Question 48. What do you think about siting development along transport corridors?

Not sure. The green belt should be the priority, but much better public transport is also needed.

We note the wording of this question differs from that of the 5.3.6 heading of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. ‘Transport corridors’ should be considered broadly. For example, there are a number of villages in a broad A14 corridor which could accommodate further growth and there are strings of linked villages with good road links that could be subject to high frequency bus services.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element.

It's fine in principle, but there are several potential problems. Firstly, any corridor has a finite capacity, and there will be a limit to the amount of extra traffic it can carry. Secondly, in the case of public transport, adding more stops will make the journey slower for existing users. Of course, rather than adding a stop you could move an existing stop, but that won't help the current users of that stop.

This is a good idea as long as it is in line with other council policies (Development around towns and large villages with good transport is a good idea but it would be a disaster to start developing around small in-fill villages with a train station or trying to reclassify infill villages due to having a train station to get around the issue). This would go against everything the local plan is trying to do in regards to environment, green belt and restricting development to 2 houses per plot for infill villages to stop enhanced populations in areas with lack of amenities which would destroying the local villages south cambs is well know for and seriously damage the environment.

Leave our villages alone. We all move to villages for many reasons, none of which are to be surrounded by more housing. We want our greenbelt not more housing. Stop wealthy landlords buying up housing

If they are sustainable transport corridors it is a good idea but the focus should be on locations served by railway stations.

This strategy only replaces car journeys to and from Cambridge, or along the route of the principle public transport route. Conversely development in or near Cambridge can access public transport to multiple destinations throughout the district.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. We note that Whittlesford Parkway station has been subject to consultation by the Greater Cambridge Partnership . This is with a view to investing money in the facility by extending the station building and providing additional car parking. The Partnership is committed to investing resources in enhancing and expanding the facility and will ensure that there is enhanced capacity for increased patronage. As such, residential development at Whittlesford Bridge is ideally placed to take advantage of its proximity to the railway station and there is some guarantee that the enhanced facility will be able to accommodate additional footfall generated by such facilities. We would emphasise that rail services are by far the most sustainable form of public transport and development should be located in location such as Whittlesford Bridge, where it can take advantage of it and promote highly sustainable transport modes. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

1) FDPC is extremely concerned by traffic passing through the village. High Ditch Road is an ancient byway and the Horningsea Road/Ditton Lane junction is busy and dangerous. Outside peak commuter hours, traffic is more likely to speed through the village endangering pedestrians, especially the numerous families passing to and from our school. 2) We wish to see the current weight limit through the village enforced or possibly reduced. The road signing off the A14 and at Ditton Lane –Newmarket Rd does not seem to be fully effective in deterring HGVs from travelling through Fen Ditton. 3) We are concerned that planned development north and east of Cambridge and the planned use of Cambridge railway sidings should become fully integrated within the A14 development programme and avoid a piecemeal approach to transport planning. Nevertheless we wish to avoid an additional link road bypassing Fen Ditton via alterations to the existing interchange that could be wasted money or exacerbate our traffic problems.

It makes good sense to use existing transport corridor rather to spend the money creating new ones.

It makes good sense to use existing transport corridors both road and rail rather to spend the money creating new ones.

I support so long as high-quality cycling routes are included along the public transport routes.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. The sites promoted at Histon are a good example of where the proximity of employment and residential opportunities is adjacent to an established and efficient public transport corridor – The Guided Busway. Given this location, we are of the view that siting developments along or adjacent to public transport corridors is highly appropriate. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.

fully support

If housing is increased then spending on transport infrastructure should be increased at the same rate to cope with increased demand. For example the Guideway from St Ives to Cambridge is great if you get on at St Ives but it is often full by the time it reaches other stops closer to Cambridge, thus the residents which live nearer the city don't benefit from better infrastructure and are more inclined to use their cars.

We note the wording of this question differs from that of the 5.3.6 heading of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. This should be amended to include reference to both cycle and pedestrian links. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. ‘Transport corridors’ should be considered broadly. For example, there are villages to the south of Cambridge which could accommodate further growth, which will be assisted by the proposed public transport corridor.

We note the wording of this question differs from that of the 5.3.6 heading of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. This should be amended to include reference to both cycle and pedestrian links. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. ‘Transport corridors’ should be considered broadly. For example, there are villages and locations to the west of Cambridge which are eminently suitable for further growth, which will be assisted by the proposed public transport corridor and the upgrading of the A14.

