Question 18. How do you think we can make sure that we achieve safe and inclusive communities when planning new development?

To reach our goals of ending dependence on private cars, cycling infrastructure must be a *priority* in new developments. Cycleways must be clean, well lit and must feel safe. Cycling infrastructure must be suitable for all sorts of users and journies, not just travel to workplaces

Access to affordable public transport to access employment and services needed is a key element of safety and inclusivity. Development should only be placed where there is access to sustainable transport options, including walking and cycling. This should include a consideration of how those living within the development will acccess the key services that they need...schools, shops, doctors surgeries , and at the same time as the development is planned then safe walking and cycling routes to these places should be reviewed and planned for at the same time, along with any improvements/modifications needed to existing routes. Schools should not be alongside major roads, and particularly where new schools are built safe cycling and walking routes should be planned at the same time that the building plans are drawn up and should be fundamental to whether or not planning permission is granted. Walking and cycling routes should be free from danger of obstruction, well linked up and well lit and made accessible , including for buggies, trail bikes, modified bikes, wheel chairs and mobility scooters etc. When planning walking routes through developments planners should be asked to imagine they are a young woman walking home feeling like she needs to hold her keys in her hand to ward off potential attackers. Cycle/walking routes alongside busy roads should be separated from the road (e.g. with tree/vegetation cover where possible). In designing new developments, provision for youth should be considered e.g. skate parks, pump tracks etc. and designed in a way that they give older children/teens somewhere to go, but also facilitate family use (e.g. near a splash pad, smaller park, picnic space). St Neots and Trumpington both have places like this. Spaces for teens should also be considered for existing villages -in many, there is nowhere for them to go. Similarly, community space should be included in new developments and kept/supported in existing developments including through encouraging multifunctional use (services for older people such as memory cafes, “man sheds”, baby groups, job clubs, sustainability advice centres, scout huts etc...) , and designed with multifunctional use in mind. Developments should include an appropriate mix of social and other housing, including housing for families , housing for groups of workers living together and supported housing for elderly and those with disabilities or mental health needs. It should be considered how many adapted or adaptable/accessible homes should be included in developments to meet the needs of the disabled and elderly (to enable them to stay longer or more safely in their own homes)...possibly a minimum standard could be set for this, as it is for social housing. Social housing should have the same access to green space as other houses. Experience with the “microhouses” for the homeless in Cambridge city centre should be reviewed, and if considered successful this should be scaled up in areas where there is the greatest need and this can be supported.

Section 4.3.3 of the Issues & Options consultation document identifies the factors that are relevant to the creation of safe and inclusive communities. As set out in the response to Question 16, there are substantial affordability issues in Greater Cambridge associated with the high cost of buying and renting housing, and those that cannot afford to live in Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire close to employment opportunities having to endure longer commuting. It is considered that the emerging GCLP should include a development strategy that seeks to meet housing and affordable housing needs and locate housing closer to employment opportunities to reduce in-commuting. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF expects a wide range of house types, sizes and tenures to be provided to meet a variety of housing needs including the full range of affordable housing tenures as defined in the Annex 2 Glossary of the NPPF. The developments promoted by Endurance Estates in Bassingbourn would provide housing and affordable housing.

Many of the points under "creating safe and inclusive communities" sounds reasonable. To make sure they are followed the local authorities could take on much of the building themselves to ensure they can control what is actually built and its specification.

Section 4.3.3 of the Issues & Options consultation document identifies the factors that are relevant to the creation of safe and inclusive communities. As set out in the response to Question 16, there are substantial affordability issues in Greater Cambridge associated with the high cost of buying and renting housing, and those that cannot afford to live in Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire close to employment opportunities having to endure longer and unsustainable commuting. It is considered that the emerging GCLP should be informed by a cogent development strategy that seeks to meet housing and affordable housing needs in full, and which prioritises the location of new housing closer to employment opportunities to assist in reducing unsustainable in-commuting. It should be noted that the examining Inspectors for the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 acknowledged that affordable housing needs within Greater Cambridge would not be met in full by the development strategy proposed at that time. It was noted that developer contributions would provide for only half of the affordable housing needs in Cambridge (see Paragraph 37 of the Cambridge Inspector’s Report) and that developer contributions would provide for affordable housing needs in full in South Cambridgeshire (see Paragraph 36 of the South Cambridgeshire Inspector’s Report). It should be further noted that the conclusions on whether affordable housing needs in South Cambridgeshire would be met was based on the assumption that all of the strategic sites would provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing, but as set out in the responses to Questions 44 and 46 below the strategic sites at Northstowe, Waterbeach, Cambourne West, and Wing (at Cambridge East) are not providing sufficient or policy compliant levels of affordable housing as intended; on this basis affordable housing needs in South Cambridgeshire will not be met. In addition, it is noted that the strategic developments in neighbouring Huntingdonshire at Alconbury Weald and at St Neots East are also not providing policy compliant levels of affordable housing. Therefore, affordable housing needs are not being met by current development strategies in Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire or in neighbouring Huntingdonshire. It is considered that this outcome is unacceptable in terms of delivering socially inclusive communities and meeting the affordable housing requirements of the area. It is requested that the development strategy for emerging GCLP seeks to meet affordable housing needs in full by allocating sufficient sites that are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing.

