I attended the first public meeting of the Friends of Ditton Meadows on the 21st of January 2015. The meeting provided me with an update on the consideration of proposals for a new bridge over the River Cam to carry the Chisholm Trail cycle route.
I found out about the existence of the friends group having seen it mentioned on Twitter and I found out about the meeting by seeing a poster on the Green Dragon bridge.
I volunteered to film the meeting and place the video on YouTube. This offer was enthusiastically accepted and the video is now embedded here.
Initial publicity about the group was entirely anonymous, with no-one putting their name on the group’s posters or website and the group’s web domain was, and remains, registered to “Identity Protect Limited”.
Despite the initial impression of a secretive group it was good to see an open meeting being held, and those running it welcoming having it filmed. Those forming the friends group did generally identify themselves on the evening.
The group’s primary objective is:
To protect Ditton Meadows from the current threat of development, namely the proposed cycle and foot bridge across the meadow.
There were both people supportive of the aims of the group, and people in favour of a new cycle and foot-bridge, present at the meeting.
Some of those at the meeting urged the group to tone-down its stance and rather than oppose any bridge outright work to ensure that the bridge, and associated paths, are constructed in such a way as to minimally impact, or even enhance, the area. That is the approach that I am taking myself and I would of course like to see others join; those forming the friends group though were keen to stand by their objective though I could detect hints of wavering from some individuals.
The meeting was well attended with between forty and fifty people present.
Current Status of the Bridge Idea/Project
Cambridgeshire County Council has a webpage for the project at: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/new-bridge. (Update: The council have moved the webpage) (Further Update: the project webpage is now here.)
A consultation was held on proposals in July 2014. The County Council’s website stated consultation is ongoing but doesn’t give many details apart from stating:
There is a meeting for stakeholders and interested parties on 25 February, 2015 at Barnwell Baptist Church, Howard Rd, Cambridge CB5 8QS from 6 to 7.30pm. Those who wish to attend should email transport.delivery@cambridgeshire.gov.uk or call 01223 699906.
The council’s webpage on the project does not state the responses from the initial consultation were taken to a committee of councillors who decided more consultation was needed.
As someone who made a submission to the July 2014 consultation, and someone who is regularly on Stourbridge Common and Ditton Meadows and who reads posters in the area I have not been kept informed of progress, I wasn’t pro-actively informed about the committee consideration, or the stakeholder meetings.
I think the council’s communications have been poor; and the performance of local councillors in ensuring those interested are kept up to date has been poor too. I think the “stakeholder” meetings ought be freely open to the public and listed on the council’s meeting calendar.
The meeting heard that an architect has been appointed to design a bridge. Cllr Ian Manning confirmed this.
The bridge is to carry the Chisholm Trail cycle route which has the support of the County Council and City Council.
My Views
I made a submission to the July 2014 consultation:
I very strongly support a foot and cycle bridge being built in the area of the existing railway bridge across the Cam.
I think the prime consideration ought be the continuation of the Chisholm Trail path along the line of the railway to the new station with as little deviation in direction or level as possible for crossing the river.
I think a bridge west of the railway bridge should be considered; and the option of buying property where required to cut a path through ought be considered.
I do not share council officers’ concerns about “flickering” at all. [This relates to the potential visual effect caused by two adjacent bridges]
My prime concern is the impact on the open spaces of Stourbridge Common / Ditton Fields and I strongly oppose placing the bridge a long way downstream of the existing bridge, in the middle of Ditton Fields. I think keeping the new bridge as close as possible to the railway bridge will minimise the impact.
I liked the idea of hanging a new bridge off the existing one; if that’s not literally possible something giving that appearance would be the best option in my view.
I would like the new bridge not to restrict the navigation any more than the existing railway bridge does.
Having heard the comments made at the meeting I have the following additional thoughts:
I think the case for the Chisholm Trail has already been made so I didn’t re-state it in my submission. As Cambridge grows, if we are going to keep the city moving we need to see more people using alternatives to private cars such as cycling. Cycling is also a pleasant and healthy way of getting around the city. The bridge will link the Science Park and new station through to Newmarket Road and on to Romsey and the central station; it links places of employment with residential areas and shopping areas.
