CB1 approved
Tim Ward
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Duncan Wood
> Outline planning consent given:
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
>
Go on then, what on earth did English Heritage think was worth preserviong
in the current layout?
Paul Gotch
> Go on then, what on earth did English Heritage think was worth preserviong
> in the current layout?
It's not those ghastly offices on station road is it? I'm also
surprised they can still raise L1B to actually build the thing with the
current state of the banks...
-p
--
"Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are."
- Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
>Outline planning consent given:
>
>http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
>
Good!, About time that was attended to, lets hope they can still afford
it all;!..
Tho I don't quite know why we haven't got a Cambridge parkway North or
South..
--
Tony Sayer
Anthony Deane
"Duncan Wood" <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:op.ui24haf9haghkf@lucy...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:41:19 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Outline planning consent given:
>>
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
>>
>
>
> in the current layout?
I'll guess the war memorial at the top of Station Road.
And don't they have offices on Brooklands Avenue?
Anthony
Paul Rudin
Neither of those are affected by this are they?
Anthony Deane
"Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87d4i1k...@rudin.co.uk...
The parameter plans include the war memorial, and as far as Brooklands
Avenue.
http://www.cb1forcambridge.co.uk/pdfs/application_drawings/parameter%20plans/ALL_parameter_plans.pdf
Anthony
Paul Oldham
The iconic flour mill "castle"? Doesn't that fall within the plan area?
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Do I know what rhetorical means?"
Jon Green
> The iconic flour mill "castle"? Doesn't that fall within the plan area?
I hope that "iconic" was ironic! Come friendly bombs, and all that.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Martin
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Tim Ward wrote:
> Outline planning consent given:
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
I see from
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/councillors-approve-cb1-outline-plans.html
under the "Conditions" section that:
------
Councillors required the following to be put before the planning
committee in the future rather than leaving it to officers:
- All the significant of the proposals for modifying road junctions
- Detailed plans for the road closure bollards controlling access to the
square
- The strategy for signage and reducing visual impact of signs and street
furniture. It was noted there was an absence of a design code. City
Councillors were not happy to leave this to the county council highways
department."
------
This seems to me a very positive step that ought to help avoid the kind of
situation that happened with King's Hedges Road, where the complete
absence of effective scrutiny by the County Council meant that the Arbury
Park developers got away with having basic flaws remaining, resulting in
the cycle-hostile and pedestrian-hostile mess that is KHR now, rather than
use the massive space there to make something really high quality.
Is there any reason why this kind of condition can't be used for other
large developments, so that street design can have effective public
scrutiny?
Followups set.
Martin
snowy
news:6ln2rfF...@mid.individual.net...
> Outline planning consent given:
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
Couldn't help smiling at this bit:
"will also provide 331 homes, 40 per cent of which will be affordable"
I *know* what they mean, but it does sound like the other 60%
will be unaffordable...
I'll climb back under my rock now :-)
Paul Rudin
... or the other silly thing about the "afforable" euphemism is that the
developers obviously expect them *all* to be affordable by someone, for
otherwise nobody would buy them, and the developers wouldn't be building
them in the first place.
Mike Clark
"snowy" <no-r...@not.here.com> wrote:
Well given that quite a few of the apartments in the development across
the railway bridge are still unsold I think it possibly means what it
says on the tin.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
magwitch
And making the Railtrack mistake all over again, investing in pretty
station concourses and shops, instead of the track.
The Natural Philosopher
Cambridges best interest in mind'
Its *not their job* to have Cambridges best interests in mind. Its their
job to do whatever turns a profit.
It the COUNCILS job (allegedly) to ensure that the resultant compromise
has cambridge's best interests in mind.
yet one more example of a council official sidestepping blame and
reponsibility.
Not that the council has any clear idea of what constitutes the best
interests of cambridge anyway. Its just a bit of arse covering spin.
Robert Campbell
news:gd7h02$cei$1...@cam-news1.cambridge.arm.com...
More London commuters. Just what Cambridge needs.
Tim Ward
news:122416993...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>
> I fell off my chair at the 'I am convinced that the applicant has
> Cambridges best interest in mind'
>
> Its *not their job* to have Cambridges best interests in mind. Its their
> job to do whatever turns a profit.
>
> It the COUNCILS job (allegedly) to ensure that the resultant compromise
> has cambridge's best interests in mind.
Correct.
> Not that the council has any clear idea of what constitutes the best
> interests of cambridge anyway.
Just as the best interests of a company can be defined to be whatever the
shareholders choose to vote for, the best interests of Cambridge can be
defined to be whatever the residents choose to vote for. In this case the
quality of the people they choose to elect to the council, and the responses
they have made to the many dozens of consultations over the years.
