Petition against development of Staples site

Signatures 181 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4 › »

1. 1
   Name: Gerald Avison on Feb 12, 2013

   Comments: I strongly endorse the message above.

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Teresa Cawdry on Feb 12, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Mary Watkins on Feb 12, 2013

   Comments: I live near Mitchams corner and would dearly like to see it restored to vibrancy. however the proposed development will not do this being too large and the loss of parking impacting on local traders negatively.

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Jo Tomlinson on Feb 12, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Chrissie Bligh on Feb 12, 2013

   Comments: I am a local resident and have lived near to Mitcham's Corner for over 25 years Whilst I agree that the current site is ugly and sorely in need of redevelopment, I feel the proposed structure is not right. It is too high, too large, and does not give us much needed green space.

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Catherine Bligh on Feb 12, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: G.B.Rich on Feb 13, 2013

   Comments: The building will be too big, and not suitable for very young students

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Andy Davey on Feb 13, 2013

   Comments: This is entirely the wrong development for the site. Put simply, it is a student dormitory on a traffic island. It offers no improvement of the site and no enhancement of the local area. it will not benefit local businesses and would restrict any cohesive, holistic development of Mitcham's Corner, as so elegantly illustrated in the recent project run by the Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment at Cambridge University. This is a purely commercial development without consideration for the potential in such a pivotal site for Cambridge and without concern for the local community

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Anita Herle on Feb 13, 2013

   Comments: The long awaited redevelopment of Mitchem's corner needs careful consideration and more imagination. The current plans are inappropriate for the area and do not provide the range of mixed housing and shops that are needed to make the neighborhood sustainable and vibrant.

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Howard Clarke on Feb 14, 2013

    Comments: development of this site should be considered in the context of the regeneration of the whole Mitchams Corner zone

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Sarah Hart on Feb 14, 2013

    Comments: not appropriate, at all

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Rory Spurling on Feb 14, 2013

    Comments: More parking needed !!!!

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Mary Burdett on Feb 14, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2013

    Comments: The building is disproportionately high for the site, and will be visible in a very intrusive way from Jesus Green and Midsummer Common (the former already infringed upon visually by the newly built Varsity hotel - the skyline is hugely important to Cambridge's unique ambience and once lost...) . The quality of the development is distressingly bad: already on the corner of Milton Road and Gilbert Road we have a very unattractively designed and low quality building - this development will add to the disharmony of the area. Please let us have a better quality and throught-through design which is not about maximising the profits of property developers at the expense of the needs of the local community.

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Allan Brigham on Feb 14, 2013

    Comments: 1.Not nearly good enough for this gateway site marking the entrance to Cambridge and nearby commons from the east. Nothing here to indicate that you are approaching a city of magnificent architecture and green spaces. This site should extend the qualities of the city centre across the river as the existing city centre shrinks with Cambridge growing. It also needs to redeem the mistake made by giving planning permission for the poorly designed Care Home on the site of former school nearby. 2..Design and massing fails to take account of context - esp on frontage between Portland Arms and Victoria Rd/Croftholme Lane junction, it dwarfs the Victorian buildings and courtyard that are the real gem of the area. 3. No apparent enhancement to immediate public realm as a result of this scheme. 4. Inappropriate place for residential use - this is a busy roundabout. Are residents never expected to open windows ? There will be noise and pollution from traffic, esp stationary vehicles revving engines at adjacent traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Regine Page on Feb 15, 2013

    Comments: Too high and overwhelming building for this part of town. The Town is being destroyed by huge building at present, not in keeping with its surroundings.

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Lisa Buchholz on Feb 15, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Lisa Buchholz on Feb 15, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Patrick Zutshi on Feb 15, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Jean Hardisty on Feb 15, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Dr Bruria Shachar-Hill on Feb 15, 2013

    Comments: I object to this proposed development because it is totally unsuitable for this site. It is large, intrusive and instead of contributing to local needs is very likely to have a detrimental effect on communal life.

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Karen Lubarr on Feb 15, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Mike Bleazard on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: The design any development on this site should be part of a master-plan for the whole area. The master plan should put the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and the community at it's heart.

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Susan Grossey on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Louise Foxcroft on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: +Simon Barrington-Ward on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: Totally opposed to a destructiv e and mediocre plan

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Fiona Green on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Simon Barrington-Ward on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: I think that this is a terrible plan and wish to object most strongly

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Simon Barrington-Ward on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: I am utterly oppposed to a poor quality and grossly overlarge structure detracting from parking affecting the safety of students and affecting retailers adversely.

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: No good for the community, nor for the students marooned on a traffic island.

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Simon Barrington-Ward on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: A disproportinately and poor quality structure wwhich will be opposed by all residents here I am quite sure.

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: The structure proposed is dsproportionately large and ugly , causeing loss of parking,harm to local retailers and athreat to the safety of students.

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Martin Bond on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: The place for student accommodation is in the college or nearby, not in the middle of a busy roundabout. The building is out of proportion with the surrounding area and insensitive to those living in the vicinity. The developers haven't made even a token gesture to add something for the local community. Fail.

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Simon Barrington-Ward on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: The disproportionate size and oppressive ugliness of the structure proposed have already been well highlighted.

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Richard Sword on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: The thin end of an unpleasantly thick wedge: an inappropriate development which could only exacerbate some of the obvious existing problems of Mitcham's Corner.

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Richard Sword on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: The thin end of an unpleasantly thick wedge: an inappropriate development which could only exacerbate some of the obvious existing problems of Mitcham's Corner.

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Irial MacGinley on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: What happens to the Electrical substation in the context of the new development

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Simon Barrington-Ward on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: This is obviously from all trustworthy accounts a terrible plan which on every ground must be opposed.

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Liz Fenton on Feb 18, 2013

    Comments: A short sighted proposal with no consideration for the locality or community. The building would be of overbearing proportions, poor design and for a purpose wholly inappropriate for the site.

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 19, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Maja Asell on Feb 19, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Dr. Audrey Taylor on Feb 19, 2013

    Comments: The building shows no concern for the character of the area. Cambridge deserves better, as do the students.

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Joanna Gordon Clark on Feb 19, 2013

    Comments: height will destroy local areas pleasant and sunlit feel with lower houses going both ways on Chesterton Road and up Miltoni Road, and Victoria Road, incidentally now a conservation area. Staples have been there as they are for a long time and provide a car park upstairs for shoppers, and are part of thelocal landscape. this building is ugly, white, and in your face, and far too high anyway. Two stories would be a maximum for any such building. Traffic would also become horrendous, and there is no reason for building this

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Paul Robison on Feb 20, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Alistair Storer on Feb 20, 2013

    Comments: Mitchams Corner needs wholescale rethinking, not piecemeal development which retains the current layout- however unnatractive an idea this may be to developers. Lets get rid of the racetrack!

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Hamish Downer on Feb 20, 2013

    Comments: The whole road layout is a nightmare, and a big new development is an opportunity to bring sanity to the site. Instead this would entrench the current layout for decades.

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Paul Tonks on Feb 20, 2013

    Comments: the gyratory must be removed as part of any development.

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Chris Brown on Feb 20, 2013

    Comments: I endorse the objections of Friends of Mitchams Corner and strongly oppose the Gyratory system

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Simon Powell on Feb 20, 2013

    Comments: Mitcham's corner urgently needs a proper design to make it safer for cyclists, and this proposed development would just make things worse.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4 › »