach New Town.

The proposed changes will widen some portions of the pathway and slightly improve safety at the Car Dyke Road junction, but they still leave the other sections of the pathway extremely narrow (1.3m in some locations) and dangerously close to high-speed motor traffic. Therefore, even after the changes are complete, the A10 pathway between Waterbeach and Milton will remain unsuitable for families cycling with children and other people who are concerned about cycling in the proximity of fast-moving heavy vehicles. The applicants made some additional revisions following the objection letter we sent in July 2021; however, the changes fall far short of the design standards for cycling infrastructure that are expected by the government’s Gear Change policy and LTN 1/20 design standards. Sadly, they were signed off in January, meaning the need for a safe Waterbeach Greenway suitable for all ages is now more urgent than ever.


21/01625/FUL 13 apartments, Church Hall, Chapel Street

We objected to this application for a redeveloped nursery and new residential flats on the grounds of inadequate cycle parking. The residential cycle park shown on the site plan is accessible only through both a gate and a door to the bike store, and the gate and parts of the access corridor are barely 1m in width and would therefore be inaccessible to less able users and those with non-standard cycles. In addition, the internal width of the store is insufficient to accommodate the required number of stands with the required minimum spacing, the visitor cycle parking is inconveniently located and the nursery parking is significantly below the required quantity. A decision on the application was deferred in January as officers had failed to consider our objection; it was then refused by the planning committee on 2 March.