An argument is made that it’s only a short detour off the line of the route to use the existing Green Dragon bridge. I think the detour is significant and the benefits of an uninterrupted continuous cycleway are significant in encouraging use and making for speedy journeys with as few stops and starts and hazardous areas as possible. I’d like to see the cycleway continue off-road through to the Science Park Station and the Science Park itself.
While slightly off topic I think the path on the wooden structure under the railway bridge; while installed not that long ago isn’t really suited to the level, and type, of use it currently gets. It’s narrow and has sharp blind corners; some also complain about it being slippy. I think it needs to be upgraded and made more cycle-friendly.
Lighting needs a comment; I think the level of lighting needs to reflect the use of the space. I think this is something which does change with time. I’ve seen attitudes among those in power to lighting in central Cambridge’s green spaces change over the fifteen years or so I’ve been in the city; with more consideration now given to those using the spaces to get around. I think sensitive lighting which wouldn’t impact the surrounding area, such as uplighters on a new cycle path would be acceptable should there be demand for that.
I think the Chisholm Trail could cross the common or meadows, and then the river with minimal impact.
One added benefit of a cycleway on the railway embankment would be more people getting new views of the river, Fen Ditton, and Cambridge; views of the kind only those who venture up on to the almost disused footbridge currently see.
Tweets relating to the Meeting
Jim Chisholm’s Contribution to the Meeting
Jim Chisholm said he first proposed a foot/cycle bridge here in 1998 and it’s been in the local plan since 2005 and it’s in the South Cambridge transport strategy. He said
We all value the wonderful green space in Cambridge, we cycle through it, we walk through it, we take trains through it. A bridge close to the existing rail bridge with ramps on the adjacent network rail land is what I want but I’ve been trying to campaign for that from Network Rail for some years and they are an organisation which is very difficult to work with. I believe that we should be able to get some sort of licence to use parts of Network Rail land. I originally wanted, when I proposed this, to hang the new bridge on the side [of the railway bridge] but for safety reasons they won’t do that. We can work to get the bridge as close as possible to it. There’s no way the bridge can be on the other side for various reasons.
Network Rail is a public body and it should be working with, and for, the public of Cambridge to assist with this project. Our elected representatives should be ensuring it does so.
When questioned why it can’t go on the other side Jim Chisholm said:
The reason it can’t go on the other side is because of the ramps, and ramps are required at a slope of about one in twenty because of disability access; they’ll have to in front of a group of houses there and part of the other side is common land and I think it would be much harder to build a bridge on common land that it would be on this side; and also because most of the demand for people wanting to use the bridge will be on this side.
My view is placing the bridge on the West side is possible. That will provide the best connection to the new station. I think the ramps could be parallel to the line of the railway and cycle-path. (I’m envisaging a cycle path along the line of the railway, next to it).
Jim Chisholm said most of the cycling infrastructure which has been installed in Cambridge has ended up with twice as many people using it as the county council originally estimated and some of those people have stopped using cars.
Further Coverage
If anyone else wants to extract further elements of the meeting, by transcribing, or commenting on elements I’ve not covered do add contributions below.
See Also
- Say yes to the New Chesterton Foot and Cycle Bridge – Chris Howell, 19 January 2015
29 responses to “Friends of Ditton Meadows Formed to Oppose New Foot and Cycle Bridge”
I tweeted my consultation responses at the time:
I’ve used the feedback form on the County Council’s webpage for the bridge to make some suggestions including that there ought be links to details of committee considerations and also that the papers of any older stakeholder group meetings ought be published (along with details, and papers, for future meetings – which I’ve suggested ought go on the council’s core meeting calendar).
It is not a short detour – it is an additional mile to go down to Green Dragon and back up to what will be the station walking and cycling access from Moss Bank. A considerable extra distance on foot, and not trivial to some people who cycle. Additionally, this means routing more journeys along Green Dragon bridge, which I’m sure existing users will tell you is already very busy at peak times, and the source of much conflict due to being narrow and hump-backed. I believe it also has a limited remaining lifespan – 20 years?
I originally thought it would be better on the west side, but aside from issues of whether this is possible – I am not qualified to comment – I have come around to the benefit of it to the east. People who live west of the proposed bridge have Riverside and Green Dragon as crossings. Green Dragon has capacity issues, as mentioned, but Riverside is better able to cope with commuter traffic, even if it is already used more than was anticipated. Whereas people approaching from the East have to either use Newmarket Road, or the blind, wooden walkway under the railway line to access a bridge to the west, which would be disastrous. It is residents of Abbey and Fen Ditton who have most to gain from the new bridge.
