Question 36. How should the Local Plan ensure the right infrastructure is provided in line with development?

Deliver the bulk of mandated housing numbers via new communities so that developers have to provide the infrastructure and leave rural exception sites to sustainable smaller existing communities that have the infrastructural capacity of accommodate them.

links to railway stations, cycle storage, upgrades to railway stations, new railway stations must be included in all planning proposals and must legally be implemented before the new development is built. All development should take place where there is already good public transport seven days a week to jobs and recreation, so no need for car dependency.

• Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

More attention should be paid to available infrastructure when houses are considered for development. The “lack of 5-year land supply” is a threat. A better definition of “sustainability” is needed.

I strongly recommend that good pedestrian and cycle links to railway stations and transport hubs with secure cycle storage, upgrades to railway stations. New railway stations and transport hubs must be included in all planning proposals and must legally be implemented before the new development is built. All development should take place where there is already good public transport provided seven days a week, early until late, to all jobs and recreation, so that there is no need for car dependency.

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

Focus on bike/foot path routes and (affordable) public transport to reduce car usage.

The local plan should provide for a rapid transit system, including underground sections to cover the centre of Cambridge. This can be paid for by taxing the uplift in values from new housing developments. Space needs to be made available for segregated cycle routes. All new properties should be built with fibre to the premises internet connections.

Require that every planning application include a credible and realistic plan for transport, local amenities etc., so that new housing is not built as ‘dormitory’ accommodation, without local employment, services, amenity and transport.

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.

By actively involving key stakeholders and working with them to deliver a phased approach.

Ask people and work back from there but get people to think more broadly than health and schools – what about pre-schools, wrap around care? What about swimming pools and football pitches, what about theatres and music practice spaces.

Transport infrastructure, which includes the infrastructure to encourage more sustainable modes of travel i.e. walking and cycling, can have positive impacts on people’s health and wellbeing. This can also reduce transport related emissions on the environment. Therefore, this will result in healthier communities, which will have a positive effect on air quality, all contributing towards sustainability objectives of the emerging Local Plan. The Clifton Road Area site allocation is within close proximity to public transport links and is within walking/cycling of the city centre and science parks to the south of the city.

Greater Cambridge is already the subject of significant investment in terms of infrastructure delivery, much of which is helping to deliver the planned new settlements and urban extensions forming a large component of the adopted Local Plans. In addition to planned delivery, the area is the subject of future strategic infrastructure investment, including the East-West railway line connecting Cambridge and Bedford and the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. Opportunities for a mass transit system initiative are already being developed by the Combined Authority via the draft Local Transport Plan, which would deliver a corridor for the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM). The physical composition of Greater Cambridge is changing fast, opening the door to numerous new opportunities for sustainable growth. A key objective of the proposed the Oxford-Cambridge expressway is to deliver strategic transformation: supporting the creation of an integrated corridor between Oxford and Cambridge, and enabling plans for infrastructure, homes and businesses. Over the coming years the A428 corridor will change radically, benefitting significantly from planned investment, including the new communities at Cambourne West and Bourn Airfield, the first phase of the Oxford-Cambridge expressway and the emergence of East West Rail, which includes a new station at Cambourne. Existing settlements along the A428 corridor, including Papworth Everard and Cambourne, will play a crucial role in delivering the growth ambitions for Greater Cambridge, delivering much needed high quality and affordable housing, jobs and infrastructure. There is further land available along the A428 corridor to deliver a long term, holistic and strategic approach to the delivery of jobs, investment, homes and infrastructure across Greater Cambridge to help the Arc stand as an economic asset of international standing. The joint declaration between Government and local partners in relation to the Oxford-Cambridge Arc recognises that strategic growth could include the development and expansion of both existing and new settlements. Emphasis is placed on the delivery of infrastructure; in particular transport and social infrastructure. It is critical, therefore, that the delivery of new homes and jobs is aligned with the delivery of infrastructure. There are several strategic transport improvements at varying stages of development that are of relevance to growth along the A428 corridor and the Site. These include: • Oxford to Cambridge Expressway: The project will support the creation of an integrated corridor between Oxford and Cambridge enabling plans for infrastructure, homes and businesses, helping to unlock new opportunities for economic growth and providing improved access to jobs and services. • A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements: The A428 scheme, lying to the south of the village, would see a new alignment for the A428 west of Caxton Gibbet with a two-lane dual- carriageway provided. The project will improve access to and from Greater Cambridge from St Neots, Bedford and the wider Strategic Highway Network, and will form a first phase of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. • East West Rail: In January 2020 The East West Rail Consortium announced the preferred central section alignment linking Bedford to Cambridge via a new railway station at Cambourne. • Cambourne to Cambridge public transport project: The provision of a new busway link between Cambourne and Cambridge is being developed by Greater Cambridge Partnership as a precursor to the wider Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) proposals being developed by the Combined Authority.

