Three major planning applications rejected

This article was published in 2006, in Newsletter 66.

Tim Brinton, Marshall’s and Shell garage site

The Tim Brinton garage site.
Photo: The Tim Brinton garage site

This is at the junction of Cherry Hinton Road with Hills Road (see photo). The outline planning application for this site was approved by Cambridge City Council. However, the detailed application was rejected on the grounds of over-development out of keeping with the surrounding area. Lack of sufficient ground-level visitor cycle parking was also criticised.

Betjeman House site

This is opposite the junction of Station Road with Hills Road. This application was refused by the City Council, again on the grounds of over-development, particularly the height of the proposed buildings overlooking the Botanic Gardens.

Station area redevelopment

This application for redevelopment was also refused by the City Council Planning Department. Apart from the scale of buildings, the lack of open space and other amenities, the scheme was slammed for its failure to achieve the primary aim of making provision for a high quality transport interchange and for the impact of the significant increase in traffic generated by the proposals. As far as cyclists are concerned the Council criticised the scheme in the following ways:

The Station area redevelopment was refused but will not be going off the agenda.
Photo: The Station area redevelopment was refused but will not be going off the agenda
  • The proposed junction arrangement at… Brooklands Avenue-Hills Road does not provide for the safe and efficient use by public transport, and cyclists in particular.
  • The location of the proposed cycle parking provision would be likely to give rise to conflicts between cyclists, public transport, pedestrians and service vehicles to the detriment of the safety of users of the cycle parking facilities and the transport interchange.
  • In the absence of on road cycle lanes to an acceptable width, advanced stop lines to junctions, and cycle lanes through junctions, the layout fails to make satisfactory provision for cyclists using on-road cycle routes.
  • The proposals fail to provide an appropriate link to the Carter Bridge. In consequence the development fails to provide adequate facilities for cyclists.
  • The proposed layout fails to make provision for safeguarding of land for the potential future northern extension of the guided bus and/or cycle way.
  • The proposed cycle parking by virtue of its single location, multi-storey method of provision, lack of detailed arrangements for management and the potential for conflict between cyclists and other station users, fails to meet the needs of cyclists.

Lisa Woodburn