(I am not on the planning committee, but have contributed to planning policy
for the station area in a number of ways over the years.)
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
The Natural Philosopher
The odd thing is that nearly all the time, what gets planning permission
is nearly always exactly what the residents DON'T want.
Tom Wright
> The odd thing is that nearly all the time, what gets planning permission
> is nearly always exactly what the residents DON'T want.
Really, or is it just that those are the cases we hear about?
I'm not arguing for either case, just suggesting that this is another
explanation for what appears to be the state of affairs to you, me and
probably many other people.
--
I'm at CAMbridge, not SPAMbridge
Tim Ward
> in the current layout?
Er ... it'll be somewhere in the 500 or so pages of documentation on the
council's web site.
Tim Ward
news:gd6u57$efh$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> I'll guess the war memorial at the top of Station Road.
The war memorial is to be moved slightly. This has been an ambition of the
council for many years - during one of the early workshops on the station
area development framework I suggested that s106 from the station
redevelopment be used to pay for this, but I don't suppose I was the only
one, or necessarily the first, to make this suggestion.
Tim Ward
news:eccjs5-...@bigjohn.hug...
>
> The iconic flour mill "castle"? Doesn't that fall within the plan area?
The mill and silo are to remain. Indeed they are to be tarted up somewhat
with some of the later crud removed to return them to something like their
original state.
Paul Oldham
> Paul Oldham wrote:
>
>> The iconic flour mill "castle"? Doesn't that fall within the plan area?
>
> I hope that "iconic" was ironic!
No.
> Come friendly bombs, and all that.
Philistine.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow"
Tim Ward
>
> The odd thing is that nearly all the time, what gets planning permission
> is nearly always exactly what the residents DON'T want.
In many (most, perhaps) cases there are in fact no objections to planning
applications at all. In many others there are representations in support as
well as objectors. In most cases there's at least one resident in support,
being the one who submitted the application.
Your "nearly always", taken together with your use of "residents" meaning
"all residents", is bollocks, basically.
Tim Ward
news:gd7m5t$ffr$1...@cam-news1.cambridge.arm.com...
>
> More London commuters. Just what Cambridge needs.
However the recent change to allocate most of the residential accommodation
for student housing is a really cunning plan, as it not only means that
1,250 of the residents won't be London commuters but also means that 1,250
of the residents won't have cars. This is a significant improvement on
previous versions of the plans.
Mark T.B. Carroll
> The odd thing is that nearly all the time, what gets planning
> permission is nearly always exactly what the residents DON'T want.
It doesn't help that, at least according to what's been suggested here,
the council has a rather limited legal basis upon which it can
defensibly deny applications, much as it might love to have more.
Mark
Chris Shore
> Couldn't help smiling at this bit:
> "will also provide 331 homes, 40 per cent of which will be affordable"
> I *know* what they mean, but it does sound like the other 60%
> will be unaffordable...
I liked the fact that on the overview diagram on the CB1 website, the
station and
a "polyclinic" are coloured as "retail" space. That'll be nothing to do with
running
a railway and making people better then?
Will the railway station turn into the rail equivalent of Heathrow? i.e. a
large shopping
mall which just happens to have some trains passing through occasionally?
Chris
magwitch
endless and frequent waits for delayed trains at Waterloo slightly less
aggravating.
TimB
> And making the Railtrack mistake all over again, investing in pretty
> station concourses and shops, instead of the track.
'instead of the track' ?? There's no connection with railway
investment, these are totally different issues and totally different
pots of money.
Tim
magwitch
Railtrack owned the track and the stations. They chose to invest in
beautifying the stations to the detriment of the track with disastrous
results Hatfield etc.
Blowing millions of ŁŁŁs on concourses and plazas and the like will not
make one iota of difference to those trying to use expensive, crowded
and delayed trains.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
Indeed. The story is using "affordable" as a synonym for
"inexpensive". What they mean is "affordable for those on
below-average incomes", which does make sense when written out in
full. But it doesn't make sense when abbreviated to just the
unqualified adjective, especially when there are pefectly good single
words that can be used instead.
Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff
Tim Ward
news:ivcff4tr97o6theis...@news.markshouse.net...
>
> Indeed. The story is using "affordable" as a synonym for
> "inexpensive". What they mean is "affordable for those on
> below-average incomes"
What they mean is the technical, jargon, term "affordable" as defined in
government housing policy documents. It doesn't quite mean "social rented",
as other forms of tenure are possible for some of the properties, and the
technical jargon term "social rented" in turn doesn't any longer mean
"council housing" (plain English at last!), as councils aren't allowed to
build council housing any more, but instead have to stick their right-to-buy
receipts in Icelandic banks.
