Local cycle parking standards at the Cattle Market development

This article was published in 2003, in Newsletter 48.

The Cattle Market site next to the junction of Cherry Hinton Road and Hills Road is in the process of redevelopment (see www.cambridgeleisure.com ). Cheffins’ new auction rooms and estate agency offices together with a block of flats have already been built. The steel framework for a vast new leisure building which is to house a 1700-seat multi-screen cinema and 28 bowling alleys is being erected. A row of six shops with flats above, a hotel and a multi-storey car park will follow.

Cattle Market site development
Steel skeleton for the new leisure building which will house a 1700-seat cinema and 28 bowling alleys.

We have become concerned about provision for cycle parking in this development. Far less cycle parking is being provided than the amount required under the City Council’s parking standards which, we understand, are mandatory. The standards clearly state that, unlike car parking spaces, the number of cycle parking spaces ‘shall not be adjusted’ (paragraph 5.10.1).

At present the plans indicate that 336 plus 48 potential future spaces are to be provided. We believe that this figure is well under half of the amount required by the Council’s standards. The total to be provided for the entire site is insufficient even to meet the amount specified by the standards as required simply for the multi-screen cinema in the leisure building. 566 cycle parking spaces are needed for the cinema alone (paragraph 5.9.2: ‘one space per three cinema seats’).

Recently a new planning application was advertised relating to modifications to the multi-storey car park. We submitted an objection to this application. We asked that the total amount of cycle parking required by the standards for the development as a whole should be established and that it should be provided. We said that the best place for the additional cycle parking required would be as close as possible to the destinations of cyclists within the development. We asked that substantially more cycle parking should be provided close to each of the new buildings in the development but that any residue required to meet the standards should be provided in place of car parking on the ground floor of the multi-storey car park. For the safety of people using cycle parking in the car park, we asked that it should be well lit and protected by security cameras. The car park is to be built next to the Junction (which is itself to be rebuilt) and quite close to the leisure complex so it is probable that cycle parking there would be well used.

We stressed that it is particularly important that the City Council should enforce its own standards in the case of this development which will be very heavily used by young people in the evenings and at weekends when insufficient public transport is available. There are good cycle routes to this development from every part of the city.

We await the City Council’s response.

James Woodburn