SHOP UNTIL YOU DROP

Grand Arcade development

It's hard to welcome a new shrine to the consumer society, a huge increase in shopping space in Cambridge City Centre. The consumer ethos and environmental vision are uncomfortable bedfellows.

On the other hand, a lot of time, effort and agonising has gone into the proposals for the Grand Arcade (a planning application for which was submitted in June), to limit the environmental impact on the City. This is a huge redevelopment of the whole area bounded by St Andrew's Street, Downing Street, Corn Exchange Street and Lion Yard. It will provide a new home for Robert Sayle and also many other new shops, restaurants and leisure facilities.

If you accept the argument that Cambridge has to have more shops, then the alternative that has been avoided, and would indeed probably have happened had it been promoted even a year earlier, would have been a huge edge-of-town retail park off the A14. Changes in planning controls and universal political opposition - and we like to think our own contribution to the public inquiry - meant that it was turned down. This has opened up the field for the Grand Arcade. Discussions have been going on about it behind the scenes for a couple of years now.

Out-of-town car mecca avoided

Instead of an edge-of-town car mecca, what we now have is a proposal which keeps Robert Sayle on the same site, with a big increase in floor space, but no increase in (City Centre) car parking space. The development depends on it being serviced by Park & Ride. While an environmental viewpoint says that car parking should be reduced from Lion Yard's current 970 spaces, and that Park & Ride doesn't do much for reducing pollution, but only prevents congestion getting worse, the property developers are thinking that not increasing parking is a major risk and have been quite nervous about the prospect.

A third element in the environmental jigsaw is the appearance. The development consolidates the site around a new set of covered streets emerging onto St Andrew's Street, Corn Exchange Street and into Lion Yard, connecting under a glass dome in the centre. The existing buildings on St Andrew's Street are retained to keep the attractive frontage and pretty much everything behind is rebuilt. It will be much higher than presently, especially the Robert Sayle store on the corner of Downing Street, where the new building is most radically exposed.

City centre hell for four years

Construction would take about four years. Central Cambridge could be hell for that time. During some of the period, half the Lion Yard car park will be out of action. This could work both ways - either causing chaos and frustration, or actually improving Park & Ride significantly.

The impact on the wider City centre is not at all clear yet. Some aspects of traffic management have been deferred because of the scheme, and new ones will have to be developed around it.

Cycle parking is desperately under-provided for in the scheme - only 150 spaces, which will barely service the anticipated 500 staff jobs created by it.

Whether without any new shopping facilities, people would desert Cambridge and drive to Lakeside and Peterborough instead, or a vast new development would get the go-ahead on the edge of the City or in the countryside, and Robert Sayle would disappear from the Centre, we can't know, but it seems likely. Describing the development as the last of several evils is perhaps going too far in that there is a strong element of sustainability. But I'm still left with the question: just what is it that people need on a regular basis that you can't already buy in Cambridge? The urge to shop, the urge to consume, just leaves me cold.

Dave Earl

CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE SUPERMARKET GIANTS CONTINUES ...

While the new battle against GM foods gains momentum, the planning group steadfastly continues its long-standing fight against the supermarket giants building new and bigger outlets. All over the country traditional shops are going to the wall, creating 'food deserts' as the giants move in. Local choice is lost in the name of bigger market share despite there generally being no need for more outlets.

Waitrose application goes through

Cambridge is not spared by the food giants: we have objected to Tesco expansion at Bar Hill, a new Tesco on the Gas Works site in town and a Waitrose foodstore at Anstey Hall in Trumpington. Unfortunately, the Waitrose planning application has gone through. A proposal for a major new retail park for Sutton near Ely looks set to be another battleground. We managed to get 180 parking spaces removed from the Tesco Bar Hill scheme and the company are having to sign up to a Green Commuter Plan as a condition of planning consent.

Sainsbury's expand

Now Sainsbury's off Coldam’s Lane want to expand. We've objected on grounds of lack of need, impact on local trading, building across the Cherry Hinton Brook and obstruction of the city "greenway" footpath alongside. Transport 2000, the Ramblers, Association and the Wildlife Trust have all objected on similar grounds. We argued that if Sainsbury's wished to expand their trade they had to seriously address the problem of access other than by car. The site is poorly served by public transport such that a bigger store would merely reinforce car dependency in connection with convenience shopping. Home delivery services, following the example set by Fulbourn Tesco, and Internet shopping were also suggested.