Roland Perry
Oct 2008, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>councils aren't allowed to build council housing any more, but instead
>have to stick their right-to-buy receipts in Icelandic banks.
Have to stick them in *a* bank, perhaps :)
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
22:40:33 on Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
>>>
>>> Couldn't help smiling at this bit:
>>> "will also provide 331 homes, 40 per cent of which will be affordable"
>>> I *know* what they mean, but it does sound like the other 60%
>>> will be unaffordable...
>>>
>>
>>... or the other silly thing about the "afforable" euphemism is that the
>>developers obviously expect them *all* to be affordable by someone, for
>>otherwise nobody would buy them, and the developers wouldn't be building
>>them in the first place.
>
>Indeed. The story is using "affordable" as a synonym for
>"inexpensive".
I'm not sure that's the right word either. The last time I saw a house
for sale that I regarded as "inexpensive" it was about £15k in 1999 (in
one of the worse bits of Peterborough).
>What they mean is "affordable for those on below-average incomes",
>which does make sense when written out in full. But it doesn't make
>sense when abbreviated to just the unqualified adjective, especially
>when there are pefectly good single words that can be used instead.
"less expensive", perhaps (not one word, I know).
--
Roland Perry
The Natural Philosopher
The obvious place to put a better station is up near Milton, where a
really decent integrated transport interchange point between the A14,
and the railways system, and indeed the science/busines parks, could be
built.
By terminating all the road traffic - including large coaches - there
and having either a light rail or bus shuttle into town, you would
reduce town congestion, and people from the outyling villages who want
to use the train would not need to come into Cambridge at all.
Cambridge town station then becomes merely a small stop in the town itself.
And could be redeveloped downwards using more space for more commercial
uses and housing. Or removed altogether, and replaced with a local stop
around the coldhams lane area. far more convenient for teh town center.
Ditto the current bus station. Centralise the transport at the town
edge, and just have shuttles to the town.
What sems to have happend here, is simply at a company wants to develop
the spare space around the station, and a few sops are thrown to the
town, and probably to individual planning officers, to get a pretty
useless development passed.
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:122417202...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>> The odd thing is that nearly all the time, what gets planning permission
>> is nearly always exactly what the residents DON'T want.
>
> In many (most, perhaps) cases there are in fact no objections to planning
> applications at all. In many others there are representations in support as
> well as objectors. In most cases there's at least one resident in support,
> being the one who submitted the application.
>
> Your "nearly always", taken together with your use of "residents" meaning
> "all residents", is bollocks, basically.
>
More weasel words.
We are talking here about a large commercial development. With enough
money behind it to putatively buy councillors.
Did anyone want to lose the Kite? No. Then lion yard. Awful. I havent
sen th latest in town development, but I have no doubt is just a ghastly.
And here we go again. For as long a I have been here we all have been
saying that the best way to sort the transport infrastructure is to
utilize the space up near Milton for a station. Not around the existing one.
What have we had instead. Guided busses. Oh dear oh dear.
The Natural Philosopher
HOWEVER, what it boils down to, is that loadsamoney can afford to find
the loophols in the law, and 'persuade' councillors that XYZ piece of
modern abortion is in fact 'of such architectural interest' that it gets
permission, whereas the private individual hasn't got the clout.
> Mark
The Natural Philosopher
Exactly.
The council here does nt at as a proactive originator of plans that
would work to produce integrated transport policies. It acts merely as a
reactive adjuster of plans by private commercial entities to make more
money.
Paul Oldham
> The obvious place to put a better station is up near Milton, where a
> really decent integrated transport interchange point between the A14,
> and the railways system, and indeed the science/busines parks, could be
> built.
>
> By terminating all the road traffic - including large coaches - there
> and having either a light rail or bus shuttle into town, you would
> reduce town congestion, and people from the outyling villages who want
> to use the train would not need to come into Cambridge at all.
Cambridge Parkway aka Chesterton Parkway has featured in plans for the
area for a long time. The Cambridge Northern Fringe (East) proposal had
it as the heart of its plan for re-developing the P&R site, the sewage
works and Chesterton sidings. Unfortunately that's now shot to hell
after the political stitch up which means the sewage works aren't moving
and Network Rail's sudden enthusiasm for retaining the sidings as
sidings but we may still see a railway station there eventually.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments"
Jon Green
> On 16/10/08 12:33, Jon Green wrote:
>> Come friendly bombs, and all that.
>
> Philistine.
Not really, I just get that enthusiastic about it. It's a big slab of a
building, with a few concessions to styling, but if it were torn down
tomorrow, I don't think Cambridge would lose much.