5.2 The Councils will need to work closely with infrastructure providers in developing their policies for infrastructure delivery within the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. It is important that projects identified in the Local Plan are ambitious, but also realistic and deliverable within the stated timescales. Whilst some transport and spatial strategies may include aspirational projects, it is essential that the Local Plan – as a statutory development plan – includes infrastructure that is committed and scheduled for delivery during the plan period. 5.3 The timing of infrastructure delivery is important. Some large-scale infrastructure, such as East-West Rail, will have significant lead-in times. Except where directly related to a development, delays in the delivery of strategic infrastructure should not be used as a reason for withholding planning permission. Likewise, requirements for developers to contribute to infrastructure projects should be directly related and proportional to the scale of development proposed. Geographically, housing growth should correlate with planned infrastructure. The Council should not see strategic development as an answer to delivering essential infrastructure. There needs to be a recognition that small and medium sized development opportunities can also support infrastructure delivery, often bringing benefits that are of great significance to local communities.

In transport terms prioritisation should be given to infrastructure that delivers active and shared travel ahead of vehicle movements. To help to achieve net zero carbon, infrastructure that supports electric vehicle and PLEV charging should be in place. This also means investment in walking, cycling and shared mobility which may result in car travel becoming less convenient. Fundamentally strategic growth should be located where there is existing and planned infrastructure. Cambridge Science Park North is located in close proximity to Cambridge North Railway Station and the existing Guided Busway. Planned infrastructure improvements including pedestrian and cycle improvements to Mere Way and a new rapid transit corridor to Waterbeach are already in the development phase. Cambridge Science Park North will be located within 6km of a planned additional 43,600 new homes up to 2031. Locating potential employment to serve these residents, within active and sustainable transport routes is essential.

2.49 Development that uses existing available infrastructure capacity should be a priority as it reflects the most efficient use of resources. Clearly there will be need for significant new infrastructure investment to deliver the wider objectives of the plan but this should not detract from the opportunities to prove development in locations that have, and do not need further investment in, schools, roads, drainage, utilities etc. 2.50 There is capacity in Steeple Morden to accommodate development of the scale promoted.

2.63 Whilst this question is phrased in terms of the infrastructure to be provided with development, it is important to recognise that with particular regard to Comberton, infrastructure requirements are limited and the development is viable and deliverable without significant infrastructure provision. 2.64 There is commitment to the delivery of the Greenway and Comberton is well-served by facilities and local services including the Sixth Form college. Therefore, the right infrastructure is already in place or committed and, therefore, development should come forward to make best use of such provision. 2.65 The development of sites such as Comberton will also see the provision of any additional infrastructure deemed necessary through a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the tests set out within Paragraph 56 of the Framework.

3.28 Housing allocations should be located in proximity to key infrastructure, local infrastructure that reduces residents need to travel, and well connected to public transport infrastructure such as bus and train routes. The land adjacent to Balsham Road Linton, is located in a sustainable village with considerable service provision, with many key services such as schools, shops and health facilities within walking distance. 3.29 Growth in Linton would also be consistent with the vision of the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP), which is proposing an off-road public transport route, running services from Addenbrookes to Haverhill, via Linton. This also includes provision for a new Travel Hub (park and ride) adjacent to the A11/A1307. Even without this route, Linton is considered to be a very sustainable settlement for growth, however this infrastructure will further enhance Linton’s sustainability credentials as a suitable village for growth. The scheme will provide for very easy and sustainable access from Linton direct to Addenbrookes by off road bus. 3.30 The application site is located approximately 5.4 kilometres from the A11, providing connection onto the M11. Just 0.44 kilometres from the site is a bus stop, with the 13 and 13A bus services running from Cambridge to Haverhill 7 days a week. The 13 bus also provides direct and quick access to Granta Park. 3.31 In line with the ‘big themes’ in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan, the development of this site would reduce the reliance on cars, decreasing the number of cars on the road, due to the proximity to multiple public transport services. Additionally, the development of office space aimed at small and medium sized local businesses would reduce the need of local residents to travel as they would have sufficient work space available within walking distance. Further information on this is contained within the Transport Appraisal prepared by Richard Jackson Partnership, refer to Appendix 2.

