I feel obliged to comment on these - for two reasons...firstly, I think the designs aren't right; and secondly, us residents don't seem to be getting a vote!!

Check out the designs, then read on...

http://www.insidearburypark.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=x2DL26s9cI8%3d&tabid=62&mid=522

Arbury Park is going to have few enough open spaces that it seems sensible and proper that the few that do exist are 'open'. These designs, whilst clever, seem terribly dominated by the seating and hard surfacing around them - they aren't open, and won't allow free-form use of the spaces at all.

I do appreciate that they're not intended for 5-a-side football, but they are ample big enough for some gentle kicking of a ball around - instead, it will be necessary to 'bend it like Beckham' to avoid the dominating seating structures in the middle of each of the LAPs.

Not that I don't think seating won't be useful (how many double negatives can't I not get away with!!) - but it should be unobtrusive, and whilst we're on the subject, let's have as much grass as can be crammed in - there's more than enough block paving and tarmac all over Arbury Park to satisfy any brick or tarmac obsessed person. Low maintenance is not an argument, as any grass on the LAP will require a mower to be used there regularly anyway.

And I certainly don't object to the inclusion of public art - I'm all for it - but only where it complements and adds value. I think these designs effectively make the LAPs in to a litte grass and some trees wrapped around the centre piece of public art.

Perhaps the key is in the National Playing Fields 'Six Acre Standard' 2001 which describes a LAP as:

"a small area of open space specifically designated and laid out for younger children to play close to where they live"

Was I subtle enough? But don't just take my word for it, have your say and post a comment below (once you've registered on the site!!)

At the end of January 2008, I attended a parish councillor's briefing on tackling congeestion in Cambridgeshire...well it was partially interesting!

The briefing element of the meeting focused on the wide range of initiatives for tackling congestion in Cambridge City, and largely reflects the ideas proposed in the £500m application for TIF money. The infamous congestion charge is a part of this whole package, and importantly something that largely depends on the implementation of all the other proposals if it is to be implemented.

The other proposals include improving cycle and pedestrian access, both within the city, but also from the necklace of villages around the city. A new rail station at Chesterton, further Park & Ride locations and segregated bus lanes are also part of the proposals. I believe an extension of the Guided Busway was also mentioned. The congestion charge would only be implemented if a substantial part of these proposals are implemented, and will not be implemented before 2012 at the earliest. A key point is that if the TIF application fails, and these proposals are no implemented, then neither will the congestion charge!

The Q&A part of themeeting was really quite unhelpful, with the majority of the questions being asked by villages miles from Cambridge, mostly asking for consideration on tackling congestion in their villages, and not in Cambridge. As a result, I didn't get an easy opportunity to raise any questions, so followed up the meeting with an email (to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it if you want to send an email!!) - the good news is that I got a whole set of responses!

These are my questions - the answers are in italic:

1. Please can you confirm what discounts will be given to residents within the proposed congestion charge zone?
   The TIF proposals currently have no discounts or exemptions worked into them and this forms part of the consultation. We are aware that there will have to be some and these will be considered further after the consultation period has finished. We are also working very closely with City Councillors, Addenbrooke's and key partner organisations to start these discussions.
2. Arbury Park is attractive to residents for its proximity to the A14, and yet it appears Residents will be charged for travelling the few hundred yards out of Arbury Park and on to the A14 – this seems quite unreasonable since these residents are not contributing to any congestion in Cambridge City.
   The final decision on the area that the congestion zone is still to be agreed, if in fact it is decided to take the proposals further after consultation.
3. Including Arbury Park within the congestion charge zone will put off any companies looking to move to the commercial land on Arbury Park – with land developers already looking to maximise their profits by converting Arbury Park commercial land to residential, this is only going to contribute to the destruction of the Arbury Park vision before it’s had a chance to properly develop its roots.
   The final decision on the area that the congestion zone is still to be agreed, if in fact it is decided to take the proposals further after consultation.
4. What is the rationale for charging vehicles as they exit Cambridge – surely it’s the inbound traffic that’s contributing to the congestion?
   If the proposals are agreed, we shall be considering further the impact of vehicles leaving the city. Especially those that do not cross any junctions prior to exit.
5. Has any consideration been given to allowing motorcycles and mopeds to use the existing bus lanes? This will encourage some people to change from cars to two-wheels which significantly improves congestion, parking and is less harmful to the environment.
   Your suggestion regarding motorcycles & mopeds using bus lanes is something that could be considered if the proposals go ahead. The use of each bus lane will have to be considered further - on its own merit.
6. Has any consideration been given to improving the pedestrian/cycle crossing of the A14 at Histon. This junction is used by a lot of children going to and from Impington Village College in the morning and afternoon respectively, and is hugely dangerous with pedestrians and cyclists being forced to play chicken with cars trying to race the traffic lights. With some focus of the TIF funding being on improving the cycle routes from the necklace villages, this should certainly be one of the projects considered.
   Thank you for your comments regarding the A14 pedestrian/cycle crossing at Histon. These comments will be fed into the consultation for consideration.
7. Given that the initial aim of the congestion charge would be to reduce city traffic to 10% below the current levels, what is planned for the charge when those levels start to rise again – will the charge be raised in order to keep the traffic levels capped at this goal level? It has been demonstrated in London that the congestion charge does reduce traffic levels but that over a period of a few years, salaries adjust to balance out this ‘tax’ and traffic levels begin to rise again. In fact traffic flow across London is now slower than when the congestion charge was introduced there. It’s commonly understood that taxation is never successful in changing behaviour.
   The modelling that has been done has shown that if all the proposals were implemented this would reduce traffic by 10%, after the growth, based on current levels. It has also shown that by implementing the 'carrots' (improved public transport etc) as well as the 'sticks' (congestion charging) that people will use alternative transport methods to the car when possible.
8. I’m sure the Guided Busway will be wonderful at transporting people from the villages north of Cambridge in to Arb ury Park, CRC and the Science Park, and vice-versa, but unless there is traffic segregation down Histon Road and Milton Road, these sections of the journey will simply get bogged down in to traffic and will not improve congestion across the City at all. I’m sure these issues are well understood, but I’d like to understand what is planned to address them?
   As part of the TIF funding application there are various road improvements to be carried out to enable a variety of measures including segregated bus ways and bus priority. Each area will have to be looked at independently and the width of road, availability of land, junctions etc will have to be considered.
9. Pricing on the buses (& Guided Busway?) needs to be sorted out – as a resident in Arbury Park, it’s considerably cheaper for me to drive across to Cowley Park & Ride and take the Park & Ride bus. I will be starting a job shortly working in the city centre, and whilst the bus would be the most convenient (albeit a little slow!), I’m not even considering it because of the ridiculous cost!
   We will be working very closely with the bus companies. Busses need to be cost effective, timely and reliable if we are to promote these as alternatives to the motor vehicle.
10. If tackling congestion is really a serious goal, then there need to be improvements in the routes and speed of the buses – with over 300 residents on Arbury Park, rising to several thousand within a couple of years, it’s essential that the right bus services are put in place soon – the Citi 4 bus service is meant to be running across Arbury Park, but was causing traffic issues with the builders, and is effectively now not running. Even if it does, being at the end of the bus route, the time taken to travel to the city centre from Arbury Park is simply too long - it’s simply not a viable commuting alternative.
    There are to be a considerable number of improvements to the bus routes if the TIF proposals are agreed.  The majority of public transport improvements will be implemented prior to any congestion charge being enforced.