I don't think I'm alone in that view, either. Try searching for
pictures of it on Google Images. Hasn't really inspired much interest.
In any case, if it's "iconic", it has to be iconic of _something_. It
doesn't represent any image of Cambridge that most people would
recognise. And Cambridge, despite being on the margin of the East
Anglian "bread basket", was never particularly noted for flour milling,
compared with Norfolk and Suffolk, for instance.
At the risk of sounding like a 1960s town planner, you can't hold onto
unremarkable history forever.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Jon Green
> Paul Oldham wrote:
>> On 16/10/08 12:33, Jon Green wrote:
>>> Come friendly bombs, and all that.
>> Philistine.
>
> Not really, I just get that enthusiastic about it.
Wonder what happened there...
Robert Campbell
Allocating it for student housing isn't a bad idea. But who'll be buying
these flats from the developers? Their parents? The colleges? Buy-to-let
speculators? And where will these 1,250 new students be moving from?
Duncan Wood
& why won't they have cars?
The Natural Philosopher
> On 17/10/08 08:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> The obvious place to put a better station is up near Milton, where a
>> really decent integrated transport interchange point between the A14,
>> and the railways system, and indeed the science/busines parks, could
>> be built.
>>
>> By terminating all the road traffic - including large coaches - there
>> and having either a light rail or bus shuttle into town, you would
>> reduce town congestion, and people from the outyling villages who want
>> to use the train would not need to come into Cambridge at all.
>
> Cambridge Parkway aka Chesterton Parkway has featured in plans for the
> area for a long time. The Cambridge Northern Fringe (East) proposal had
> it as the heart of its plan for re-developing the P&R site, the sewage
> works and Chesterton sidings. Unfortunately that's now shot to hell
> after the political stitch up which means the sewage works aren't moving
> and Network Rail's sudden enthusiasm for retaining the sidings as
> sidings but we may still see a railway station there eventually.
>
residents aren't getting.
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> remarked:
>>And where will these 1,250 new students be moving from?
Grotty Victorian house conversions along Hills Rd etc?
>& why won't they have cars?
Prohibited for undergrads, not sure if the place on East Rd also has a
restriction.
--
Roland Perry
Dave Holland
>The war memorial is to be moved slightly.
How so? (Purely out of curiosity.) I did look at some of the plans on
the CB1 web site but I didn't see any mention of moving it.
thanks,
Dave
Duncan Wood
wrote:
Only the ones at Cambridge University, who're unlikely to make up the
majority of undergrads living next to the station.
Paul Oldham
> In any case, if it's "iconic", it has to be iconic of _something_. It
> doesn't represent any image of Cambridge that most people would
> recognise.
Does to me. When I was a student coming up from Liverpool St (the better
option in those days) at the start of each term seeing the "castle" out
of the window was the sign that I'd arrived.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"I bought some batteries ... but they weren't included ..."
Jon Green
> On 17/10/08 09:08, Jon Green wrote:
>
>> In any case, if it's "iconic", it has to be iconic of _something_. It
>> doesn't represent any image of Cambridge that most people would
>> recognise.
>
> Does to me. When I was a student coming up from Liverpool St (the better
> option in those days) at the start of each term seeing the "castle" out
> of the window was the sign that I'd arrived.
I'm not sure that that in itself (in general!) is a strong enough reason
to keep it. If the landscape changes outside the train window -- as it
will with the CB1 development -- most people will just shrug and accept
it, I'm sure.
There have to be stronger reasons for keeping a building than nostalgia
alone.
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> remarked:
>>> & why won't they have cars?
>>
>> Prohibited for undergrads, not sure if the place on East Rd also has
>>a restriction.
>
>Only the ones at Cambridge University, who're unlikely to make up the
>majority of undergrads living next to the station.
So what's your inside track on the sort of undergrad who will be living
there? Which institution(s) will be renting out the flats?
--
Roland Perry
Brian Morrison
>> Does to me. When I was a student coming up from Liverpool St (the better
>> option in those days) at the start of each term seeing the "castle" out
>> of the window was the sign that I'd arrived.
>
> I'm not sure that that in itself (in general!) is a strong enough reason
> to keep it. If the landscape changes outside the train window -- as it
> will with the CB1 development -- most people will just shrug and accept
> it, I'm sure.
>
> There have to be stronger reasons for keeping a building than nostalgia
> alone.
Ah, but then buildings, like nostalgia, won't be what they used to be.
--
Brian
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> In message <op.ui529x05haghkf@lucy>, at 12:52:35 on Fri, 17 Oct 2008,
Well unless somethings chaged they appeared to be commercial lets.
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> There have to be stronger reasons for keeping a building than nostalgia
>> alone.