Permission from the Environment Agency is needed for the culverting of the brook and they've indicated it is likely to be refused. So we hope that the scheme is dead.

Blair aids US invasion

As if all this wasn't enough we hear hot off the press (Guardian, 16th June), that the pro-business arm of government wants to relax planning controls to allow Walmart, the U.S giant, and others to build on greenfield and out-of-town sites. This would reverse the policies put in place by the Conservatives to stop such damaging developments. The reason for the U-turn on the part of some ministers? Well, they say it's to increase competition in the UK market. Tony Blair - of not-fussed-about-GM food fame - has also had a hand in this process by holding face-to-face talks with Walmart executives to smooth their entry into the UK market. I would have liked to have been a fly-on-the-wall at that meeting!

Steve Harangozo

NEW MCDONALD'S DRIVE THROUGH THREAT

Now that McDonald's attempt to build a drive-through "restaurant" in Coldham's Lane has been thwarted, the fast food giant is trying to achieve this aim by converting an existing premises into their much-desired burger outlet. The premises they have set their sights on is the Racehorse pub at the Newmarket Road - Wadloes Road junction. They can use this as a restaurant without a new planning application, but seem to want a drive-through there.

They haven't submitted an application yet, but there have been preliminary discussions between them and the Council. Cambridge FOE has learned that some of the former pub car park is now owned by the City Council, who seem to be anxious to "improve" access to it from Wadloes Road. McDonald's will probably want to buy back this piece of ground for vehicle access to their drive-through. We have objected to the new access and await further developments.

John Ratcliff

OTHER PLANNING ISSUES

As we go to press, we learn of a crop of controversial new planning applications. There is the "Grand Arcade" development, including an extension to Lion Yard and a new Robert Sayle store; a private firm has applied for a new public car park off East Road; Cambridge United wish to build a new Abbey Stadium; and a new extension to the Grafton Centre is planned.

Cambridge FOE has yet to decide its attitude to these applications. However, since it was a key factor in defeating Sainsbury’s Arbury Park proposals, we are unlikely to oppose the "Grand Arcade" in principle, though we’ll certainly be arguing for better cycle parking etc. Also, our policy is to oppose any new parking in the central area.

The other applications are more problematic. Both are preferable to out-of-town developments which increase car dependence and destroy countryside. However, Cambridge United want to use allotment land and the Grafton development will destroy small shops in Burleigh Street. Do let us know what you would like to see happen to these sites.

John Ratcliff

LOCAL ELECTION CANDIDATES ATTITUDES' TO TRANSPORT ISSUES

The Transport and Planning group recently conducted a survey to gauge the attitudes of the recent local election's candidates to important local transport and planning issues. Overall, the results were quite encouraging (i.e. a lot of the candidates, of all parties, were in broad agreement with a lot of our view-points) with a high proportion of the questionnaires sent out being returned.

There was less concentration of opinions along party lines than might be imagined. The only possible exception to this were the issues of widening the A14 and car use in general when, perhaps predictably, the Conservatives came out more in favour of widening the A14 and less in favour of disincentives to car use than the other parties. However, before we indulge in a spot of Tory-bashing, attention should be drawn to their very strong support for keeping the Green Belt intact. Also it should be mentioned that it was a Conservative candidate who came up with my, personal, favourite suggestion of improving local waterways as a possible alternative to increasing road traffic along the A14 corridor.

A summary of the results of the questionnaire is shown below.

Cambridge Friends of the Earth would like to thank all candidates who took part in the survey. The quality of the responses was very high and we would like to apologise if we haven't been able to incorporate all suggestions into the results presented below.

Results of Transport and Planning Questionnaire

Number of Replies: 31 (Out of approximately 80 sent out) as of Saturday 1st May

Labour: 7

Lib/Dem: 9

Conservative: 12

Green: 3

1. Given current development pressures in the area, should the Green Belt remain wholly intact?

Lib/Dem: Yes 4; No 0; Yes (With some exceptions) 3; Don't Know 2

Labour: Yes 4; No 0; Yes (With some exceptions) 1; Don't Know 1

Conservative: Yes 12; No 2; Yes (With some exceptions) 2; Don't Know 0

Green: Yes 1; No 0; Yes (With some exceptions) 2; Don't Know 0

2. The Road Traffic Reduction Act requires local authorities to set targets to reduce traffic or to reduce the rate of traffic growth. If elected, will you press for adoption of traffic reduction targets rather than allowing traffic to continue to grow?