I have cycled up to the kissing gate on Ditton Meadows to view the notice reported to the meeting by the suspected troll. I can report that the meadows are incredibly muddy, especially in the gateway through the hedge which forms the Cambridge City boundary. It’s often muddy there at this time of year but today was the most mud I’ve seen there.
The notice is a “Notice of landowner deposits under section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980“.
The notice is an attempt by the landowner to prevent public rights of way being obtained over their land as a result of the use of the land by the public.
It is easy to see how the suspected troll mistook “deposits” for “minerals”.
In this case the “deposit” was submitted by Mr and Mrs Middleton of Fen Ditton Hall, CB5 8ST (Telegraph Article when the property was for sale). (Zoopla Current Estimated Value £3.2 million)
The link provided on the notice appears broken; I suspect the council have not updated their notice template following website redesign, or one of the many ways the redesign was badly managed involved breaking the links published on printed notices. The link was ludicrously long for expecting the public to obtain from a printed notice and type in too:
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/environment/countrysideandrights/definitivemapandstate/landownerdeposits/
I eventually found the council system which I think is intended to show the “deposit”; but it appears the legions of officers at Shire Hall are yet to place it on their system despite it having been submitted in May 2014.
Similar deposits can be downloaded from the Cambridgeshire County Council maps service at:
http://my.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/
then clicking the checkboxes for section 31-6 and rights of way under the Leisure and Culture heading.
Two older depositions relating to Ditton Meadows are available:
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1793/section_31_6_114
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1874/section_31_6_194_2004
Presumably the purpose of the advertising is so that if anyone knows of a “contary intention” of the landowners to in fact declare a highway over their land it can be challenged.
The notice is not very informative; the council doesn’t tell members of the public with an interest in the area what it is trying to draw to their attention and what they might want to do about it.
The cycle trail leading from the Green Dragon Bridge to the Railway Bridge is incredibly dark, and it is in my opinion dangerous to cycle along that path without powerful headlights, the cheap LED lights don’t cut it. I can’t imagine how anyone would walk along that path in total darkness, and while most pedestrians are wise to wear reflective clothing, the potential for accidents do exist if a cyclist with cheap LED lights encounters a pedestrian without reflective gear.
What are the major cons of installing lights along the aforementioned path with similar light intensity to the strip of land to the west of the Green Dragon Bridge?
One argument against lighting is that it would change the character of the space; and urbanise it.
In recent years we’ve had deliberations over more lighting on Cambridge’s more central green spaces; Jesus Green, Midsummer Common and Parker’s piece.
There has been a shift away from the interests of those, mainly older, often immediate neighbours of the spaces, who lobby against lighting towards the interests of the much large numbers who use the spaces and travel through them.
As you can see at the Friends of Ditton meadows meeting there were some who put little to no weight on the role of the spaces as routes people use get around, and gave little consideration to interests of those who use them as transport routes. For many the prime use made of the spaces is by walking or cycling across them (while benefiting from the often more pleasing environment than the road would offer).
Personally there are lots of factors which go in to my choice of route – sometimes I use the roads – sometimes I cross the green spaces. My perception of safety is one of key factors I take into account. Balancing risks from motor vehicles verses risks of violent crime on the green spaces is something I try to do.
I think our green spaces are fantastic routes for cycling and walking and this use should be catered for and encouraged.
I think lighting ought change to follow changes in use of the spaces. I think the lighting ought be proportional though; we don’t need huge arrays of massive floodlights when a few solar studs would suffice. There is a question of badly implemented lighting actually making places more scary as your eyes become less accustomed to the dark and there more shadowy areas created.
Badly implemented lighting of a new cycle-path across Ditton Fields / Stourbridge Common would make it much more intrusive than it needs be; I think it could be made almost invisible (other than where it crosses the river).
I’ve noticed for example pedestrians on the hailingway and people and dogs on less well lit green spaces now carrying or wearing lights – presumably to try and avoid collisions with pedestrians – people are changing their behaviour as these areas get busier in the dark; and at some point usage may reach a level where lighting upgrades are the appropriate and proportionate thing to do.