>
> Ah, but then buildings, like nostalgia, won't be what they used to be.
The problem comes when people insist on it!
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> remarked:
>> So what's your inside track on the sort of undergrad who will be
>>living there? Which institution(s) will be renting out the flats?
>
>Well unless somethings chaged they appeared to be commercial lets.
And that will make them "unapproved" as university lodgings, I suppose?
--
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> In message <op.ui574dn7haghkf@lucy>, at 14:37:15 on Fri, 17 Oct 2008,
It shouldn't, why?
Roland Perry
>>>> So what's your inside track on the sort of undergrad who will be
>>>>living there? Which institution(s) will be renting out the flats?
>>>
>>> Well unless somethings chaged they appeared to be commercial lets.
>>
>> And that will make them "unapproved" as university lodgings, I suppose?
>
>It shouldn't, why?
I thought they had to be supervised by an approved landlady, or under
the roof of a graduate (if not on actual College premises).
--
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> In message <op.ui59j4ajhaghkf@lucy>, at 15:08:18 on Fri, 17 Oct 2008,
Not since before I was a student. However I'd still suggest that the
location will be far more attractive to Anglia students.
Tim Ward
news:FGIcDpAV...@perry.co.uk...
>
> So what's your inside track on the sort of undergrad who will be living
> there? Which institution(s) will be renting out the flats?
ARU and/or whatever company Ashwell use to manage the site. There will be no
student cars allowed.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Tim Ward
> In message <op.ui5uxyjehaghkf@lucy>, at 09:52:36 on Fri, 17 Oct 2008,
> Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> remarked:
>>>And where will these 1,250 new students be moving from?
>
> Grotty Victorian house conversions along Hills Rd etc?
And/or family housing in Romsey Town.
>>& why won't they have cars?
>
> Prohibited for undergrads, not sure if the place on East Rd also has a
> restriction.
They do.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Tim Ward
>
> The obvious place to put a better station is up near Milton, where a
> really decent integrated transport interchange point between the A14, and
> the railways system, and indeed the science/busines parks, could be built.
Chesterton Parkway is still expected to happen one of these decades. Quite
why the funding for it is now stated to be dependent on acceptance of the
congestion charge is not clear to me however, you'll have to ask the county
council about that.
> Ditto the current bus station. Centralise the transport at the town edge,
> and just have shuttles to the town.
Buses are complicated. Please see the many reports over the years for more
information.
Tim Ward
news:di4ms5-...@snag.biff.org.uk...
There's a brief mention in the text somewhere. It wasn't part of the outline
planning consent anyway, it'll come up at the reserved matters and/or s106
stages.
Tim Ward
>
> Allocating it for student housing isn't a bad idea. But who'll be buying
> these flats from the developers? Their parents? The colleges? Buy-to-let
> speculators?
I've no idea who will own the freehold. The plan is that these will be halls
of residence managed by ARU.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> Only the ones at Cambridge University, who're unlikely to make up the
> majority of undergrads living next to the station.
Assertion failure at line 1
Duncan Wood
Does ARU have a general restriction now?
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
So I believe. Certainly a recent student was told so and his tenancy
agreement also had a clause in it forbidding operating a car in Cambridge.
Paul Gotch
> Chesterton Parkway is still expected to happen one of these decades. Quite
> why the funding for it is now stated to be dependent on acceptance of the
> congestion charge is not clear to me however, you'll have to ask the county
> council about that.
Because there are a load of people with vested interests who want the
congestion charge pushed through regardless of if it is actually a good
idea or not.
Hopefully the whole thing will end up being stalled long enough that by the
time a decision is actually made the entire thing will be irrelevant.
-p
--
"Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are."
- Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------
j...@skylon.demon.co.uk
wrote:
> "Paul Rudin" <paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:87d4i1k...@rudin.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > "Anthony Deane" <ajd66[removethisbit]@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >> "Duncan Wood" <nntpn...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:op.ui24haf9haghkf@lucy...
> >>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:41:19 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Outline planning consent given:
>
> >>>>http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=35...
>
> >>> Go on then, what on earth did English Heritage think was worth
> >>> preserving
> >>> in the current layout?
>
> >> I'll guess the war memorial at the top of Station Road.
>
> >> And don't they have offices on Brooklands Avenue?
>
> > Neither of those are affected by this are they?
>
> The parameter plans include the war memorial, and as far as Brooklands
> Avenue.
>
> http://www.cb1forcambridge.co.uk/pdfs/application_drawings/parameter%...
I found page 4 of the Parameter Plans particularly depressing. It
appears that almost all of the mature trees within the development
area are due for the chop.