We consider that a focus on transportation corridors in meeting future development needs to meet the growth ambitions of the Arc and the GCLP area must be an essential element of the Local Plan spatial strategy. The A428 corridor is set to be significantly strengthened in terms of substantial new highways and public transport infrastructure provision, including the C2C Guided Busway and A428 dualling in the short term and East West Rail in the longer term. Significant levels of new housing growth is already planned within the corridor through the expansion of Cambourne and at Bourn Airfield. This combination of commitments to substantial new housing development and sustainable transport infrastructure underlines the suitability of Crow Green as a suitable opportunity to provide strategic scale employment development that will compliment KI businesses in the Greater Cambridge area, broadening the local economy through providing land for high tech industry and logistics development in what will become a highly sustainable location.

The College would support development along public transport corridors as being both more sustainable in travel terms but also dispersing employment and housing growth more broadly across the Cambridgeshire area. The College’s “Call for Sites” proposals recognise the importance of Whittlesford Parkway and its rail access to the City Centre and London. The proposals include a green link for cycle/walking joining up IWM and Duxford Village with Whittlesford Parkway, but with the future potential to provide a public transport service e.g. by autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicles. We also understand that the recently announced preferred route for east-west rail would link into the existing rail network south of Cambridge city centre, again focussing public transport connections close to Duxford.

makes a lot of sense!

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. For example, the Cambridge South East Transport - Better Public Transport Project which is a priority for the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) includes Pampisford Road, Great Abington as a possible extension to the public transport route linking the Cambridge Biomedical Campus via Great Shelford, Stapleford and Sawston to a new travel hub near the A11/A1307/A505 with connections to the Babraham Research Campus and Granta Park. Additionally, a pedestrian, cycle and equestrian “greenway” route will further like Cambridge to Linton via Great Abington formed part of the “Linton Greenway”. The Linton Greenway path will run alongside the A1307 between the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Granta Park, Great Abington (old railway line south of Pampisford) and Linton, providing an important alternative transport route into the Campus for those living to the south-east of Cambridge, in villages such as Great Abington. In light of these two very important new routes, sustainable villages such as Great Abington, particularly on sites adjacent Pampisford Road, should be prioritised for new residential development which is of a large scale to take advantage of the transport corridors and can be master planned to sufficiently incorporate a mix of dwellings, open space, further facilities and landscaping.

There are advantages but they are often not as great as might be expected. Public transport has to be very frequent, very reliable and very close to peoples’ homes to persuade them to give up travelling by car. Additionally, if journeys are cross country, it is too time consuming to travel into a centre or to a hub and then change bus or train so people will still choose to travel by car.

We note the wording of this question differs from that of the 5.3.6 heading of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. This should be amended to include reference to both cycle and pedestrian links. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. ‘Transport corridors’ should be considered broadly. For example, there are villages and locations to the south of Cambridge which are eminently suitable for further growth, which will be assisted by the proposed public transport corridor.

This would appear to be an appropriate response to the growing congestion in South Cambridgeshire and would be supported by national planning policy. Existing constraints, particularly the Green Belt, should be carefully reviewed to ensure that growth can occur in sustainable locations, on sites which do not contribute to Green Belt purposes. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF expects transport issues to be considered at the earliest stages of plan-making. Those issues include opportunities created by existing or proposed transport infrastructure in terms of the scale, location and density of development, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 expects significant development to be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. The proposed Oxford to Cambridge rail and road links, and the potential CAM corridors, remain uncertain in their timing, funding and proposed routes. Growth along existing transport corridors should therefore be prioritised. The County Council as landowner has promoted sites at the Biomedical Campus, Newmarket Road, Babraham Park and Ride, Sawston, Shepreth and Whittlesford Parkway which could take advantage of existing rail and rapid bus links.

We note the wording of this question differs from that of the 5.3.6 heading of the Consultation Paper which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. ‘Transport corridors’ should be considered broadly. For example, there are a number of villages in a broad A14 corridor which could accommodate further growth and there are strings of linked villages with good road links that could be subject to high frequency bus services.

We note the wording of this question differs from that at 5.3.6 of the Issues and Options document which refers to public transport corridors. Yes, we agree with the aim although it can only apply to developments above a certain size threshold. The location of major new residential development sites should fully take account of existing or planned or possible new transport corridors particularly those with a strong public transport (or non-car) element. Public transport corridors should include within their remit, dedicated off-road cycle routes and footpaths which provide a realistic alternative to the private car. Where such facilities exist and which serve residential and employment sites, the Council should give weight to these locations for residential allocations and sustainable growth.