Lib/Dem: Yes 9; No 1; Yes (With some exceptions) 2; Don't Know 0

Labour: Yes 7; No 0; Yes (With some exceptions) 0; Don't Know 0

Conservative: Yes 3; No 4; Yes (With some exceptions) 3; Don't Know 1

Green: Yes 3; No 0; Yes (With some exceptions) 0

3. What do you see as the priorities for improving transport links in the region?

Better bus services: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 1; Green 0

Integrated Public Transport: Lib/Dem 4; Labour 1; Conservative 0; Green 2

Subsidised Public Transport: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 1; Conservative 0; Green 0

Cheaper Bus Fares: Lib/Dem 1; Labour 1; Conservative 0; Green 0

More Provision of Cycle Routes / Lanes: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 1; Conservative 2; Green 0

Better Roads (outside of villages) / More by-passes: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 3; Green 0

Opening/re-opening of rail-links: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 2; Green 1

Accountable public transport tenders / kicking Cambus up the bum: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 1; Conservative 1; Green 2

Viable alternatives to the car: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 2; Green 0

Improving Park and Ride: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 0; Conservative 2; Green 0

Disincentives for car users: Lib/Dem 1; Labour 0; Conservative 0; Green 0

Improvements to public transport: Lib/Dem 6; Labour 1; Conservative 3; Green 0

Bus/cycle priority over cars: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 0; Conservative 0; Green 0

Moving freight to rail: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 0; Conservative 0; Green 0

Reducing emissions: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 1; Green 0

Taxing parking spaces: Lib/Dem 1; Labour 0; Conservative 0; Green 0

Building Regional Light Rail: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 0; Conservative 1; Green 0

Widen A14, build additional roads: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 3; Green 0

4. What measures would you support for the A14 transport corridor? For instance: Should alternatives be promoted to road transport?

Lib/Dem: Yes 4; No 0; Don't know 2

Labour: Yes 5; No 0; Don't know 1

Conservative: Yes 2; No 6; Don't know 1

Green: Yes 2; No 0; Don't know 1

If yes, what do you consider to be the most realistic/viable?

Railway (Including rebuilding St Ives to Huntingdon Line and light railway): Lib/Dem 4; Labour 4; Conservative 2; Green 1

Safety measures to A14 only (no widening): Lib/Dem 1; Labour 1; Conservative 0; Green 0

Improving waterways: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 1; Green 0

Cycle routes: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 1; Conservative 0; Green 0

Putting goods onto rail: Lib/Dem 1; Labour 1; Conservative 1; Green 1

Road pricing: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 0; Green 1

Improved Public Transport: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 1; Conservative 0; Green 0

Should the A14 itself be widened?

Lib/Dem: Yes 1; No 4; Yes (safety measures only) 2; Don't know 1

Labour: Yes 1; No 2; Yes (safety measures only) 1; Don't know 1

Conservative: Yes 7; No 1; Yes (safety measures only) 1; Don't know 1

Green: Yes 0; No 2; Yes (safety measures only) 0; Don't know 0

5. Do you think that an Addenbrookes multi-storey car park would solve the access problems to the site and would you support such a scheme?

Lib/Dem: Yes 0; No 3; Yes (but only if combined with improved public transport / Park and Ride) 5; Don't know 0

Labour: Yes 4; No 3; Yes (but only if combined with improved public transport/ Park and Ride) 0; Don't know 0

Conservative: Yes 8; No 1; Yes (but only if combined with improved public transport / Park and Ride) 2; Don't know 0

Green: Yes 0; No 1; Yes (but only if combined with improved public transport / Park and Ride) 2; Don't know 0

6. Do you regularly use: Local Buses? Yes/No

Trains? Yes/No

Bicycle? Yes/No

Local buses: Lib/Dem 6; Labour 2; Conservative 0; Green 1

Trains: Lib/Dem 6; Labour 2; Conservative 7; Green 2

Bicycle: Lib/Dem 7; Labour 3; Conservative 4; Green 3

7. If elected, how do you propose to travel to council meetings?

Bus/Public Transport: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 2; Conservative 0; Green 0

Train: Lib/Dem 0; Labour 0; Conservative 0; Green 0

Walk: Lib/Dem 2; Labour 1; Conservative 4; Green 3

Cycle: Lib/Dem 5; Labour 2; Conservative 3; Green 3

Car: Lib/Dem 3*; Labour 3; Conservative 7**; Green 0

* One disabled candidate

** Two disabled candidates

Cambridge Friends of the Earth would like to thank all of the candidates who took part in the survey for their very detailed and often thought-provoking answers. They have provided us with a valuable source of alternative view-points which we will consider when planning future campaigns.