When I walk along Hills Road I am always impressed by the fine
brickwork on the front of the building on the right hand side just
past Brooklands Avenue when heading towards the City centre. It has
an arched doorway and six arched windows. It reminds me of some of
the features on the original 1894 sewage pumping station building,
now
the Cambridge Museum of Technology (www.museumoftechnology.com). I
have been told that it may have once been the coal office for
Cambridge Station. It too is destined for destruction. A pity it
couldn't be reused.
--
John Connett
Tim Ward
news:1f1df998-eb47-43fd...@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> I found page 4 of the Parameter Plans particularly depressing. It
> appears that almost all of the mature trees within the development
> area are due for the chop.
I found it quite amusing to listen to Diana answering questions about the
trees during the meeting, actually.
She says that the only decent ones left are on the north side of the road,
and they're staying. The ones on the south side, which are to be replaced:
(a) are relatively manky anyway, having been messed up when the god
buildings were put up
(b) aren't all there, some having been replaced by the wrong species
(c) "are going to have to come down some time in the next forty years
anyway".
Oh, and not to worry, the new avenue will look wonderful "after about
twenty-five years".
Such a change from the "next May" event horizon that most politicians work
to!
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
> In message <6lpr5lF...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:48:36 on Thu,
> 16 Oct 2008, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
> >councils aren't allowed to build council housing any more, but
> instead >have to stick their right-to-buy receipts in Icelandic
> banks.
>
> Have to stick them in *a* bank, perhaps :)
No. They have to stick them in *lots* of banks, which have to be
interested in taking the deposits in the first place.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ward) wrote:
> Chesterton Parkway is still expected to happen one of these
> decades.
Last ETA I heard was 2012.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Jon Green) wrote:
> Paul Oldham wrote:
> > On 16/10/08 12:33, Jon Green wrote:
> >> Come friendly bombs, and all that.
> >
> > Philistine.
>
> Not really, I just get that enthusiastic about it. It's a big slab of
> a building, with a few concessions to styling, but if it were torn down
> tomorrow, I don't think Cambridge would lose much.
There have been later additions to the flour mill building that will be
removed, making it look rather better (at least I think so).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
> In message <op.ui5uxyjehaghkf@lucy>, at 09:52:36 on Fri, 17 Oct
> 2008, Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> remarked:
> >>And where will these 1,250 new students be moving from?
>
> Grotty Victorian house conversions along Hills Rd etc?
>
> >& why won't they have cars?
>
> Prohibited for undergrads, not sure if the place on East Rd also
> has a restriction.
If it doesn't (in fact ARU does) the council imposes one on new student
housing, including for other institutions, to introduce a no cars policy
which convinces the council it will work (e.g. Varsity House).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
no-r...@not.here.com (snowy) wrote:
> "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6ln2rfF...@mid.individual.net...
> > Outline planning consent given:
> >
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=358046
>
> Couldn't help smiling at this bit:
> "will also provide 331 homes, 40 per cent of which will be affordable"
> I *know* what they mean, but it does sound like the other 60% will be
> unaffordable...
>
> I'll climb back under my rock now :-)
It's like saying that students not studying Natural Sciences are studying
unnatural sciences, really.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
on Fri, 17 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >councils aren't allowed to build council housing any more, but
>> instead >have to stick their right-to-buy receipts in Icelandic
>> banks.
>>
>> Have to stick them in *a* bank, perhaps :)
>
>No. They have to stick them in *lots* of banks, which have to be
>interested in taking the deposits in the first place.
Yes, we understand that. But they don't all have to be *Icelandic*
banks, as Tim was suggesting.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Oldham
> In article <6lrt12F...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim
> Ward) wrote:
>
>> Chesterton Parkway is still expected to happen one of these
>> decades.
>
> Last ETA I heard was 2012.
Was that before or after the county dropped moving the sewage works from
the new Minerals and Waste Plan? (I ask as I'm assuming that before that
Chesterton Parkway was going to be at least part funded by the new
community planned for that area.)
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach"
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ward) wrote:
> <j...@skylon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1f1df998-eb47-43fd...@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I found page 4 of the Parameter Plans particularly depressing. It
> > appears that almost all of the mature trees within the development
> > area are due for the chop.
>
> I found it quite amusing to listen to Diana answering questions
> about the trees during the meeting, actually.
>
> She says that the only decent ones left are on the north side of
> the road, and they're staying. The ones on the south side, which
> are to be replaced:
>
> (a) are relatively manky anyway, having been messed up when the god
> buildings were put up
> (b) aren't all there, some having been replaced by the wrong species
> (c) "are going to have to come down some time in the next forty
> years anyway".
>
> Oh, and not to worry, the new avenue will look wonderful "after
> about twenty-five years".