• It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure and facilities are not treated as afterthoughts – relegated to the shadows of new developments in poor locations and/or with poor lighting. • Cycle parking and cycleways should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. • Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users.

• It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure and facilities are not treated as afterthoughts – relegated to the shadows of new developments in poor locations and/or with poor lighting. • Cycle parking and cycleways should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. • Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users.

Include provision and funding for community/youth/training centres in new developments: focal points for events/outreach. As always, these need to be funded, dynamic and effective to be effective. But how could GCD develop 'best practice' models, from the outset of new development.

• It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure and facilities are not treated as afterthoughts – relegated to the shadows of new developments in poor locations and/or with poor lighting. • Cycle parking and cycleways should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. • Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users.

There is an element in the final sentence of the preamble to this question that reads as if the creation of corporate settlements might be considered, where residents’ lives may in large part be dependent on their employer. This is not an option that should be considered.

• It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure for all abilities and facilities are not treated as afterthoughts – relegated to the shadows of new developments in poor locations and/or with poor lighting. • Cycle parking and cycleways should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. • Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users.

• It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure and facilities are treated as primary features of any development, not merely as afterthoughts that are relegated to poor locations and/or with poor lighting. • Cycle parking and cycleways intended for general-purpose travel should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. • Homes should always have safe cycle routes to schools and parks, suitable for children. • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. • Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users. • The cycle route network should connect people with everyday needs such as work, school, shops, surgeries and parks; the routes should pass in front of buildings and through places with natural surveillance to assure personal safety, and they should be fully accessible to people of all abilities. “As one example, the ‘Living First’ campaign in Vancouver required high-density neighborhoods to be aesthetically pleasant and full of amenities (e.g., easy access to parks, child-care facilities, and grocery stores; streetscapes with shops and row housing rather than blank high-rise walls; and safe, convenient mass-transit and pedestrian facilities). The resulting neighborhoods benefit not only CO2 emissions (two-thirds of trips are by mass transit, bicycle, or walking) but also public health: by reducing automobile usage, compact development also reduces traffic fatalities and obesity).” (Marshall, 2008) “Where good quality sustainable transport options are integrated into development at the planning stage or at the time of major investment they are well-used. Attempting to ‘retro-fit’ sustainable transport into existing conventional development is much more difficult as travel habits have already been established.” (Campaign for Better Transport, 2015) “The quality and safety of the pedestrian and cycling environment is important—particularly the perception of these things. Parental consent for children to walk or cycle to school, friends or playground is notoriously low in the UK by comparison with much of Europe, due to real or perceived traffic and stranger danger. Children’s freedom to roam has been curtailed. Physical improvement to route continuity, directness, safety, informal surveillance and aesthetic quality is a part of any strategy to change perceptions and culture.” (Barton, 2009) “The starting point for designing cycle facilities within the compass of Sustainable Traffic Safety is ‘Design for All’. Cyclists have few standard characteristics. On the contrary, cyclists in the Netherlands are a variegated bunch, in terms of age, sex, physical fitness and reasons for travelling.” (CROW, 2017, p. 28) “At the most basic level, inclusive cycle infrastructure should be step-free, offer a continuous and uninterrupted journey, and have clear and accessible wayfinding.” (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2019) “For the same reason that carriageways are illuminated, so too do cycleways need to be illuminated. This is especially the case if they are designed for purposeful travel, such as year-round commuting.” (Parkin, 2018) Evidence for our response to Question 18. • Marshall, Julian D. (2008). Reducing urban sprawl could play an important role in addressing climate change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 9, 3133–3137. • Campaign for Better Transport (2015). Getting there: How sustainable transport can support new development. • CROW (1996–2017). The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW-Fietsberaad. Ede, Nederland. • Wheels for Wellbeing (2019). A Guide to Inclusive Cycling. 3rd Edition. • Taylor, Ian and Sloman, Lynn (2011). Thriving cities: integrated land use and transport planning. • Barton, Hugh (2009). Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing.

Cycling should always be the quickest and most convenient transport option for local journeys within new developments. It must not be more convenient to drive through the new development for short journeys than cycle. Driving routes on new sites should be less convenient, circuitous and directed towards the exterior of the site away from where people live and gather. Making walking and cycling accessible for people with mobility issues will enable many more people to improve their physical health through active travel and improve their mental health and wellbeing by reducing isolation. New developments must be designed to prevent parking on pavements High-quality cycle parking must be provided with all buildings. Better rubbish management should ensure bins don't litter the landscape and block paths. Priority over side roads must be given to people walking and cycling. Junctions must be designed to enable people of all abilities to cycle safely through them. The Local Plan must acknowledge that cycles are also mobility aids for many people. There should never be any situation where 'cyclist dismount' signs are installed.

Making people feel involved in the plan, ensuring there are places where communities can come together to hold events, meet one another and play sports/keep fit. Making these spaces accessible, and particularly by reliable, affordable and eco-friendly public transport as well as by cycling and walking.