Thanks Richard that was a very thoughtful reply and helped me understand the issues more.
The council appear to have killed the short URL
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/new-bridge
The content is at:
http://www4.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20051/transport_projects/62/cambridge_science_park_station/2
and
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20051/transport_projects/62/cambridge_science_park_station/2
[I manually removed the “4” I’m not confident that’s going to keep working]
The URL to the project webpage has changed again:
Current location.
I attended and filmed the consultation meeting held by the County Council on the 25th of February 2015:
The email list collected at the meeting has been used by Cambridgeshire County Council to circulate a list of answers to all questions submitted. This has not been published on the project’s website.
My question of: “Could the Chisholm Trail approach alongside railway at railway level?” has been answered encouragingly:
My view is this is the best option to ensure the cycle route is straight and level. If extending the embankment is challenging perhaps extending the bridge would be an alternative option – running the cycle route at railway level but on steel supports.
The full Q&A distributed by the council via email:
Technical
Design
Environmental
Miscellaneous/Strategic
Q. What consideration will be given to safety at the level crossing and to prevent accidents on Fen Road?
A. We do not anticipate the bridge adding to the number of users to the level crossing.
In an earlier answer they say that users of the Trail will cross here and proceed up Moss Bank, so the above answer is clearly wrong as there will be a large number of additional users.
A suitable crossing location would be at the station where there needs to be access to be sides in any case.
My understanding is that the bridge will connect to the tow path on the Chesterton side, so you then follow the tow-path and exit onto Fen Road on the Moss Bank side. Hence no additional use of the level crossing.
While bridges are planned as part of the station to cross the goods line and provide access to both mainline platforms there isn’t a plan for access to the station from the river side. Also these bridges are going to be “inside” the station so not suited for through traffic on the Chisholm Trail going between the Science Park and Newmarket Rd.
The bridges won’t take cyclists while cycling on the level; they will be like those within the current station. I expect you’ll have to walk your bike up stairs with a channel at the side.
That said those are all addressable issues and if we had a co-ordinated, planned, approach the same structure could have been used for both purposes (or as at the original station you could have internal bridges and the external bridge). Councillors appear not to want to open up and regenerate Fen Road so the station is entirely “facing” the business and science parks.
A planning application for a bridge has been submitted:
Link to application webpage.
Local Liaison Forum Meeting on the Bridge and Chisholm Trail – 11 July 2016:
This was run by the Greater Cambridge City Deal.
There is some discussion of the challenges faced filming that meeting, and the quality of the minutes, at:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/challenges-filming-cambridge-city-council.html#comment-112685
The next forum meeting is scheduled for the 5th of September 2016.
I’m considering proposing asking for :
Having noticed the planning consultation is still open I thought it might also be worth asking the Local Liaison Forum for the new closing date, and suggesting that be publicised. If I am able to I will also seek assurance that all comments submitted will be published, and seek clarity on which planning committee will take the decision. (My view is it ought pretty obviously be the County Council’s planning committee, but there have been other suggestions)
Also – do we really need to lose all the grass from right next to the river?
I attended the forum meeting on the 5th of September.
It was revealed that a development control forum will be held at Cambridgeshire County Council on the new bridge, but the date for that meeting was not provided. As far as I can see from the County Council website there has never been a publicly acknowledged development control forum held for an application to go before the County Council planning committee before and I can’t see any details of criteria for and arrangements for holding one. The County Council constitution describes how the Joint Development Control Committee for Cambridge’s Fringes would run such a forum, and in that case:
parties.
The lead petitioner against the application was present at the Local Liaison Forum meeting. It isn’t clear if there is still time for a petition of twenty five people in favour of the application to be assembled so that those in favour get the opportunity to present their views too.
A date for the consideration of the application for the new bridge by the Cambridgeshire County Council planning committee was given, as the 19th of October 2016, with the Chisholm Trail planning application to be considered on the 16th of November2016.
Holding the development control forum is delaying the bridge project by a couple of weeks. Officers told the forum that the bridge has to be completed on schedule or its funding will cease to be available. I asked council officer Mike Davies about this afterwards and he said it refers to the Department for Transport contribution, but that he expected, if required for there to be flexibility there. Mr Davies noted that the fact the funding was expiring out would not be something the planning committee would be able to take into account.