>
> Such a change from the "next May" event horizon that most
> politicians work to!
Speak for yourself! BTDT with the Parker's Piece trees after Dutch Elm
Disease.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
Foreign banks are hard to avoid while keeping exposure to any one
institution down.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >No. They have to stick them in *lots* of banks, which have to be
>> >interested in taking the deposits in the first place.
>>
>> Yes, we understand that. But they don't all have to be *Icelandic*
>> banks, as Tim was suggesting.
>
>Foreign banks are hard to avoid while keeping exposure to any one
>institution down.
Yes, we understand that. But they don't all have to be *Icelandic*
banks, as Tim was suggesting.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> On 18/10/08 01:30, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> > In article <6lrt12F...@mid.individual.net>,
> > t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) wrote:
> >
> >> Chesterton Parkway is still expected to happen one of these
> >> decades.
> >
> > Last ETA I heard was 2012.
>
> Was that before or after the county dropped moving the sewage works
> from the new Minerals and Waste Plan? (I ask as I'm assuming that
> before that Chesterton Parkway was going to be at least part funded
> by the new community planned for that area.)
After. A couple of weeks ago at the public meeting on the CB1 transport
report.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
That comment smacks heavily of hindsight. The other overseas banks are
Irish. They could have had similar problems but haven't.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
>> >> >No. They have to stick them in *lots* of banks, which have to be
>> >> >interested in taking the deposits in the first place.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, we understand that. But they don't all have to be *Icelandic*
>> >> banks, as Tim was suggesting.
>> >
>> >Foreign banks are hard to avoid while keeping exposure to any one
>> >institution down.
>>
>> Yes, we understand that. But they don't all have to be *Icelandic*
>> banks, as Tim was suggesting.
>
>That comment smacks heavily of hindsight. The other overseas banks are
>Irish. They could have had similar problems but haven't.
Tim said the deposits had to be in Icelandic banks, he didn't mention
Irish ones ;-)
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
> In message <IMmdnTNbdIv-g2fV...@giganews.com>, at
> 12:35:31 on Sat, 18 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
> >> >Foreign banks are hard to avoid while keeping exposure to any one
> >> >institution down.
> >>
> >> Yes, we understand that. But they don't all have to be *Icelandic*
> >> banks, as Tim was suggesting.
> >
> >That comment smacks heavily of hindsight. The other overseas banks are
> >Irish. They could have had similar problems but haven't.
>
> Tim said the deposits had to be in Icelandic banks, he didn't
> mention Irish ones ;-)
Keep up at the back! It came up right at the start of this discussion.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
The Natural Philosopher
>
> That comment smacks heavily of hindsight. The other overseas banks are
> Irish. They could have had similar problems but haven't.
>
Gosh. Someones view of what constitutes 'foreign' is as limited as
'wailin pay-lin's
Anyway,china owns everything now.
Roland Perry
on Sun, 19 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >> >Foreign banks are hard to avoid while keeping exposure to any one
>> >> >institution down.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, we understand that. But they don't all have to be *Icelandic*
>> >> banks, as Tim was suggesting.
>> >
>> >That comment smacks heavily of hindsight. The other overseas banks are
>> >Irish. They could have had similar problems but haven't.
>>
>> Tim said the deposits had to be in Icelandic banks, he didn't
>> mention Irish ones ;-)
>
>Keep up at the back! It came up right at the start of this discussion.
Can't help that.
--
Roland Perry
Kevin Symonds
> In many (most, perhaps) cases there are in fact no objections to planning
> applications at all. In many others there are representations in support
> as well as objectors. In most cases there's at least one resident in
> support,
being the one who submitted the application.<
For most planning applications I'm sure that's true. But what if you change
'most planning applications' to 'major applications'?
Of course there'll always be people who agree and disagree with any
application but I can't think of any major application in my lifetime that's
been welcomed by residents.
Can you think of any? I'd be interested to know.
Kevin
Tim Ward
news:FKJKk.115942$wU.5...@newsfe11.ams2...
>
> Of course there'll always be people who agree and disagree with any
> application but I can't think of any major application in my lifetime
> that's been welcomed by residents.
> Can you think of any? I'd be interested to know.
Last time I looked at the CEN poll on CB1 it was showing over 50% in favour.
TimB
> TimB wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 3:22 pm, magwitch <a...@c.d> wrote:
>
> >> And making the Railtrack mistake all over again, investing in pretty
> >> station concourses and shops, instead of the track.
>
> > 'instead of the track' ?? There's no connection with railway
> > investment, these are totally different issues and totally different
> > pots of money.
> > Tim
>
> Railtrack owned the track and the stations. They chose to invest in
> beautifying the stations to the detriment of the track with disastrous
> results Hatfield etc.