Cycling infrastructure needs to be useable and safe by all. That means wide segregated infrastructure that prevents conflicts with both pedestrians and cars. This infrastructure needs to be well lit and in overlooked locations for safe use, and needs to be useable by people of all ages. Barriers that prevents the use by bikes adapted for families of disabled people are unacceptable. It needs to be realised that there are those who are unable to drive but use a bike as there primary mode of transport

To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. This includes young poeple, in particular women, travelling alone to and from work and carers with small children. When wanting to achieve inclusive communities we need to consider those who are in full time employment. By creating mixed use developments there is more chance of their integration into the lives of those who exist outside the 9-5 world. Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED) is an example to be considered. It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure and facilities are main priorities, along side drainage and energy provision. Cycle parking and cycleways should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users.

Prioritise buses and cycling so the world is no longer built around people who have the ability and money to drive a car. This will particularly benefit children and the elderly.

Busy roads are polluted, noisy, and unsafe. They divide communities and trap people in their homes. Planning policies must not allow busy roads to harm communities in the future, and help fix this problem in existing developments.

• It is important that planning policies specify that walking/cycling infrastructure should underpin developments and should cater for all types of people on all types of journey - children, the elderly, less-able people, commuters etc • Cycle parking and cycleways should be in safe, secure locations • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety.

Stop planning new development. Question the underlying assumption that we must have eternal growth. Bring in rules to limit Airbnb and holiday lets. That will free up space. Take over empty homes. Buy big houses and split them into smaller units. NO MORE GROWTH.

Well lit, spacious and open developments with many communal facilities - community centres where people can join groups and interact. People look after and have respect for places and others where they have a sense of belonging and ownership. Development of mixed ages where each supports the others.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association supports the items listed on page 43. One point to stress at the outset is that the needs of new developments must not be taken in isolation, they must be integrated with existing communities. Also, once a development ceases to be 'new', it still needs support. This is an important issue in an area such as Trumpington, where the Southern Fringe communities can no longer be categorised as 'new', but need long-term support. As in our response to Question 17, we stress the need for a long-term investment in support structures, including community workers, youth groups, support for local community centres, family support structures, etc. One issue where these support structures are crucial is in discouraging and responding to anti-social behaviour, where local residents are concerned that more effective action must be taken than has been the case in recent years. It is also essential that new communities have the timely provision of services such as schools, community centres, libraries, medical centres, shops, allotments, bus services, etc. In our experience, services such as local shops can be promised but delayed, with early residents suffering from inadequate facilities. We think that land owners including the Councils can be much more innovative in supporting new shops and small businesses, such as by rent relief. Also, the local experience has been that new developments have a high proportion of families and home workers, who need support systems. Overall, there needs to be considerable effort to ensure that established and new communities integrate and develop.

Section 4.3.3 of the Issues & Options consultation document identifies the factors that are relevant to the creation of safe and inclusive communities. As set out in the response to Question 16, there are substantial affordability issues in Greater Cambridge associated with the high cost of buying and renting housing, and those that cannot afford to live in Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire close to employment opportunities having to endure longer commuting. It is considered that the emerging GCLP should include a development strategy that seeks to meet housing and affordable housing needs and locate housing closer to employment opportunities and public transport hubs to reduce in-commuting and travel by car.

Mixed developments with key worker and affordable housing that have excellent access to public transport Mixed developments to include lifetime housing so that people can stay in their communities as they go through life changes Better public transport connectivity and public transport to be the cheaper option for travel Green spaces to include exercise areas for all ages e.g. playgrounds for all ages Better facilities for people with disabilities so they can be included in all developments Communal work spaces for distance working to prevent isolation for homeworkers

There is an element in the final sentence of the preamble to this question that reads as if the creation of corporate settlements might be considered, where residents’ lives may in large part be dependent on their employer. This is not an option that should be considered.

Ask lots of vulnerable people. They know better than anyone what they need. All the citizen juries need a good proportion of disabled people, different ages and ethnicities (including asylum-seekers), lower-income people, sexual & gender minorities, etc.

make more prvision for shared space and comercial opportunities including social enterprise in these new developments. Trumpington developments don't have enough!

See the response to question 16

Consider sustainable transport routes from the commencement of planning - integrated cycle/walking paths to all local amenities - adequate secure cycle parking.

Designs should ensure maximum permeability between areas; we need to avoid gated developments or fenced off areas like the current Science Park. We need to be planning '15-minute neighbourhoods' where services and facilities are accessible within a 15-minute walk or cycle ride and we need to reduce motor traffic so that communities meet and use the streetspace, reducing levels of isolation and loneliness. We need to include restrictions on housing so that large proportions are not sold off as investments (as in CB1) and local people can live near schools and jobs. I also agree with the following points made by Camcycle: • It is important that planning policies specify that cycling infrastructure and facilities are not treated as afterthoughts – relegated to the shadows of new developments in poor locations and/or with poor lighting. • Cycle parking and cycleways should always be in well-lit and overlooked locations. • To determine if people feel safe, we should reach out to the most vulnerable people in our community to assess safety. • Transport and cycling infrastructure must not just be designed for work commutes but for all types of uses and all types of users.