Note: It has been alleged that Labour candidates were instructed not to answer this questionnaire, since an official party response to the questionnaire would be sent out in due course. To date no such response has been received.

Ian Ralls

Initial and further consultations

In January, consultations were undertaken on initial scheme proposals for the closure of Emmanuel Road to through traffic. Other associated measures were included in the consultation. In March, the Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee considered the feedback from the consultation and approved firm scheme proposals for further consultation concurrent with the formal advertisement of the associated traffic regulation orders. This second consultation offers the opportunity for further comments to be made and for any statutory objections to the draft regulation orders to be lodged. Comments of support or general comments on the traffic regulation orders are also invited.

The responses to this second consultation will be considered by the Committee, which has a membership of County and City Councillors, on 5th July when decisions on the details and implementation of the scheme will be taken.

Firm scheme proposals

1. Extension of the Victoria Avenue bus lane onto and around part of the Four Lamps roundabout to allow buses to bypass any congestion at the junction. Changes to the Short Street - King Street junction layout to provide better access for pedal cyclists. Improved pedestrian crossing points around the roundabout junction.
2. A traffic order to prohibit entry to Emmanuel Road from Short Street for all motor vehicles except authorised vehicles i.e. buses, taxis and emergency services. Construction of a traffic island with road markings and signs to emphasise the traffic restrictions. The pelican crossing adjacent to the New Square junction to be converted to a zebra crossing to give greater priority to pedestrians and cyclists.
3. The above traffic order to be enforced using rising bollards in Emmanuel Road. The closure point layout would provide a separate traffic island for each direction of travel, each with a mandatory cycle lane to allow cyclists to bypass the rising bollards. The highway to be widened to accommodate the closure point requiring a new footway to be constructed on the adjacent New Square grassed open space. The existing pelican crossing to be electronically linked to the rising bollards to prevent authorised vehicles passing through the rising bollards when pedestrians are crossing.
4. A traffic order to prohibit entry to Emmanuel Road, north of the Elm Street junction for all motor vehicles except authorised vehicles (public transport and emergency services). Construction of a traffic island with road markings and signs to emphasise the traffic restriction.
5. Construction of a mini-roundabout at the Drummer Street - Emmanuel Road junction to provide a turning point for vehicles that need to access the Parkside and Parker Street area. Construction of a traffic island in the mouth of Emmanuel Road with the existing pelican crossing converted to a zebra crossing.
6. New traffic signals installed at the Parkside - Clarendon Street junction with signalled pedestrian crossing points across Park Terrace and Parker Street. The Park Terrace and Clarendon Street side roads to run as separate signal stages. A traffic order to prohibit the right turn out of Clarendon Street to allow the pedestrian crossing across Parker Street to operate when the Clarendon Street stage runs.
7. The existing "except for access restriction" in Clarendon Street, Victoria Street, Earl Street, and Orchard Street to be revoked to allow vehicles with business in the Emmanuel Road - Parker Street area to use these streets without contravening the restriction.
8. A traffic order to prohibit the left turn out of Downing Street into St Andrew's Street except for buses, taxis and pedal cycles. The Downing Street approach to the junction will be changed to provide a single traffic lane with a mandatory cycle lane. The traffic island at the entry to the contra- flow cycle lane will be re-sited to provide a wider entry point for cyclists.
9. A new traffic order in Eden Street to replace the existing traffic restriction to prohibit all motor vehicles except for authorised vehicles. Lockable removable bollards will be installed to enforce the restriction. The measure will prevent through traffic using the route to avoid the closure in Emmanuel Road.
10. A traffic order to make East Road between Mill Road and Norfolk Street an urban clearway between 8am-9.30am and 4.30-6.30pm. This would prohibit the stopping of motor vehicles on the road during these times thereby improving safety for cyclists at the busiest times.
11. The provision of a right turn lane at the Dover Street - East Road junction to avoid right turning vehicles holding up following vehicles.
12. A traffic order to convert the pay and display parking spaces in Maid's Causeway near Fair Street, and in Newmarket Road outside Christchurch, to residents' parking bays for the Kite residents' zone. The residents' spaces would operate 9am-8pm, Monday to Saturday. These changes would reduce the need for residents to seek a parking space in the southern part of the zone which would involve a longer journey via East Road.
13. A traffic order to create two additional pay and display parking spaces in King Street to compensate for the loss of spaces in Maid's Causeway. The parking spaces would operate 8.30am-6.30pm, Monday to Saturday, with a 1 hour maximum stay.