>
> Blowing millions of £££s on concourses and plazas and the like will not
> make one iota of difference to those trying to use expensive, crowded
> and delayed trains.
No, they ARE separate. Network Rail has nothing to do with the
Ashwells cb1 project which is not on railway land. The transport
interchange and mega-cycle park WILL make a difference to those trying
to reach their trains. Which I don't think are especially expensive,
crowded or delayed at the mo (I returned to Cambridge today from
Cornwall via Edinburgh, and the whole network seems to be running like
one well-oiled train set at the moment. Bliss.)
Tim
Tim Ward
news:0239f820-b094-404d...@64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 10:25 pm, magwitch <a...@c.d> wrote:
>
> No, they ARE separate. Network Rail has nothing to do with the
> Ashwells cb1 project which is not on railway land.
In fact part of it is on railway land. Early plans opposed by the council
cramped all the buildings up round the station, leaving no space for the
square, in order to maximise the railway's profit on their land.
The current plans are vastly more sensible. Who owns which bit of land and
what deals they have done amongst themselves are not planning
considerations, so the developers don't have to tell the council that sort
of thing, but one guesses that some sort of land swaps or profit sharing
deals might have been entered into.
Kevin Symonds
"Tim Ward"
> Last time I looked at the CEN poll on CB1 it was showing over 50% in
> favour.<
Do you think the CB1 development will be good for Cambridge?
What sort of question is that? It's certainly not anything that could be
used as an indicator that CB1 is supported.
Good in what way? And what definition of Cambridge would you use?
Of course it comes down to what question you ask. They could have asked 'do
you think the CB1 plan is weak?' 'Is the CB1 plan the best we're going to
get?', 'Is the CB1 plan better than having a tyre dump on Station road?',
'Would you like a pedophile half way house by Cambridge Station or the CB1
plan?'.
They could have asked 'Would you like there to be a proper bus and coach
station, proper cycle parking, a bridge over to the Cattle Market site and a
brand new railway station?'.
Kevin
Tim Ward
>
> "Tim Ward"
>> Last time I looked at the CEN poll on CB1 it was showing over 50% in
>> favour.<
>
> Do you think the CB1 development will be good for Cambridge?
>
> What sort of question is that?
'Bout average for the CEN. Don't ask me to defend them!!
magwitch
> On Oct 16, 10:25 pm, magwitch <a...@c.d> wrote:
>> TimB wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 3:22 pm, magwitch <a...@c.d> wrote:
>>>> And making the Railtrack mistake all over again, investing in pretty
>>>> station concourses and shops, instead of the track.
>>> 'instead of the track' ?? There's no connection with railway
>>> investment, these are totally different issues and totally different
>>> pots of money.
>>> Tim
>> Railtrack owned the track and the stations. They chose to invest in
>> beautifying the stations to the detriment of the track with disastrous
>> results Hatfield etc.
>>
>> make one iota of difference to those trying to use expensive, crowded
>> and delayed trains.
>
> No, they ARE separate. Network Rail has nothing to do with the
> Ashwells cb1 project which is not on railway land. The transport
> interchange and mega-cycle park WILL make a difference to those trying
> to reach their trains. Which I don't think are especially expensive,
> crowded or delayed at the mo (I returned to Cambridge today from
> Cornwall via Edinburgh, and the whole network seems to be running like
> one well-oiled train set at the moment. Bliss.)
> Tim
I was talking about 1994/5 when the facelift at Waterloo took place not now.
Roland Perry
<0239f820-b094-404d...@64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, at
10:15:51 on Tue, 21 Oct 2008, TimB <timbu...@onetel.net> remarked:
>No, they ARE separate. Network Rail has nothing to do with the
>Ashwells cb1 project which is not on railway land.
So does that mean the station car park stays as it is - or is that not
"railway land"?
--
Roland Perry
Paul Oldham
> [...] (I returned to Cambridge today from
> Cornwall via Edinburgh, and the whole network seems to be running like
> one well-oiled train set at the moment. Bliss.)
You think? I think their routing for your journey is a bit strange ;-)
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"The opposite side has its opposite side."
TimB
the scenic route....
magwitch
> On 21/10/08 18:15, TimB wrote:
>
>> [...] (I returned to Cambridge today from
>> Cornwall via Edinburgh, and the whole network seems to be running like
>> one well-oiled train set at the moment. Bliss.)
>
> You think? I think their routing for your journey is a bit strange ;-)
>
TimB
No, no, spending money to keep Edinburgh's economy afloat....
magwitch
I thought the govmint was already doing that on our behalf, £20bn sounds
more than adequate to me.
The Natural Philosopher
:-)