Firstly, I apologise for the motorcycle question...as a biker I have an interest and a genuine belief that this is a good suggestion! Secondly I was 'well' impressed to have got a reply, and a comprehensive, thoughtful reply at that.

The most important points:

• Public views can influence both the definition of the congestion zone and scheme for resident discounts - and it's not too late to make your views known.
  
• Arbury Park residents leaving the city during the peak period may well either escape the charge or get discounts as we are so close to the A14, but this is not a done deal (see first bullet!!)
• Please support my motorcycle/moped suggestion - it's a good one!! Okay, so that's a bit cheeky, but hey...sue me!!!:)
• With Bus construction expected bto be complete in about a year, there's still no clear picture about how the Guided Bus will escape the traffic on both Milton Road or Histon Road...this seems really poor planning, and means that Arbury Park residents may end up with very little real benefit from the Guided Busway (unless you're travelling out of the city!).

So the bad news is that we're going to have to tackle congestion in Cambridge City somehow...the good news (really!!) is that it really is being tackled in a thoughtful and productive way, and there's no excuse for anyone to say they didn't have the chance to have their say!

More info: http://www.insidearburypark.net/News/CambridgeCongestionCharge/tabid/102/Default.aspx 

In December 2007, I heard from a future Arbury Park resident who was expecting to move in to her house in Chadwick Court sometime in September, but it was all inexplicably delayed, and she wasn't being told what was going on. Well, several weeks later, we had discovered that the delay was caused by InSpace building a very small part of the house on land they didn't own (duhhh!!). Agreement was reached with the land owner and a new planning application submitted at the beginning of January. This is still pending but should hopefully be approved in the near future.

The worst of this was the apparent lack of news being given to the affected future residents - these were people that were desperate to know what was going on, but just felt they were getting the run around. I fear that the situation has still not improved because I was recently contacted by one of those residents to see if I'd heard any news. I'm trying to find out who should be briefing the residents so I can find out first hand what is being done.

But it gets worse (I think).

At the time of the new planning application in January, Impington Parish Council were advised of a second application that would arrive sometime later (March or April perhaps) for a similar problem with houses at the end of Starr End. Check out this map to see these locations. The good news? We were assured by Places for People that no houses had been allocated to future residents so any delays in occupation would not affect anyone.

Well what do you think? I had an email today from someone who said they'd been waiting to move in to Starr End since September and did I know why there was a delay? So now it appears that houses have been allocated...despite assurances to the contrary.

So what is going on? The future residents aren't seemingly being told what's happening? The Parish Council don't appear to be getting the whole story? And nobody who can do anything about it seems to care what is going on.

I think it stinks. If you know anyone else who is affected by this situation, please ask them to get in touch with me via the feedback form on this web site...I want to try to get the whole picture and try to get some clarity to what is going on. I'll do what I can!

South Cambridgeshire District Council are proposing to create a new parish for Arbury Park (the orange area!).

The Parish Council is the most local level of Government, so is responsible for reviewing planning applications, providing local services (play areas, open spaces, community centres, sports and recreation) and working with other organisations to represent the residents.