I also asked Mr Davies about the impact of the planning permission given to redevelop the site with the pink bungalow on it next. Mr Davies said the project team had a good relationship with the landowner and as the land required for access is intended as a car park and planting he expects there to be no problem (or additional cost) in using it during the building of the bridge. I also discussed the possibility of retaining some grass along the riverbank, and installing a fence to help stop cyclists who come down the slope too fast, or who crash into those on the hailingway, or who slip on snow and ice, ending up in the river (something which could be deadly for some people, especially in the cold).
Al Storer of CamCycle asked that consideration be given to electric de-icing of the bridge’s ramps. Mr Davies responded to suggest this might be particularly appropriate given a desire not to get de-icing salt in the river. Cllr Roberts suggested combining consideration of lighting and electric de-icing as both require power.
Apparent inconsistencies in the planning application materials eg. on if the ramps to the bridge are to be planted with trees or grass were noted, but not resolved.
The forum was told that the details of the lighting of the bridge would be a matter for the planning committee to determine.
The forum agreed with a suggestion from me to consider road markings and signage at a future meeting, particularly where the new cycle route will cross Fen Road.
The forum also passed a resolution I proposed asking the County Council and City Deal to bring their webpages on the project up to date and to keep them up to date, with, for example, the key planning dates and events – some of which were revealed at the Local Liaison Forum for the first time.
See:
Cambridge City Council’s planning policies are really strong on cycling and walking and councillors could have enforced them.
I’ve submitted the following planning comment:
The red lines (showing the areas applications apply to) for the bridge and Chisholm Trail overlap – both include the bridge approaches so I included comments on safety in icy weather in my submission supporting the application for phase one of the Chisholm Trail:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/chisholm-trail-phase-one-support.html
Despite having submitted a planning comment the council didn’t let me know this application was finally being taken to the planning committee; it is on the agenda for the county council’s planning committee on the 16th of February.
As I had submitted a comment I would have expected to have been pro-actively informed.
While some of my comments have been mentioned in the report, the report only says objectors said there was a “Poorly chosen route choice”; I don’t think that captures the essence of my key concern, that the convoluted route taken by the ramps is contrary to policy 8/4 of Cambridge City Council’s 2006 Local Plan which requires developments be designed to ensure maximum convenience for those walking and cycling.
The agenda makes no mention of any public speaking opportunity. Section 9.2 of part four the council’s constitution says the usual public speaking rules don’t apply to a planning committee meeting. A search of the council’s website using the search form on the front page reveals a form for registering to speak at a planning committee meeting and guidance saying five working days notice is required. As I found out about the meeting via a Cambridge News article published two days before the meeting I have not been able to make an application. Five working days notice is about the same period of time in advance of the meeting which papers are typically published, so a member of the public may not have had a practical opportunity to register to speak, or the time-window to spot the item and apply could have been only a few hours.
The expected decision / committee date is not published on the application webpage which is where the public seeking more information on the application are directed from the project webpage. The project webpage doesn’t mention the planning committee date.
At the time of writing there are no planning committee meetings scheduled according to full schedule of upcoming meetings linked from the council’s “committees” webpage.
Officers note lighting details could be dealt with via planning conditions and propose a condition requiring a further application on that subject. It will be interesting to see if councillors decide to determine that application themselves. A proposed condition also requires a further application on signage both on the bridge and in the surrounding area. Dealing with signage and markings was something I suggested in my submission. Deicing is mentioned under “further comments” but officers are not proposing a condition relating to safety in winter conditions. I would have liked to have seen such a condition.
The report states “A full anonymised list of comments is available on the application page on the County Council’s website”; in fact from the page in question an an Excel file with a title including “neighbour responses” 410 responses, including mine, along with the submitters’ names has been made available. I think it’s right to publish the names of commenters, and doing so is in line with the practice of Cambridge City Council.
There is one amusingly silly objection to the new bridge pulled out in the report:
councillors will be the arbiters, but in my view safe, direct, cycle routes will encourage more people to cycle or walk rather than taking a less active option.
Councillors have decided to give the new bridge planning permission:
I think this is excellent, even though I would have preferred a more direct, straight and level cycle route.