8.1.1 Consideration regarding infrastructure requirements need to begin early in the process and it is of fundamental importance that the infrastructure provision aligns with the growth strategy for the area. 8.1.2 The Council, when establishing its housing requirement, will need to consider the likely implications of key infrastructure projects in the area such as the East West Rail link between Cambridge, Oxford and Milton Keynes and the economic benefits that may stem from this.

• This question is the wrong way round – it is the development that needs to be in line with the infrastructure, especially transport, rather than visa-versa. The location of new development must be influenced largely through the capacity of the local infrastructure to support the development – rather than through the wishes of land-owners or developers. • To ensure that the right infrastructure is in place, two models are possible – either the Local Planning Authority provides the infrastructure itself, or the granting of planning permission is made conditional on the developer providing it. The issue for the first option is whether the Community Infrastructure Levy or Section 106 funding is sufficient to cover the Authority’s costs – for new roads or busways, this is unlikely to be the case, so where is the funding to come from? For the second option, there is the risk that making the CIL too demanding would trigger a claim by the developer that the burden would render the development unviable – and this is turn would result in a reduction in the affordable allocation. • Whatever the funding model, the fundamental necessity is that the infrastructure has to be in place and operational by the time the development is complete and ready for occupation.

Both transport infrastructure and utilities need to be considered and planning permission should only be given on condition that the infrastructure is in place from the start, not afterwards

We welcome the acknowledgement in paragraph 4.7 that EWR will play a key role in addressing the growing requirement for sustainable modes of transport in order to achieve the net zero carbon challenge. EWR would welcome the opportunity to work with the combined authority to ensure that key decisions regarding the preferred route option supports ambitions for employment and housing growth. Recommendation EWR is exploring opportunities on how best to engage with the host local planning authorities for the new railway. It is recommended that the joint local plan explicitly acknowledges that EWR and Greater Cambridge will be working collaboratively.

• Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. See Parkin (2018), Dales (2014) and Wheels for Wellbeing (2019) for details. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become barriers for walking or cycling. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • The development of railway stations and the railway network should typically be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport. [The following items are ‘lessons learnt’ from the Orchard Park development] • “Do not over provide for motorised traffic with multi-lane junctions at accesses into residential developments. • Good quality cycling facilities, such as designated cycle lanes and segregated routes both within a development and linking to external routes, as well as cycle parking/storage facilities, need to be in place when residents move in to achieve the highest possible usage. If proposed routes are not in place on a permanent basis from the start, some provision for temporary or interim measures should be made. • Any changes to the road network associated with new developments should not be to the detriment of existing cyclists and should improve existing routes where possible. • There should be more discussion between parties at an early stage in the planning process. Consultation on changes to junctions as part of section 106 agreements should include all relevant stakeholders, and the Cycle Liaison Group should further develop its focus on new developments. • Continuous footways should be provided alongside carriageways where possible.” (Cambridge City Council, 2009) “To achieve a society-wide move towards sustainable travel patterns it will be essential to make better use of better public transport for medium and long journeys. But it will also be necessary to create a virtuous circle where development design that encourages public transport also encourages the most sustainable of all modes of travel for shorter journeys — walking and cycling. This mutually complementary approach is possible because what is good for public transport use can also be good for walking and cycling: all public transport journeys also involve shorter trips to and from public transport, for which development design can encourage access on foot or by bike.” (Taylor, 2011) “The cities with the highest cycling levels, and those that have successfully grown cycling levels over relatively short periods, generally afford cycling good physical protection or effective spatial separation from motor traffic, unless traffic speeds and volumes are low.” (Dales, 2014) “The Dutch ‘street hierarchy’ strongly reduces cyclists’ exposure to motorised traffic by shifting vehicles away from where there is a lot of cycling. [...] Since the 1970s, the Netherlands has achieved an 80% reduction in cyclist’s fatality rate and is now, together with Denmark, the safest country in which to ride a bicycle.” (Schepers, 2017) “Personal safety is undeniably linked with the organization of the space. In places and on connections where there are lots of people, and therefore plenty of monitoring, there is a greater sense of safety. [...] [It] is best to route cycle routes as much as possible through areas where social activities take place, preferably in the evenings as well. [...] In addition, a cycle route through a suburb which passes the front doors of homes will be much more socially pleasant than one passing fenced-off back gardens.” (CROW, 2017) “A fundamental objective of good urban design is to connect the built environment. Analytical approaches such as Space Syntax have long demonstrated that if residential environments are well connected both visually and physically (what is often referred to as permeable) then they will facilitate more active travel, social exchange and connections, economic opportunities (e.g. for shops and cafes) and a safer built environment with less crime. Connecting new developments to their surroundings allows them to become part of a larger urban area (city, town or village) rather than operating as isolated enclaves.” (Carmona, 2020) Evidence for our response to Question 36. • Parkin, John (2018). Designing for Cycle Traffic. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing. • Dales, John and Jones, Phil (2014). International Cycling Infrastructure: Best Practice Study. Report for Transport for London. • Schepers, et al (2017). The Dutch road to a high level of cycling safety. Safety Science 92. • 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. • Cambridge City Council (2009). Review of the Orchard Park Development and Lessons to be Learnt for Future Major Developments. • Carmona, Matthew, et al (2020). A Housing Design Audit for England. Place Alliance.

Identify the infrastructure requirements pre-build not post-build. Minimise developments that are too small meaning community facilities cannot work (financially or under used) to prevent isolated communities without shops, facilities and public transport. Businesses should also consider transport options for their staff before businesses are setup in a location.

ECC recommends that the GCA consider where existing infrastructure is under pressure, for example the A505 and determine whether future growth may provide the ability to deliver improvements for the existing and future communities that are economically viable. This may provide an opportunity for a joint bid with ECC for government funding to deliver joint growth and development aspirations.

1.39 Within the District’s higher order rural settlements there is already capacity to accommodate growth, or capacity can be secured through the enhancement of existing services and facilities. One of the most important pieces of infrastructure, which is often overlooked, is social infrastructure. That is why the Councils need to focus growth on the most sustainable rural settlements where new residents can benefit from established social infrastructure. Our clients’ site offers the opportunity to accommodate more homes on the edge of a village where new residents will be integrated into the existing community and benefit from existing infrastructure. 1.40 If our clients’ site were to form an early phase of a wider expansion of Comberton then any new infrastructure would be delivered alongside the delivery of new homes. The wider site has the potential to accommodate extensive areas of open space for recreation that will also act as alternative routes for pedestrians and cyclist to access the facilities at the heart of the village. A development of this scale is unlikely to need wholescale new facilities like new settlements do and capacity is likely to be achievable to meet the needs of new residents by extending or enhancing existing facilities in the village. 1.41 Notwithstanding the above, Comberton will soon benefits from enhanced cycle connectivity with Cambridge as a result of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s greenways projects. The proposed east west rail route is also likely to result in a new station at Cambourne, which would give new residents alternatives to travelling into Cambridge to access rail services. 1.42 The adopted strategy that focuses on new settlements and urban extensions can bring substantial improvements to local infrastructure. However, these take time to deliver and these sites should not come forward at the expense of smaller or medium sized development sites. The development of sites like our clients’ site at the corner of Branch Road and Long Road offer the potential to provide financial support for local infrastructure and bring increased use of local services that can be at risk from closure.

