Cambridge Cycling Campaign don’t like our right to petition

We have a new petition online, which asks for the City council to more carefuly consider the application for the northern Chisholm Trail. Find our more and sign it here. The reason why – heavy environmental impacts and near absence of supporting information, whilst avoiding cheaper and more logical alternatives – a familiar City Deal formula.

The Cambridge Cycling Campaign have launched a petition attacking our right to raise these impertinent questions.  We reply to their petition below.

“We the undersigned support the planning application for the Chisholm Trail Phase 1.”

Fair enough, but have you read the application. May be you should check out our detailed response first ? : Planning response C/5007/16/CC cycleway from Coldhams Lane to River Cam

“We believe the application is in line with relevant policy and that the supporting documentation goes above and beyond that which is required.”

The planning application notices had to be re-posted to state that the bridge ( and the cycleway ) are not in line with relevant policy. It was on the planning notices, which means the county planners say it is not in line with relevant policy.

If you want to read other objections that there is not enough supporting documentation check the statutory responses – including from the County Council’s own officers. And then read our detailed response : Planning response C/5007/16/CC cycleway from Coldhams Lane to River Cam

We believe that the Trail will enhance the character of Ditton Meadows, the Leper Chapel and Coldham’s Common.

The applications own supporting landscape assessment indicates that it will have a severe adverse effect on the character of these sites, which include Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

The Trail will improve access for all, not just for cyclists, to all the areas it passes through.

Overlooked by the objectors are the access improvements to the commons and the Leper Chapel that will open up areas currently inaccessible to those using wheelchairs or with mobility issues.

No – we covered the access points in our reply if you read it : Planning response C/5007/16/CC cycleway from Coldhams Lane to River Cam

The Friends have been pushing for better access onto Coldhams Common for a long time via the management plan, which we secured.  Basic issues such as removing kissing gates, better access routes from Abbey, safety for pedestrians and flooding in the Abbey Pool car park are our key issues – not a long distance cyclepath.

However there are also issues with the design of the submitted scheme which are not DDA compliant – including the narrow underpass on the Cam railway bridge.  We have raised these comments in our response.

The objectors say the Trail, and the Abbey-Chesterton Bridge that the Trail connects to, will interfere with events such as the Bumps and Stourbridge Fair. We believe that such events will be enhanced by the improved access.

The setting of Ditton Meadows is the quintessential rural Cambridge setting for the Bumps. The new bridge destroys views of one of the courses key features and the landscape setting for large part of Ditton Meadows.  How can degrading the setting “improve” the event – by this logic building a stadium on Ditton Meadows for spectators would have an event greater “positive” effect ?

We don’t mention Stourbridge Fair, so are not sure what they mean ?

The development process considered alternatives and rightly rejected them.

Actually we can find no such records in the application for any consideration of alternatives ?  We certainly do not recollect them in the consultation process – indeed the bias and lack of alternatives was a point raised by many people. If you want to look at the consultation leaflt and try and find them look here :

The existing facilities, especially at Newmarket Road, are deeply substandard and the Green Dragon bridge is already congested at peak times.

The existing Newmarket Road crossing operates in about 30s and will continue to be used by the majority of users – is it really so “deeply substandard” to require a £2millon underpass ? The application contains no information on these “substandard” facilities or a cost benefit analysis to show why the upgrades are needed, which is a lot for £2million.

The transport assessment for the application indicates that the Green Dragon bridge is rated “A” for ease of use based on density of traffic – the only category that is better is A*.  We need to compare this with Mill Road Bridge, which is dangerous and narrow, but for which no funding for widening is available when we asked.

If you want to see how saturated the Riverside Bridge is view this :

We believe the petition “Save our rivers and meadows Lite” is against the policy for Development Control Forums: “The forum will not consider petitions: – expressing an in-principle outright objection to the application with no suggestions for a compromise solution”

Everyone is entitled to express their beliefs as long as they dont interfere with others rights to do too.  Cambridge Cycling Campaign seem to be challenging our democratic right to have our petition heard. Anyway don’t listen to us – Cambridge City democratic services said our petition was good : you can sign it here

The petition presented by the objectors has no serious and workable suggestion for compromise.

Actually we do and that is the Cheap as Chips Trail – a cheap use of existing cycling provision at little or no cost – read it now – cheap-as-chips-trail-v4

If you have read this far and still want to sign the pro-Chisholm Trail petition you can here :

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Cambridge Cycling Campaign don’t like our right to petition

  1. P W says:

    The Cambridge Cycling Campaign should be ashamed of themselves, for trying to bully anyone that dares to disagree with their narrow views. I am a cyclist and it is the Cambridge Cycling Campaigns behaviour that gets cyclists in Cambridge hated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s