Associated issues arising from initial consultations

Maid's Causeway: At the initial consultations concerns were raised over the effect of increased traffic using Maid's Causeway and Newmarket Road (west of Elizabeth Way). Councillors have asked for measures to discourage through traffic to be developed alongside the closure scheme measures. Details of these measures are included in the consultation exhibition.

Fitzroy Street area: There have also been suggestions to introduce new access controls on Fitzroy Street which would prohibit all motor vehicles between 10am and 4pm, Monday to Saturday, except for permit holders. This arrangement would be similar to that used in the historic centre pedestrian zone. Again, details are included in the pedestrian display.

Core area 'zonal' signing: The exhibition display also contains details of the proposals for 'zonal' signing to make it easier to access each part of the core area from the inner Ring Road.

Scheme timetable

Thursday 20 May Start of firm proposal consultation

Friday 21 May Formal advertisement of draft traffic regulation orders

Monday 14 June Closing date for comments on scheme proposals and statutory objections to draft traffic regulation orders

Monday 5 July Report to councillors on firm proposal consultations with recommendations on scheme implementation

Wednesday 25 August Subject to approval by councillors on 5 July, road closure

becomes operational

Late October Completion of all associated measures

September 2000 Formal review

Review Process

A monitoring framework is being developed through a steering group consisting of representatives from the County, City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils, City Centre Management, local traders, the colleges and University, and a residents' representative. This framework will assess conditions before and after the closure and will be used as part of the review undertaken after 12 months. A formal consultation will be carried out as part of the review to see if any changes to the measures are necessary.

Further Information

The Project Manager for the scheme is Richard Preston (Cambridgeshire County Council) who can be contacted on 01223-717780

(email: Richard.Preston@transportation.camcnty.gov.uk)

Richard Preston

Although Cambridge FOE support the road closure schemes, we do not necessarily agree with every detail of the above proposal.

James Murray

BUS WATCH

We are concerned at the decision of the Traffic Commissioner to order Cambus to stop running certain bus routes as we feel it punishes those who rely on buses and does nothing to improve services or make public transport a more attractive means of travel.

This and other decisions make us feel that the voice of bus users is just not being heard in this area. There are moves to start a Cambridge Public Transport Users’ Group. Please contact me by phone on 01223 245533 or email on john_ratcliff@lineone.net if you are interested.

John Ratcliff

ESSO DAY OF ACTION

 The 27th of March was the date chosen for our protest against Esso and its parent company Exxon, by picketing the Esso service station on the Histon Road and handing out information to customers.

We were attempting to raise awareness of both the environmental record of this multi-national company (this was the company that owned the Exxon Valdez, don't forget), and the role it is playing in leading the oil industry in the fight against international treaties designed to stop global climate change

through its membership of the Global Climate Coalition. This is an oil industry lobby group which has run a well funded campaign to stop governments setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

The protest went extremely well, with an excellent response from both the public and the staff of the service station, with the vast majority of people supporting our stand.

It's not too late to voice an opinion on the appalling actions of this voracious company. You can write a letter expressing your disgust to the Chairman of Esso UK:

Dr Keith Taylor,

Esso UK plc,

Esso House,

Ermyn Way,

Leatherhead,

Surrey,

KT22 6UX.

Note: A special thanks is due to Tandy 'Tiger Feet' Harrison for being our corporate logo....

Ian Ralls

July1999 Newsletter Index

July 1999 Newsletter part 2

E-mail:camfoe@telinco.co.uk

comfybadger

Home