1.38 Within the District’s higher order rural settlements there is already capacity to accommodate growth, or capacity can be secured through the enhancement of existing services and facilities. One of the most important pieces of infrastructure, which is often overlooked, is social infrastructure. That is why the Councils need to focus growth on the most sustainable rural settlements where new residents can benefit from established social infrastructure. Our client’s approved scheme at Comberton demonstrates how new homes can successfully be integrated into an existing community where the new residents will benefit from existing infrastructure. 1.39 Notwithstanding the above, Comberton will soon benefits from enhanced cycle connectivity with Cambridge as a result of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s greenways projects. The proposed east west rail route is also likely to result in a new station at Cambourne, which would give new residents alternatives to travelling into Cambridge to access rail services. 1.40 The adopted strategy that focuses on new settlements and urban extensions can bring substantial improvements to local infrastructure. However, these take time to deliver and these sites should not come forward at the expense of smaller or medium sized development sites. Developments like Bennell Farm provide financial support for local infrastructure and bring increased use of local services that can be at risk from closure

It is vital that new infrastructure is provided to support the level of growth expected by the Council. It will be vital that the Council not only works with infrastructure providers but also has a clear and open dialogue with the development industry with regard to how and where improvements in infrastructure can be provided. We would also suggest that the Council does not focus on large strategic developments as the panacea to infrastructure delivery. Such developments can bring substantial improvements to local infrastructure but this should not be at the expense of small development opportunities that can provide financial support for local infrastructure and in some cases bring increased demand to support local services that are at risk from closure. Where to build? Chapter 5 of the consultation document sets out a very broad question that we will not seek to answer directly. Largely, the decision as to where to build will depend on many factors ranging from the availability of developable sites through to the location of infrastructure both now and in the future. The HBF cannot comment on or promote specific locations for development but in our experience the most effective approach to delivering the levels of development required in the Greater Cambridge area is to ensure a wide variety of sites are allocated both in terms of size and location. The Council’s should look to identify sites that will ensure consistent delivery across the plan period by avoiding an over concentration of development in a specific area or an over reliance on large strategic sites. This is particularly important for Greater Cambridge where there is still an acute need for new homes and already a significant number of strategic sites that are being delivered through the current local plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. Therefore, whilst the consultation document sets out a range of possible development scenarios for Greater Cambridge, we would urge the Councils not to fall on a single strategy at this early stage of plan preparation. It is more likely that the spatial strategy will include elements from many of the potential options set out in the consultation document. In particular, the Council should not rule out the need to amend Green Belt boundaries. The NPPF is clear at paragraphs 136 and 137 that Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in exceptional circumstances once it has been established that all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs have been examined. Key to these considerations is that only reasonable options for meeting needs should be considered. This should not only take account of the level of needs but where those needs are within the Greater Cambridge area. Expecting unreasonable options to meet needs, such as very high densities or poorly located new settlements, in order to avoid amending Green Belt boundaries around Cambridge would not be an appropriate response. Given the level of need in the Greater Cambridge area we would suggest that there are exceptional circumstances that will require the Council to amend Green Belt boundaries in order to meet its housing needs and that some development on the edge of Cambridge alongside other options such as new settlements and village expansion. We would suggest that a diverse approach to delivering new development, including amendment of Green Belt boundaries, would potentially provide for the most sustainable patterns of development and be consistent with paragraph 138 of the NPPF.

• Make sure there are enough community spaces, pubs, libraries, doctors’ surgeries, galleries, village halls alongside housing. • Cycling and walking infrastructure must be safe, convenient, accessible, widely available and built to high-quality standards. • Developments must provide their cycling network, both on-site and with connections to the wider area, before any dwellings are occupied, in order to ensure that new residents get off to the most sustainable start possible. • The cycling network must be the basis of the transport plan for sites, along with public transport routes, and it should be the grid upon which building sites are oriented. • Any large roads in the vicinity of the site must not become cause for walking or cycling severance. • There must always be safe and convenient crossings to ensure that people walking and cycling have full permeability across roads. • The Local Plan must take an explicit stand in opposition to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, and should also oppose any plans by the county council or Combined Authority to expand roads. • All congestion relief plans must come from reduction of car traffic and the shifting of travel from cars into walking, cycling and public transport. This is the only way to achieve the climate emergency, air quality and social inclusion goals that the Local Plan has put forth. • The plans for East-West Railway and South Station should be supported but only on the proviso that these projects include full permeability for walking and cycling, provide high-quality and attractive cycling bridges and underbridges, and help drive mode shift out of cars and onto foot, bike and public transport.